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.
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.
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.
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.
No, the myth is that uttering the phrase "state's rights" make you racist. it doesn't.
It doesn't, but you do have to be aware of the context in which it was originally uttered loudly. And that context was not just preserving slavery, but also asking other states to respect it and send runaways back home. If you don't take that into account when you post about states' rights, you're going to be taken for a racist. I haven't checked up on your posting history, so I don't know that's what's happened, but it's not unlikely.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.