Internet Provider Groups Sue Vermont Over Net Neutrality Law (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Five industry groups representing major internet providers and cable companies filed suit on Thursday seeking to block a Vermont law barring companies that do not abide by net neutrality rules from receiving state contracts. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Vermont by groups representing major providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. It followed a lawsuit by four of the groups earlier this month challenging a much broader California law mandating providers abide by net neutrality rules.

The trade associations are also challenging an executive order on the issue signed by Vermont Governor Phil Scott. The Vermont lawsuit was filed by the American Cable Association; CTIA -- The Wireless Association; NCTA -- The Internet & Television Association; USTelecom -- The Broadband Association and the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association. The lawsuit argues that states cannot regulate "indirectly through their spending, procurement, or other commercial powers what they are forbidden from regulating directly."

Comments

Re: STATES' RIGHTS

[Mal-2]

We don't actually know what a Democratic administration would do about state attempts at Net Neutrality, because the two have never overlapped. This is likely because a Democrat-appointed FCC chair never would have rammed the reversal through in the first place.

Medical cannabis, yes, a Democratic administration declined to crack down on it, and there is little doubt this is because the move would have been wildly unpopular. So far, no Republican administration has wanted to attack this one either, presumably for the same reason.

Immigration is a Federal issue, hands down. States don't hand out citizenship. However since the states are going BOTH directions relative to Federal policy (some are racial profiling, others are setting up sanctuaries), cracking down on this would either have to take on both sides (and piss off some allies no matter what side is doing it), or attack only one side which would open the issue to clear partisanship.

Second amendment rights: no, this isn't a states' rights thing. The two sides have vastly different interpretations of what the 2A means, and both are relatively consistent with their stated positions. Even Republicans don't think the 2A is absolute. You can't own a tank with a working cannon on it, although you can own a tank. You aren't allowed to make explosives without a license. You can't transfer a fully automatic weapon without going through a lot of paperwork and clearances -- which is a policy initiated by Reagan.

Calexit isn't any more than a bunch of talk, and last I checked, we were still allowed to talk.

You're one for five there.

Citation needed

[rsilvergun]

both sides seem to favor the Federal government. The difference to me seems that the Dems favor consumers and workers while the Republicans favor businesses and CEOs. Did I say "seems"? Seriously, they GOP isn't even trying anymore. They're actively attacking Medicare and Social Security in an effort to pay for their last round of tax cuts for the rich. And you know what, their poll numbers aren't going down. They're winning.