Democrat Mignon Clyburn added, "Today it is official, the FCC majority has taken the next step in handing the keys to the Internet over to billion-dollar broadband providers".
The states are being led by New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, and intend to fight the Trump administration's repeal of the rules that were created to ensure an open and free internet. One of the things that will happen, reports TechCrunch, is that Democrats in the Senate and House will be able to force a vote on blocking the order.
Even though many people agreed with the basic premise of net neutrality, the FCC's rules became a lightning rod for controversy because they placed broadband providers under the same strict regulations that govern telephone networks. However, they do not have enough votes to overturn the veto that President Trump would no doubt sign if this were to happen.More news: Mueller's new indictment of Manafort and Gates debunks White House talking points
The repeal was a victory for internet service providers like AT&T Inc T.N , Comcast Corp CMCSA.O and Verizon Communications Inc VZ.N , conferring power over what content consumers can access. In theory, service providers could choose which companies succeed and fail. An ISP could, for example, give their own video streaming service all the bandwidth it requires while throttling streaming video from competitors. "It might not be called Net neutrality, but (it will address) what role should government have in this powerful new medium of the Internet".
More: Net neutrality: The FCC voted to end it. Federal Communications Commission, 18-1054 and State of NY v.
It's a somewhat ironic development.
"Whether it is litigation, state action, or some other mechanism that brings it about, I am sure that robust net neutrality protections will prevail with the American public!" Other blue states might follow suit if the repeal of net neutrality goes forward on April 23. The FCC's rule fails to justify the Commission's departure from its long-standing policy and practice of defending net neutrality, while misinterpreting and disregarding critical record evidence on industry practices and harm to consumers and businesses.