The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will vote to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules and assume new regulatory oversight of broadband internet that was rescinded under former President Donald Trump, the agency’s chair said.
The FCC told advocates on Tuesday of the plan to vote on the final rule at its April 25 meeting.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2319 days ago

        In 2011, Pai was then nominated for a Republican Party position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama at the recommendation of Minority leader Mitch McConnell.

        Probably didn’t have a choice. I imagine the Republicans would’ve thrown a fit and blocked any other nomination.

        CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

  • Mossy Feathers
    link
    fedilink
    English
    38
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    So, iirc, net neutrality was originally a law enforced by the FCC under title 1 regulations, then it was struck down by the Supreme Court because “there’s enough competition in the marketplace that makes it unnecessary”, then the FCC under Obama tried to regulate it as a title 2 service, which got repealed by Ajit Pai (aka “A shit pie”), and now the FCC is trying to impose net neutrality again. Assuming my memory is correct, how certain are we that the Supreme Court won’t eventually turn around and rule against it?

    Edit (because I accidentally submitted before I was done): Not that this is a bad move, but I’m not confident that the Supreme Court won’t rule in favor of business interests. On one hand, net neutrality should be required. On the other hand, doing this while the Supreme Court is effectively captured by corporate interests seems risky because it could further establish court precedent and make it harder for future efforts to regulate ISPs; even when the court is less corporate-owned.

    Edit 2: corrections.

    • plz1
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2519 days ago

      I think you are blending your facts/timeline. Ajit Pai’s FCC struck them down for that (dubious) reason. This upcoming vote is to undo that damage and revert back to what the FCC under Obama put in place.

      • Mossy Feathers
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        I looked into it and I was wrong about it being a law, but it was regulated under title 1 regulations, which the FCC claimed let them enforce net neutrality. That got struck down in court, which lead to the FCC regulating it under title 2, which was removed by Pai and is now being reinstated by Biden’s FCC.

        Edit: I think I got it, lemme know if there’s some nuance I’m missing.

        • plz1
          link
          fedilink
          English
          219 days ago

          Title 2 is right. It makes more sense to utilize that as well.

    • zkfcfbzr
      link
      fedilink
      English
      419 days ago

      doing this while the Supreme Court is effectively captured by corporate interests seems risky

      If we wait for that to stop being true, it’ll just mean not doing it at all.

      doing this while the Supreme Court is effectively captured by corporate interests seems risky because it could further establish court precedent

      If there’s one thing the current court’s shown, it’s that precedent doesn’t mean diddly squat to the supreme court. If and when the court is ever returned to a respectable position I’m sure many of their current decisions will be overturned.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6719 days ago

      Democrats were stymied for nearly three years because they did not take majority control of the five-member FCC until October.

      Basically they didn’t because Republicans, and then when they could they immediately started the process, since the initial vote was in October and the upcoming vote is to confirm the finalized rules changes.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          719 days ago

          Worse for the 99% now and for everyone in the long-term. Better for the 1% in the very short-term (one quarter of a year).

          Unfortunately, those in the 1% who are concerned with the very short-term future are disproportionately influential.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2319 days ago

        It’s kinda infuriating that Democrats spend years working tirelessly to undo Republican bullshit, and when they finally do, people are like “but why didn’t you do it sooner?”. Do these people have zero life expense l experience where it’s fucking hard to change institutions?

        • SUPAVILLAIN
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          This is why we argue against incrementalism you absolute punter. Half of the bullshit we suffer under could’ve been avoided if one fucking Democrat had either a sense of urgency or an iota of intenstinal fortitude; then we’re just expected to not act like all this shit could’ve been avoided if not for the deliberate and often paid-for inaction of your supposed “good men”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -219 days ago

      Because Bidens polling numbers are in the toilet over Gaza especially among younger voters. This is a hail Mary pass for '24