Trump Administration Orders the Supreme Court to Invalidate a Net Neutrality Ruling

Breaking: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Pre-1972 Copyright Case
  • Save

Breaking: Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Pre-1972 Copyright Case
  • Save
Richard Gillin (CC by 2.0)

The Trump Administration is now taking even stronger measures to eradicate net neutrality protections in the United States.

Despite a major repeal of net neutrality protections by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this year, the Trump Administration is now taking additional steps.  Just this week, the U.S. Department of Justice demanded that the Supreme Court invalidate a 2016 lower court ruling that affirmed net neutrality protections.

“This Court should grant the petitions for writs of certiorari, vacate the court of appeals’ judgment, and remand with instructions to dismiss the petitions for review as moot,” the demand states (full document here).

That lower court ruling belongs to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which ruled that broadband services from mega-corporations like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast could properly be restricted under then-active net neutrality provisions.  In its decision, the court relied on findings from the FCC itself, then under the Obama Administration.

If the Supreme Court complies with the Trump Administration demand, the stamped-out ruling would make it far easier for ISPs to invalidate legal challenges against the FCC and its net neutrality repeal.

And those challenges are great.  Almost immediately after FCC chairman Ajit Pai forcefully ripped down net neutrality provisions, two US states — Oregon and Washington — approved laws protecting net neutrality.  Additionally, California and New York are threatening to pass extremely protective laws of their own in the coming months, creating a regulatory nightmare for mega-ISPs.

Other state governors quickly issued orders to preserve net neutrality, while dozens of state attorneys general contested the measure.  Throughout, serious questions about the FCC’s ability to enact a nationwide net neutrality ordinance have been raised.

An aggressive Supreme Court reversal could change that situation, and essentially force U.S. states to comply with the FCC’s decree.

The FCC Wants to Charge Americans $225 to Issue a Complaint

The Department of Justice has argued for a complete invalidation of the ruling, without broader deliberation on the matter.

The reason, according to the DOJ, is that the FCC has completely updated its findings related to net neutrality.  “The court of appeals upheld the 2015 Order primarily because it concluded that it was required to defer to the FCC’s legal and factual judgments as reflected in that order,” the DOJ demand reads.

“But the Commission itself has now repudiated those factual and legal judgments in a new order issued after full notice-and-comment proceedings.”

Sadly, that ‘notice-and-comment proceeding’ was ruled to be a complete joke, with fake comments essentially invalidating the process.  Subsequently, FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel admitted that Russian interference likely played a role in the commenting meltdown.

During the commenting period, John Oliver commanded viewers to flood the FCC’s website with dissenting comments, a move the FCC seems to have misinterpreted as a denial-of-service (DOS) attack.  In fact, the FCC and U.S. Government are still investigating that far-fetched possibility.

The FCC Faked a Denial-of-Service Attack Rather Than Admit Getting Pwned by John Oliver

The extremely aggressive Trump Administration measure is unlikely to smooth tensions with resisting states — to say the least.

Just recently, the State of New York invalidated the business license of Spectrum, owned by Charter Communications.  State officials effectively kicked the ISP out of the lucrative state for failing to comply with promised broadband rollouts to poorer communities, among other violations.

Charter is contesting that ruling and defiantly continues to do business in the state.  But the escalating war is likely rooted in hostility towards powerful ISPs like Charter, with state officials unhappy to be taking orders from mega-corporations.

The Supreme Court situation will be closely watched by a number of major media companies, including Netflix, Spotify, Apple, and others.

And the reason is pretty obvious.  Instead of being forced to deliver whatever customers want, ISPs can now throttle, block, or prioritize on a whim, while forcing companies to pay for access.  In the case of a company like Spotify, that could result in drastic cost increases simply to deliver a great product to music fans.

Those issues become even more pronounced if a mega-ISP like Comcast decides to introduce their own media platforms, in music, video, or any other area.  In fact, a powerful gatekeeper like Comcast could quickly make life miserable for Spotify, Deezer, or SoundCloud, simply given its extreme leverage over customer access.



5 Responses

  1. Angelito

    Trump cannot “order” the Supreme Court to do a damn thing, and you know it, Paul. This is an intentionally misleading headline that confirms your Trump-hating bias, and your lifetime membership on the fake-news train.

    Go find Jim Acosta and have a teenage bitchfest already. Sheesh.

    • Paul Resnikoff

      You might be getting tied up on semantics, but okay. ‘Forcefully requests’ perhaps?

      • Angelito

        It is not semantics, it is dishonesty.

        The DOJ filed a brief in a Supreme Court case—so what? The DOJ did the same thing in Obamacare and every other friggin case that the DOJ had an interest.

        How in the friggin bejusus hell do you honestly write that Trump “ordered” the Supreme Court to do anything? And, why is he blamed when the DOJ takes a position in a lawsuit—just like every single administration before thew Trump administration did?

        I used to come to this website for music news. Now, DMN is a hack leftist political rag. Sorry you disagree with Trump on “net neutrality,” but he was lawfully elected and elections have consequences.

  2. Six simple words

    “Instead of delivering what customers want”

    See you guys fighting against this could have just been honest in your goals when you wanted to repeal this. Six words could have said more then then entire press releases interviews etc on why this is only an issue becuase of greed and better options exist what buisness wants that right?