Slashdot Mirror
What Happens When States Have Their Own Net Neutrality Rules? (bloomberg.com)
Last month FCC Chairman Ajit Pai dismantled Obama-era rules on net neutrality. A handful of lawmakers in liberal-leaning U.S. states plan to spend this year building them back up. FCC anticipated the move -- the commission's rules include language forbidding states from doing this, warning against an unwieldy patchwork of regulations. But lawmakers in New York and California aren't aiming to be exceptions to the national rules; they're looking to, in effect, create their own. From a report: In New York, Assemblywoman Patricia Fahy introduced a bill that would make it a requirement for internet providers to adhere to the principles of net neutrality as a requirement for landing state contracts. This would mean they couldn't block or slow down certain web traffic, and couldn't offer faster speeds to companies who pay them directly. Fahy said the restrictions on contractors would apply even if the behaviors in question took place outside New York. She acknowledged that the approach could run afoul of limits on states attempting to regulate interstate commerce, but thought the bill could "thread the needle." Even supporters of state legislation on net neutrality think this may go too far. California State Senator Scott Wiener introduced a bill this week that would only apply to behavior within the state, saying any other approach would be too vulnerable to legal challenge.
But this wouldn't be the first time a large state threw around its weight in ways that reverberate beyond its borders. The texbook industry, for instance, has long accommodated the standards of California and Texas. [...] The internet doesn't lend itself cleanly to state lines. It could be difficult for Comcast or Verizon to accept money from services seeking preferential treatment in one state, then make sure that its network didn't reflect those relationships in places where state lawmakers forbade them, said Geoffrey Manne, executive director of the International Center for Law & Economics, a research group.
But this wouldn't be the first time a large state threw around its weight in ways that reverberate beyond its borders. The texbook industry, for instance, has long accommodated the standards of California and Texas. [...] The internet doesn't lend itself cleanly to state lines. It could be difficult for Comcast or Verizon to accept money from services seeking preferential treatment in one state, then make sure that its network didn't reflect those relationships in places where state lawmakers forbade them, said Geoffrey Manne, executive director of the International Center for Law & Economics, a research group.
Good! If the citizens of California and New York feel these rules are necessary and important they should be able to dictate such rules as they see fit.
That was, once upon a time, the magic of America, applying bottom up legislation allows for what works in specific areas to be applied and for other areas to not be applied.
It's time to go back to an anti-federalist interpretation of the federal government.
You forgot that people are only anti-federalist when the feds do something they don't like, but all for the Feds to exert their power to prevent states form doing something they don't like.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
You forgot that people are only anti-federalist when the feds do something they don't like, but all for the Feds to exert their power to prevent states form doing something they don't like.
Is that a problem?
I was under the impression that the governments (both federal and local) should work for the benefit of the people, and that a big problem with governments as they are now is: that they don't.
Why is it bad that the people always favor things that they would like?
(Yes, there are corner cases like slavery and discrimination, but these only get changed when a majority wants them to change. We only gave women the vote in 1920 when a majority thought it was appropriate. Net Neutrality is not one of those corner cases.)
"The internet doesn't lend itself cleanly to state lines. It could be difficult for Comcast or Verizon to accept money from services seeking preferential treatment in one state, then make sure that its network didn't reflect those relationships in places where state lawmakers forbade them, said Geoffrey Manne, executive director of the International Center for Law & Economics, a research group."
No. It's not "difficult" for Comcast, Verizon, etc to know where their property is and under what jurisdiction it is. It's not "difficult" at all.
You can't have your cake (we don't know what going on on our networks) and eat it too (we know exactly who is using our networks, pay up).
Big business has shoved these changes through, despite the wishes of the end users. Now as a result, they aren't going to have to deal with one set of regulations, they will have to deal with 50 sets of differing regulations and the resulting lawsuits when they screw up.
It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Actually, it is the other states that are imposing their own form of bat-shit craziness on New York and California, which are merely the targets of your ire because you fully embrace the flawed agenda of the faux-conservative right-wing Republicans. It was the same with same-sex marriage. States like Alabama and Kansas went out of their way to attack liberals, declaring they would not recognize the actions, even the Civil Unions of other states. A serious violation of the Constitution. They even sought to use California's public referendum to achieve such discrimination. Which said success should tell you something, as well as their failures in courts.
It's actually the Republicans who refuse to work with those who don't toe the party line. And they have nothing to offer, notice how they spent years declaiming for an ACA repeal, but never got around to offering an alternative. They couldn't even stand to hold meetings and discussions on it, let alone have a debate. Same with their tax cuts.
And let's really recognize the truth, the Republican members of state legislatures across the country have been in big Telecom's pocket, doing everything they can to prevent municipal ISPs, opposing accountability for big corporations, and handing them even more tax dollars for nothing.
Sorry, but it's the truth, and any declarations otherwise are as false as Trump's Voter Integrity Commission.
It's OK though, as long as rampant gerrymandering and voter discrimination is allowed, the GOP can screw America.
Distinction without difference. Name one argument, that justifies State legislatures imposing rules, that would not also apply to Home Owner Associations (which, BTW, also have elected leaders).
Greater scope of authority as duly granted by the sovereignty of the people. Ouch, zing, mi, you lost in one.
The OP's original argument, regarding "applying bottom up legislation" certainly works equally in both cases...
Yes, a Homeowner's Association setting up its own ISP structure would be a valid option.
But hey, if you want to stick to local governments, why would you oppose a State's right to decide, how certain races are treated within its borders?
Ah, that's a different discussion, and the ultimate reason is that...any decision by any form of authority, is subject to peril, and the fact, is, it's been quite obvious that most people can't be trusted to make decisions based on race. Sorry.
Remember the earlier claim: Everybody knows states’ rights mean the right of Southern states to resist integration. ?
Sad, but true, isn't it? It was also the case when it was tariffs, and the treatment of Indian Tribes, and even Westward expansion. States' Rights is forever tainted by association in the United States.
You can't be supporting a principle in one application and oppose it another — not without being a hypocrite.
Actually, you can. That's the whole point of discernment, to distinguish between one thing and another, rather than rely on flawed, overly simplistic absolutes.
I know, mi, you're just a shit-spewing troll, but you're really not going to play very far with this one, any grade-school philosophy class could spot your facetious level of argumentation as fundamentally groundless.
But, as I said: 2018 is when Illiberals learned to love State Rights. (Just after learning to love the FBI in 2017, I might add!)
Actually, we did that 20 years ago, when it was same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization. Con-Conservatives, as usual, however, went all tantrum about it, and decided to go anti-states' rights.
Guess you didn't notice. Was your head too far up your own ass?