Slashdot Mirror
California Senate Defies FCC, Approves Net Neutrality Law (arstechnica.com)
The California State Senate yesterday approved a bill to impose net neutrality restrictions on Internet service providers, challenging the Federal Communications Commission attempt to preempt such rules. From a report: The FCC's repeal of its own net neutrality rules included a provision to preempt state and municipal governments from enforcing similar rules at the local level. But the governors of Montana and New York have signed executive orders to enforce net neutrality and several states are considering net neutrality legislation.
The FCC is already being sued by t21 states and the District of Columbia, which are trying to reverse the net neutrality repeal and the preemption of state laws. Attempts to enforce net neutrality rules at the state or local level could end up being challenged in separate lawsuits.
The FCC is already being sued by t21 states and the District of Columbia, which are trying to reverse the net neutrality repeal and the preemption of state laws. Attempts to enforce net neutrality rules at the state or local level could end up being challenged in separate lawsuits.
Wasn't the point of striking NN to cede power that the FCC really doesn't have and allow states to figure out what's best for themselves? Or does that not fit the anti-Trump narrative?
Given that the FCC specifically forbade States and Cities from drafting their own net neutrality legislation, gonna go with "no"?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Actually, I'm more Republican and am all for States rights. Personally, I think the States pushing this is the only way to really to handle the matter, much like Gay Marriage was passed in the majority of States and drove the Federal policy. I think that's actually working as the Constitution was designed. Alternatively, Jury Nullification is a tool the public can use against some of these drug laws.
Huh? California credit rating has been going up the last few years, is there something missing?
Got an authorative source for this?
Would the FCC order itself suffice for you? Directly from the same order that repealed Title II classification for ISPs, the FCC itself said (emphasis mine):
We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order.
It was fairly trivial to find, given that they put it in the section entitled "Preemption of Inconsistent State and Local Regulations", with that particular quote coming from page 110, paragraph 191. A few paragraphs later they provide an argument for their legal authority to preempt the states, but that authority will doubtless be challenged in court whenever the FCC sues California or vice versa, given that the California bill flies directly in the face of that preemption. The Montana and New York approaches use a backdoor approach to dealing with the issue that doesn't directly defy the FCC's order, so it's entirely possible that they may be allowed to remain in place even if the California bill gets tossed out. Of course, being that they're based on executive orders, the very next governor of those states could easily repeal the order.
Anyway, going back to (what I assume was) your earlier question:
Wasn't the point of striking NN to cede power that the FCC really doesn't have and allow states to figure out what's best for themselves? Or does that not fit the anti-Trump narrative?
No, not only was it not the point, it was explicitly not the point, and as such it fits just fine with the anti-Trump narrative surrounding net neutrality.
The financial statements showing the debt, assets, and cash flows of the State of California clearly point to only one possible conclusion: inevitable catastrophic default.
The wealthy are fleeing California in record numbers. Meanwhile, the debt continues to rise, and the public pension system is mathematically unsustainable.
Granted, the U.S. government's financial position is vastly worse, but that still doesn't exactly bode well for the Golden State.
Too bad pot's not a hallucinogen.
Common side effects include dizziness, feeling tired, vomiting, and hallucinations.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
In this case Wikipedia's editor misinerpreted this sentence in the source materials:
Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response
That sentence sounds like pot is causing nausea and vomiting, but in fact it's talking about treating nausea and vomiting with pot so a "complete response" is a total reduction in those symptoms.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.