https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-or... (tl;dr: fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ )
But can states impose massive taxes on the isps that don’t follow a set of regulations?
Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
51–60 of 200 posts
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#52https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-or... (tl;dr: fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ )
The FCC voted in 2015 to preempt state restrictions in Tennessee and North Carolina against municipal broadband [1][2], in response to a petition brought by the cities of Chattanooga, TN and Wilson, NC. This was struck down by the Sixth Circuit in 2016 [3].
It's going to be interesting to see this idea tested again.
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-order-preempting-t... [2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/fcc-o... [3] http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's either amusing or sad that the party that ran on "states rights" in 2000 is now exercising whatever power it can to limit states' authority. Where is libertarianism?
Oh it's a much older phenomenon than that. "States' rights" has always been a figleaf, going back to 1861.
Pretty sure that's more like 1789.
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#54The current NN repeal is working out exactly the way Pai said it would. As he cited, the problem is lack of competition. The solution is competition. All the discussion happening today is about how to start an ISP to prevent cable monopolies abusing their position. The repeal is working exactly the way Pai said it would. It is encouraging new ISP entrants. Startup ISPs are the answer. NN supporters still don't realiz…
Do you have any examples? Or any reason to believe that the startup ISPs will bother with anyone outside of a major metro area?
Pai focused primarily on those in his comments today. From Mr. Pai's comments:
https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-a...
"The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It’s that they don’t have access at all or enough competition. These regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under Title II, investment in high-speed networks has declined by billions of dollars. Notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era."
"The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money, or lawyers to navigate a thicket of complex rules."
"the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.” Other small companies, too, have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay, or curtail fiber network upgrades. And nearly two dozen small providers submitted a letter saying the FCC’s heavy-handed rules “affect our ability to find financing.”"
"a coalition of 19 municipal Internet service providers—that is, city-owned nonprofits—have told the FCC that they “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because [they] cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action.”"
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any examples? Or any reason to believe that the startup ISPs will bother with anyone outside of a major metro area?
Pai focused primarily on those in his comments today. From Mr. Pai's comments: https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-a... "The main complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their Internet service provider is blocking access to content. It’s that they don’t have access at all or enough competition. These regulations have taken us in the opposite direction from the…
Pai's comments are not "an example".
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#56https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-or... (tl;dr: fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ )
Given that the FCC only recently lost a court case about its authority to preempt state laws banning muni broadband, how would this situation be any different?
Not a lawyer but I believe a lot of the argument there hinged on municipalities legally being creations of the states, with only the powers the states choose to give them.
Courts are wary of letting the federal government regulate how states organize themselves.
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#57The real solution to the problem, as I see it, is not even Net Neutrality (though I strongly support Net Neutrality).
The solution is to break the monopolistic stranglehold on last-mile internet service.
If it were possible to have competition in the last-mile ISP space, then consumers could vote with their wallets and choose those ISPs who supported Net Neutrality.
An alternate partial solution would be to force companies breaking net neutrality to report it on their customer's bill.
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am trying extremely hard to not purely lash out at you, but to civilly converse, here. But you're completely wrong. Yes, competition would absolutely be better for everyone. There is not a single NN supporter out there who would not love more competition. But we still have to live in the real world. And in the real world, there flat out is no competition. And in many places, particularly rural and inner-city areas,…
I'm an NN supporter and don't love "more competition" actually. Anarchists also are for net neutrality fyi.
What do you not like about more competition and how does that relate to anarchists (which, depending on flavor, are often pro-competition and diversity in choice as it's often a prerequisite for a well functioning anarchic society).
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#59The real solution to the problem, as I see it, is not even Net Neutrality (though I strongly support Net Neutrality). The solution is to break the monopolistic stranglehold on last-mile internet service. If it were possible to have competition in the last-mile ISP space, then consumers could vote with their wallets and choose those ISPs who supported Net Neutrality. An alternate partial solution would be to force com…
These are orthogonal issues. Net neutrality is important regardless of isp options. Not only on principle either, not everywhere will naturally have competition.
Re: Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, I was listening to oral arguments on the Supreme Court last night on the way home from work. I'm not a lawyer, but my layman interpretation of what they were arguing (specifically in reference to sports betting) is that if the federal government chooses not to regulate something, they cannot also preempt state regulations. I reserve to right to have completely misunderstood the legalese that I was hearing :)
I believe the 10th Amendment covers what you are thinking of. >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If the Federal government chooses not to regulate it, then the states should be allowed to do so. Edit: Here the FCC is choosing to not regulate Telecoms as "Common Carriers", so would not the st…
The 10th Amendment is not well regarded by the Supreme Court. In US v Sprague the Court said it “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified“.