Washington State Tells Ajit Pai to Suck It

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,602
As we likely all are aware, Ajit Pai's FCC voted a few months ago to undo federal Net Neutrality laws, and in that process the FCC also prohibited states from making their own "local" Net Neutrality laws. Washington state has stepped up to become the first to fully thumb its nose to the FCC by passing its own Net Neutrality protections.


Three months after state leaders vowed to safeguard net neutrality despite rollbacks by the Federal Communications Commission, Gov. Jay Inslee has signed a bill to protect an open internet in Washington.

Washington’s new law, House Bill 2282, protects those net neutrality rules at the state level, ensuring that internet providers cannot advantageously manipulate internet speeds and access to content.

“Today we make history: Washington will be the first state in the nation to preserve the open internet,” Inslee said during today’s bill signing ceremony. “We’ve seen the power of an open internet. It allows a student in Washington to connect with researchers all around the world — or a small business to compete in the global marketplace. It’s allowed the free flow of information and ideas in one of the greatest demonstrations of free speech in our history.”
 
nbc3YlR.jpg

SIPPING INTENSIFIES
I am curious to see how he will try to shut this down.
 
I'm not too sure how NN in any shape or form allows any of the things he's spouting. I guess before 2015 it was impossible for a student to connect with researchers around the world, nor was it possible for a small business to compete in the global marketplace.
 
Gigus Fire said:
I'm not too sure how NN in any shape or form allows any of the things he's spouting. I guess before 2015 it was impossible for a student to connect with researchers around the world, nor was it possible for a small business to compete in the global marketplace.
Click to expand...

Before 2015... :sleep:

Dead horse is dead.
 
Gigus Fire said:
I'm not too sure how NN in any shape or form allows any of the things he's spouting. I guess before 2015 it was impossible for a student to connect with researchers around the world, nor was it possible for a small business to compete in the global marketplace.
Click to expand...
Poes law? Or serious?
 
Be interesting to see how this plays out. ISP services sound like Commerce Clause activities but so do the 3 main service grids for the US electric power grid. But most/all states have at least some local control over utilities. And varying laws that apply to usage of the Interstate Highway system.
 
Gigus Fire said:
I'm not too sure how NN in any shape or form allows any of the things he's spouting. I guess before 2015 it was impossible for a student to connect with researchers around the world, nor was it possible for a small business to compete in the global marketplace.
Click to expand...
Market evolves. ISP are looking for new ways to make more money without any added services or content and they are publicly traded companies. Washington's law aims to protect the quo statut.
 
Thoughts and Prayers go out to the people in Washington State. They will need it for all the bad Internets that will be allowed for their childrens.
 
bugleyman said:
But...states rights!
Click to expand...
Exactly.

If individual states want to do this, I see no problem.

The problem is a central authority maintaining total control.

Leftists don't comprehend that constitutionalists would have no problem with this.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Exactly.

If individual states want to do this, I see no problem.

The problem is a central authority maintaining total control.
Click to expand...

Good for you. Seriously. Internal consistency is good. (y)
Zion Halcyon said:
Leftists don't comprehend that constitutionalists would have no problem with this.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you went on to do the very thing you accuse "leftists" of: Generalize. That's like me saying that all "Rightists" have a problem with what Washington has done here. (n)
 
bugleyman said:
Good for you. Seriously. Internal consistency is good. (y)


Unfortunately, you went on to do the very thing you accuse "leftists" of: Generalize. That's like me saying that all "Rightists" have a problem with what Washington has done here. (n)
Click to expand...

The bottom line is I'm not wrong. You trying to argue in a disingenuous manner doesn't refute my point.
 
Like it or not, we have a hundred years of law that says telecommunications fall under the commerce clause. Washington state can pass any laws they wish, but they will not be able to enforce any that fall under the authority of the Federal Government.
 
Armenius said:
Internet service falls under the Commerce Clause, if I'm not mistaken, so the states have no rights here.
Click to expand...
Yup an area of total federal preemption. Somebody has stupid attorneys, and/or is just trying to make a political statement at taxpayer cost.
 
RealBeast said:
Yup an area of total federal preemption. Somebody has stupid attorneys, and/or is just trying to make a political statement at taxpayer cost.
Click to expand...
The later is 99.999% assured.

It got him his 10 seconds of fame. Never heard of his name before today (probably never will again).
 
It's also a great way to get the recent FCC NN rules tied up in court. I doubt this is anywhere near as open and closed as y'all are pretending it is. It's US law, and therefore utterly and completely bizarre and counter-intuitive.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
The bottom line is I'm not wrong. You trying to argue in a disingenuous manner doesn't refute my point.
Click to expand...
Yes you are. Guarantee you you'll find some 'constitutionalists' who are against this. For one, there's gonna be disagreement just because of the commerce clause.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
The bottom line is I'm not wrong. You trying to argue in a disingenuous manner doesn't refute my point.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it did, nor am I being disingenuous (disengenous? really?)

You're still being hypocritical. Which is, of course, your prerogative.
 
Powerage said:
Yes you are. Guarantee you you'll find some 'constitutionalists' who are against this. For one, there's gonna be disagreement just because of the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly. Of course then we get to play "no true Scotsman."

I also found it odd that he would call out "leftists" for generalizing. Since, you know, making claims about "leftists" is generalizing.

Cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug. :p
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
Internet service falls under the Commerce Clause, if I'm not mistaken, so the states have no rights here.
Click to expand...

But didn't the repeal effort include a "The FCC can't regulate ISPs" clause? The FCC can't argue this both ways.
 
gamerk2 said:
But didn't the repeal effort include a "The FCC can't regulate ISPs" clause? The FCC can't argue this both ways.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing, but an interstate commerce issue would be handled by the FTC, not the FCC. Once the FCC washes it's hands of NN they're not saying much on the subject, nor should they.
 
NickJames said:
nbc3YlR.jpg

SIPPING INTENSIFIES
I am curious to see how he will try to shut this down.
Click to expand...


Pai won't have to. The first service provider or ISP that decides it's worth it to challenge it will send it to the courts where it will be decided. the FCC passed the law, they don't have to enforce it, the other parts of the government will.

Now I'll take a moment to voice my opinion on the matter.

I was for the FCCs move, I backed Pai as I believe the previous solution wasn't right and it needed to be undone so it could be redone right.

That being said, I am behind any State that stands up to the Fed when the Fed is pushing the limits of the 10th and I think there needs to be a whole lot more of it.
 
Gigus Fire said:
I'm not too sure how NN in any shape or form allows any of the things he's spouting. I guess before 2015 it was impossible for a student to connect with researchers around the world, nor was it possible for a small business to compete in the global marketplace.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Be interesting to see how this plays out. ISP services sound like Commerce Clause activities but so do the 3 main service grids for the US electric power grid. But most/all states have at least some local control over utilities. And varying laws that apply to usage of the Interstate Highway system.
Click to expand...

The Internet stopped being a Utility with the last FCC vote on the issue. I believe it is now regulated as a service and not a utility, Tittle II and Title III.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Exactly.

If individual states want to do this, I see no problem.

The problem is a central authority maintaining total control.

Leftists don't comprehend that constitutionalists would have no problem with this.
Click to expand...

But I thought that you were the anarchist and I was the statist ? :sneaky:



Edit, damn, and I was just running my mouth about labels and shit :dead:
 
All this hubub because the internet has millennials scared they won't be able to "stream" their worthless shows.
 
Murolith said:
I get why they'd want to and all, but the FCC really can just smack them down in a big way almost at will. They likely won't unless a company of some sort brings up a suit against the state for the state trying to punish them for breaking Net Neutrality rules they impose, though. The thing is, by and large, the FTC and the FCC combined kept the internet largely open long before NN became a thing, so I've no idea why people think that would change. They already had like 20 years of cases to base future decisions on.
Click to expand...

Companies will not bring a suit against the State. It will be up to the State to impose fines and/or enforcement through legal action. Companies will defend themselves in lawsuits. The State of Washington has no enforcement mechanism to force companies to obey. They just sue for money damages and impose fines. The fines/damages will be thrown out if the federal regulatory body says they are not in violation. Individual States cannot regulate interstate commerce.
 
Geforcepat said:
All this hubub because the internet has millennials scared they won't be able to "stream" their worthless shows.
Click to expand...

Lol that doesn't really matter all the isps here in Washington have bandwidth caps even when NN was a thing.

Lenard said:
Companies will not bring a suit against the State. It will be up to the State to impose fines and/or enforcement through legal action. Companies will defend themselves in lawsuits. The State of Washington has no enforcement mechanism to force companies to obey. They just sue for money damages and impose fines. The fines/damages will be thrown out if the federal regulatory body says they are not in violation. Individual States cannot regulate interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

The only isp in washington they have to worry about is Comcast, the rest are small city isps that are reliant on NN to keep Comcast from encroaching on their territory.
 
Last edited:
I just like how NN has nothing to do with preventing censorship, now. And it's a justification for government to inject itself into the internet at the same time. Wonder what that is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top