Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#71

Post by jwineinger » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:10 PM UTC

EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

I feel like they're trying to get people to conflate representation of >50% of people with support from >50% of people. The attorneys general of 22 states is 22 people. The percentage support in the general population is high (~80% last year) but they aren't the same thing. Marketing is everything.

I completely agree that it should be decided in the legislature. I hate the idea of legislating from the bench. It was administrative policy when enacted in the Obama administration. Why should that enshrine it?

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#72

Post by jtuente » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:11 PM UTC

nulbyte wrote: post #51

javagram wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The House of Representatives majority, which is held by the GOP and is anti - net neutrality, also represents more than 50% of the US population by this method of counting (which says the state AGs “represent” people who didn’t vote for them). Under the constitutional system of the US something like net neutrality could be passed as a law by the congress, but there hasn’t been a congress that chose to do so.

Like legislators, attorneys general represent "the people," not just those who voted for them, and that is the case even if no one voted for them. (As an interesting side-note, there are a few states whose attorneys general is governor-appointed and even one whose attorney general is appointed by the state's Supreme Court.) I believe the point being made was that it has been too difficult to get Congress to act on re…

> study concluding that 8 in 10 Americans disapproved of the FCC's handling of net neutrality.

Disapproved about which part of its handling on the issue though? Did they disapprove of it being instated or revoked? Or the timeline on which either occurred? Or did they disagree with FCC shoehorning it with regulations written for telephones?

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#73

Post by craftyguy » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:16 PM UTC

EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #5

mberning wrote: post #4

One thing I don’t understand is why states do not enact their own net neutrality legislation. As far as I know every state has a public utilities commission of some sort that regulates power, water, etc. Why could this not work for ISPs?

I think the FCC is trying to remove that ability from States now because federal law overrules state law. > The Attorneys General are hardly alone on this one. As Reuters notes, Mozilla, Vimeo and Etsy also joined forces today to file a legal challenge, while governors in six states have signed executive orders and three states have passed their own net neutrality laws.

> because federal law overrules state law

The FCC does not (and cannot) pass laws.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#74

Post by moduspol » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:17 PM UTC

IronWolve wrote: post #26

>US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality I see this being tossed around as a counter to the main point of NN being slow down of speed. Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now.

And gay marriage, too.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#75

Post by kevin_b_er » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:17 PM UTC

schnable wrote: post #17

EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

The executive branch being in control of this is how we ended up in this mess. It should be done through legislation so it won't change with the White House.

The executive branch puts forth that they've banned net neutrality by virtue of not regulating it and are attempting to argue against state's rights at a convenient time when that party often argues for state's rights.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#76

Post by _bxg1 » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

corerius wrote: post #49

_bxg1 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ISP's are more important because of their physical locality. It's infinitely easier to create a competitor for Facebook than a competitor for Time Warner (Google, one of the world's most powerful companies, tried and failed). That said, with the amount of ubiquity and sway on society that self-proclaimed platforms like Facebook and Google have started to have, I would not be opposed to regulating some of those as…

It seems to me that I have more choice between ISPs than in auction sites, as an example. The tendency towards monopoly in networks makes all these cases similar I think.

Most people have exactly one choice of ISP. If you're lucky, there might be a second one with the same price and 1/10 the speed.

Whereas I could go build an auction site myself if I really wanted to. Scaling a business takes work, but the power of software is that it requires no material resources to get started. Laying fiber is not only immensely expensive in and of itself, but ISP's have also lobbied to stack the deck severely against newcomers: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/utility-poles-important-future...

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#77

Post by sbjs » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:18 PM UTC

EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #2

The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…

[Comment redacted for being not well thought out and more cynical and less positive than I'd like to be]

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#78

Post by craftyguy » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #57

IronWolve wrote: post #26

>US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality I see this being tossed around as a counter to the main point of NN being slow down of speed. Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now.

I believe all the states that currently have recreation cannabis have it because of referendums and ballot initiatives. The legalization process has shown exactly how our legislatures have failed to address this issue. Canada did legalize recreational use with legislation, but they are the only ones so far. I personally blame gerrymandering.

Recreational cannabis was passed by a ballot measure in Oregon.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#79

Post by kevin_b_er » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

EpiphanyMachine wrote: post #5

mberning wrote: post #4

One thing I don’t understand is why states do not enact their own net neutrality legislation. As far as I know every state has a public utilities commission of some sort that regulates power, water, etc. Why could this not work for ISPs?

I think the FCC is trying to remove that ability from States now because federal law overrules state law. > The Attorneys General are hardly alone on this one. As Reuters notes, Mozilla, Vimeo and Etsy also joined forces today to file a legal challenge, while governors in six states have signed executive orders and three states have passed their own net neutrality laws.

The goal is to forbid net neutrality as a policy of the Republican Party. Net neutrality is seen as "bad for buisness", but in reality is bad for those that pay off the party and Ajit Pai.

Re: Twenty-two states ask appeals court to bring back net neutrality

#80

Post by chimeracoder » Tue, Aug 21, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

IronWolve wrote: post #26

>US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality I see this being tossed around as a counter to the main point of NN being slow down of speed. Also, why do the state dem AG's always suing to enforce new laws instead of the legislation process, it seems like the new way to pass laws is to get a judge to give it to you. We have legal weed from legislation now.

> >US Internet Speed Has Gone From 12th To 6th Fastest Since End Of Net Neutrality

> I see this being tossed around as a counter to the main point of NN being slow down of speed.

It's been nowhere near long enough to see the effects of investment in infrastructure for improving Internet speed since the net neutrality rules were repealed. Any change in speeds since November would be due to work that has been in progress for a while.