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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
"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
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.
I do indeed. And I disapprove of it as a government overreach.
But most /.-ers celebrate that, while denouncing the same Comission's other, most recent, overreach — the pre-emption of the State's attempts to impose their own "net neutrality".
You can approve of both, or reject both. But you can not pick only one of these — and remain self-consistent. That was my point.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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.
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
Here's a simple answer for you. Congress delegated regulatory authority for a few things to the FCC.
The first and most important delegation is the wireless spectrum, they gave the authority to the FCC to regulate the use of the radio spectrum to prevent interference and maximize the value. This power is essentially unrestricted with regard to wireless transmissions under the conditions Congress placed on the regulation (the FCC can't regulate military communications for example).
The Second is congress delegated to the FCC the ability to regulate wire-line services declared to be "Title II", basically services deemed to be essential. This power also allows the FCC to decide if something is Title II or not. In the early days of telephone this was to allow the FCC to regulate interstate communication and was later expanded to allow them to regulate the POTS system for things like 911 etc, it later was expanded to cover Cable TV (which was then removed in the 90's with the exception of explicit content) The Title II regulations are the only authority under which the FCC can regulate wire-line services at this time. The last court case the FCC lost explicitly noted this. If it's not Title II, the FCC doesn't have ANY authority to regulate and that includes blocking state level regulation. Without Title II they can't do anything and they've been stomped in courts at least 3 times for trying to do so without the Title II decleration.
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.
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.
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.
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.