A federal appeals court has agreed to halt the reinstatement of net neutrality rules until August 5th, while the court considers whether more permanent action is justified.

It’s the latest setback in a long back and forth on net neutrality — the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should not be able to block or throttle internet traffic in a discriminatory manner.

The current FCC, which has three Democratic and two Republican commissioners, voted in April to bring back net neutrality. The 3–2 vote was divided along party lines.

Broadband providers have since challenged the FCC’s action, which is potentially more vulnerable after the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down Chevron deference — a legal doctrine that instructed courts to defer to an agency’s expert decisions except in a very narrow range of circumstances.

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Matt Schettenhelm said in a report prior to the court’s ruling that he doesn’t expect the FCC to prevail in court, in large part due to the demise of Chevron.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    From the outside it really seems that a large amount of the USA administration is actively working against the USA’s interests. Which sounds weird.

    • ButtDrugs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It depends on how you define “the USA”. If you mean the people of this country, then absolutely they are working against us. If you mean the people with loads and loads of money, then no, they are working as hard as they fucking can for them.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      “The administration “ usually means the Executive Branch, the FCC, which in this case is trying to do a good thing. Net neutrality has long been supported by a majority of voters, and has been active on party lines: Democrat majority is trying to do the right thing for their constituents

      In this case corporations affected sued to overturn and the court, the Judicial Branch, issued a stay of enforcement until the final ruling.

      This is very much a problem of corporations having too much say, and one of the parties protecting corporations over citizens

    • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The GOP is doing everything it can to fuck up our government in favor of corporate and foreign interests: They are literally selling America out for a quick buck while all their rich asshole friends enjoy even more obscene wealth.

    • gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I desperately hope that if Kamala Harris takes the nomination (which seems more and more likely every day with even Obama coming out and publicly telling Biden to step down), she has the stones to openly defy the court and push through judicial reform. Either impeach and replace Thomas and Alito, or eliminate the fillibuster to pack the courts.

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I find it absolutely astounding that the president appoints the judges for the highest courts in the land.

    Which fucking morons thought that would be a good idea? That’s obviously going to be abused.

    • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      A bunch of idealistic revolutionaries ove 300 years ago. We just haven’t fixed the problems because people now worship said revolutionaries.

      • KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know that I’d call them idealistic. They were landed nobles who didn’t want to pay the increased taxes levied on them. Which in turn were to pay for the war their government had fought on their behalf to protect them from the native people whose land they had stolen. By exterminating those native people.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They were idealistic in that a lot of them subscribed to the ideals of the enlightenment which as a reminder was not a working class movement. Most of the compromises they made were innate issues of their era, but there is still that massive throughline within a lot of it that assumes that those in power are statesmen not demagogues. The problem is that I doubt they would expect the very checks and balances to be used by the demagogues they feared.