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

STATES' RIGHTS

[Mal-2]

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?

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.

Probably a good time for

[bobstreo]

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.

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.

Re:Sue who?

[Jane Q. Public]

The other day Ajit Pai totally screwed the pooch, by saying FCC "does not have authority" to regulate net neutrality.

Why is that "screwing the pooch"? Because if the Federal government can't, then the states can.

He's trying to have it both ways, but he's not going to get it both ways.

Game over.

Actually they do

[rsilvergun]

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?

Re:Actually they do

[king neckbeard]

Ideally, violence shouldn't be used, but keeping it on the table is an important way to balance power.

They didn't go well for the working class either

[rsilvergun]

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".

Re:Punish enemies and reward friends is what powah

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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).

Re: Sue who?

[Zero__Kelvin]

That's hilarious. The Constitution limits federal powers. One thing I can guarantee you is that it does not grant the power of the federal government to mandate with whom state governments will and will not do business.