Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
They should sue their lap dog Ajit, or never pay him again. He obviously failed to deliver *every* state, the lying bastard.
They want us to physically attack their buildings and go to war with the people.
I understand now, and if anyone wants to start a violent rally to blow up/burn down their precious little towers and ventilate the employees of said companies, I'm in.
Sick of it, no justice, ready to make my own no holds barred since no one seems to give a good goddamn about we the people anymore.
I mean, why the hell not at this point? Burn 'em all, fuck it.
For prostitution under color of duty.
The big corps want to be able to prioritize traffic arbitrarily. They want this as badly as Sauron wants that ring of power. They will expend every ounce of power they have to get it.
And the reason is obvious. They have every intention of abusing this power for their profit, to our detriment. We will have to pay more for what we used to get for a flat rate, and they will burn that candle at both ends. They will also use it to suppress political messages that they don't like, and push their own agendas into our faces.
Every evil thing that one might do with this power, they intend to do.
If we want net neutrality, we are really, seriously going to have to fight for it. This will not happen by itself.
Isn't it funny how important States' Rights are to Republicans when they agree with the result, but they invoke the Commerce Clause whenever they don't like it?
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Pretty sure states can set whatever terms they want for the contract. And "Not respecting the privacy of citizens" isn't a protected class yet.
Kinda sucks when you get a contract you don't like and can't do anything about doesn't it?
Why wont liberal left elite wealthy people accept that the real americans of this coubtry spoke loudly the last election and came out strongly against their bullshit so called "net nutrality"?
If instead of suing every states that implement rules to stop them from acting like utter dicks, maybe they'd have the money to upgrade their infrastructure and reduce the customer's bill.
The lawsuit argues that states cannot regulate "indirectly through their spending, procurement, or other commercial powers what they are forbidden from regulating directly.
Nor do you want them to. This is constructing new powers not given them from other powers.
Imagine a government restricting contracts from a company whose CEO said he liked Hillary for President.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
... doesn't have the authority to set rules for how its own taxpayers' money should be spent?
How is that even an argument?
For comparison, South Carolina has a law that 'prevents public entities from contracting with businesses engaging in the “boycott of a person or an entity based in or doing business with a jurisdiction with whom South Carolina can enjoy open trade.”' (Source.) The purpose is to avoid companies who support measures aimed at Israel, but if extra-judicial sanctions are the issue, then how is it not the same principle?
I'm talking about the companies that paid so much money to buy Ajir Pai's corrupt arse. The same ones that are trying to overthrow Russia's control of Trump through electrical implants that were put in place during his cosmetic surgery to try and hide the bald spot.
states to reconsider what ISP/telecom providers they allow exclusive rights to.
No law, no regulation, just toss them ot of the state.
I'm sure someone else would love to have exclusive rights.
No, idiot, the republicans read the constitution. the internet is inherently an interstate thing, gun control is clearly discussed in the constitution, and so, are clearly not in the 10th amendment "all other powers" that are states rights.
Of course, that's not what your minders told you to repeat, troll.
it's just not funny anymore. The Republicans have long since made it very, very clear that the end justifies the means. That's not a question anymore. The question is, is anyone going to do anything about it? So far the answer has been a resounding, "meh, probably not. I mean, both sides are bad amiright?"...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the ruling class has for centuries tried to goad the working class into violence so they can use it as an excuse to crack down and get "tough on crime". So go ahead. Go nuts. They'll send the National Guard in (or maybe just a militarized police), put you down and then run a bunch more of those tough on crime candidates who incidentally favor everything the aristocracy does.
Seriously though, don't use violence. It doesn't work. The right wing are better at it. Best case scenario you get your teeth kicked in. Worst case you go full circle and become the right wing. How do you think so many "communist" countries turned into fascist dictatorships?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The funny thing about this is that even if they managed to win on this, couldn't Vermont just turn around and pass legislation mandating that no ISP may also own a media outlet within their borders and effectively shut them all out at that point opening up for new ISPs to take over or even potentially giving a huge area with grants and all for Google to open shop within their borders?
States rights were used to challenge Obamacare too, Commerce Clause was used to justify it. Judicial branch control is key.
It depends on who controls the Judicial branch as to whether they can do anything from block recounts, block voters, kill healthcare for old people/cancer patients,, and here, make customers into Verizon's bitches.
Sure they might get kicked out at the next election, but sooner or later they'll be back. Kavanaugh gives them the majority so its all possible now.
You couldn't do it based on political affiliation by any stretch, this is based on upholding rules and regulations on how they conduct business and adhearing to regulations they were already previously forced to uphold before Pai decided to abdicate the FCC's responsibility which then opened it up for the states to take over it.
Any power not granted to the federal government is delegated to the state.
That ship sailed decades ago at the federal level.
all they got out of it was a few decades of violence and change of masters. Things didn't get better until post WWII and that was mostly because of advances in science that made our food supply a lot more reliable.
Yeah, the ruling class sometimes lets things get out of hand and it bites them, but it bites _everyone_. It's the whole "too big to fail" effect. They've set themselves up as a linchpin in the economy. You can't just whack them out willy-nilly. It's got to be done with care, precision and above all without violence.
If things get crazy enough that the aristocracy loses control you'll lose out in the resulting chaos unless your both lucky and fantastically brutal. Mao and Stalin didn't win because they were the best. They won because they were the most violent and sadistic at a time when those traits were the path to victory. Personally I don't want to see those kind of "interesting times".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The lawsuit argues that states cannot regulate "indirectly through their spending, procurement, or other commercial powers what they are forbidden from regulating directly."
But the federal government can do that through the interstate commerce clause and taxes? Seems only fair that the states should be allowed to do it too.
You are very confused. (you deliberately believed a lie). Pai's authority stems from federal law. Federal law gives the FCC authority to regulate data providers (47 CFR Title I) and telephony providers (47 CFR Title II) . Pai and the FCC had no authority under 47 CFR to declare that data is voice. His position isn't inconsistent at all.
You, having never read the constitution (and just astroturfing with your canned talking points), miss that the 10th amendment delegates constitutional authorities, not regulatory authorities to the states. In short, you're an ignorant, lying shill.
it's just a bar for entry to state contract qualification. they aren't discriminating against a protected class (at least this joke of an administration hasn't classified telcoms as one.... yet), they aren't inking deals with terrorists or embargoed countries.. those are about the only things the feds have a say in..
they aren't prohibiting the greedy companies from gouging customers and throttling their customers if they want to.. they're just saying.. if you do that in vermont, we (the state) will look elsewhere for *our own* services.
so tough shit, at&t.. fuck off, verizon. get lost, comcast,
Didn't the FCC state they couldn't enforce net neutrality.
So states have the right since the federal government says they don't.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The only legal restrictions the states have are not to violate the bill of rights or try to overrule federal law (as opposed to act in the absence of it).
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Problem with that is it is a big poke in the eye to everyone who's ever used the "internet is a utility", "a right", or "a necessity" as an argument because then everyone in that state will be cut off from their "right/utility/necessity" and therefore unable to live in this great country of ours.
"States rights" Republicans claim states have no right to write net neutrality rules? (Not that the Democrats are any more consistent...)
Which federal law forbids that?
Regulatory authorities should have no power over the states, and that goes double for an authority that admits it doesn't have the power over anything else.
Strange, how it's a free market only when the law is for the corporations.
So the ISPs are choosing to accept the rules by playing there. This is, after all, their entire thesis supporting their ToS, no matter what they put in it: you agreed by participating, therefore it "IS" a contract.
They are free to leave Vermont and find another state. It's a free market.
The laws were 100% legal. The ISPs were moved to a different class because it was claimed the ISPs were data services, not media companies. However almost every ISP is a media company now, so they should be run back into the same classification.
If you had valid claim against his argument you would have done so, but you instead demanded that your feels should be primary importance. Carebear.
"IMHO" is meaningless when your opinion is based solely on what you WANT to be true, not what is. The GP was correct and cited law. YOU are wrong and cited your opinion only.
Since the claim is fairly easy to parse and you just deliberately refused to get it, your posts have just shown you are NOT an honest actor and that you KNOW that you're talking bullshit rightwingnutjob talking points.
Since you are not willing to actually engage in conversation, only in echoing your mantras, fuck off.
However you are making another fallacy and it is a doubling don of the one you made there: you assert that any one in a group is a representative of the entire group. You are not. You are no more identical to every single other republican for voting your party line than a protestant is identical to catholic, despite both being christian.
YOU just wanted to get butthurt. Feels beat reals for the rightwingers, but ONLY *their* feels. When it comes to upsetting others, then they don't give a shit for feels. Or reals, either.
And without those revolutions they got nothing but the same masters and same shit. So even under your misanthropic view it is a net benefit.
Maybe the problem is that if you don't turn the sods over at least every generation, they don't see any need to change, since they can just hope that it is their grandkids who get the pitchforks.
Feds opened this door when they claimed they (via the FCC) didn't have the right to regulate the internet.
...overspend and watch it all go to shit when the value drops???
Powers explicitly not given to the Fed are given to State/Citizens...
So, the power to not give a vendor a contract if they don't follow your publically stated rules belongs to either the state or private citizens 'cuz I don't see an elaborated power in the constitution that gives it to the Fed...
they do it all the time... regulate pricing policy by accepting low bids, for instance. it all depends on what is, is. and they certainly can pass new regulations whenever they want. ask any contractor who didn't keep up with the state or local codes.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
A company that's been fucking the people for decades, and whose business is 100% dependent upon eminent domain doesn't get to bitch about not getting contracts.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.