October, 01 2019, 12:00am EDT
Court Defers to FCC on Dismantling Net Neutrality for Now but Opens Door for States, Higher Courts and Congress to Act
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit deferred to the Federal Communications Commission in upholding its 2017 repeal of Net Neutrality, but overturned key parts of the agency's so-called Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which was adopted on partisan lines in December 2017. That order repealed the landmark Open Internet Order the Obama-era FCC put in place in 2015.
WASHINGTON
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit deferred to the Federal Communications Commission in upholding its 2017 repeal of Net Neutrality, but overturned key parts of the agency's so-called Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which was adopted on partisan lines in December 2017. That order repealed the landmark Open Internet Order the Obama-era FCC put in place in 2015.
In a lengthy and unusual opinion, the court upheld the FCC's misguided legal analysis repealing the federal rules for Net Neutrality, even though the judges who joined the opinion wrote that they are "deeply concerned that the result is unhinged from the realities of modern broadband service."
The opinion also threw out the agency's attempt to prevent states from filling the void the FCC created with their own laws and orders. It also sent the 2017 repeal back to the agency to assess the impact of that agency order on public safety, ISPs' use of public rights of way, and the federal Lifeline broadband-discount program. Those questions signal to the FCC yet again that it got this decision wrong, and that it cannot continue its unjustified ideological crusade against all of these important safeguards.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai engineered the repeal of Net Neutrality despite the complete lack of evidence that the 2015 rules were harming ISPs, and despite the overwhelming public opposition to the move. A wave of fraudulent comments tainted the FCC's record in the 2017 proceeding, and Pai did nothing in response. Instead, he and his GOP colleagues uprooted all Net Neutrality rules. They also abandoned a wide range of other duties the agency has under the law to promote broadband affordability, competition and privacy by rejecting the successful legal framework for these protections in Title II of the Communications Act.
Free Press sued the FCC in early 2018, joined by dozens of other public-interest groups, companies, industry associations and state attorneys general who pinpointed the inaccuracies and failings in the repeal. The case was briefed last summer, with oral arguments before the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit held on Feb. 1, 2019.
Free Press Vice President of Policy and General Counsel Matt Wood made the following statement:
"Unfortunately, the judges gave a pass to the flimsy legal arguments and phony claims used to tear down these important rules in late 2017 -- not because Ajit Pai and the agency processes he abused led to the right decision, but because courts give agencies a lot of deference when interpreting the law. The court's unusual opinion gave credence to the bad technical arguments and economic lies Pai used to force his order through, even though the judges concurring in that close legal reading said loud and clear that the 15-year-old Supreme Court case dictating this result no longer reflects the realities of modern broadband service.
"Yet the court's decision underscores the pressing need for the Senate to pass the Save the Internet Act that the House adopted in April. It opens the door for a future FCC to go back to the right rules, and for states to fill the vacuum with state-based Net Neutrality laws. And the court rejected the FCC's arguments on several key broadband policies, sending them back to the agency.
"The FCC has a congressional mandate under Title II to protect people's rights to communicate on the internet, free from ISPs' interference and schemes. Open and clear communications networks are crucial in the fight for racial justice, immigrant rights, reproductive freedom and a host of other issues. People simply can't afford to see their speech cut off by the companies that own the wires and channels connecting us all.
"The Trump FCC's decision conflated broadband networks with the information those networks carry, and looked the other way on the thoroughly debunked claims Pai put forward about broadband investment under the Obama-era Net Neutrality rules. Although the judges ignored those mistakes, they did zero in on some key errors in Pai's order. Chiefly, they refused to let Pai get away with his failure to explain why the FCC's abdication of its authority over broadband could preempt state attempts to fill that void, and questioned the agency's threadbare claims that broadband is somehow outside the FCC's jurisdiction.
"Federal agencies get deference from courts when interpreting the law, but as today's decision shows, that deference isn't limitless when it comes to running a clean process and paying attention to reality. The Trump FCC's attempt to reject the law and prevent any state from adopting crucial open-internet rules has failed.
"Already, nine states have put in place decisive rules to protect Net Neutrality. Of those, six have signed executive orders: Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. And four have passed laws: California, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Another 27 states have considered legislation. In 2018, more than 125 city mayors signed a Net Neutrality pledge promising not to do business with any ISP that violates the open-internet standard. ISPs will now need to navigate this groundswell of local political support for Net Neutrality.
"The only place in the country where we don't see overwhelming bipartisan support for real Net Neutrality rules is in a small and shrinking bubble inside the Beltway that's populated chiefly by Republican congressional leadership and the failed FCC chairman they've wrongly backed. People in the rest of the United States get it: More than 85 percent of voters -- including 82 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats -- support the rules that Pai struck down.
"Pai may try a victory lap for today's decision, but no one will be cheering besides his small circle of advisers and the lobbyists that give him his marching orders. The Senate must pass the Save the Internet Act that sailed through the House in April to put the 2015 open-internet rules and the wildly successful legal framework for them even more firmly back in place."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
X Suspends Journalist Ken Klippenstein Over Publication of JD Vance Dossier
"The 'free speech absolutist' has once again silenced a journalist he didn't like," said one observer.
Sep 26, 2024
X—the social media platform formerly known as Twitter—suspended Ken Klippenstein's account Thursday after the investigative journalist posted an article containing a link to a dossier on Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate JD Vance that allegedly came from an Iranian hack of former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign.
Klippenstein, who formerly worked at The Intercept, said on his paid Substack Thursday that his X account was suspended for violating the platform's ban on posting private information.
"I know that it is general practice to delete 'private' information from leaks and classified documents, but in this case, not only is Vance an elected official and vice presidential candidate, but the information is readily available for anyone to buy," he wrote. Vance is also the junior U.S. senator from Ohio.
Klippenstein continued:
We should be honest about so-called private information contained in the dossier and "private" information in general. It is readily available to anyone who can buy it. The campaign purchased this information from commercial information brokers. Those dealers make huge profits from selling this data. And the media knows it, because they buy the data for reporting purposes, just like the campaign. They don't like to mention that though.
According to Klippenstein, the corporate media has "been sitting on" the dossier since June, "declining to publish in fear of finding itself at odds with the government's campaign against 'foreign malign influence.'"
"If the document had been hacked by some 'Anonymous'-like hacker group, the news media would be all over it," he contended. "I'm just not a believer of the news media as an arm of the government, doing its work combatting foreign influence. Nor should it be a gatekeeper of what the public should know."
Klippenstein shared a general overview of the contents of the dossier, which he described as "a 271-page research paper the Trump campaign prepared to vet" Vance, pulling out select quotes from the document:
- "Vance has been one of the chief obstructionists to U.S. efforts to providing [sic] assistance to Ukraine."
- "Vance criticized public health experts and elected officials for supporting Black Lives Matter protests while condemning anti-lockdown [Covid] protests."
- "Vance 'embraced non-interventionism."
- "In 2020, Vance criticized President Trump's airstrike killing Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, worrying it would continue to bog down America in the Middle East to the advantage of China."
- "Vance suggested that the country had been entangled in wars in the Middle East so 'financial elites' could profit from the rise of China."
"While the news media has paraphrased some of the contents of the dossier, what they haven't done is provide the American people with the underlying document, in the language in which it appeared, so they can decide for themselves what they think," Klippenstein said. "You decide for yourself."
An X spokesperson toldZeteo's Justin Baragona that "Ken Klippenstein was temporarily suspended for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance's physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number."
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating the Trump campaign's claim of an Iranian hack. Iran's government denies any such action.
Numerous observers accused Musk—a self-described "free speech absolutist"—of hypocrisy over X's suspension of Klippenstein's account, although it is not known if the billionaire owner had any role in the decision. Other users also reported punitive action against their accounts over the dossier post.
"I'm old enough to remember when free speech zealot Elon Musk was outraged by Twitter's censorship," journalist Seth Hettena said on X.
Jacobin writer Branko Marcetic posted that "this scenario is actually a good preview of the future none of us want, but that we're heading to currently: A major story breaks, establishment press refuses to cover it, and the indy media that does is throttled by tech censors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Helene's Catastrophic Potential Stokes Fear Amid Florida Insurance Crisis
Florida already has one of the nation's largest shares of homeowners "who don't have meaningful insurance."
Sep 26, 2024
Hurricane Helene continued barreling toward Florida on Thursday, highlighting the impacts of the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, including difficulties securing insurance coverage in regions most affected by extreme weather.
"The Air Force Hurricane Hunters found that the maximum sustained winds have increased to near 120 mph," the National Hurricane Center said Thursday afternoon. "This makes Helene a dangerous Category 3 major hurricane. Additional strengthening is expected before Helene makes landfall in the Florida Big Bend this evening."
Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Deanne Criswell said during a White House briefing that forecasts suggest Helene will make a "dead-on hit to Tallahassee" and "this is going to be a multistate event with the potential for significant impacts from Florida all the way to Tennessee."
Although this Atlantic hurricane season hasn't yet been as intense as U.S. scientists expected, trends in extreme weather disasters have led some insurance companies to exit the Florida market in recent years. Farmers Insurance announced last year that it would stop covering property in the state, in an effort to "effectively manage risk exposure."
While the Insurance Information Institute, an industry trade group, said in May that "legislative reforms passed in 2022 and 2023 have created a pathway to a stable Florida market," reporting from this week shows that residents—who aren't ultrarich—are still struggling to get and keep coverage.
"Florida ranks sixth among states with the largest shares of homeowners who don't have meaningful insurance. About 18% of homeowners across the state—about 1 in 6—are without it," NBC Newsnoted Wednesday. "Nearly 20% of Florida homeowners pay $4,000 or more a year for homeowners insurance—the largest share in the country, according to the Census Bureau."
According toThe Palm Beach Post, the global reinsurance broker Gallagher Re said in a Wednesday analysis that "landfall in the Big Bend or Panhandle region of Florida as a major hurricane (Category 3, 4, or 5) has historically translated to insured losses in the low single-digit billions."
"But Helene is not a typical storm," the firm explained. "Given Helene's very large wind radius, this would still bring hurricane-force wind gusts and high storm surge to coastal areas in the heavily populated Tampa Bay area, tropical storm force winds across most of the Florida peninsula, Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, and southern Appalachia."
Gallagher Re suggested that "Helene's private insurance market losses should be expected to land in the range" of $3 billion to $6 billion, but if the hurricane "unexpectedly" moves toward Tampa, it could be over $10 billion.
Florida isn't the only state facing insurance trouble thanks to climate chaos. Voxreported last year that "insuring property in California has been a dicey proposition," pointing to torrential rainfall that "caused as much as $1.5 billion in insured losses" and "the costliest wildfires in U.S. history, including the 2018 Camp Fire, which led to more than $10 billion in losses."
Amid the intertwined climate and insurance crises, scientists, campaigners, and homeowners have demanded policy action—and elevated criticism of right-wing attacks on crucial programs.
In a June blog post, Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy program, wrote that "Congress and regulators need to ensure more transparency in the insurance market on how companies are evaluating risks as they make decisions about premiums. There also needs to be better information on what kinds of incentives companies are providing for adaptation measures that would help reduce risks."
"Alongside the necessary but ultimately bounded role of insurance in a warming world, public and private decision-makers must also shift investments away from business-as-usual maladaptive and risky choices to more resilient ones," Cleetus continued. "The nation must scale up resources for climate resilience and ensure they are reaching communities in a just and equitable way. Funding for safe, affordable, and climate-resilient housing must be expanded."
The Climate & Community Institute on Wednesday also shared recommendations in a new report—Shared Fates: A Housing Resilience Policy Vision for the Home Insurance Crisis—using case studies from California, Florida, and Minnesota.
"We propose the creation of Housing Resilience Agencies (HRAs), either by states or the federal government," the institute said. These agencies would:
- Provide public disaster insurance that offers fair and equitable protections;
- Coordinate and oversee comprehensive, community-oriented disaster risk reduction;
- Address existing market failures by providing coverage for oft-neglected sectors such as multifamily housing providers, mobile home dwellers, and heirs properties; and
- Host public risk models, climate risk advisory councils, and diverse governing boards to inform decision-making in a transparent and democratic manner.
"In order to confront the growing housing safety and affordability crisis, we need to understand our fates as shared," the institute added. "We must reimagine our home insurance system for it to reduce risk and provide equitable and fair protection."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Giuliani Permanently Disbarred in DC Over Effort to Overturn 2020 Election
"Imagine once being dubbed 'America's Mayor' and having an illustrious legal and political career, and throwing it all away for Donald Trump," said one observer.
Sep 26, 2024
Former Republican New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani can no longer practice law in the nation's capital after a federal appeals court on Thursday concurred with a disciplinary committee's recommendation for permanent disbarment over his efforts to "undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election" in service of then-President Donald Trump's "Big Lie."
In a one-page ruling, the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals permanently revoked Giuliani's law license, finding that the former federal prosecutor and personal attorney for Trump failed to explain why he should not be subject to reciprocal punishment after the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division disbarred him in July for lying about the 2020 election.
The New York tribunal found that Giuliani "repeatedly and intentionally made false statements, some of which were perjurious, to the federal court, state lawmakers, the public... and this court concerning the 2020 presidential election, in which he baselessly attacked and undermined the integrity of this country's electoral process."
Giuliani is also facing criminal charges related to alleged election subversion in Arizona and Georgia. He filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last December following a $148 million defamation judgment for falsely accusing two former Georgia election workers of engaging in a nonexistent conspiracy to "steal" the 2020 election.
These blows, culminating in Thursday's D.C. disbarment, mark a stunning fall from grace for Giuliani, who, as "America's Mayor" in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, was named Time's "Person of the Year." Giuliani parlayed his popularity into a 2008 run for president in which he was an early GOP front-runner.
Giuliani spokesperson Ted Goodman slammed the D.C. court's ruling as a "miscarriage of justice."
"Members of the legal community who want to protect the integrity of our justice system should immediately speak out against this partisan, politically motivated decision," Goodman said in a statement.
Some observers linked Giuliani's disbarment to Thursday's indictment of current New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, on corruption charges.
"Tough day for New York City mayors,"
quippedDemocracy Docket founder Marc Elias.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular