Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
view the rest of the comments
For those looking for a quick summary, the first line in the story is the big point.
The bigger take away hearkens us to Ajit Pai days of the FCC. Pai had led the FCC to remove the rules related to 47 USC § 254. This was part of his bigger "no net neutrality" stance or as he'd put it "free market internet". As literally everyone indicated, once the FCC stated that they weren't going to put into place rules for 47 USC § 254, that opened it up for States to regulate.
Which gets us to the ISP argument that they lost on:
— Second Circuit's original ruling
Yes, you read that correctly. The ISPs were making the argument that the law 47 USC § 254 was still in place and thus preempted any State law. To which the Courts indicated that the Federal government literally indicated that they were no longer enforcing that law so it would be up to the States to enforce it. The ISP's central argument was that State could only regulate if the FCC removed the rule. Which if you've been following, in 2002 SAME TRADE GROUP made the argument that State's couldn't regulate as the Internet is an Interstate issue that can only be handled by Congress.
Literally the ISPs and their trade group are trying to get into a legal catch-22 here.
The biggest thing ISPs are trying to avoid is this universal service rate, because this is usually how things start before they become utility. And ISPs are seeing this as "if we don't stop this now, we're going down a road of utility Internet". Which they would not like.
All I have to say is that, it's good SCOTUS dropped this because the trade group has been double talking this issue to death. This hardly ends the case, it just means the ISPs will need to look for a new avenue for blocking, which given the Trump administration coming in, they'll have plenty of new legal in-roads built for them.
So this is FAR from the last we're hearing about this issue.
Fantastic summary!