Net Neutrality Advocates Won’t Appeal Trump Destruction, Say U.S. Courts Are Broken
from the nothing-functions dept
A fusion of authoritarianism and corporatism is destroying what’s left of already soggy U.S. federal consumer protection and corporate oversight. You might not know this because the U.S. press and many policymakers genuinely don’t appear to care, but it’s happening all the same.
Whether by dodgy Supreme Court ruling, executive order, or captured regulators, the U.S. authoritarians, often in lockstep with consolidated corporate power, are making massive, historic, and likely irreversible inroads in destroying federal corporate oversight, labor protections, public safety provisions, environmental standards, and regulatory autonomy.
And generally the corporate press doesn’t seem to care because most corporate media ownership likes the tax cuts, mindless deregulation, and rubber stamped mergers and consolidation.
While dismissed as a niche issue, the right wing’s decade-long attack on net neutrality rules clearly predicted this was all coming. This extremely popular effort by our communications regulators to hold shitty regional telecom monopolies accountable was summarily executed: first by a Trump-loaded 6th Circuit, then inevitably by Trump’s hand-picked earlobe nibbler at the FCC, Brendan Carr.
Recently, consumer groups announced they weren’t going to appeal the 6th Circuit’s ruling because they know the Supreme Court will never let the rules live. And even if by some chance they did, the broken, captured Trump FCC would simply disintegrate the rules again:
“Federal rules safeguarding internet openness, reliability and affordability are just as vital today as always, despite what cable lobbyists and their paid pundits claim. Yet Trump’s election flipped the FCC majority back to ideologues who’ve always taken the broadband industry’s side on this crucial issue. And the justices making up the current Supreme Court majority have shown hostility toward sound legal reasoning on this precise question and a host of other topics too.”
This is, in case you’re new to this sort of thing, the opposite of democracy and a functional court system. Corporate power and authoritarians have taken control of the courts and ensured that it’s technically impossible to protect U.S. consumers. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about net neutrality, environmental protections, consumer privacy, or public safety rules.
Legal precedent means nothing. Authoritarian and corporate power desires now predict most legal outcomes. It’s still dressed up as competent law in polite conversation, but it’s the legal policy equivalent of a dilapidated Hollywood wild west set lousy with termites.
After the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright ruling, it’s effectively impossible to get any reforms — no matter how democratically supported — past our corrupt court system. Regulators are now effectively forbidden from crafting new rules or enforcing most existing ones. Case after case, you’re going to see the Trump courts cripple regulatory autonomy on every issue that impacts your family’s lives, declaring, over and over again, that regulators have “exceeded their regulatory authority,” no matter how modest — or popular — or essential — the effort.
This is going to cause mass death and disability at scale, but, again, the press (and even a lot of policy people) don’t appear to have figured this out yet, or don’t care because they like tax cuts and “deregulation.” For some, normalization bias has blinded them to what’s coming.
The attack on net neutrality didn’t just kill “net neutrality.” It eviscerated the FCC’s authority to protect broadband consumers from giant, shitty telecom monopolies. A smattering of states tried to fill the void with their own state net neutrality laws, but generally haven’t bothered to enforce them. Terrible, shitty corporate giants like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon increasingly see zero accountability… for anything.
This is the future of consumer protection across industries. Feds abdicate their responsibility to protect workers and consumers, regulatory agencies are steadily hollowed out like pumpkins, and a rotating suite of states (with varying degrees of competence) try to fill the void. The companies that lobbied to dismantle stable federal oversight then complain about the “discordant nature of fractured state law.”
With authoritarians taking the dismantling of federal consumer protection to an entirely new level, you’re going to see more and more states trying to fill the void with their own consumer protection laws. But as the fusion of corporatism and authoritarianism finishes irreversibly defanging federal governance, it’s going to increasingly set its sights on state autotomy.
States, facing unprecedented legal assault on everything from immigration law to healthcare, aren’t going to have the time, resources, or staff to meaningfully pick up the feds’ dropped ball on consumer protection and corporate accountability (see: popular right to repair reforms). That’s going to result in untold millions of Americans getting ripped off, neglected, or, in many instances, killed.
When these deadly real world impacts come, the right wingers, “free market Libertarians,” and corporate lobbyists who spent decades paving this path will either mysteriously be silent or busy pointing the finger elsewhere. And our consolidated corporate press will, as has been tradition, have its head so squarely lodged up its own ass they’ll never connect the dots for a befuddled, brutalized, and broadly propagandized electorate.
Filed Under: appeals courts, broadband, consumer protection, corruption, net neutrality, regulators, supreme court, telecom


Comments on “Net Neutrality Advocates Won’t Appeal Trump Destruction, Say U.S. Courts Are Broken”
We won’t have time to worry once they do the same to our food and medicine standards.
It’s clearly troubling when people stop turning to the courts for relief because they believe the system has been fully captured, but tactically, it feels like the right move at this time.
Continuing is a costly drain of resources, especially when the likely outcome is SCOTUS rubber-stamping the 6th Circuit’s ruling. And there’s the serious risk that SCOTUS, given the opportunity, could invent a new legal standard from thin air which inflicts even greater harm, much like how courts lost the ability to issue nationwide injunctions after Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship.
Cant blame Trump for all of this.
Only making it Happen Sooner.
Since Corps and Rich are getting the tax cuts.
Isnt it time that the Citizens Stop paying taxes? OR did they NOT see That idea coming?
Politicians. No more wages, no more retirement. THOSE were NOT in the Constitution ORIGINALLY. YOU Added them in the 1970’s, WITHOUT a Citizens vote.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I Was Murdered!!!
This is a replay of the 2017 net neutrality battle, except that noone cares. Back then, the activists tried to claim that the internet would come to an end unless the FCC was permitted to regulate it. Despite numerous online protests, the new net neutrality rules were approved, but the internet continues to work just fine.
Upping the stakes from “the end of the internet” to “mass death and disability” won’t change anything. Public opinion, and the legal opinion of the court are such as they are nowadays because the activists torched their credibility.
Re:
Bode is talking about deregulation in general and not just net neutrality, dum-dum.
Re:
No, that’s just the strawman that right-wing dipshits like you perpetuated.
You’re literally commenting on an article that highlights the effect of courts either bending the knee to Trump, being spineless or not giving a shit anymore.
Re:
“I Was Murdered!!! ” Oh, if only. A person can dream.
Re:
Bad-faith shit-flinging from Koby. I’m still alive another day, it would seem.
Re:
Unfortunately no Koby, and that adds some sadness to this story.
Re:
Koby. Do you actually understand anything?
Re: Re:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair
They will call you US citizens for years after you turned serfs.
Too bad. It seems like the more lawsuits against the Droopy Don administration, the better. Make sure they have no lawyers left to fuck with anyone else.
I don’t think that’s really true. It effectively impossible to get legistator- or regulator-mandated reforms upheld by the courts (in some states, anyway). But there’s a lot of stuff that seems to get past them. Probably any ISP that looks sufficiently Comcast-like could.
If an ISP managed to be good despite the lack of any regulatory or legal oversight, and was corporate so as to avoid anti-municipal-broadband rules, what could courts do? Co-operatives and charities are possible forms that could work, and have a long history of competing successfully with more traditional for-profit corporations in the USA. Forming something like a “church of good broadband” would also be an interesting hack, à la Scientology; the current administration might not be so eager to go after “weird religions”.
Re:
Interesting, but you can’t force anyone to peer.
I told y’all that back in like November.
Re:
What year?
Re:
OH MY GOD! We all should have listened. No one else ever thought like that. i am sooooo sorry.
And water is wet.
The American justice system is a farce from the Supreme Court taking bribes to fuck children to lower courts pocketing money to side with cops.
Net Neutrality isn't dead
Unlike in 2007, I’m hard-pressed to identify proven or testable situations where secretive and unsupported (non-standardized) methods of delaying or denying traffic are currently occurring—the kinds of practices from 2007 that led to the 2010 rules.
What’s compelling is the mistaken notion that “the Internet” itself is an information service. While it carries information, that does not make it an information service any more than asphalt is a transportation service. The Internet enables information services (just as dial-up did), but the Internet itself cannot store or transform data—only services operating on the Internet can do that.
We understand this. Yet in today’s climate—with institutions weakened and politics increasingly toxic—facts and laws often seem to make no difference. My instinct is to right this wrong immediately, but I recognize that it’s wiser to choose the right time and method.
In the meantime, just as in 2007, let’s remain vigilant for ISPs behaving badly—and be ready to call them out when they do.
Re:
You’re confusing the transport and protocols with the applications and services. TCP/IP UDP, MPLS, those would be the equivalent of asphalt and concrete and makeup the back one. But they are useless, and would carry no information, without the services that provide the framework that provides the Internet. DNS, Telent, HTTPS, etc, are the services that are run as commonly accepted standards that gives users there experience of the internet.
There are other WANs that utilize the same transport and protocols, run ing parallel to the internet, but using a different set of services making them not the internet.
TL;DR; the premise that The Internet is not an information service is a fun dental misunderstanding of how it works.
Re: Re:
But DNS is really the only such service still provided by the entities selling internet access (ISPs), and it’s becoming increasingly common for customers to just ignore that and use some public service. Kind of like web hosting and e-mail accounts, which used to be standard services offered by ISPs. (They’re not gone per se, but one would have to be a long-time customer or go to some special effort to have an ISP web site or e-mail or address.)
In other words, internet access is trending toward being what you describe as “useless”. Little more than IP address assignment and routing. Plus maybe a wi-fi router, which is now the extent of ISP-provided hardware and software.
I’m not sure how useful it is to argue about whether internet access is an “information service”, without having a specific goal in mind. I’m vaguely aware that the term appears in regulation(s). Is it relevant in this context? Anyway, Robb’s overall message seems reasonable to me.
Re: Re: Re:
There is a distinction between ‘common carrier’ and ‘information service’ in the US, where the later give ISP the obligation to treat all customers and traffic equally at the federally. Ironically, because of the recent overturning of the Chevron ruling, the FCC can’t declare it one or another.
DNS is just but an example, and the fact that people aren’t using it from their ISP doesn’t it make it any less an important part of the definition. US Code 47 (The Communications Act of 1934) definition is much more than what Robb quoted:
(24)Information service
The term “information service” means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.
The key word here is ‘capability’, they don’t have to offer it themselves. Frankly it’s a straight forward reading of the definition to realize that “the internet” is clearly an information service, and you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to argue otherwise.
To be complete, the act defines common carrier thusly:
(11)Common carrier
The term “common carrier” or “carrier” means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this chapter; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier.
So yes, your ISP is most certainly providing a common carrier by bringing you wire to your house, and an electrical signal. But that’s not just what they offer, or charge for, as they offer access to the internet…and even charge for different quantity of a data, indicating it is much more than just communication by wire. By offering the capability of connecting to website, etc. they are clearly an information service. Further, they go to great lengths to make this experience better by including things like CDNs to improve streaming of services, outbound SPAM/bot detection to prevent users from getting blacklisted by other services, etc.
Also remember anyone attempting to arguing the internet isn’t a information service is a deeply serious person as they also simultaneously hold the idea that the internet service for reaching a social media site can be shaped any way the ISP wants, but the social media site can’t restrict their ability to post whatever they want.
Re: Re: Re:
Also, I failed to point out that arguing that it’s not being done now alleviates the need for a law preventing it is just an absurdity unto it self. This is without even considering the history of ISPs and their willingness to exploit their customer when given half the chance.
For starters, you can stop calling us “consumers”. That term is a classist slur, coming entirely from the perspective of the ultra-rich.
Re:
Consumption is a race?
Re: Re:
No, you’re thinking competition. Consumption is a Victorian term for tuberculosis.
Re: Re: Re:
If I did my calculus right, that makes MAGA constipation. Right?
Re:
I’ll stop calling you a consumer when you stop consuming. That means no purchasing, no use of fuel of any type, no eating and no drinking. Not long after I stop calling you a consumer in response to you undertaking such actions, you will be incapable of consuming anything in any case (approx. 5 days).
Read this.
https://mnmlist.com/unconsumers/