Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

nytimes.com

21–30 of 134 posts

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#21
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 been clear on this point for years)

The order then reclassifies the ISP's outside of Title II.

Outside of the arguments around privacy jurisdiction (which were always dual jurisdiction with the FTC), i don't know what they are thinking.

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. If they don't have the authority to regulate around it, it's hard to see how they will argue they have the right to pre-empt others: all the court rulings involve determinations about the scope of the statutes involved, which in turn is a valuation of what congress intended to regulate/how far pre-emption goes.

It'll be interesting to read the complaint to see what leg they are trying to stand on.

Besides the existing court cases making super-clear the lack of authority, just the sheer the number of statements and orders from Ajit saying the FCC has no authority here seems like it will be hard for the FCC to overcome.

They would have been much better off saying "we have plenty of authority here and we explicitly choose not to exercise it"

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#22
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…

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.

You left out how both... all political parties cater to special interests but otherwise accurate

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#23
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.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#24

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

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#25
post #11

What's odd too is that Washington State passed a net neutrality law and I don't see any FCC response to block it. So why only California? https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzkx83/which-stat...

California has been especially committed to challenging some of the administration's various injustices. Trump has made California one of his symbolic, non-white boogeymen in order to manipulate his "base." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/us/politics/trump-califor...

Not unique to Trump. California has been the boogeyman of the right for quite a while now.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#26
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because the bill didn’t pop out of nowhere. There was debate over the bill in the legislature, news stories, etc.

Unfortunately this doesn’t exclude the premise above. I’m sure lobbyists are all over this.

Why would DoJ spend time drafting a lawsuit against a law that isn’t yet law? Just seems odd. Why is DoJ sending messages on behalf of telecoms? Doesn’t DoJ have enough on its plate?

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#27
post #2

So was this lawsuit prepared by a lobbyist’s law firm? How on earth would DoJ be ready this quickly?

Probably because the bill didn’t pop out of nowhere. There was debate over the bill in the legislature, news stories, etc.

What if Brown vetoed it?

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#28
post #2

So was this lawsuit prepared by a lobbyist’s law firm? How on earth would DoJ be ready this quickly?

Nope. US Attorneys but this was passed awhile ago so they had time to prepare a filing. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1097306/downl...

[deleted]

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#30

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.

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.

One could actually argue that most anything is interstate commerce. This is one of the main reasons we don't hear courts arguing that federal laws overstep the constitutional authority of the federal government: everything is interstate commerce.

Post reply on HN