The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will vote to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules and assume new regulatory oversight of broadband internet that was rescinded under former President Donald Trump, the agency’s chair said.
The FCC told advocates on Tuesday of the plan to vote on the final rule at its April 25 meeting.
So, iirc, net neutrality was originally
a lawenforced by the FCC under title 1 regulations, then it was struck down by the Supreme Court because “there’s enough competition in the marketplace that makes it unnecessary”, then the FCC under Obama tried to regulate it as a title 2 service, which got repealed by Ajit Pai (aka “A shit pie”), and now the FCC is trying to impose net neutrality again. Assuming my memory is correct, how certain are we that the Supreme Court won’t eventually turn around and rule against it?Edit (because I accidentally submitted before I was done): Not that this is a bad move, but I’m not confident that the Supreme Court won’t rule in favor of business interests. On one hand, net neutrality should be required. On the other hand, doing this while the Supreme Court is effectively captured by corporate interests seems risky because it could further establish court precedent and make it harder for future efforts to regulate ISPs; even when the court is less corporate-owned.
Edit 2: corrections.
I think you are blending your facts/timeline. Ajit Pai’s FCC struck them down for that (dubious) reason. This upcoming vote is to undo that damage and revert back to what the FCC under Obama put in place.
I looked into it and I was wrong about it being a law, but it was regulated under title 1 regulations, which the FCC claimed let them enforce net neutrality. That got struck down in court, which lead to the FCC regulating it under title 2, which was removed by Pai and is now being reinstated by Biden’s FCC.
Edit: I think I got it, lemme know if there’s some nuance I’m missing.
Title 2 is right. It makes more sense to utilize that as well.
If we wait for that to stop being true, it’ll just mean not doing it at all.
If there’s one thing the current court’s shown, it’s that precedent doesn’t mean diddly squat to the supreme court. If and when the court is ever returned to a respectable position I’m sure many of their current decisions will be overturned.