this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
60 points (100.0% liked)

Legal News

177 readers
40 users here now

International and local legal news.

Basic rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flagSome cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules applyAll lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal appeals court has agreed to halt the reinstatement of net neutrality rules until August 5th, while the court considers whether more permanent action is justified. It's the latest setback in a long back and forth on net neutrality -- the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should not be able to block or throttle internet traffic in a discriminatory manner. The Federal Communications Commission has sought to achieve this by reclassifying ISPs under Title II of the Communications Act, which gives the agency greater regulatory oversight. The Democratic-led agency enacted net neutrality rules under the Obama administration, only for those rules to be repealed under former President Donald Trump's FCC. The current FCC, which has three Democratic and two Republican commissioners, voted in April to bring back net neutrality. The 3-2 vote was divided along party lines.

Broadband providers have since challenged the FCC's action, which is potentially more vulnerable after the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down Chevron deference -- a legal doctrine that instructed courts to defer to an agency's expert decisions except in a very narrow range of circumstances. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Matt Schettenhelm said in a report prior to the court's ruling that he doesn't expect the FCC to prevail in court, in large part due to the demise of Chevron. A panel of judges for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said in an order that a temporary "administrative stay is warranted" while it considers the merits of the broadband providers' request for a permanent stay. The administrative stay will be in place until August 5th. In the meantime, the court requested the parties provide additional briefs about the application of National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services to this lawsuit.

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because of course they did. The only thing that surprised me was that the ruling was from the 6th Circuit and not the 5th as I'd come to expect.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

The 6th Circuit has accrued a bigger investment from the Silicon Valley freaks and geeks, while the 5th tends to be the turf of Big Banks and Oil Tycoons.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 month ago

Fuck ISPs. Fuck people who dont want a free and fair internet.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The GD judges don’t even pretend not to be corrupt

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

Wait wait wait, we can't rush this decision. Let's hear what the money has to say...