New York obtains significant win for states' ability to regulate broadband.

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.

  • Awkwardly_Frank@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • DancingBear@midwest.socialEnglish
    9·
    6 months ago

    Leopards ate my face but even though corporations are people they can not have their faces eaten in quite the same way

    • Cheems@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      6 months ago

      “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.”

      • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Cheems@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 months ago

          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

          • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            Wow, that would be pretty great, unless there’s a data cap, which makes it useless.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            12·
            6 months ago

            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.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    3·
    6 months ago

    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.