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

91–100 of 134 posts

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#91

Post by WillPostForFood »

specialist wrote: post #80
WillPostForFood wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats now get as much money from corporations as Republicans, but no strings attached, eh? https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/sectors.php?cycle=2018

Whataboutism is so tedious. There are plenty of other contributors, both direct and indirect. PACs, billionaires, unions, earned media, Russians, grandmas, etc.

On both sides, yes. I'd say the Democrats are more dishonest. GOP claims to be the pro-business party, so no surprise when they act that way. Democrats take the corporate money, pay lip service to the left, and act pro-business as well. Look at Obamacare - we didn't get single payer, we got government subsidies for insurance companies.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#92

Post by tmaly »

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.…

I think this was a serious abuse of the commerce clause. It seems you could effectively argue that anything affects interstate commerce and extend this type of reasoning in a way that circumvents the idea of commerce within the confines of the state border.

This type of abuse of the commerce clause should be rolled back to something more sane that reflects the original intent. The courts seem to bend the words of the constitution to increase central authority. Our freedoms suffer as a consequence in my opinion.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#93

Post by dd36 »

loeg wrote: post #34
dd36 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

He regularly vetoes bills that I wouldn’t expect him to. It’s just odd to me is all. A few weeks after it becomes law makes sense for DoJ. A telecom might file for an emergency injunction but the DoJ?

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#94

Post by funkjunky »

wolf550e wrote: post #19
everdev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The GOP does not have an ideology. Anything you could name as a position of their ideology they will (and did) betray for either "winning" or at the behest of their corporate masters.

They do have an ideology: fascism. And fascism can be (and has been) defined as a consolidation of power as a reaction to/against "the left" amidst popular enthusiasm and declining support for democratic institutions.

By only focusing on the GOP "donor class", you're missing what really connected and drives them. If it was just about donors, then Google, et.al. could have bought out the GOP and swung them to a pro immigrant, pro technology platform fairly easily. But it isn't just about money, it's about various factions of society with a common enemy on "the left" coming together and reacting against whatever it is "the left" represents in that society. This is why it doesn't matter what is said or done one minute vs. the next, or facts, or the law, or democracy, or philosophical/religious morality, etc. It is only about consolidating power at any cost, attacking/undermining anything that represents leftist or democratic institutions and ideologies, and scapegoating allies of the left such as minorities, immigrants, academia, environmentalists, and the media. In this case, "net neutrality" is considered a leftist ideology, much like climate change. Therefore it is imperative that it be destroyed, and it isn't just isps that will fight against it.

Here's an entertaining, upsetting, and fairly well researched video (part of series) that goes in depth on it:

https://youtu.be/fIN8oxnw__I

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#95

Post by pm90 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #91
specialist wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whataboutism is so tedious. There are plenty of other contributors, both direct and indirect. PACs, billionaires, unions, earned media, Russians, grandmas, etc.

On both sides, yes. I'd say the Democrats are more dishonest. GOP claims to be the pro-business party, so no surprise when they act that way. Democrats take the corporate money, pay lip service to the left, and act pro-business as well. Look at Obamacare - we didn't get single payer, we got government subsidies for insurance companies.

Obamacare was a compromise precisely because the Democrats had to make it palatable to Republicans. If it was upto Democrats, they would have passed Single Payer.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#96

Post by pm90 »

jedberg wrote: post #57
pm90 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democrats use state rights to protect scientifically and economically sound policies when there is an obvious bad faith actions on the part of the Federal Government.

That’s a bad argument to make, only because conservatives believe that their state’s rights issues also stem from scientifically and economically sound policy.

No they don't. Their arguments are based around different interpretations of the constitution and protection of various ill-defined "freedoms" (freedom from religious persecution, freedom of choice etc.)

They happily do not include science in their political calculus.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#97

Post by DannyBee »

stult wrote: post #86
DannyBee wrote: post #21

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…

>They would have been much better off saying "we have plenty of authority here and we explicitly choose not to exercise it" That would open the issue up to reregulation under a later administration.

That already happened in the past ;)

(and courts already decided the answer).

So there's no point in not.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#98

Post by olliej »

mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #90
olliej wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point, the DoJ isn't spending time, they're regurgitating material produced by lawyers working for the carriers. 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 mon…

Don’t forget when the too big to fail banks were given passes without so much a slap on the wrist under Holder’s oversight. The whole thing is a joke. Oh and he is now back serving the masters he protected. I can only imagine how much they are paying him for doing their bidding.

That process started under the bush administration, so it’s not just dems.

The answer for that of course is that banks especially pay every representative, regardless of party.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#99

Post by DannyBee »

dragonwriter wrote: post #79
tzs wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course, reliance on the Title I status as the basis for arguing that the law is preempted means that both the substantive and procedural propriety of the action by which they were redesignated as Title I services are issues which might be raised against the suit, and would need to be resolved to resolve the suit.

Yes. California is definitely going to argue the FCC had no authority to reinterpret things when there is zero changed evidence/etc. It is definitely "arbitrary" (whether it meets the legal definition or not)

At least one trump agency that took a hard right turn has already lost in court on that point in the past few months. The case escapes me, but it was in fact "the evidence has not changed, you can't just decide you don't like what was done before for political reasons".

FWIW: I suspect the real argument here is that congress has preempted California.

IE they could regulate this space, and have chosen explicitly not to do so, through the '96 act, etc.

It's a little bit of a weird argument though, because it's saying "we explicitly didn't give the FCC authority because we didn't want anyone to regulate it", even though the FCC has in fact tried to regulate it in the past because they thought they had authority :)

(IE Congress's intent was not so clear that we didn't have years of regulation, etc)

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#100

Post by DannyBee »

blihp wrote: post #59
DannyBee wrote: post #21

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…

It really is amazing that apparently no one at the FCC played devil's advocate and asked the question: 'what is the potential downside to getting what we want?' before making rather absolute declarations re: their lack of authority to regulate this. At least as a layperson, California's move seems reasonable and within their rights given the FCC's previous moves. It will definitely be interesting to see how this play…

As mentioned, i suspect the argument they will try (and what Jeff Sessions appears to have said) is that congress intentionally chose not to regulate this space when they promulgated the comprehensive '96 act and didn't say anything.

Then it doesn't matter what the FCC does.

This is a bit weird of an argument because congressional intent was so unclear that the FCC tried to regulate it many times :) (and it required a court deciding what the statute said).

The FCC can reinterpret its own statutes, actually, including ones that say how much authority it has. Those interpretations are subject to various standards around precedent and consistency. I doubt they would meet them here if they suddenly reinterpreted them.

(Note also that appeals courts are becoming more concerned about the deference given here to agencies to say what their statutes/regulations mean, and the supreme court is likely to take it up again sooner rather than later)

Post reply on HN