Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 134 posts

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#31

Post by jorblumesea »

everdev wrote: post #15
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?

> 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…

Both sides are only "states rights" if it benefits them on any given issue. Dems are against states rights until they get to pass legislation legalizing pot or net neutrality, then suddenly it's not so bad. Similarly, Republicans are all for states rights until some blue state starts passing legislation they disagree with.

Both sides twist the issue to their advantage. Rights for me, not for thee.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#32

Post by westurner »

everdev wrote: post #15
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?

> 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 Alcohol and the unequal necessary State Alcohol prohibitions miserably failed to achieve the intended outcomes.

Where is the limit? How can they claim to support a states' rights, limited government position while expanding jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause? "Substantially affecting" interstate commerce is a very slippery slope.

Furthermore, de-classification from Title II did effectively - as the current administration's FCC very clearly argued (in favor of special interests over those of the majority) - relieve the FCC of authority to regulate ISPs: they claimed that it's FTC's job and now they're claiming it's their job.

Without Title II classification, FCC has no authority to preempt state net neutrality regulation. California and Washington have the right to regulate ISPs within their respective states.

Outrageous!

Limited government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government

States' rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights

[Interstate] Commerce Clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Net neutrality in the United States > Repeal of net neutrality policy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United...

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#33

Post by AnthonyMouse »

gizmo686 wrote: post #30
analog31 wrote: post #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.

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.…

Is there a case that considers how this applies to preemption?

For example, could the federal government preempt the states from having public schools, public roads or a police force under the commerce clause because they impact the interstate market for private schools, private roads and private security? It seems like maybe they should only be able to preempt when the thing is actually interstate commerce and not just affecting it. But is there any case deciding that issue one way or the other?

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#34

Post by loeg »

dd36 wrote: post #27
aw1621107 wrote: post #3

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.

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...

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#35

Post by jackpirate »

gizmo686 wrote: post #30
analog31 wrote: post #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.

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.…

Wow. Learning about cases like this makes me wish I trained to be a lawyer just so I understood exactly how weird law really is.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#36

Post by olliej »

I feel like it would be a perfectly American solution to say that utilities only get free access to people's property and city's resources if they are neutral utilities.

And for anything else require they pay the property owner or city/county (as appropriate) at market rates per square foot of usage. Basically if you have a "utility" line on my property I can't use that space, so you better actually bye a utility.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#38

Post by imbur »

analog31 wrote: post #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.

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.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#39

Post by Gibbon1 »

ForrestN wrote: post #14
org3432 wrote: 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...

Republicans have been trashing California since the Vietnam war.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#40

Post by [deleted] »

gizmo686 wrote: post #30
analog31 wrote: post #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.

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.…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN