- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
Trade groups claimed the state law is preempted by former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s repeal of net neutrality rules. Pai’s repeal placed ISPs under the more forgiving Title I regulatory framework instead of the common-carrier framework in Title II of the Communications Act. 2nd Circuit judges did not find this argument convincing:
Second, the ABA is not conflict-preempted by the Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 order classifying broadband as an information service. That order stripped the agency of its authority to regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet, and a federal agency cannot exclude states from regulating in an area where the agency itself lacks regulatory authority. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and VACATE the permanent injunction.
You must log in or # to comment.
Leopards ate my face but even though corporations are people they can not have their faces eaten in quite the same way
These shitheads have received massive government handouts to build infrastructure, which they simply pocketed. Nobody’s face has been eaten in the slightest. To this day they are still maliciously suing to prevent municipal internets from providing real competition.
There’s still a very stacked and extremely corrupt scotus.
Yep we shall see god dam if these asshats fought half as hard as they do against poor people for the general public good where would we be
A heavily regulated capitalist country, for sure.
You thinkk we would be as happy as some of these social democrat countries in Northern Europe these damn republicans seems to like
Happier in general, healthier, threat of extinction farther away. The greedy wouldn’t be happier, and it would require a better educated, more vigilant populace without the illusion they too, could some day become part of the leopard class. We’d need better auditing of books, public and private. Fines that were actually punitive, with the certainty of incarceration (more humanely), as well as public record of wrong and correcting measures, and certain nationalization of businesses caught in malfeasance a second time. I think essential goods and services should be nationalized anyway, but that’s an unpopular opinion on my instance.
deleted by creator
Since you’re stupid let me explain, what i believe he’s saying is that even though corporations are a “person” according to the law certain things that can happen to actual persons (like a leopard eating someone’s face) can’t happen to a corporations
Since you’re stupid let me explain
That response is awesome.
From the article isps fought against fcc regulations which subjected them to state regulations, hence leopards ate my face fyi
deleted by creator
Are you… are you ok?
That’s pretty aggressive just because you don’t get the joke
When did I claim to be useful?
You’re even funnier the second time
Several of the trade groups that sued New York “vociferously lobbied the FCC to classify broadband Internet as a Title I service in order to prevent the FCC from having the authority to regulate them,” today’s 2nd Circuit ruling said. “At that time, Supreme Court precedent was already clear that when a federal agency lacks the power to regulate, it also lacks the power to preempt. The Plaintiffs now ask us to save them from the foreseeable legal consequences of their own strategic decisions. We cannot.”
This has to be one of the better, legal “go fuck yourselves” I’ve ever seen.
Removed by mod
Court upholds New York law that says ISPs must offer $15 broadband
… for now… These capitalists have all the time, money, and lawyers that poor people don’t. I’ll believe $15 when I see it.
Removed by mod
Is there a quality requirement? Because without that it’s a pretty useless law.
“So what is broadband? According to the FCC, the definition of broadband internet is a minimum of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds. Broadband provides high speed internet access via multiple types of technologies including fiber optics, wireless, cable, DSL and satellite.”
OK thanks, as a bottom level cheap option, that’s not too bad. It’s not great, but it should be enough for essential tasks.
I’m assuming it’s unlimited traffic without throttling. Because otherwise it wouldn’t really be broadband 24/7 as I expect is required.
Otherwise it’s still useless.While looking for that I also found something saying the FCC wants to raise the requirements of it it 100 but the last vote didn’t go through
Wow, that would be pretty great, unless there’s a data cap, which makes it useless.
Caps are allowed but the FCC has shown interest in regulating it. Maybe some decade.
With caps it’s completely worthless. It’s not broadband if it’s throttled below it.
I think 100 is unreasonable, especially if it’s a minimum agreed level of service. Peak usage would absolutely suffer and be hard to maintain at that level.
I think the should raise it to 25/10 though. 3mbps up sucks for things like video calls. 5 is probably enough, but 3 is just too low.
I personally have 50/25 ($55/month total), and it’s plenty fast for everything I’ve needed. I plan to upgrade soon when I get on my city’s new fiber network, but I’m unwilling to pay for anything much faster right now.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A federal appeals court today reversed a ruling that prevented New York from enforcing a law requiring Internet service providers to sell $15 broadband plans to low-income consumers.
Today, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed the ruling and vacated the permanent injunction that barred enforcement of the state law.
Trade groups claimed the state law is preempted by former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s repeal of net neutrality rules.
The judges’ reasoning is similar to what a different appeals court said in 2019 when it rejected Pai’s attempt to preempt all state net neutrality laws.
Coincidentally, the 2nd Circuit issued its opinion one day after current FCC leadership reclassified broadband again in order to restore net neutrality rules.
The FCC itself won’t necessarily try to preempt New York’s law, but the agency’s net neutrality order does specifically reject rate regulation at the federal level.
The original article contains 683 words, the summary contains 149 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
