Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law • Hacker News Board

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#111

Post by robdachshund » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 12:56 AM UTC

funkjunky wrote: post #94

wolf550e wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GOP does not have an ideology. Anything you could name as a position of their ideology they will (and did) betray for either "winning" or at the behest of their corporate masters.

They do have an ideology: fascism. And fascism can be (and has been) defined as a consolidation of power as a reaction to/against "the left" amidst popular enthusiasm and declining support for democratic institutions. By only focusing on the GOP "donor class", you're missing what really connected and drives them. If it was just about donors, then Google, et.al. could have bought out the GOP and swung them to a pro im…

I like how I'm shadowbanned for no apparent reason but you're free to call people fascist on a programming forum.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#112

Post by pas » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 4:28 AM UTC

tmaly wrote: post #92

gizmo686 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wickard v. Filburn It is considered interstate commerce to grow wheat on one's own farm to feed one's own animals under the theory that by doing so, he removed himself from the interstate wheat market (where he would otherwise have bought his wheat). Since the internet plays a major role in interstate markets, one could easily extend this arguement to say that even local internet connections are interstate commerce.…

I think this was a serious abuse of the commerce clause. It seems you could effectively argue that anything affects interstate commerce and extend this type of reasoning in a way that circumvents the idea of commerce within the confines of the state border. This type of abuse of the commerce clause should be rolled back to something more sane that reflects the original intent. The courts seem to bend the words of the…

You of course can argue that anything and everything affects interstate commerce, but ... in 1995 in Lopez the Court held that, no, there are truly local things, and laws not dealing with commerce (like the gun-free zone for schools act that was struck down at that time) lack authorization from the Constitution.

And this view was again reinforced in Morrision. Congress tried to use the Commerce clause to criminalize rape against women. The Court held that even though violence against women surely has some effect on the economy, that is very far from substantial. Even if viewed in the aggregate.

Our freedoms suffer some, sure, but the wheat (and other) market(s) got saner, which helped a lot of people, greatly expanding their freedoms. (On the other hand Wickard is used to regulate medical marijuana, which takes away some freedom.) But, but... it also allowed (and would allow) fixing healthcare, which was (would be) a big freedom improvent.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#113

Post by pas » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 4:33 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #84

imbur wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wickard v. Filburn is the landmark case here. A farmer growing wheat on his own land, to feed to animals on his own land, all in the same state, is considered interstate commerce. The supreme court decided that the test is not about whether it is really interstate commerce, but if the activity exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

You can’t see internet across state lines. You can sell wheat across state lines, which seems like a major difference. The heathcare system is another example of this. Emergency rooms in Texas are useless to people in Florida.

Yet the ACA (Obamacare) was held constitutional due to the Commerce Clause.

Sure, if the ACA would regulate non-economic aspects of ER visits, those parts would have been likely struck down. (Unless otherwise authorized by the Constitution.)

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#114

Post by pas » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

mcny wrote: post #77

exabrial wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silicon valley is a unique and quite humorous example of your point, but to play devil's advocate, the internet definitely extends beyond California

Is the last mile local or interstate? I know we used this for the healthcare law, affordable care act ACA which I never understood. Is it illegal to shut down a quick service restaurant location for health code violation? Food extends beyond California as well.

Is there a substantial economic effect of regulating the activity? Well, California might be its own enemy this time, but so is are the Federalist judges the GOP/Republicans prefer. As CA is too big to hide in the bushes, anything it does has likely substantial effect on the US - though it's easy to argue that ISPs are _very_ adept at adapting to local regulations, so they would simply configure their network devices this or that way depending where the subsribers are.

And of course Federalist judges are not exactly that consistent either.

So we shall see, but I sincerely don't see how this would affect interstate ISP markets substantially.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#115

Post by pas » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 4:49 AM UTC

stephengillie wrote: post #71

jliptzin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stories about NIMBYism on HN don't help.

Isn't NIMBYis a very conservative-ish thing? (Though I think this just shows the failure of this mindless political labeling.)

It places the individual's need, which are only incidental due to their current residence above the community's need. Whereas liberal-ish things tend to require something from every member of the community. (Less gun right, mandatory health insurance, more spending on refugees and unlucky folks, etc.)

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#116

Post by pas » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 5:04 AM UTC

westurner wrote: post #32

everdev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like California’s auto emissions laws that forced automakers to adopt the standards for all production, the state’s new net neutrality rules could push broadband providers to apply the same rules to other states. I think you're right, the motives are very similar. > Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that California’s net neutrality law was illegal because Congress granted the federal government, through the F.C.C…

Expansion of federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause is an egregious violation of Constitutional law. Does the federal government have the enumerated right under the Commerce Clause to, for example, ban football for anyone that doesn't have a disability? No! Was the Commerce Clause sufficient authorization for Federal prohibition of alcohol? No! An Amendment to the Constitution was necessary. And, Federal Alco…

The limit is established, and constantly reevaulated by the Supreme Court. For example it was held that gun control cannot be done through the Commerce Clause.

Car emissions and ISPs are different. As ISPs are very much perfect examples of truly local things (they need to reach your devices with EM signals either via cables or air radio), the Federal government might try to argue that the net neutrality regulation of California affects the whole economy substantially, because it allows too much interstate competition due to the lack of bundling/throttling by ISPs.

Similarly, the problem with car emissions might be that requiring thing at the time of sale affects what kind of cars are sold to CA.

Is the Commerce Clause too vague? Yes. Is there a quick and sane way to fix it? I see none. Is it at least applied consistently? Well, sort of. But we shall see.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#117

Post by pas » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 5:08 AM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

zwerdlds wrote: post #4

Sorry if I get some basic understanding of the law wrong but... Isn't this the same thing as regulating car emissions? Doesn't 822 only apply to providers in the state itself? Wouldn't it be that the telecoms are welcome to engage in another method of end-customer billing in other states? What am I missing?

If the commerce clause covers a farmer growing his own wheat that he doesn’t sell, it covers internet regulation. The question is if the FCC is authorized by Congress to set the regulations nationwide for internet companies.

Not so fast. The same clause also does not cover a lot of things. And ISPs are very much the perfect example of truly local things. And those are not covered.

But we shall see what the courts find.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#118

Post by pas » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 5:26 AM UTC

mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #90

olliej wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point, the DoJ isn't spending time, they're regurgitating material produced by lawyers working for the carriers. Why is DoJ sending messages on behalf of the carriers? Because the current administration has demonstrated it will do anything they're paid to do. Doesn't the DoJ have enough on its plate? Like what? The purpose of the DoJ is /ostensibly/ to protect people from abuses by people who have more mon…

Don’t forget when the too big to fail banks were given passes without so much a slap on the wrist under Holder’s oversight. The whole thing is a joke. Oh and he is now back serving the masters he protected. I can only imagine how much they are paying him for doing their bidding.

I agree with the need for more responsibility assignment, but claiming that banks were given a pass as a somehow atrocious thing is just shouting for mob justice.

The way would have been through Congress, SEC, FTC and the other relevant bodies.

The DoJ did pursue investigations against banks, but ... guess what, they were very likely compliant with criminal law, thus there was not much to stand on, and you are right, that it's a joke, because despite this, the DoJ managed to secure billions on Deferred Prosecution Agreements.

Do I weep for poor banks? Fuck no, but I hate the arbitrariness of this "justice".

No, this was no justice - as everyone rightly feels, but the DoJ was not in the position to make things right, Congress was. They could have mandated simpler, safer, cheaper banking for everyone, they could have taxed the irresponsible lenders and borrowers, they could have empowered the SEC to be able to proactively act, but no, they did only regulate a few investment banking things (and created a new consumer protection bureau, that is being gutted by the current administration).

Furthermore, the lack of criminal convictions is of course a problem, but just that would not be enough to disincentivize fraud and other criminal behavior, like money laundering. Both (as in personal responsibility for branch managers and hefty fines for the whole corporation) are needed to keep things in check. And the DoJ does not go after persons, most likely because the enormous interference from the whole war on x, from the ATF, DEA, DoD, etc. at the affected regions.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#119

Post by Vendan » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 6:14 AM UTC

pas wrote: post #116

westurner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expansion of federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause is an egregious violation of Constitutional law. Does the federal government have the enumerated right under the Commerce Clause to, for example, ban football for anyone that doesn't have a disability? No! Was the Commerce Clause sufficient authorization for Federal prohibition of alcohol? No! An Amendment to the Constitution was necessary. And, Federal Alco…

The limit is established, and constantly reevaulated by the Supreme Court. For example it was held that gun control cannot be done through the Commerce Clause. Car emissions and ISPs are different. As ISPs are very much perfect examples of truly local things (they need to reach your devices with EM signals either via cables or air radio), the Federal government might try to argue that the net neutrality regulation of…

ISPs are the very opposite of local, as the only reason I have an ISP is to deliver bits from the rest of the world. Of course, the FCC doesn't seem to understand that...

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#120

Post by Vendan » Tue, Oct 02, 2018, 6:16 AM UTC

pas wrote: post #117

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the commerce clause covers a farmer growing his own wheat that he doesn’t sell, it covers internet regulation. The question is if the FCC is authorized by Congress to set the regulations nationwide for internet companies.

Not so fast. The same clause also does not cover a lot of things. And ISPs are very much the perfect example of truly local things. And those are not covered. But we shall see what the courts find.

I don't have an ISP to talk to the ISP's server, I have an ISP to talk to the global internet, so it's very much not local...