back to article Supreme Court tells Big Cable to shut up for once: Net neutrality challenge shot down

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to the net neutrality rules that were introduced in 2015, and which have since been rescinded. The decision [PDF] removes one piece of a jigsaw of legal cases working their way through the law courts that challenge both the 2015 rules – introduced during the Obama …

  1. overunder

    Articulated responsibility.

    "...the requirement to not block content violated ISPs' First Amendment rights"

    To consider a company's amendment rights BEFORE the peoples is... today's world...?

    1. Shadow Systems Silver badge

      Re: Articulated responsibility.

      Even more importantly, if the ISP is allowed to enforce such editorial freedoms over the content running over their network, then they would no longer be allowed to claim the "we don't control the stuff on our network" defense & would immediately shoot themselves in both feet as far as NN is concerned.

      If you want common carrier status then you *can not* do anything with said traffic, because the moment you prove you can & do have any such control you no longer qualify for common carrier.

      Be careful of the blade you use to cut through counter arguments, it may be the same one the other party uses to slit your throat.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Articulated responsibility.

        "Be careful of the blade you use to cut through counter arguments, it may be the same one the other party uses to slit your throat."

        Yup.

        One of the water authorities on this side of the Atlantic narrowly dodged such a blade when they tried to press ownership of rainwater being collected off of people's roofs. They started to argue that they owned and were responsible for all the water that fell out of the sky, in the streams and rivers and to the sea (and were quite strangely being egged on in these claims by the other side) before one of the company barristers realised that prevailing on that claim would be painting a big FAT target on them, turning the water company into a sitting duck for unlimited liability claims over flood damage, etc.

        At that point the water companies quickly folded their tent, vacated all claims on rainwater collecting and got the hell out of the courtroom.

        1. BebopWeBop Silver badge

          Re: Articulated responsibility.

          Very droll (and I believe yo - they can be that stupid) - do you have a link to the case?

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Articulated responsibility.

      Colmpany 's paying. Nuff said.

    3. Old Used Programmer

      Re: Articulated responsibility.

      It's consistent with the Hobby Lobby decision that appears to hold that a corporation can have a religious belief.

    4. Jeffrey Nonken Silver badge

      Re: Articulated responsibility.

      "today's world...?"

      The US, anyway.

  2. LDS Silver badge
    Pint

    Let me understand...

    One FCC commissioner just said

    "Municipal broadband networks have engaged in significant First Amendment mischief,"

    ""Municipalities such as Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, have been notorious for their use of speech codes in the terms of service of state-owned networks, prohibiting users from transmitting content that falls into amorphous categories like 'hateful' or 'threatening'."

    Kavanaugh said that forbidding telco to do the same (this time for pure profit reasons) violates the same Amendment.

    Maybe they should talk to each other first, preferably when they are sober?

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Let me understand...

      Demagogues do not consider consistency a virtue.

      Like Whitman, they contain multitudes - the better to convince multitudes to follow their bidding.

  3. Jay Lenovo Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Prediction

    Many more people will need to get paid, before there's a need to figure this out.

  4. Florida1920 Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Federal rules should supersede state laws

    And corporate rules will supersede federal laws. That's all you need to know.

  5. Alan Brown Silver badge

    Ah America....

    The best laws (and court rulings) that money can buy.

    Home of the brave (They're on reservations because their land got stolen and their ancestors nearly wiped out) and land of the free to die of lack of decent healthcare.

    1. Jeffrey Nonken Silver badge

      Re: Ah America....

      Hail, hail Freedonia

      Land of the brave and free!

  6. Andrew Norton

    "and the more recent 2018 rules"

    They're the 2017 rules, passed in December 2017.

    1. kierenmccarthy

      Re: "and the more recent 2018 rules"

      Yes but came into effect in 2018 - after some additional nonsense. Happy to be persuaded otherwise but it seems to make more sense to call them 2018 rules.

      1. Andrew Norton

        Re: "and the more recent 2018 rules"

        the only 'nonsense' was Pai's decision not to publish them.

        Federal rules only come into force a certain time after they're published in the Federal Register, unless in that publication they're given an even later start date.

        Pai chose to hold off publishing them, and then set a later start date than the minimum required, which put the start date in June.

        However, they are, and always will be '2017 rules', as that's when they were passed. If he'd chosen to set an effective date of 2021, you wouldn't call them the 2021 rules, would you? And in the same way, we refer to the 2005 rules, the 2010 rules that superseded them, and the 2015 rules, based entirely on their date of passing, rather than their effective start date.

  7. InNY
    Happy

    Sod all of that, for now,

    The Spice Girls, well 4 of them, are getting back together!

    1. BebopWeBop Silver badge

      Re: Sod all of that, for now,

      Run for the hills

  8. Tessier-Ashpool

    Ajit Pai - Devil incarnate?

    I’d quite like to see a fully shaven head, just to be sure that 666 isn’t tattooed on there somewhere.

    1. LDS Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Ajit Pai - Devil incarnate?

      It may not be tattooed on his head... people who always bend to the evil powers may be marked elsewhere, and I'm sure I wouldn't like to see it...

      1. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

        Re: Ajit Pai - Devil incarnate?

        Devil-worship equivalent of "tramp stamp"? Uh, no, I'll wait till it's on ol' Satan's Instagram. (...or Pinterest?)(And then... I'm not checking there regularly.)

  9. Wincerind

    Grammar Police

    "bored of 'open internet' legal shenanigans"

    Sorry but its "bored with" or "bored by".

    "Bored of" is just not grammatically correct even if it is used a lot by the uneducated these days.

    1. julian abbs

      Re: Grammar Police

      I’m bored of morons like you who try to assert control over the development of the English language by insisting on the use of archaic forms while railing against modern usage. Get over yourself, you don’t own English and your opinions about what is or isn’t correct usage have about as much value as the opinion of any other self-important twat.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Grammar Police

        you don’t own English

        Alas, English-usage prescriptivism is a religion, and you'll discourage few of its adherents with reason.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Grammar Police

        Speaking of self-important twats.......

  10. ratfox Silver badge
    Pint

    Beer enthusiast

    Now that's an epithet I can agree with. Good job!

  11. W Donelson

    "The Internet Monopoly.

    As of December 2016, more than 129 million Americans have only one option for broadband internet service in their area – equating to about 40 percent of the country.

    Out of these 129 million customers, about 52 million are forced into obtaining internet from known Net Neutrality violators."

    https://sites.psu.edu/netneutrality/2018/02/28/the-internet-monopoly/

  12. Named coward

    Justice Roberts did the same but he has a significant share holding in Time Warner,

    Good that he recused himself. But am I the only one to think there's something deeply wrong here?

  13. Pete4000uk

    I'll buy him

    A 'Bud'

    1. BebopWeBop Silver badge

      Re: I'll buy him

      Well given the content of "Bud" (I am assuming you are not talking about the Czech original - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123801865666341507), that would be cruel

  14. FractalFragger2018

    the idiotic defence of removing net neutrality in the US will have a massive knock on effect on the rest of the planet that quite frankly opposes giving ISP total control of what they allow on their networks and throttle users unless they pay a fee for faster speeds. Total open internet is what this world needs and the right to decide for ourselves what we want to view and how fast we view it.

    Anyone against open internet and likes the idea of ISPs gaining control over premium speed services should be ashamed of themselves and need culling right now!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019