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.
If we let them get away with this, soon we'll be seeing Schedule 1 narcotics sold in corner shops!
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
What argument is there, that would support allowing the States to impose addition restrictions on communication-providers, that would not also apply to allowing same to homeowner associations? And vice versa?
Personally, I don't think, FCC should have any power over the HA's either — but many people don't agree. These people should support FCC's primate over States too, or else their view is self-inconsistent and thus automatically and objectively wrong...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
When Republicans talk about "States rights", they really mean the right of states to pass laws that discriminate against people. They do not mean the right for states to establish their own drug laws nor for states to adopt laws like net neutrality.
See, Republicans only complain about the big bad federal government when they pass laws they don't like. In other words, Republicans want to be bigots, and want to pass laws to support their bigotry, and cry "states rights" only to support their hateful agenda.
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?"
Oh, oh! Do me next!
#DeleteFacebook
Citation?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Other than the FCC? How about this very site?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It looks like California's law attempts to regulate the businesses directly.
The versions in New York and Montana are different, they deal with the state's business agreements. That is, if the company doesn't stand by the same net neutrality rules the state will stop the business.
Montana certainly isn't a big state for funding and they said they've got about $50M in contracts. Losing that much business wouldn't directly hurt AT&T or similar companies, but awarding a $50M contract plus rollout costs across the state to a smaller company -- probably an in-state company -- would create a strong competitor to the existing duopoly. As the small companies tend to be more friendly with leased line provisions the large telecos know they'd quickly lose business to a large percentage of the state.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
The FCC's rollback of Net Neutrality rules was ostensibly predicated on the premise that the FCC "doesn't have the authority" to enforce Net Neutrality. If that's the stance the FCC wants to take that's fine, but they then can't turn around and say they do have the authority to preempt states from adopting their own Net Neutrality measures. You can't have it both ways. Things would be different if Congress had passed a preemption, but as it stands I think the FCC would have a very hard time winning this fight in court given their contradictory statements on their ability to adjudicate how ISP's handle delivery of data.
So now we've got Net Neutrality, abundant cheap produce, legal weed, blondes in short-shorts, and surfing. It's 75 degrees and sunny on the 30th of January and I'm about to ride my bike down to the beach.
Suck it, red state losers. You can keep your meth, guns and fat girls. If this is socialism, I'm in for two.
https://youtu.be/R_q6aRwoV3M
You are welcome on my lawn.
Montana's plan doesn't regulate ISPs and doesn't enforce Net Neutrality rules. Montana just updated their requirements to bid for state contracts to require that any ISP that wants a state contract MUST fully support net neutrality. The FCC can't tell the state not to change requirements for state contracts. They aren't telling ISPs that they can't violate net neutrality, just saying if you want the lucrative contract, you gotta follow it. If no ISPs are willing to do it, then a start up will and they'll get the lucrative state contract and grow and become a local threat. Suddenly it is in the ISPs best interests to follow net neutrality in Montana. And now New York has followed suit. If California is doing the same thing then ISPs are going to be feeling imense financial pressure very soon to just do net neutrality.
They won the battle at the federal level, but winning that battle unleased full blown war with the states and that is a war they can't win because they depend on states toeing the line. If states start repealing bans on municipal ISPs then it's truly over.
Of course, nobody cares about power grabs when it is a grab for power one likes, like net neutrality, but hate it when it is for what one doesn't like, like net neutrality.
The Rest Of Us make up our minds based on the issue at hand not a party affiliation.
You ought to try it, comrade.
Citing information would seriously degrade his TPH (trolls per hour). Not going to happen.
many companies do this: form a subsidiary or LLC which only bids on government contracts and obeys the paperwork rules.
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.
Lol your state is garbage. What hole do you live in? Alabama?
Who's the most hated man in America right now?
1. Pai
2. Shkreli
3. Trump
I'd like to see approval ratings data for all of them.
You can take that false equivalency and shove it up your candy ass.
Contrary to popular myth, the "states rights" tradition goes back to Thomas Jefferson, the ratifying conventions of the Constitution, and the Virginia / Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc
At the same time, I agree with you that many partisan hacks on the right will have a problem with this, just as many partisan hacks on the left have a problem with his sort of thing when they are in power. The system itself is the problem.
It is not a left-right issue to think that 535 people, most of whom are no more intelligent than the average American, should rule over 300 million people from a single city located along the banks of a literal swamp called the Potomac River. Sensible people on the left and right should support efforts to decentralize power and bring it back to the community as much as possible.
Does the FCC have the *authority* to do that though? They are charged with regulating communications - not state legislatures. If an executive-branch bureaucrat can unilaterally restrict what state governments can do, then I think we have a little bit of a problem with the whole "democracy" thing.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So your solution for a gang of criminals attacking your rights is to defer to a bigger, more heavily armed gang of criminals? Who then protects you from the larger gang?
The Federal government can just print cash to meet it's obligations if all else fails. California cannot do this.
However, I think Illinois is closer to the end than California. Illinois is bleeding population due to it's large tax structure and faces an unfunded pension debt that they have no possible way to pay. They also have gridlock in government, where they can make none of the hard decisions needed to forestall the inevitable.
So the question is.... How does a state actually *do* a bankruptcy? Does the Fed step in and take over? Do the neighboring states get to absorb the territory as well as part of the debt? Who knows, but when nobody will loan you money anymore because you don't have a snowballs chance of paying it back, some very bad things are going to happen.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Does the FCC have the authority to pre-empt the states?
I thought that power was left to Legislative branch, not Executive.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I know plenty of republicans and even actual conservatives, who are for net neutrality...Yes, Ajit isn't one of them, at least in public. But then he's not an elected politician either - he's a paid lobbyist ...um...temporarily serving as a regulator. Like in all agencies - totally corrupt, and who's in there now has little to do with any one election. We call it "regulatory capture" and "revolving door regulation".
Of the two parties - and you should check what practically limits it to two - special laws etc - do you really think either is above this crap? The approval ratings of officials are well below what any party gets in elections, should give you a clue.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
The FCC's rollback of Net Neutrality rules was ostensibly predicated on the premise that the FCC "doesn't have the authority" to enforce Net Neutrality. If that's the stance the FCC wants to take that's fine, but they then can't turn around and say they do have the authority to preempt states from adopting their own Net Neutrality measures. You can't have it both ways. Things would be different if Congress had passed a preemption, but as it stands I think the FCC would have a very hard time winning this fight in court given their contradictory statements on their ability to adjudicate how ISP's handle delivery of data.
Well there is that... and states and municipalities should have every right to dictate terms of use for the telecoms that are using the public rights of ways to hang or lay their cables. I know the interstate commerce clause is usually interpreted to give federal law the benefit of the doubt... but at some point if the Federal Government is saying they are stepping back from regulations then the states have every right to step in at least for activities inside their respective states.
Texas... The home of the 5 billion rainy day fund (well, before last summer's hurricane we had one). We are obviously managing our state's resources rather well, even though we don't have a state income tax and only an 8.25% sales tax.
It may be a hole to you, but we are solvent and able to pay our bills....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Look, we get that you're horrified that anyone in the Trump administration has made a total ass of himself, but denying facts and crying about it won't help.
Back when Reefer Madness was put together, common metronomes were mechanical.
So it was difficult to provide a reasonable jazz time signature. Consequently, they had to jail all the non-white people.
Otherwise your daughters might not have marched up to the altar in 4/4 time, y'see?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"The wealthy are fleeing California in record numbers"
OMG. You're right. At this rate, no one will be left in a few years.
https://www.google.com/search?...
Now, I know you said the "weathy". So from 1990-2016 this ( https://www.statista.com/stati... ) shows the per capita income went from 21k to 56k.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
That's good. Leased wars are always returned in such bad shape; the next user in line always ends up with the short end of the stick. We really should buy all our wars cash on the barrelhead.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Isn't the purpose of belonging to a political party to let someone else do the thinking for you?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
It's almost as if people support over-reaching regulation when it benefits them, and not when it doesn't. Weird huh?
Well, you wouldn't want your armature wound improperly, would you?
I suppose armatures are regulated by FCC field offices.
I'll just motor off, now...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
If a federal administrative rule is appropriately implemented (i.e. the agency has the authority to issue the rule and jumps through all of the necessary steps required for implementation, such as those required by the APA), the answer is yes.
Here's a brief overview: https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
You had a rainy day fund. You had a whole year's worth of rain in that day...
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
That's the shit we tell rust-belt people so they don't come here.
The beach I'm going to today, I think maybe in Cayucos (there are ten beaches within ten miles of me) is perfectly clean. I mean, I've lived in California since September, and I still haven't seen litter anywhere.
Also, California now has a $6.1 billion SURPLUS. If you believe that's because of bad calculations, you might want to tell the Wall Street Journal how to use a "calculator's basic functions", because clearly you're the only one who knows how they work.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/j...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Here ya go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I need to correct one fact and add one.. the 5 billion fund is actually 10 billion and it wasn't used last year for the hurricane.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That clause in the FCC order is nothing more than an affirmation of the interstate commerce clause. The individuals states have no power to regulate interstate commercial activities.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
LOL.. I just checked, we still have one and it's 10 Billion. We apparently didn't use it last year for the hurricane, though I'm at a loss to understand why.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The so-called 1% are the only thing keeping California's head above water. It's not people making $56K who carry the majority of that tax burden. As more millionaires flee for low-tax states like Florida, Nevada, Texas, Wyoming and Washington, California's financial position will become more dire.
Granted, the U.S. government's financial position is vastly worse, but that still doesn't exactly bode well for the Golden State.
Yes, but only the federal gov't can literally print it's way out of debt.
For example, isn't it interesting how many movie productions find it cheaper to move production 1-2 thousand miles away from Hollywood, transporting, housing, and feeding a cast and crew that largely came from Hollywood to make their movie? But no worries, once Gov. Moonbeam delivers the SF-LA bullet train project in on-time and under-budget, things will get better.
Ken
Got an authorative source for this?
You mean aside from the summary of the article this discussion is about? How about the actual regulation changed by the FCC? You read it, right - the regulation, not the linked-to article, right? Or did you just decide you knew better and puked out a rebuttal without doing any research at all?
Ken
I question how much money Montana actually spends on ISP services?
For example, many/most public schools pay for internet services with federal eRate money.
Many/most municipalities negotiate monopoly service agreements with carriers in exchange for free internet service connections for libraries, gov't offices, etc.
It's fine for the state to take a principled stand on the issue, but this will have ZERO effect on the average citizen of the state, except maybe causing their gov't to spend more money for internet service, yay.
Ken
Only problem is the FCC can't preempt state laws without a title II classification.
They've already lost on this several times in court but every successive republican admin tries the same bloody thing to eliminate all regulations by unclassifying internet service but also preempt state rules and every time the court strikes down the attempt to regulate it (preempting state laws is a regulation) when it's unclassified.
Either it's regulated under Title II and the FCC can set whatever rules they want, or it's not and they can't set ANY rules. The court told the FCC this directly when they lost the initial unregulated NN regulations suit during the Obama years (it was before they reclassified as type II to give them the authority to do so just like the court verdict said). They've only got two choices, they don't get to claim it's an unregulated service and then bar state level action.
Ajit is just doing his duty as a good Telecom lawyer by trying to have his cake and eat it too by doing what the law doesn't allow him to do. He can't block state regulations on unclassified services. There's at least 3 court rulings on various attempts to get around this Title II problem and the last case was explicit, you can't regulate it unless it's a Title II service, you declare it's an unregulated data service and you can't then place restrictions on either the providers or the states. The FCC's only authority to regulate telecom is under Title II.
If that were true then people wouldn't be screaming about how the Republicans are evil for repealing Net Neutrality
I think people are smart enough to draw their own conclusions.
The proposal put forth by the Obama FCC was atrocious.
First time I've heard that. Out here in the real world you have to qualify your comments. Disregarded.
It's clear most people advocating for the FCC Net Neutrality rules have no idea what they say or what they will mean.
I'm just glad we have smart people like you to lead us dumb people and tell us what to do.
Of course the FCC can preempt the states. This is an issue of interstate commerce, not intrastate.
The FCC's only authority to regulate wire-line services is via a Title II designation, the Wheeler NN regulations prior to the ones that were just repealed were tossed by the federal courts for this very reason. If you classify it an unregulated data service the FCC is waiving all authority to regulate it. It's either Title II and subject to regulation or it's not Title II and the FCC has no authority to regulate. This is exactly what the verdict in the last case says and it's the reason Wheeler reclassified internet as Title II, so they had authority to regulate but then tried to do so with the lightest hand possible.
Ajit is going to lose this one in court the first case that comes up because he tossed the Title II designation. The court record is explicit, the FCC's only authority to regulate wire-line services is via a Title II designation, if it's not Title II they don't have the authority to do anything at all.
Heh. Not only is there no deficit, California has a $6,100,000,000 surplus for this year and projected $19,300,000,000 saved surplus. (source)
California also has the wealthiest people in the USA by far, which I'll grant you technically means more of them "flee" CA than anywhere else, because to leave you have to exist.
This space intentionally left blank
Really? A piece of paper is going to protect you from the largest empire in world history? Do you just wave it at them, or do you have to say a magical incantation first? How has the Constitution worked out in limiting the size and scope of government and protecting your rights in the old USSA?
It depends on whether or not you think there is any such thing as intrastate commerce.
If you think intrastate commerce is a real thing that exists, and therefore SCOTUS might be disobeyed (as is happening with marijuana legalization, for example), then they haven't done anything to prevent it, because we didn't yet enact an amendment to the US constitution to give FCC this new power that they're demanding.
But if you think SCOTUS will be obeyed (i.e. ALL activities that anyone can conceive of, are always interstate commerce, there are no limits to federal power except for things explicitly forbidden in the constitution, the framers had absolutely nothing in mind when they wrote the 10th amendment), then the thing that they did to take that power away from the states was to give the recent unpopular order.
Here is the FCC's order (PDF), and the relevant part is in section III(E)(7) (paragraph 194) on page 117 of that PDF. HTH.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Ah but you've proved his point -- since so many more Californians are wealthy than before, a record number of wealthy Californians are doing all sorts of things including breathing and leaving the state.
Mississipians, meanwhile, have one of the lowest migration rates of any state (source map). This is a resounding popular endorsement of Mississippi government, everyone loves the state so much they refuse to leave! I mean, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with Mississippians being too poor to move and Californians being rich enough to go wherever the heck they feel like and retire to a poor state with a consequentially lower cost of living.
This space intentionally left blank
You're acting like it's hard and expensive to set up an ISP. That's not true, it's just been uneconomic, because the big players have taken all the business. But it's actually rather cheap and easy...as long as you use the lines that someone else has installed. And even local installation isn't THAT hard as long as you can obtain right of way. (And if the Telco agencies get into a fight with the state, they may have a hard time obtaining right of way, and need to use the state's lines. So they won't.)
The interstate commerce clause, if it applies (see arguments about the FCCs authority above) wouldn't give them right of way. Or their wires could be excessively taxed. Or lots of other options. They don't want to get into this fight. What they want is consistent business rules across the entire country, and the FCC just shat on that. Whether they were being prodded by the telcos or not I wouldn't care to guess. Perhaps the were just being idiots and thought they were doing the telcos a favor.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Be quiet you, the less people know about how fantastic the weather and amenities are in California the better.
Say it with me, there are no beaches in California. Everyone is raped and murdered at least once, the state is hopelessly broke and taxes are at 400% and everyone is ugly plus it snows 24/7/365 often 10' at a time. California is HORRIBLE, don't move there, don't visit and definitely don't even talk about it because it's that horrible.
End of discussion.
You are looking at surface numbers for current expenditures only: a grievous accounting error. Look at debt (especially PERS and STRS) : assets and cash flows against projected rate of returns and spending increases, and you'll see California is approaching a $300 billion shortfall.
Those numbers will never be salvaged. Default is inevitable.
Last-mile coverage is inherently local, and NN is mostly about the last mile.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Last mile isn't interstate.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It sounds like you two guys have found some common ground. Can you agree that you're going to start voting against Democrats and Republicans (as well as doing anything else you can, to undermine this party), instead of continuing to vote for (ans otherwise support) them?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Also, California now has a $6.1 billion SURPLUS
http://reason.com/blog/2017/09...
https://californiapolicycenter...
http://www.sacbee.com/news/pol...
Tell us again about that $6.1 billion surplus.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
The purpose is to try to exert some minor political influence (all most of us can hope for). I have my own political views, and the Democrats are almost always closer to those than the Republicans, particularly in the last couple of decades. I don't know of a better way to spend a little work and a little money trying to change how the country is run.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The fact that NN was regulated for quite a few years (many of those years illegally), and then dumped by the Trump administration, suggests that political parties have different views on NN. On this issue, at least, the Obama administration did the right thing and the Trump administration didn't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
States purposely break the law all the time. It's going to the courts, where the states who are breaking the law will try to argue that the law they're breaking is an invalid law for whatever reasons. The courts will most likely uphold the FCC decision in this case and overturn the CA, NY and MT laws as I don't really see a good legal argument for them. The federal government surely has a right to prevent states from passing regulations that would complicate interstate commerce, I'd think, though I hope I'm wrong.
This space intentionally left blank
I wanted Obama to come out fully in support of breathing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Everyone is raped and murdered at least once
Yeah, I've been murdered four times already!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Be glad to. Here is a more recent article from the Sacramento Bee that tells us the state actually has a $19 billion surplus.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/pol...
Your other two citations are a right-wing "think tank" and a libertarian magazine. But you don't trust the Wall Street Journal, right? And really, jwhyche, why don't you get a life and stop stalking me? It's getting a little creepy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's not to mention the sharks all up and down the beaches.
I learned pretty quickly that the first rule of California is you don't talk about how nice it is in California.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not sure it matters. The States have the power to tax the snot out the lot by legislation. With that hammer on the table net neutrality prevails.
Well I was wrong.. The Rainy Day fund in Texas is currently just north of 10 Billion.. ;) I believe that California's is just about $8 Billion right now, assuming it's not been tapped for something in the last year.
Also, does it matter where it comes from, given California produced a lot of Oil in it's past too?
In the end, all that really matters is that California's AA- bond rating is lower than Texas' AAA, so should Texas need to borrow money, they can do it at better rates.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I don't know how you can depict this as "defying the US Senate", this is clearly a state matter, just like requiring clean air (as CA OR WA NY etc do), clean water (same), legal MJ (same), and other state matters.
It only becomes federal if it reaches outside the boundaries. You just can't operate an ISP in the state if you don't have Net Neutrality for all of your business. That's all.
Turnabout is fair play.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I can't speak towards this rule in particular (since I tend to think that it exceeds their authority, regardless of their protestations to the contrary), but when it comes to the FCC issuing rules in general, the law that gives them the authority to do so is the FCC's charter, which was enacted via a law passed by Congress. Most of these sorts of agencies, organizations, and commissions that live in the executive branch are created by acts of Congress that delegate a particular aspect of Congress' authority to those groups.
Only problem is the FCC can't preempt state laws without a title II classification.
I quite agree, despite their protestations to the contrary that they can enforce deregulation as a form of regulation.
The Constitution lists which things the federal government can do. It then says that all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. It actually says that last part THREE TIMES, just to be certain nobody can miss it.
It then says that on these listed subjects that the federal government is allowed to legislate, federal law is the supreme law of the land, anything in state law notwithstanding:
--
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
--
Either regulating nationwide ISPs regarding NN is NOT an enumerated power, in which case the FCC has no authority at all and can't do anything, or the feds have the power and the states do not. The Constitution does not allow for dueling laws, with some states having valid laws that contradict federal law.
It is claimed that the federal government has the power under the Interstate Commerce Clause:
--
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
--
The federal rules apply companies *selling interstate* ISP services, so it sounds a lot like "commerce ... among the several states". The wording of thay clause *is* broad, but obviously it's intended to cover a limited number of things, so perhaps whenever something is questionable it should be interpreted fairly strictly.
Moving along, the very first sentence of Article 1 says that all law-making authority is vested in Congress, who cannot delegate it to any other branch of government. Later it says the job of the Executive branch is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". So executive branch entities such as the FCC must enforce the laws that Congress passes.
The question therefore is if Congress did in fact pass such a law and direct the FCC to enforce it. It is claimed that Congress did so with the Communications Act of 1934. Just by the title of the act alone, we can see it's going to be questionable whether, in 1934, Congress could have made any kind of law about the internet. In fact Congress made a law about the phone company (the ONE interstate phone company).
It seems likely that the feds CAN regulate ISPs in this way, subject to first amendment and other rights, and then states could not trample on federal law. It also seems rather likely that Congress has not yet passed a bill requiring ISPs to implement Network Neutrality ideas, and without such a law the FCC has nothing to enforce.
So, what you're saying is that California has a debt-to-GDP ratio that's better than Texas, Kentucky, Alaska, Louisiana, South Carolina , Indiana and all states combined.
If the state of California is going to go belly up, there will be a host of red states that go belly up first, which is some comfort.
Meanwhile, the quality of life is a whole lot better in California than it is in Texas, Kentucky, Alaska, Louisiana, South Carolina or Indiana.
You are welcome on my lawn.
that was the ideal size for government. To me that always sounded like "Small enough that our mega corps can bully it into submission".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
that ignored millions of pro NN comments while promoting millions of obviously fake anti-NN comments. They can absolutely have it both ways. It's one of the advantages of being utterly, totally without principle. Question is, what are you gonna do about it?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The interstate commerce clause authorizes CONGRESS to regulate interstate commerce. It does NOT give the Executive branch that power, other than in accordance with laws passed by congress. What law has congress passed allowing the FCC to do this?
This is my take. FCC can't supercede states doing inherently local activities.
That portion of the order is likely unconstitutional, but it's possible that the GOP controlled courts (including the supreme court) could block this or delay the decision long enough to provide cover for the telecoms to win by default.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
If Ajit had been smart at all he would have kept the Title II classification and dropped all the regulations except state level restrictions. But he was a good doggy and did what his masters wanted (to make it harder for a future Dem admin to reclassify again) and shot them all in the foot by reclassifying as unregulated and taking away their only ability to stop state level action.
He'll undoubtedly try to stop the states using his claimed regulation and the courts will shoot him down just like they did Wheeler, if it's not Title II the FCC can't regulate wire-line at all.
I think you have it completely wrong. As the Register said, the talking points game from the green party - eg the party of money. Wheeler got the same ones. He turned on his masters. If you're going to be partisan at least understand that the R's and D's are both the big money party. And the states are fighting back, and hopefully they win. This is really the citizens against the parasites, and making it R vs D makes it easier for the parasites to win. Please understand that even if you sum the R's half truths and the D's - you're still way short of the truth - light years short.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
When we did that in 2016 you all threw a giant shitfit about it. You don't really think that people voted for Trump just because there was an R next to his name... do you?
Thanks for making my point. You can't even imagine a world where a pro-NN person would not be a bleeding heart liberal ("you all", lol).
Either that or your just a troll. Anyway, you're irrelevant to us normal folk either way.
I read that as "defiles."
Wishful/hopeful thinking.
But can you even defile a shitstain like Ajit Pai?
--
BMO
What I'm saying is you don't know what you are a talking about. You and so many short sited people look at what is right in front of you but don't both to conciser the big picture. The short term is California may have a budget surplus this year, but that doesn't erase the billions of dollars that California owes. I had a budget surplus this month but I still owe on my car. Just because you have spare cash doesn't eliminate what you owe.
You seem to think that California exists in a bubble. It doesn't. If all the states you listed go belly up first shouldn't being you any comfort. If all the states you listed go down, even if before California, then we all go down.
I've applied the correct freak bonus to you. I will not have to suffer from you again unless I get modded down to your level or you get modded up to mine. But I got to say this. Sometimes your posts seem sane, even insightful. But other time you seem like a raving, homophobic, racist loon. You really are a confused odd duck
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Cheers to Texas for showing the fiscal responsibility to create a rainy day fund but the state's relative wealth rests on oil wealth. If Texas didn't sit on a bunch of oil it would be just be another poor Red state paying in less to the Fed than it got out.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
An AC "scientist". I do IT for a small chain of grocery stores and I'm willing to put my name on that. You, however, are nothing to me.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
There are 31 states with budget deficits. Most of them are Republican states with Republican legislatures and Republican governors. California is not one of them. As a famous economist once said,
So don't worry about us. When the time comes for us to bail you out, we'll do our part. We always have.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I love having karma to burn, almost as much as I love shining the cold hard light of truth snowflakes.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
The Interstate Commerce Clause grants Congress, and by extension the United States, the power to regulate interstate commerce. That has, thanks to Wickard v. Filburn been construed as all economic activity being inherently interstate. Due to the 10th Amendment, California is prohibited any power to regulate Interstate Commerce because the power has been delegated to the United States.
California's method fucked up and they should have done it in the same manner that Montana did. ISPs will throw a lawsuit, an injunction will be put in place so that ISPs don't have to comply until the case is resolved. The case will be found in the ISPs favor because to do otherwise would be potentially trashing more than 75 years of case law based on Wickard v. Filburn.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I think you have it wrong. There are differences between the Ds and the Rs. Both listen better to the big donors than to constituents, in general, but they are different in many ways. Under Bush and Obama, the FCC required NN. That was an awful long time for a rogue committee to operate. Trump shows up and the FCC goes full hostile. The Democrats are identifying themselves with NN, and will stick with it for some time to come.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Which clause authorizes it? What is the actual language?
The case will be found in the ISPs favor because to do otherwise would be potentially trashing more than 75 years of case law based on Wickard v. Filburn.
Or, you know, they could do the right and sensible thing and trash Wickard v. Filburn instead. It was a horrible decision at the time, and it hasn't gotten any better since. They shouldn't let mere inertia stand in the way of correcting their predecessor's mistake.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
The Interstate Commerce Clause grants Congress, and by extension the United States, the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The powers granted to Congress does not inherit to the Executive (FCC). Please explain your reasoning.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
That's just not true. California bails out all but 13 other states, every year. It's what's known as a "donor" state because we pay more in taxes to the federal government than we receive in federal spending. By contrast, South Carolina receives almost $8 from the federal government for every $1 it sends to them in taxes. California receives less than $1.
https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...
You are welcome on my lawn.