61–70 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_... If it's true for handguns, it's true for the Internet. I say Californians might have a shot at this (as would any other state)
The city/state/D.C handgun bans got overturned by the Supreme Court not too long ago on constitutional grounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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“. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sprague
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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“. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sprague
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ".
If you'd like a deep dive level of information, you could try contacting some of the named companies and associations, like
I'm sure they'd be happy to fill you in, if you're willing to listen to them.
This is the signal. Startup ISPs are where the action is starting today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pai's comments are not "an example ".
There are specific examples in the comments I quoted. Mr Pai named more specific examples in the transcript I linked to. You seem to be in a state of blind rage and unable to read anything. If you'd like a deep dive level of information, you could try contacting some of the named companies and associations, like http://www.wispa.org/ I'm sure they'd be happy to fill you in, if you're willing to listen to them. This i…
This is not how you do discourse on the internet — asserting the emotional state (or ability to read) of people on the other side of the screen. I'm quite calm, thanks; I simply reject Pai's agenda-serving statements as anything but agenda-serving (and also a little bit "appeal to authority", but I'm not feeling terribly inclined to chase that notion down the fallacy rabbit hole when I have so much work to do I'm only now breaking for lunch, so whatever).
Please do what you've repeatedly been asked in this thread and cite examples, not propaganda.
Earlier 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?
Like everything else, it's been trampled on and buried deep in the mud as everyone races to the "us versus them" false dichotomy. We won't get over this ridiculous pro-big-business wealth redistribution project until people can think beyond fighting for their favorite color.
Given the fact that we only have 2 viable parties (yes it would be nice if that weren't the case but it is), what choice do we have but to dogpile on the party that responds at least somewhat to what constituents want and consistently supports pro-consumer policies? Sure both parties take money from wall street, but which one actually tries to protect the consumer from the excesses of wall street? People just keep saying "well they are all corrupt", don't look at who takes money and how much look at how their opinions and actions change after they take the money!
I'm against false dichotomy and false equivalencies. The only avenue I see is to make democratic reforms part of the democratic party platform where we prevent these problems in the long term. That will show if they can be a truly mature party, one that is willing to give up power to restore long term viability to our democracy.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/0... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
The 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…
The same FCC that got rid of the net neutrality rules has the ability to make a rule that preempts any state level neutrality rules.
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?
The 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…
The inter-state commerce clause allows Federal Law to preempt state law in this case. Congress has imbued the FCC with the power to regulate(see Chevron v EPA) exactly this. States have no reserved power to regulate the behavior of telecoms.