[connicpu]

Whether they do or do not have the authority isn't something that can be answered by anything but speculation until it's been tested in court, and I don't think any of the ISPs had enough to gain through packet prioritization that it was worth the risk of going to court.

[kstrauser]

It's been tested and upheld in court. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P...:

"Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in January 2022 that California's net neutrality law may continue to be enforced and cannot be overridden by the FCC as, current as of the decision, Internet services were classified as information services."

[mywittyname]

There's still one more higher court that can overturn that decision - SCOTUS. They could conceivably rule that no government agency, state or federal, has the ability to enforce such regulations.

[dragonwriter]

That there was a hail mary appeal to the Supreme Court possible that they elected not to pursue does not negate that the issue is clearly not that the broadband ISPs didn’t see “enough to gain through packet prioritization that it was worth the risk of going to court”.

[kstrauser]

That's fair. SCOTUS is a roll of the dice lately, and there's no way of telling what crazy rulings they might back. As far as I know, though, that ruling hasn't been appealed.

[wddkcs]

Funny if the benefit was that negligible when it seems like they fought for it so hard originally.

[connicpu]

Lobbying can be extremely cheap when compared to actually fighting a court battle

[dragonwriter]

The broadband industry actually fought, and lost, a court battle on this, too.