Net neutrality rules are temporarily blocked, but you shouldn't be surprised

Features
By
published

It's an election year, after all.

Protect Net Neutrality rally, San Francisco
(Image credit: Credo Action)

On Thursday, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the FCC's Title II reclassification of broadband services, calling it "a major question requiring clear congressional authorization." 

That's the news. The FCC had previously decided in early 2024 that broadband internet providers should be classified as common carriers like telephone providers (this has been flopped back and forth since 2005). Providers did not like the ruling and sought to have the decision blocked before it could come into effect. The 6th Circuit Court obliged in June, saying more time and input were needed to decide the merits of the appeal. This week, it was decided it didn't need that much time, and input wasn't needed after all, at least not immediately.

Nobody should be surprised that an appeals court made a decision without hearing oral arguments from one side because that's how America works. William Churchill once said, "Politics is not a game. It is an earnest business." Truer words were never spoken.

You have a side. I have a side. Everyone has to pick a side. Here's something to consider: neither side is right because laws are meant to serve the best interests of everyone. In a perfect world, partisan politics and lobbying efforts would be tossed aside while both sides worked together in the court to do what's best for all of us.

In the real world, telecom providers went to a partisan court with a request to help them. It's also an election year, which is likely why oral arguments have been scheduled for late October or early November—just ahead of the election—and blocking these changes hurts one side. Maybe the ruling is correct, and the FCC has no authority, and telecom providers should not have to follow these rules. Maybe not. I don't know because I'm not a legal expert on this matter, and I was not allowed to listen to legal experts give any arguments on the matter, as was originally decided.

Regardless of what side you're on, you should be upset

Congress

(Image credit: Louis Velazquez)

What I do know is that I'm distrustful, and you should be too. If not for this decision, pick one you disagree with and distrust that one instead. That's a problem.

Here's what I see: a decision that favored one side was made. A group of judges heavily skewed toward the other side has blocked that decision, saying we need to know more. Now that Harris' official nomination has given both sides signs of life in the upcoming presidential election, knowing more isn't required, and it's just blocked for now. That'll show 'em.

I don't give a damn which side you're on, and you shouldn't give a damn which side I'm on. You should be upset over what looks like obvious partisan politics interfering with a decision that is supposed to benefit us all.

Our government can not make everyone happy because that's impossible when we are so divided. What it can do is be transparent. In this case, we deserve to hear why the FCC's rules were good for us and why they were not. This issue affects us all. It is about our ability to be informed and how much it will hurt our wallets. Your side deserves a chance to convince people on the other side.

Ideally, we wouldn't be at each other's throats about everything. I shouldn't care if you don't like gay people as long as you don't infringe on their rights. I also shouldn't care if you don't want to bake them a damn cake because you don't support them. Nobody at any level of government should be trying to make me care, and news providers should differentiate between news and opinion.

AT&T's Flying COW provided 5G coverage to a field of cows

(Image credit: AT&T)

I'll do that again — the news is that the 6th Circuit has temporarily blocked the FCC reclassification of broadband providers, often called net neutrality.

My opinion is that it's all bullshit, and it looks like it was done to appease one bunch of loonies and defeat the other bunch of loonies. This happens when you let loonies appoint judges to lifetime appointments while having mechanisms in place to block those appointments until it's convenient for your side.

I try to stay out of politics because I hate dealing with lunatics. One side isn't going to agree with me. Respectful disagreement is cool, but unhinged lunacy is never far behind. I have better things to do than read the crap some internet asshole furiously shits out to share with everyone.

This time I'll make an exception, and I want to piss everyone off. Your side sucks. My side sucks. We should want to make individual decisions and not follow party lines so much, regardless of why we are told we need to do it. Net neutrality means your internet provider is gonna charge you more. It also means you're going to have better access to information and entertainment without some mega-corporation deciding to screw it up. You didn't get to hear more from either party in this appeal.

You can ignore your side and think about what's right for you. So do it.

Jerry Hildenbrand
Jerry Hildenbrand
Senior Editor — Google Ecosystem

Jerry is an amateur woodworker and struggling shade tree mechanic. There's nothing he can't take apart, but many things he can't reassemble. You'll find him writing and speaking his loud opinion on Android Central and occasionally on Threads.

5 Comments Comment from the forums
  • kiniku
    Great news! My ISP works great without 1984 getting involved.
    Reply
  • SeeBeeEss
    I used to enjoy politics and political discourse/debate until I had an epiphany and realized it wasn't doing one single positive thing for me - or for anyone around me. That was 20 years ago and "us vs them" political tribalism has only gotten worse in the intervening years. That would be bad enough, but at the same time we seem to be using our brains less often for critical thought and are more inclined to participate in groupthink - some of which comes from our social media connections - more.

    Unfortunately, IMHO, technology is, and will continue to be, one of the leading influences in diminished critical thought in North American (and other) societies. Why use your brain (which is, after all, hard work) to do math, spell a word, form a sentence, figure out how to solve a problem, analyze a political promise, memorize something, or even make a friend, when a computer chip and a 99¢ app (free with ads) can do it for you?

    I don't know how we are going to make the world a better place for our children and grandchildren to live in, but I am convinced the internet, social media, AI - and politics - ain't it!

    I was going to take your advice and be "pissed off," but I asked Gemini about the issues you have raised and she said, "Don't worry, be happy." Then I went onto my Everybody Sucks Facebook Group and found out you are actually a Martian anarchist and that you like fried liver and onions. How could I possibly take you seriously, now?

    PS: This post may seem a little disjointed and maybe even a word salad, but in my defense, my AI-Writer app hasn't been working properly these past few days and I am still waiting for an update.
    Reply
  • milliman
    Jerry, it looks like you've picked a side. The FCC picked a side and became political because it wants to control the pricing and speech on the Internet. First off Type II regulation means higher prices and diminishing competition. We already pay more for broadband in the U.S. then in most other countries. FWA is eating cable's lunch and how cable is responding. This is how it should work. If we go back to treating broadband like our electric companies, we'll be paying more and more each month for less and less.

    Equally important is free speech on the Internet. The FCC will now be able to determine what is said and not said on the Internet. If they don't like me saying "masks don't work," then it will no longer be legal speech. Why do you think they got Gigi on the commission? If they determine too much gaming is harmful, then they will limit that too. Don't kid yourself that they will never take it that far.

    The Internet has been working just fine the way that it is. Anytime the government gets involved with something they screw it up. Just look at heath care.

    All packets are NOT created equal. Some traffic should be prioritized over other traffic. Voice calls should be a higher priority than e-mail. Creating equity on the Internet does not allow us to effectively manage traffic for the most efficient traffic flow. Also it takes away opportunities to create new revenue streams. How much would you pay extra per month to have your gaming traffic prioritized to guarantee 10 ms latency to the app server?

    These are the things Net Neutrality brings us. Let us engineers and technologists design and operate the Internet not a bunch of bureaucrats. The Chevron Deference case helps us to keep the Internet free and open from bureaucrats.
    Reply
  • Mooncatt
    milliman said:
    The Chevron Deference case helps us to keep the Internet free and open from bureaucrats.

    I'm hoping you mean the ending of Chevron, as that was recently overturned by the Supreme Court. If it were still the status quo, then yes the FCC could change things on a whim.
    Reply
  • Jerry Hildenbrand
    milliman said:
    Jerry, it looks like you've picked a side. The FCC picked a side and became political because it wants to control the pricing and speech on the Internet. First off Type II regulation means higher prices and diminishing competition. We already pay more for broadband in the U.S. then in most other countries. FWA is eating cable's lunch and how cable is responding. This is how it should work. If we go back to treating broadband like our electric companies, we'll be paying more and more each month for less and less.

    Equally important is free speech on the Internet. The FCC will now be able to determine what is said and not said on the Internet. If they don't like me saying "masks don't work," then it will no longer be legal speech. Why do you think they got Gigi on the commission? If they determine too much gaming is harmful, then they will limit that too. Don't kid yourself that they will never take it that far.

    The Internet has been working just fine the way that it is. Anytime the government gets involved with something they screw it up. Just look at heath care.

    All packets are NOT created equal. Some traffic should be prioritized over other traffic. Voice calls should be a higher priority than e-mail. Creating equity on the Internet does not allow us to effectively manage traffic for the most efficient traffic flow. Also it takes away opportunities to create new revenue streams. How much would you pay extra per month to have your gaming traffic prioritized to guarantee 10 ms latency to the app server?

    These are the things Net Neutrality brings us. Let us engineers and technologists design and operate the Internet not a bunch of bureaucrats. The Chevron Deference case helps us to keep the Internet free and open from bureaucrats.
    My side is I don't want to hear random people on the internet make those arguments. I want to hear them from the actual companies making them, in case it may change my mind. Partisanship and a lack of transparency took that away from me. And you. And every American.
    Reply