91–100 of 202 posts
> Title II regulation isn't just about net neutrality, Rosenworcel said, arguing that the reclassification will give the FCC more authority to protect national security on broadband networks. "When we stripped state-affiliated companies from China of their authority to operate in the United States, that action did not extend to broadband services, thanks to the retreat from Title II. This is a national security looph…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes as I understand it netflix is or has sent some ISPs "protection" money, specifically Comcast. https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-t... If you value the internet at large, never get your service from Comcast.
Interesting as this talking about performance degradation and payments from netflix to comcast in Dec 2013-Jan 2014. Nextflix happened to raise prices of their service a few months later in Apr 2014...
Not an American: what is the non-libertarian public-facing argument against net neutrality? I'm sure its opponents say it's bad for the general public for some reason, and one of them might be some kind of "let market competition work it out" etc. If you discard that, what is left? There is probably also the argument that various businesses want this repealed, this is kind of clear.
One is the double charging of services. Buy service XYZ on the internet then the ISP says 'hey you buy or special package or ABC is throttled'. That is the one most people think of when they hear net neutrality. Or 'we have not cut a deal with XYZ no data for you'.
Then there is the 'stop the cap' ones. Where 'hey here is a nice unlimited service except when you use more than X data then its not'. 'want more data pay for more on top of your "unlimited" plan'.
Also at one point both 'sides' playing the other side. The donations flowed and the 'sides' were drawn up. I have watched this since it started. That was wild to watch. Then instead of passing laws to do it right they again are pretzelling the existing laws. Made some up and said yep thats good. Each "side" of the argument has had control of both houses and the presidential. Yet none of them got it done. Instead we are going to end up with more rubish and no real laws. Just made up interpretations that can change on a whim (and it will).
Then both sides are pretending there is robust competition and not oligopoly/monopoly pricing. When the reality is I used to be able to choose from 20 ISPs with different perks or whatever. I can now realistically pick between 2. They are then stepping in with a bunch of rules that make it even harder to make an ISP. That is by design and called regulatory capture. Not once have they talked about how to make competition more robust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worth noting that California's net neutrality law[0] probably stymied most efforts by ISPs to start prioritizing traffic nationwide. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P...
I thought the internet was purely a federal law domain. It looks like this law was challenged on those grounds, but the challenge lasted until after Biden was elected and the suit dropped.
It is not, there are plenty of state laws that have applied to the internet. On the specific issue of net neutrality, the FCC in 2019 lost in the D.C. Circuit in its attempt to assert that state law regulations for neutrality were preempted, specifically because the repeal rested on them reclassifying in a way which means they don’t have the power to preempt state regulations.
> It looks like this law was challenged on those grounds
It was (EDIT: well, not on the broad “internet is a federal law domain” grounds, but the narrower “net neutrality regulations by the states were preempted by the terms of the FCC neutrality repeal” grounds), by multiple parties, and those challenges failed.
> but the challenge lasted until after Biden was elected and the suit dropped.
No, while the DoJ dropped its case then, the case making the same arguments by the broadband industry continued until the industry participants dropped it after the Ninth Circuit ruled (similar to what the D.C. Circuit had previously), that by reclassifying broadband under Title I in its net neutrality repeal, the FCC had removed its ability to restrict state regulations, which would only exist if it were regulated under Title II.
Did any of the bad effects of not having net neutrality actually occur when it was gone? Did ISPs throttle competition? I haven’t seen any reports of this happening. I haven’t seen any studies showing this happening systematically. I’m woefully uninformed, so I really would like to hear more about this. What has been happening these past few years?
Worth noting that California's net neutrality law[0] probably stymied most efforts by ISPs to start prioritizing traffic nationwide. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P...
Not an American: what is the non-libertarian public-facing argument against net neutrality? I'm sure its opponents say it's bad for the general public for some reason, and one of them might be some kind of "let market competition work it out" etc. If you discard that, what is left? There is probably also the argument that various businesses want this repealed, this is kind of clear.
In reality that would be solvable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you think it was a federal law domain? The federal government is technically only allowed to do what is granted in the Constitution. The 10th amendment says anything else is left to the states. Last I checked nothing in the constitution mentioned the internet. Not that the federal government lets that stand in their way.
The internet pretty squarely falls under the Commerce Clause
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you think it was a federal law domain? The federal government is technically only allowed to do what is granted in the Constitution. The 10th amendment says anything else is left to the states. Last I checked nothing in the constitution mentioned the internet. Not that the federal government lets that stand in their way.
I don’t know the specifics of federal authority when it comes to internet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it fell under interstate commerce, which is how they justify federal drug laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like the other comment said, the internet is basically as interstate as a thing can get by design. The interstate commerce clause is extremely broadly interpreted. It can, for example, be used to prevent a farmer from growing grain on their own farm to feed their own cattle that reside on that very farm(Wickard v. Filburn)
Yet it can’t be used to stop California vehicle emission standards, which is why almost all car manufacturers in the US make cars up to California’s higher standards, because they’re so big.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you think it was a federal law domain? The federal government is technically only allowed to do what is granted in the Constitution. The 10th amendment says anything else is left to the states. Last I checked nothing in the constitution mentioned the internet. Not that the federal government lets that stand in their way.
Like the other comment said, the internet is basically as interstate as a thing can get by design. The interstate commerce clause is extremely broadly interpreted. It can, for example, be used to prevent a farmer from growing grain on their own farm to feed their own cattle that reside on that very farm(Wickard v. Filburn)