22 State Attorneys General are taking the FCC to court, Net Neutrality repeal was "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of administrative procedure"

[Master Disaster]

Strap yourselves in guys, this one is gonna be a long one. It's a video source so nothing to quote but I will summarise everything to the best of my ability.

 

The motion was filed in Columbia District court on Tuesday 16th January, signed on the motion was state AGs for the districts of

Quote

Delaware, Connecticut, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Columbia

 

The motions goal is to get the courts determination that the FCCs repeal of Net Neutrality is unlawful in that the decision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion within allocated administrative procedure.

 

The FCC are classed as an administrative agency meaning it's part of the executive branch of government charged with executing specific limited directives from Congress.

 

Rules and regulations created by Administrative Agencies can be enforced as law however they must follow specific rules and can only pass laws based upon their delegated powers.

 

Under the arbitrary and capricious standard a court must review the decision made to determine if the FCCs decision was a reasonable exercise of its discretion based on consideration of all relevant factors.

Quote

The scope of judicial review under this standard is narrow and an angencies interpretation of its own policies and prior orders is subject to deference.

 

The review under the standard is narrow and the reviewing court may not substitute it's judgement for that of the agency.

 

The agency however must articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the decision they made.

 

The reviewing court must determine if the decision was based on consideration of the relevant factors of if there has been a clear error of judgement.

 

A court can reverse an agency decision only if, the agency has relied of factors Congress had not intended them to consider, has entirely ignored a relevant factor, offered an explanation of its decision that runs counter to the evidence or is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a difference in view.

Further to the above the FCC are also accused of breaking a notice and comment procedure

Quote

Agencies are required to give interested parties the opportunity to take part in the decision making process through views, written statements or arguments with or without the need for oral presentation and to incorporate in their rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.

It's likely they've included this part so they can show how the FCC ignored the general consensus about Net Neutrality.

 

Because of the broad scope of the case it's subject to something called Judicial Lottery, basically the courts will decide which state court has the rights to hold case when it happens.

 

Source

 

So what do y'all think about that? As it happens the FCC must allow a court to make sure their decision was correct before it becomes law and 22 attorneys general seem to think the process wasn't followed correctly which means the courts can kill the FCCs decision before it ever makes it to Congress.

 

This proves that there are at least a few good guys on the US government still.

 

Also if you think my summary closely matches Leanords wording in the video it does and it's deliberate. I was worried about paraphrasing and getting details incorrect so I decided to stick to his words as closely as possible. Full credit to Leanord for everything in this article, I'm simply sharing it.

[NoxiousOdor]

I'm glad that it is being looked into. Most people will agree that the process that was used to kill net neutrality was questionable at best

[mr moose]

Yep, what ever you want to call your current political and judicial systems over there, they are certainly messed up and and need a major reformation.

 

[AresKrieger]

"arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of administrative procedure"

It was none of those, granted I think NN is currently necessary but state attorney generals often make political moves via actions such as these, in other words this is 22 people stating "vote for me" essentially.

Quote

This proves that there are at least a few good guys on the US government still.

You were just played like a fiddle (also state attorney generals work for their state not the feds)

[goodtofufriday]

6 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

"arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of administrative procedure"

It was none of those, granted I think NN is currently necessary but state attorney generals often make political moves via actions such as these, in other words this is 22 people stating "vote for me" essentially.

-snip-

I do not think you are wrong, but its moves like that that can get the people a voice at times. Im sure at least a handful are genuine about it too.

[AresKrieger]

3 minutes ago, goodtofufriday said:

I do not think you are wrong, but its moves like that that can get the people a voice at times. Im sure at least a handful are genuine about it too.

I don't even think a handful know what net neutrality is, the issue with politicians is that they are in essence lawyers by trade, which means everything they say is meant to mislead, also it generally means they know very little about technology unless that is the area of law they frequent (patent lawyers for example)

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

the decision was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion within allocated administrative procedure

And yet, the original decision to pass NN wasn't?  All they did was revert policies back to pre-2015, and suddenly everyone believes the whole of the internet is coming to an end.

 

I think this sums up my opinion on the matter:

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

And yet, the original decision to pass NN wasn't?  All they did was revert policies back to pre-2015, and suddenly everyone believes the whole of the internet is coming to an end.

 

I think this sums up my opinion on the matter:

No? Just because changing the rules in one direction is arbitrary and capricious does not mean changing them in the opposite direction was also arbitrary and capricious.

 

Net neutrality regulation was introduced based on sound evidence of ISPs routinely abusing their power. Since its introduction, the number of actual complaints against ISPs is around 50K, and remember that's based on it having been in force for a relatively short period (as earlier attempts to introduce it had been repealed in court, with the courts specifically pointing to Title II as the proper way to introduce it).

 

Removing net neutrality regulation because Ajit got Paid is not based on sound evidence and thus qualifies as arbitrary and capricious. Especially combined with their treatment of the public feedback on the process.

[Jito463]

20 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Removing net neutrality regulation because Ajit got Paid is not based on sound evidence

Speaking of sound evidence, I assume you have some to back up this new assertion?  Otherwise, the irony would be astounding (not surprising, just astounding).

 

22 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Since its introduction, the number of actual complaints against ISPs is around 50K

Actual complaints?  As opposed to what?  And what precisely were those complaints?  Were all of them valid?  Even if every last one was valid, what does that prove?  Does it prove that NN was instigated properly?  What exactly is your point?

[Master Disaster]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Speaking of sound evidence, I assume you have some to back up this new assertion?  Otherwise, the irony would be astounding (not surprising, just astounding).

 

Almost as astounding as someone who believes that changing the law in favour of big business when over 70% of the population of the USA didn't want the change wasn't paid for.

 

I also believe that if this was paid for by business then it will come out in court so we will find out the truth eventually.

[Jito463]

Just now, Master Disaster said:

Almost as astounding as someone who believes that changing the law in favour of big business when over 70% of the population of the USA didn't want the change wasn't paid for.

I wager 70% of the population doesn't have the first clue what Net Neutrality is, apart from hearing it as a buzz word on the nightly "news".

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Jito463 said:

I wager 70% of the population doesn't have the first clue what Net Neutrality is, apart from hearing it as a buzz word on the nightly "news".

And that's entirely irrelevant. The FCC are duty bound to consider public opinion before they make a ruling, the wording is very clear on that one.

 

If 70% of people said they didn't want the change then the FCC imposing the change anyway is unlawful under USA law unless Pai and his cronies can explain to a judge why they felt the change was necessary as outlined in my OP.

 

The reasons Pai has given so far have basically been "because I'm in charge" and "because I can".

[Jito463]

On 1/18/2018 at 12:50 AM, Master Disaster said:

And that's entirely irrelevant. The FCC are duty bound to consider public opinion before they make a ruling, the wording is very clear on that one.

 

If 70% of people said they didn't want the change then the FCC imposing the change anyway is unlawful under USA law unless Pai and his cronies can explain to a judge why they felt the change was necessary as outlined in my OP.

 

The reasons Pai has given so far have basically been "because I'm in charge" and "because I can".

First off, where are you getting this mysterious 70% number?  From the same place all internet statics come?  Second, I find it funny that you quoted me asking for proof Ajit had been payed to repeal NN, yet have not posted any.

 

On 1/18/2018 at 12:50 AM, Master Disaster said:

If 70% of people said they didn't want the change then the FCC imposing the change anyway is unlawful under USA law

I assume you have a link to the relevant law which shows this?

[AlTech]

F*ck the FCC. They didn't do what was in Consumers' best interest. They were corrupted and bribed by Internet Service Providers.

[GoldenLag]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

I assume you have a link to the relevant law which shows this?

as far as i know the FCC only has to take a glimps at the public opinion. after that they can do whatever they want. This only comes at the risk of not being in charge next term. Even at that it is not certain i will be able to go through court or if the senate decides to abolish the changes through a majority. 

 

Note a may be wrong

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

as far as i know the FCC only has to take a glimps at the public opinion. after that they can do whatever they want. This only comes at the risk of not being in charge next term. Even at that it is not certain i will be able to go through court or if the senate decides to abolish the changes through a majority. 

 

Note a may be wrong

In theory, the public comment system is supposed to allow citizens to have some say in law creation. 

 

The FCC totally ignored what the public wanted and has done things which are not in the benefit of the Consumer (remember, they serve the public).

[Master Disaster]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

First off, where are you getting this mysterious 70% number?  From the same place all internet statics come?  Second, I find it funny that you quoted me asking for proof Ajit had been payed to repeal NN, yet have not posted any.

1) 8 out of 10 Americans (bi partisan) & 75% of republicans polled said they were against NN being repealed

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.c98b76075073

 

2) I don't think I ever ask you to prove anything.

 

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I assume you have a link to the relevant law which shows this?

Sure do...

Quote

Agencies are required to give interested parties the opportunity to take part in the decision making process through views, written statements or arguments with or without the need for oral presentation and to incorporate in their rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.

Quote

The scope of judicial review under this standard is narrow and an angencies interpretation of its own policies and prior orders is subject to deference.

 

The review under the standard is narrow and the reviewing court may not substitute it's judgement for that of the agency.

 

The agency however must articulate a rational connection between the facts found and the decision they made.

 

The reviewing court must determine if the decision was based on consideration of the relevant factors of if there has been a clear error of judgement.

 

A court can reverse an agency decision only if, the agency has relied of factors Congress had not intended them to consider, has entirely ignored a relevant factor, offered an explanation of its decision that runs counter to the evidence or is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a difference in view.

Basically speaking, the FCC are legally obligated to take public opinion into account when creating laws and them failing to do so means the courts have the power to overturn the decision and declare it unlawful.

 

I like how you cut the rest of my statement out, the part that says it's now up to Pai and the FCC to defend their decision to the courts and explain why they made the decision they did.

 

If you want the full Legalese then watch the video, Leanord shows all the official documentation that I've quoted.

[Sakkura]

10 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Speaking of sound evidence, I assume you have some to back up this new assertion?  Otherwise, the irony would be astounding (not surprising, just astounding).

 

Actual complaints?  As opposed to what?  And what precisely were those complaints?  Were all of them valid?  Even if every last one was valid, what does that prove?  Does it prove that NN was instigated properly?  What exactly is your point?

Ajit Pai worked as a lawyer for Verizon. And even if he didn't receive any actual bribes during his campaign against internet freedom, he will get paid for it when he leaves the FCC. Either to run for Congress (big ISPs lobby/bribe Congress big-time) or back to a cushy job in the industry he's supposed to regulate.

 

As for the complaints, those were the actual instances where ISPs were accused of violating net neutrality. I was trying to make it clear that these were separate from the feedback on the net neutrality repeal. Whether the complaints were all meritorious is impossible to say, because the FCC has decided to keep it all shrouded in secrecy. Almost like they have something to hide, on behalf of their ISP buddies.

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

1) 8 out of 10 Americans (bi partisan) & 75% of republicans polled said they were against NN being repealed

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.c98b76075073

The Washington Compost....yea, cause they're not biased at all.  You did at least post something, I'm not faulting you for that, but I find anything from that rag to be very questionable.  I do love how the number has now gone from 70% to 80%, though.....

 

Also, polls are simple to manipulate.  Choose the right words, the right phrasing, and suddenly everyone is "for" something (or against), even if they don't have a clue what it is they're responding on.  I'd love to know what exactly they asked everyone.  In fact, the WP article you linked to makes that very point.

Quote

Public opinion on net neutrality is largely unstudied and can vary widely depending on how the questions are asked

Seems that even they agree with me.

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

2) I don't think I ever ask you to prove anything.

No, I asked for proof and was never given any.

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Sure do...

 

Basically speaking, the FCC are legally obligated to take public opinion into account when creating laws and them failing to do so means the courts have the power to overturn the decision and declare it unlawful.

Original source?  I'd like to read it for myself, rather than rely on snippets.

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

I like how you cut the rest of my statement out, the part that says it's now up to Pai and the FCC to defend their decision to the courts and explain why they made the decision they did.

I didn't cut anything out, I just didn't address it because it wasn't important within the scope of my post.

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

If you want the full Legalese then watch the video, Leanord shows all the official documentation that I've quoted.

Video?  What video?

[Jito463]

5 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Ajit Pai worked as a lawyer for Verizon. And even if he didn't receive any actual bribes during his campaign against internet freedom, he will get paid for it when he leaves the FCC. Either to run for Congress (big ISPs lobby/bribe Congress big-time) or back to a cushy job in the industry he's supposed to regulate.

So...no evidence then.  Gotcha.

 

If you had said you believed Ajit had been paid, I would have left it alone.  Instead, you made the absolute claim that he had been paid.  One is an opinion, the other is fact; the latter of which needs to be proven to be accepted.

6 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

As for the complaints, those were the actual instances where ISPs were accused of violating net neutrality. I was trying to make it clear that these were separate from the feedback on the net neutrality repeal. Whether the complaints were all meritorious is impossible to say, because the FCC has decided to keep it all shrouded in secrecy. Almost like they have something to hide, on behalf of their ISP buddies.

Without knowing the nature or veracity of those complaints, it's hard to make a connection between them and support (or lack thereof) of NN.

[Ganz]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

 

I do love how the number has now gone from 70% to 80%, though.....

That's how different polls usually work.  They show different numbers.  Though I know what you are getting at there. 

 

Here's a few more sources (still haven't determined if they are biased or not). 

 

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-americans-political-parties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/

https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/29/strong-support-net-neutrality-rules-fcc-considers-repeal/

https://www.scribd.com/document/353285485/Freedman-Consulting-Net-Neutrality-Poll

 

Numbers vary from ~50% to 80%.  Either way that's still an overwhelming majority which, right or wrong, should be taken into account by the agencies who are supposed to represent the public.

 

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

Original source?  I'd like to read it for myself, rather than rely on snippets.

 

Here is an outline which if you aren't satisfied with plain readable text version you can look up the lawyer speak version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulemaking

 

-------------

On to main post;  I am not surprised by this.  It will be interesting to see if NN ruling does get overturned or not.  Won't be surprised if this whole thing continues for quite some time.

[Jito463]

I feel like I should clarify something, since my previous posts may not have made this clear.  I'm all for having all data be transmitted equally - regardless of the origin or destination - without throttling.  On that I believe we agree.  My issue all along has been with allowing a small group of unelected officials to control all regulations on the internet (and no, I don't support making the FCC board become an elected position, as one other poster suggested previously to me).

 

This is why I'm all for the repeal of NN.  It put too much power and control in the hands of people who shouldn't have it.  It's also why I'm very passionate about supporting the repeal.  It's not even about who's in charge of government, it's about government period.  The less they control, the better for us.

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

In theory, the public comment system is supposed to allow citizens to have some say in law creation. 

 

The FCC totally ignored what the public wanted and has done things which are not in the benefit of the Consumer (remember, they serve the public).

 

5 hours ago, Ganz said:

Either way that's still an overwhelming majority which, right or wrong, should be taken into account by the agencies who are supposed to represent the public.

 

 

The public's opinion was so much in favour of keeping NN that certain groups had to make up millions of emails to insinuate there was some sort of public support for repeal.  It's very telling of the FCC and very frustrating that they accepted those submissions and refused to ignore them once it was prove they were fake.   It is a nigh on impossible position to defend the FCC in this situation because there is just no excuse for what they did. It is obvious they had an agenda that was not in the public's favor.

 

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I feel like I should clarify something, since my previous posts may not have made this clear.  I'm all for having all data be transmitted equally - regardless of the origin or destination - without throttling.  On that I believe we agree.  My issue all along has been with allowing a small group of unelected officials to control all regulations on the internet (and no, I don't support making the FCC board become an elected position, as one other poster suggested previously to me).

 

This is why I'm all for the repeal of NN.  It put too much power and control in the hands of people who shouldn't have it.  It's also why I'm very passionate about supporting the repeal.  It's not even about who's in charge of government, it's about government period.  The less they control, the better for us.

 The system is so messed up over there that removing regulatory control is just as a bad as having corrupt regulators.  Government is supposed to ensure these regulators are unbiased, but how can that happen when the government itself isn't unbiased?

[asus killer]

you should be for or against NN on it's merits, not because of government. Does the law serve a real purpose or not. was there a reason to create it and is there a reason to end it? who creates it is irrelevant.

 No one would be better if government removed a law prohibiting anyone from running naked down the street and still government is controlling how much clothes one can use, and maybe bought by "big clothing". Does it serve a purpose? hell yes i don't want to see old saggy boobs or old man junk. Or would we all be better otherwise.

 

That's inverting things, that's a clever mechanism to divert the conversation and people buy into it. Suddenly you are discussing the referee and the rules and not the players and the plays, if they didn't make faults there were no need for rules or referees

[Tech_Dreamer]

Not going to have an effect eventually but , you know the drill, strap in for the drama.