41–50 of 134 posts
Net "neutrality" protects competitors from competition. Good on Jeff Sessions.
I've never understood this style of comment. You say you agree and make a claim, but might you care to substantiate it or otherwise elaborate on your point of view? I am not saying you are wrong, just, I can't actually engage with the comment here because it doesn't provide anything to engage with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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 money/resources than them. Including the police. The GOP/WH has demonstrated that human rights are low priority compared to most other things (especially those that can pay them).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Republicans have been trashing Hollywood and San Francisco/Berkeley for a long time, 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…
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 be the approach.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=162444264794194...
[2] https://www.fcc.gov/document/court-preempts-state-regulation...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Republicans have been trashing California since the Vietnam war.
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.
Not surprised. Republicans advocate for judicial restraint only as long as it suits them.
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…
Yeah, it did.
"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]."
Interesting. This is not my area of legal expertise (i'm also way too lazy to read the 1996 act), but that looks like it would be a possibly winning approach if a bunch of courts have already accepted the pre-emption argument for Title I.
However, one important difference between this suit and those is that in those, the court agreed the FCC had the authority to regulate under Title I, and was choosing not to, explicitly pre-empting that set of state regulations.
See https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=745168854586066...
Here, the DC circuit has decided in the past that the FCC has no authority to regulate net neutrality under Title I.
They could not actually regulate Net Neutrality under Title I if they wanted to.
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.…
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.…
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.
With that line of argument I could also argue anything you do or say within the confines of your house is also public's business because it affects the public ultimately one way or another.
Not surprised. Republicans advocate for judicial restraint only as long as it suits them.
And Democrats argue states’ rights when it suits them.
I think this should be the key takeaway: it shouldn't be us vs them. Decent people exist on both sides, but they don't seem to run the show on either side :-/