71–80 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Republicans dominated California in federal elections for most of its history until 1992; it was one of the most solid of Republican strongholds. Republicans have been trashing Hollywood and San Francisco/Berkeley for a long time, though.
It's amazing how many "conservatives" I've run into who've never been to San Francisco, but somehow "know" that it's a liberal hellhole that everyone hates.
Not surprised. Republicans advocate for judicial restraint only as long as it suits them.
Intention wise, I am with CA, but we cannot have each state have their own laws when it comes to the internet. We'd have the nightmare of dealing with gazillions of jurisdictions.
We can certainly have each state have their own laws as to the terms on which internet service can be sold to consumers.
> We'd have the nightmare of dealing with gazillions of jurisdictions.
Which is true of consumer sales of many goods and services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if Brown vetoed it?
His veto rate is around 12% (88% signed). It's relatively unlikely. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...
The interesting part of this to me is that if you read the details the FCC published about the order that was signed, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf it goes into great detail about the court cases about why the FCC has no authority to effectively regulate net neutrality unless the ISP's are classified under Title 2. (This is true, in fact, and the court cases it cites and the DC circuit have…
> Given that the courts have already decided the FCC has no authority to regulate in this space (outside of Title II), and Ajit himself has said it numerous times, arguing pre-emption seems like a loser. I think Fed gov, is arguing that California cannot regulate interstate commerce. So they cannot, for example create an 'import tax'. I suspect, that eventually the argument will be around Originating and Terminating…
This isn't about traffic, it's about the terms of sale of access service to consumers in the state.
I wonder how the business that I conduct with my ISP is "interstate commerce." The wire connecting my house to my ISP begins and ends in my state. As I understand things, it's the speed of data running up and down that wire that net neutrality seeks to protect.
Silicon valley is a unique and quite humorous example of your point, but to play devil's advocate, the internet definitely extends beyond California
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Republicans dominated California in federal elections for most of its history until 1992; it was one of the most solid of Republican strongholds. Republicans have been trashing Hollywood and San Francisco/Berkeley for a long time, though.
That branch of the Republican party is extinct though.
The interesting part of this to me is that if you read the details the FCC published about the order that was signed, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf it goes into great detail about the court cases about why the FCC has no authority to effectively regulate net neutrality unless the ISP's are classified under Title 2. (This is true, in fact, and the court cases it cites and the DC circuit have…
Did the order that killed net neutrality move them back to being Title I "information services"? There have already been court rulings that states cannot regulate Title I information services. There was one just decided a few weeks ago in the 8th Circuit, Charter Advanced Services (MN), LLC v. Lange [1]. Pai immediately praised that decision [2]. That, in this suit coming so soon after that, suggests that is going to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> all political parties cater to special interests but otherwise accurate Your statement is so broad as to be effectively meaningless. Sun rises in the east. So what? The difference is that the GP is beholden completely to its corporate masters and does not hesitate in engaging in lies, false propaganda and bad faith politics to achieve its goals. All of which are corrupt and very anti-democratic.
Democrats now get as much money from corporations as Republicans, but no strings attached, eh? https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/sectors.php?cycle=2018
There are plenty of other contributors, both direct and indirect. PACs, billionaires, unions, earned media, Russians, grandmas, etc.