States Push Back after Net Neutrality Repeal

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Despite the repeal of net neutrality, a number of states are introducing legislation forbidding internet providers from blocking or slowing down websites. Lawmakers from California, New York, and other participating states are hoping that their actions will catch on so consumer choice can be protected.

Many similar efforts by states to restore broadband privacy rules that Congress repealed last year have stalled or been scrapped. And any such state law could be challenged in courts. The Federal Communications Commission’s new order, which rolled back rules passed in 2015, blocks state and city governments from creating their own net neutrality laws.
 
You know if we end up with 50 sets of laws for Net Neutrality, I would think that the ISPs will go through hell trying to comply. If you allow MD users to be throttled and a person from Pennsylvania downloads a file from a server in MD, will you violate the net neutrality law in Pennsylvania that says their users can't be throttled? Can you then sue the ISP in small claims court? I can see the ISPs going through legal hell.

Not that I would care. :) ;) ;)
 
As much as I'd like this to work, I have a hard time seeing it get through the courts. This is pretty much an interstate issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
cageymaru said:
You know if we end up with 50 sets of laws for Net Neutrality, I would think that the ISPs will go through hell trying to comply. If you allow MD users to be throttled and a person from Pennsylvania downloads a file from a server in MD, will you violate the net neutrality law in Pennsylvania that says their users can't be throttled? Can you then sue the ISP in small claims court? I can see the ISPs going through legal hell.

Not that I would care. :) ;) ;)
Click to expand...
Reread the last line quoted from the article. The FCCs new order blocks states from regulating the internet.

Which is outright absurd given the argument against the FCC stepping in and providing net neutrality was that it wasn’t in their purview to regulate. Well fuck if the states aren’t allowed to (via the FCC relinquishing the control) who the hell is allowed to regulate the internet??!
 
Doesn't even matter if the FCC forbade states, federal preemption will kill all those laws as long as the FCC decision survives.

And the big ISPs have plenty of lawyers and cash to make that happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Nolan7689 said:
Reread the last line quoted from the article. The FCCs new order blocks states from regulating the internet.
Click to expand...
This will easily be challenged in court, i think the democrats did the same thing before and a carrier took them to court and won.
 
I say if they can't agree as a union to have moral standards for services and states feel passionately about it.... Let them deal with the RED TAPE and I'll enjoy my states approach.

Maybe a New internet provider will pop up and be the cool kid on the block and the existing ones will fall out of business...

You can never guarantee it Can't happen.... Look at the crazy year we just had.

:)
 
Nolan7689 said:
who the hell is allowed to regulate the internet??!
Click to expand...

Re: the thread on states taxing online business even without a warehouse in-state (where I mention my origin state of PA now has Newegg sales tax), Congress via Commerce Clause
 
The more I read about net neutrality in the USA, the more it seemed like the FCC "Title II" solution was a bad hack of a law. Nothing would have been done about it if it wasn't unceremoniously discarded. A lot of jimmies were rustled, though.
 
So this net neutrality law only existed for what, 2 years or so? I just don't see why we need to allow the government to regulate and meddle with it when it has survived without their "help" for so many years before that.
 
cageymaru said:
You know if we end up with 50 sets of laws for Net Neutrality, I would think that the ISPs will go through hell trying to comply. If you allow MD users to be throttled and a person from Pennsylvania downloads a file from a server in MD, will you violate the net neutrality law in Pennsylvania that says their users can't be throttled? Can you then sue the ISP in small claims court? I can see the ISPs going through legal hell.

Not that I would care. :) ;) ;)
Click to expand...

Fuck yea. They deserve it and some more.


Nolan7689 said:
Which is outright absurd given the argument against the FCC stepping in and providing net neutrality was that it wasn’t in their purview to regulate. Well fuck if the states aren’t allowed to (via the FCC relinquishing the control) who the hell is allowed to regulate the internet??!
Click to expand...

Feds... smh. They'd have to sue each state in the worse case. This will end up like the wild west lol.
 
che said:
So this net neutrality law only existed for what, 2 years or so? I just don't see why we need to allow the government to regulate and meddle with it when it has survived without their "help" for so many years before that.
Click to expand...
Net neutrality is just corporate positioning by wireless providers to maintain business. The whole point in removing it is so ISPs can enable QoS over their networks and prioritize VOIP so landlines can be used to extend wireless networks. Force phone calls over wifi instead of wireless towers. Not a great thing if you happen to own lots of towers. If throttling becomes a problem the next administration can always bring it back.
 
che said:
So this net neutrality law only existed for what, 2 years or so? I just don't see why we need to allow the government to regulate and meddle with it when it has survived without their "help" for so many years before that.
Click to expand...

Problem with that is as we have seen service providers (Verizon, Tmobile, etc) are all too happy to throttle people for no reason. In some cases, they offer certain services so you can access apps (mostly streaming) without it counting towards your data cap. Do you want ISPs to follow suit? They have already laid the groundwork by setting caps just like cell phone companies have.
 
Jehuty said:
Problem with that is as we have seen service providers (Verizon, Tmobile, etc) are all too happy to throttle people for no reason. In some cases, they offer certain services so you can access apps (mostly streaming) without it counting towards your data cap. Do you want ISPs to follow suit? They have already laid the groundwork by setting caps just like cell phone companies have.
Click to expand...

Data caps have been in place since, like, forever. Seriously, Comcast had caps in 2004. The only people who got the notice were the ones torrenting and selling CD's at school........
 
The more I think about it, it seems the best way to have net neutrality is to allow ISP competition. The only reason ISPs can throttle certain websites is because there are no repercussions for doing so. However, if people have the choice to go with an ISP that upholds net neutrality, others will have to follow suit to keep customers.

che said:
So this net neutrality law only existed for what, 2 years or so? I just don't see why we need to allow the government to regulate and meddle with it when it has survived without their "help" for so many years before that.
Click to expand...

It's not so much about killing the internet as it is preventing ISPs from screwing over consumers more than they are. This is about money, not free speech, rights, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
I said it 20 times in the frothing rage NN threads before - the only regulating that needs to be done is to remove the collusion between municipal government and the ISP's at the local level so one ISP doesn't get a stranglehold over a whole geographical area by providing "free" services to certain buildings. Competition is the only way to fix the problems we have.
 
che said:
So this net neutrality law only existed for what, 2 years or so? I just don't see why we need to allow the government to regulate and meddle with it when it has survived without their "help" for so many years before that.
Click to expand...
Do you not remember the throttling?
 
{NG}Fidel said:
Do you not remember the throttling?
Click to expand...

I've had no issues with throttling in my daily life. On cellular or internet.
But government meddling isn't the answer. I'd rather see more competition, not regulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
che said:
I've had no issues with throttling in my daily life. On cellular or internet.
But government meddling isn't the answer. I'd rather see more competition, not regulation.
Click to expand...
It’s really not just laws,but barriers to entry. It’s not cheap to lay lines and provide a service. If you somehow make it that far, comcast will offer you a crap ton of money to sell your business to them...(if they don’t find a way to sue or destroy you first)
If you’re anti regulation, that is the end result. Always. Monopolies are the product of pure capitalism.
 
SticKx911 said:
It’s really not just laws,but barriers to entry. It’s not cheap to lay lines and provide a service. If you somehow make it that far, comcast will offer you a crap ton of money to sell your business to them...(if they don’t find a way to sue or destroy you first)
If you’re anti regulation, that is the end result. Always. Monopolies are the product of pure capitalism.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that is any different from what we have right now. Obviously this regulation isn't working.

Changing the law so that the losing side has to pay the winning side's lawyer and court fees would drastically cut down on large corporations' ability to sue smaller companies out of existence, while simultaneously taking care of the patent troll and frivolous problem. I believe this is already the case in the EU.

I believe it was PostalTwinkie who works for an ISP. He has stated numerous times how it is the municipal laws that prevent his company from entering markets rather than capital costs in most cases.
 
che said:
So this net neutrality law only existed for what, 2 years or so? I just don't see why we need to allow the government to regulate and meddle with it when it has survived without their "help" for so many years before that.
Click to expand...

If by 2 years you mean almost the entire time that the Internet has existed as a public thing that normal people could use, aka 20+ years.
 
Tsumi said:
I don't see how that is any different from what we have right now. Obviously this regulation isn't working.

Changing the law so that the losing side has to pay the winning side's lawyer and court fees would drastically cut down on large corporations' ability to sue smaller companies out of existence, while simultaneously taking care of the patent troll and frivolous problem. I believe this is already the case in the EU.

I believe it was PostalTwinkie who works for an ISP. He has stated numerous times how it is the municipal laws that prevent his company from entering markets rather than capital costs in most cases.
Click to expand...

he's also largely full of shit. Entry cost into a medium sized (250k+ location) market where you already have all right of ways AND already employ all the line workers required, is on the order of 200-300 million. The barrier to entry for competing ISPs is the initial capitol outlay and the capability of the existing incumbents to cost shift on you reducing both your customer base and profit per customer.
 
I've read of some small ISPs getting their money drained by some big ISP (comcast maybe) with frivolous law suits.
 
aaronspink said:
If by 2 years you mean almost the entire time that the Internet has existed as a public thing that normal people could use, aka 20+ years.
Click to expand...

The FCC voted in 2015 to regulate broadband Internet providers as a public utility. This is what we are referring to as net neutrality laws. This is what the FCC just voted to do away with (get rid of net neutrality).

It could be argued the idea has been around for longer, but the internet has a long history of being unregulated (to a greater extent then a utility), and I'm firm in my belief that this has been a major component in its growth and development. I signed up with my first ISP In 1993, so I do have some years of experience with the internet.
 
che said:
I signed up with my first ISP In 1993, so I do have some years of experience with the internet.
Click to expand...
Late comer ;) . And this was put into place in reaction to things that were happening, you know to correct some of the abuses starting to happen and try and head off others. Now we've gone off the deep end into "companies always know best." The internet has grown and changed A LOT!! It is not the fuzzy warm community of mostly computer geeks it once was (and I sometimes miss).

edit: fix spelling missing words--typing behind thinking as usual
 
Last edited:
che said:
The FCC voted in 2015 to regulate broadband Internet providers as a public utility. This is what we are referring to as net neutrality laws. This is what the FCC just voted to do away with (get rid of net neutrality).

It could be argued the idea has been around for longer, but the internet has a long history of being unregulated (to a greater extent then a utility), and I'm firm in my belief that this has been a major component in its growth and development. I signed up with my first ISP In 1993, so I do have some years of experience with the internet.
Click to expand...

FCC voted in 2015 to apply largely the same set of rules that they put into effect in 2010 which were struck down in 2014 due to a technicality. And prior to that, most internet service was via DSL (and prior to that dial up modems) which had even stricter regulation including line sharing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top