RSN Fundraising Banner
US Supreme Court Ends Fight Over Obama-Era Net Neutrality Rules
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=30252"><span class="small">Lawrence Hurley, Reuters</span></a>   
Monday, 05 November 2018 14:57

Hurley writes: "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused a request by the Trump administration and the telecommunications industry to wipe away a lower court decision that had upheld Obama-era net neutrality rules aimed at ensuring a free and open internet, though the justices’ action does not undo the 2017 repeal of the policy."

FCC chairman Ajit Pai. (photo: Getty Images)
FCC chairman Ajit Pai. (photo: Getty Images)


US Supreme Court Ends Fight Over Obama-Era Net Neutrality Rules

By Lawrence Hurley, Reuters

05 November 18

 

he U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused a request by the Trump administration and the telecommunications industry to wipe away a lower court decision that had upheld Obama-era net neutrality rules aimed at ensuring a free and open internet, though the justices’ action does not undo the 2017 repeal of the policy.

The high court decision not to throw out the 2016 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling leaves a legal precedent in place that could help net neutrality supporters in any future legal battle if that policy is ever re-introduced.

The rules championed by Democratic former President Barack Obama, intended to safeguard equal access to content on the internet, were opposed by President Donald Trump, a Republican.

The Trump administration and the telecom industry had wanted to erase the 2016 ruling even though the Republican-led Federal Communications Commission in December voted to repeal the net neutrality rules. The policy reversal went into effect in June.

The Supreme Court’s brief order noted that three of the court’s conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - would have thrown out the appeals court decision. Neither Chief Justice John Roberts nor new Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh participated in the decision.

Industry trade group USTelecom, one of the groups that challenged the 2015 net neutrality rules, said the high court’s action was “not surprising.” USTelecom said it would “continue to support” the repeal “from challenges in Washington, D.C. and state capitals.”

FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat who backed the net neutrality order in 2015, said on Twitter that the commission had “actually petitioned the Supreme Court to erase history and wipe out an earlier court decision upholding open internet policies. But today the Supreme Court refused to do so.”

The Justice Department also has filed suit to block California’s state net neutrality law from taking effect in January. The state agreed in October to delay enforcement of the law pending appeals of the net neutrality reversal.

The FCC voted 3-2 in December along party lines to reverse the rules adopted under Obama that had barred internet service providers from blocking or throttling traffic, or offering paid fast lanes, also known as paid prioritization.

The new rules, which gave internet service providers greater power to regulate the content that customers access, are now the subject of a separate legal fight after being challenged by many of the groups that backed net neutrality.

The net neutrality repeal was a win for providers like Comcast Corp, AT&T Inc and Verizon Communications Inc. It was opposed by internet companies like Facebook Inc, Amazon.com Inc and Alphabet Inc, which have said the repeal could lead to higher costs.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+2 # dotlady 2018-11-05 23:42
This is good news.als But will this Supreme Court ruling leave an opening for the FCC's draconian 5G Rollout this fall to be challenged? It forces all localities to install wireless cell stations with one millimeter (short) wavelength to be placed every 500 ft. that will bombard our bodies with pulses greatly at odds with heart rhythms and cell metabolism 24/7? The FCC's law does not allow health questions to be considered - this almost martial law was adopted on Sept. 26th. It should be stopped. The health risks are dire, and all for the unnecessary but money-making plans for the internet of things.
 
 
+2 # jwb110 2018-11-05 23:45
The only members of the court who aren't pussies are the two women.
 
 
0 # lfeuille 2018-11-06 18:37
This does not save net neutrality. It doesn't invalidate the FCC's cancellation of it. All it does is say that net neutrality rules are not unconstitutiona l, but neither does it mandate them. It doesn't overrule the FCC's cancellation of them. If some time in the future we can get congress to pass net neutrality the law would stand but for now there is no practical difference.