Washington State Tells Ajit Pai to Suck It

If Washington goes for this on purely technical grounds, as it pertains to use and access, within the boundaries of the State and not with the purpose of enforcing or restraining interstate trade, they may be fully within their rights and outside the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause.

This is the State, allowing free trade and applying constraints specific to activities occurring within its boundaries.

Example:

The federal guidelines for recommended maximum speeds on U.S. interstate highways are now commonly adjusted by the states and local municipalities from 55mph to as high as 85mph.

This means the speed on a length of highway, I-75 for instance, going from the southern tip of Florida to the northern reaches of Michigan, can see multiple changes in speed between states or multiple changes in a single jurisdiction within one state.

U.S. Interstates receive federal funding and must meet or exceed federal guidelines for construction and maintenance. And yet state and regional authorities are able to set the speeds and even determine how many lane configurations certain stretches will have. Leaving one state on four lanes does not ordain that you enter the next with same. You could enter on six lanes or end up merging down to two.

To that point, we've often referred to the internet as the high tech highway and hear about slow, standard and high-speed lanes, being bandied about.

We could also expand the inference to include truckers and how states mandate load limits per axle and even the maximum number or trailers a single rig is allowed to haul (data size and transmission rate) or segmentation of traffic to allow for carpool lanes on federal interstate systems.

While the internet is a mash of systems interconnected with wires, there is a definite parallel in how roads and internet systems operate and if the FCC won't step up for the citizenry the states should and will.
​
Alright! Tear it apart booiiiissss!!!:D
 
I live in Washington State and my internet provider (Wave Broadband) had already sent a notice saying that they guarantee via their terms of service that they would not throttle content nor discriminate on content nor sell my personal information.

Guess why they would do this regardless of Net Neutrality???

MARKETPLACE COMPETITION.

Pointless political gesture by Inslee and the Democrat legislature. We have actual problems in Washington State that the government needs to solve before making pointless gestures for their reelection campaigns.
 
PaulP said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh just watch them, the WA state attorney is a nutball and so is Jizlee. They have bigger problems in DC than this, it'll make it through because most likely nothing will come of it.
 
Heh, this "It’s allowed the free flow of information and ideas in one of the greatest demonstrations of free speech in our history.” coming from a WA state governor. I haven't trusted any election in that state since 2004. Maybe if King County didn't keep finding trunks full of misplaced ballots I'd take their government seriously on concepts of so called net neutrality or open transmission of ideas.
 
mavrocket said:
I live in Washington State and my internet provider (Wave Broadband) had already sent a notice saying that they guarantee via their terms of service that they would not throttle content nor discriminate on content nor sell my personal information.

Guess why they would do this regardless of Net Neutrality???

MARKETPLACE COMPETITION.

Pointless political gesture by Inslee and the Democrat legislature. We have actual problems in Washington State that the government needs to solve before making pointless gestures for their reelection campaigns.
Click to expand...

Here here! I'm more worried about them shutting my hunting lands!
 
bugleyman said:
Yes, the entire issue is millennials streaming. Thank you for clearing that up. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This all got started again in the last 8 years or so because Netflix was too cheap to pay for their own bandwidth and repeatedly absused other providers bandwidth for what their customers were using in a system that was setup to keep things equal. Voluntary hook up to the internet backbone, bring your servers and offer equal priority of data over your lines to get equal access over others. Netflix said... eff you other guys because money. Perhaps streaming isn't so profitable as we're lead to believe, at least in the past.
 
Ranulfo said:
This all got started again in the last 8 years or so because Netflix was too cheap to pay for their own bandwidth and repeatedly absused other providers bandwidth for what their customers were using in a system that was setup to keep things equal. Voluntary hook up to the internet backbone, bring your servers and offer equal priority of data over your lines to get equal access over others. Netflix said... eff you other guys because money. Perhaps streaming isn't so profitable as we're lead to believe, at least in the past.
Click to expand...

Wait...I'm confused. Let's assume what you say is true (Netflix caused the problem). How is that not still an argument for NN?
 
I like how Rhode Island is trying to do EXACTLY what Net Neutrality was designed to prevent, censorship of the internet. NN gets removed and RI is specifically telling ISP's to block all that content because the state finds it objectionable. But we were promised be everyone at higher levels that something like this was guaranteed to never happen and that regulations were not needed to prevent censorhsip or tiered access to online content. Lets hope the idiots bill never sees the light of day.

And for those that said specific online content has never been throttled prior to NN, Netflix was constantly throttled by ISP's prior to NN and now they are free to do so again.
 
So blue states have a newfound love of federalism and states rights. I have no hope of them sticking to that once they regain power in D.C., but whatever. I'm all about breaking up the country into more manageable bits these days, so this is all just popcorn fodder for me.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
If you are clever you can make a case for just about anything under the sun falling under the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

That's what the fedgov has done ever since FDR packed the court and got the Wickard vs Filburn decision he needed/wanted.

Wartime - justification for gov't overreach throughout history.
 
bugleyman said:
Wait...I'm confused. Let's assume what you say is true (Netflix caused the problem). How is that not still an argument for NN?
Click to expand...

Because it hadn't been needed for years until netflix decided it didn't want to pay for its bandwidth usage we should make a new law? How about just let netflix go bankrupt?
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
Lol that doesn't really matter all the isps here in Washington have bandwidth caps even when NN was a thing.
Click to expand...

bandwidth caps have nothing to do with net neutrality. NN isn't about how much data you use, it's about what type of data you use, and how fast you're able to use each type of data. I'm all for ISP's getting paid for the amount of bandwidth they give you...after all, bandwidth isn't free, they have to make money to cover their costs. what I'm against is allowing each & every ISP to independently make their own decisions about what types of data they allow you to use for any given price.

for example, under NN, you are given "X" amount of bandwidth, and you can use that bandwidth as you see fit. you can stream a movie, you can play a video game, you can download music....whatever. it all costs one set price.

with NN repealed, <insert ISP here> can say "Oh, hello there. you're trying to stream a movie on Netflix at 7pm (primetime). That'll be an extra $10/month, or we'll throttle your Netflix speed so badly that you have to buffer for 30 seconds every 10 minutes"...or "Oh, I see you're trying to play video games online. you need to pay us an extra $5/month, or we'll artificially introduce an extra 500ms of latency to keep you from being able to win at ANYTHING". and there would be nothing that ANYONE could do about it.
 
Last edited:
bugleyman said:
Wait...I'm confused. Let's assume what you say is true (Netflix caused the problem). How is that not still an argument for NN?
Click to expand...

again, NN has nothing to do with the AMOUNT of bandwidth a person (or company) uses. it's all about HOW they use said bandwidth.
 
Ranulfo said:
Because it hadn't been needed for years until netflix decided it didn't want to pay for its bandwidth usage we should make a new law? How about just let netflix go bankrupt?
Click to expand...

Is Netflix in danger of going bankrupt?
 
jpm100 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not really, it's about preventing the ISPs from giving preferential treatment to the content/services that they own (or that pays them to most) in an environment where there is inadequate competition.
 
Gigus Fire said:
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.
Click to expand...

FTC has no authority in this area. Only the FCC has federal authority on interstate communication which they've abdicated.
 
lcpiper said:
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.
Click to expand...

ISPs are still regulated as Title II and will be for at least as long as things are tied up in court. Even ignoring the court issue, the ruling hasn't yet become official.
 
I don't think this falls under left or right, but rather digital tech literate (ex. net is for silly cat vids) vs illiterate (ex. startups vs incumbents in services and commerce).
 
aaronspink said:
FTC has no authority in this area. Only the FCC has federal authority on interstate communication which they've abdicated.
Click to expand...
FTC has every authority to maintain rules for interstate commerce. The FCC has stated this fact in the past.
 
Ranulfo said:
Because it hadn't been needed for years until netflix decided it didn't want to pay for its bandwidth usage we should make a new law? How about just let netflix go bankrupt?
Click to expand...

Netflix did pay for their bandwidth, they didn't also want to pay for their customers since the customers were already paying for it. Basically, the ISPs wanted Netflix to pay twice. Netflix already paid for the content to be delivered to the ISPs and Netflix customers already paid for the ISP to then deliver to them. Your whole theory and argument is complete BS.
 
Gigus Fire said:
FTC has every authority to maintain rules for interstate commerce. The FCC has stated this fact in the past.
Click to expand...

No they don't. The FTC authority is extremely limited and prescribed by law. WRT to ISPs, the FTC is basically limited to dealing with false advertisement and M&A. The FCC can state whatever they want, it doesn't change the actual law. The only US government authority wrt ISPs is the FCC and the FCC cannot pass that authority to another agency by law.
 
aaronspink said:
No they don't. The FTC authority is extremely limited and prescribed by law. WRT to ISPs, the FTC is basically limited to dealing with false advertisement and M&A. The FCC can state whatever they want, it doesn't change the actual law. The only US government authority wrt ISPs is the FCC and the FCC cannot pass that authority to another agency by law.
Click to expand...
I guess we're living in different universes:
From: http://variety.com/2018/politics/news/federal-trade-commission-net-neutrality-1202710635/
"WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over internet providers, a decision that has ramifications for the future of net neutrality.

When the FCC repealed most of its existing net neutrality rules in December, it left it to the FTC to take up oversight of consumer complaints over internet service as well as the privacy practices of broadband providers.

But the plan had a potential hitch: A lawsuit playing out in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals raised doubts about the future of the FTC’s authority to bring a lawsuit against certain broadband providers over their traffic management practices. After the FTC brought suit against AT&T Mobility over its data throttling practices, calling it “unfair and deceptive,” AT&T claimed that it was exempt from oversight.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the Ninth Circuit decision was “a significant win for American consumers.”

“Among other things, it reaffirms that the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police internet service providers” after the FCC’s latest action on net neutrality, Pai said. “In the months and years ahead, we look forward to working closely with the FTC to ensure the protection of a free and open internet.”

In the ruling, written by Judge Margaret McKeown on behalf of an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, the judges wrote that “permitting the FTC to oversee unfair and deceptive non-common-carriage practices of telecommunications companies has practical ramifications.”

“New technologies have spawned new regulatory challenges,” the judges wrote. “A phone company is no longer just a phone company. The transformation of information services and the ubiquity of digital technology mean that telecommunications operators have expanded into website operation, video distribution, news and entertainment production, interactive entertainment services and devices, home security, and more. Reaffirming FTC jurisdiction over activities that fall outside of common-carrier services avoids regulatory gaps and provides consistency and predictability in regulatory enforcement.”
"
 
Gigus Fire said:
I guess we're living in different universes:
From: http://variety.com/2018/politics/news/federal-trade-commission-net-neutrality-1202710635/
"WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over internet providers, a decision that has ramifications for the future of net neutrality.

When the FCC repealed most of its existing net neutrality rules in December, it left it to the FTC to take up oversight of consumer complaints over internet service as well as the privacy practices of broadband providers.

But the plan had a potential hitch: A lawsuit playing out in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals raised doubts about the future of the FTC’s authority to bring a lawsuit against certain broadband providers over their traffic management practices. After the FTC brought suit against AT&T Mobility over its data throttling practices, calling it “unfair and deceptive,” AT&T claimed that it was exempt from oversight.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the Ninth Circuit decision was “a significant win for American consumers.”

“Among other things, it reaffirms that the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police internet service providers” after the FCC’s latest action on net neutrality, Pai said. “In the months and years ahead, we look forward to working closely with the FTC to ensure the protection of a free and open internet.”

In the ruling, written by Judge Margaret McKeown on behalf of an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, the judges wrote that “permitting the FTC to oversee unfair and deceptive non-common-carriage practices of telecommunications companies has practical ramifications.”

“New technologies have spawned new regulatory challenges,” the judges wrote. “A phone company is no longer just a phone company. The transformation of information services and the ubiquity of digital technology mean that telecommunications operators have expanded into website operation, video distribution, news and entertainment production, interactive entertainment services and devices, home security, and more. Reaffirming FTC jurisdiction over activities that fall outside of common-carrier services avoids regulatory gaps and provides consistency and predictability in regulatory enforcement.”
"
Click to expand...

That's related to false advertisement. NOT other regulatory authority over ISPs.
 
aaronspink said:
That's related to false advertisement. NOT other regulatory authority over ISPs.
Click to expand...
Which part of ISPs throttling isn't part of false advertisement? Have ISPs ever advertised throttling and blocking parts of the internet? If so i'm not aware of them ever advertising this, yet they do it, therefore it's under the FTC jurisdiction to correct them.
 
aaronspink said:
ISPs are still regulated as Title II and will be for at least as long as things are tied up in court. Even ignoring the court issue, the ruling hasn't yet become official.
Click to expand...

I do stand corrected, Thank You.

I'm jumping the gun.
 
Gigus Fire said:
Which part of ISPs throttling isn't part of false advertisement? Have ISPs ever advertised throttling and blocking parts of the internet? If so i'm not aware of them ever advertising this, yet they do it, therefore it's under the FTC jurisdiction to correct them.
Click to expand...
My ISP gave me a lifetime unlimited contract. Only it turned out for some people they were capping it. They got caught. The penalty? They have now sent notices to all of us that we are capped at 22GB and anything beyond that will be greatly slowed down...this then is they way they get around the law: they say "sure it's slower, but it's unlimited." Like I'm going to sue to resolve this (years in courts fighting expensive lawyers and likely a corporate friendly judge). So wow what a penalty, they have to disclose what they are doing...but can continue doing it.
 
WhoMe said:
My ISP gave me a lifetime unlimited contract. Only it turned out for some people they were capping it. They got caught. The penalty? They have now sent notices to all of us that we are capped at 22GB and anything beyond that will be greatly slowed down...this then is they way they get around the law: they say "sure it's slower, but it's unlimited." Like I'm going to sue to resolve this (years in courts fighting expensive lawyers and likely a corporate friendly judge). So wow what a penalty, they have to disclose what they are doing...but can continue doing it.
Click to expand...
But they were pulling this crap with NN. NN doesn't disallow data caps. I would file a complaint with the FTC, that's their job to fight false advertisement, which is exactly what you're describing.
No one is suggesting that you need to sue the ISP.
 
Ranulfo said:
This all got started again in the last 8 years or so because Netflix was too cheap to pay for their own bandwidth and repeatedly absused other providers bandwidth for what their customers were using in a system that was setup to keep things equal. Voluntary hook up to the internet backbone, bring your servers and offer equal priority of data over your lines to get equal access over others. Netflix said... eff you other guys because money. Perhaps streaming isn't so profitable as we're lead to believe, at least in the past.
Click to expand...

None of that even makes sense, or is even remotely true.

Netflix pays for all their bandwidth, nobody would host them for free.

They paid for their bandwidth, I paid my ISP for mine, connect me. What I decide to use that bandwidth for is none of my ISPs business.

Turns out that people don't like being gouged on their cable TV bills and have been dropping cable TV like hot cakes, and ISPs have seen their profits drop.

Because of that, ISPs decided that they needed to be paid again, once by their customers (home users) and once again by Netflix, for the ability to send data to their customers.

Nowhere in any of this was there an unpaid bill or unfair use of someone's infrastructure. Those are ISP talking points, not anything based on facts or reality.
 
aaronspink said:
No they don't. The FTC authority is extremely limited and prescribed by law. WRT to ISPs, the FTC is basically limited to dealing with false advertisement and M&A. The FCC can state whatever they want, it doesn't change the actual law. The only US government authority wrt ISPs is the FCC and the FCC cannot pass that authority to another agency by law.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do, and in the past they have used that authority. But there was a time for awhile where they didn't have this reach and it's this time that your statement would correctly reference. If ISPs engage in unfair business practices the FTC has full authority to not only take them to court over it, but to also sue them in their customer's name and secure compensatory money for those people.
 
Gigus Fire said:
But they were pulling this crap with NN. NN doesn't disallow data caps. I would file a complaint with the FTC, that's their job to fight false advertisement, which is exactly what you're describing.
No one is suggesting that you need to sue the ISP.
Click to expand...
My point was they already settled with the FTC...the big penalty was they now have to disclose what they are doing.
 
bugleyman said:
Then why was Netflix brought up in the first place? :confused:
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ , you are the very definition of a SJW , you know Jack about what you are spouting and keep pissing all over generic terms you picked up in HuffPost and Slate. If anyone wanted to check the def of cliche they just need to look at you. Stop digging !
 
So Washington state is basically pulling a Kevin Magnussen (F1 driver) and telling Ajit Pai to "suck my balls, mate." Awesome.
 
Holonist said:
Jesus Christ , you are the very definition of a SJW , you know Jack about what you are spouting and keep pissing all over generic terms you picked up in HuffPost and Slate. If anyone wanted to check the def of cliche they just need to look at you. Stop digging !
Click to expand...

Sorry, I honestly can't tell if you're kidding, or if you're just a raging asshole.

I've never been to HuffPost or Slate. I've made no mention of social justice. Not that any of that matters, since this thread isn't about me. It's about NN, and I'm asking questions because I'm having trouble believing the apparent lack of rational thought on display in this thread.

But really, nothing here in any way justifies your bizarrely hostile, imbecilic tirade. Seriously...what is wrong with you? :facepalm:

Edit: Oh right, 11 posts. My bad for getting trolled. Welcome to the ignore list.
 
Last edited:
Chupachup said:
If Washington goes for this on purely technical grounds, as it pertains to use and access, within the boundaries of the State and not with the purpose of enforcing or restraining interstate trade, they may be fully within their rights and outside the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause.

This is the State, allowing free trade and applying constraints specific to activities occurring within its boundaries.

Example:

The federal guidelines for recommended maximum speeds on U.S. interstate highways are now commonly adjusted by the states and local municipalities from 55mph to as high as 85mph.

This means the speed on a length of highway, I-75 for instance, going from the southern tip of Florida to the northern reaches of Michigan, can see multiple changes in speed between states or multiple changes in a single jurisdiction within one state.

U.S. Interstates receive federal funding and must meet or exceed federal guidelines for construction and maintenance. And yet state and regional authorities are able to set the speeds and even determine how many lane configurations certain stretches will have. Leaving one state on four lanes does not ordain that you enter the next with same. You could enter on six lanes or end up merging down to two.

To that point, we've often referred to the internet as the high tech highway and hear about slow, standard and high-speed lanes, being bandied about.

We could also expand the inference to include truckers and how states mandate load limits per axle and even the maximum number or trailers a single rig is allowed to haul (data size and transmission rate) or segmentation of traffic to allow for carpool lanes on federal interstate systems.

While the internet is a mash of systems interconnected with wires, there is a definite parallel in how roads and internet systems operate and if the FCC won't step up for the citizenry the states should and will.
​
Alright! Tear it apart booiiiissss!!!:D
Click to expand...

Washington State has no regulatory agency that has any idea how anything on the internet works. Might as well as a Dairy Queen manager how to run a Cow Milking Operation. Just because there is a law/regulation doesn't mean there is a way to enforce it. Big ISP's will simply tell the state to F-off if they want to. The state will then have to sue. I suspect this will devolve into a way to keep big ISP as monopolies. In fact it may be the true purpose. Small ISP don't have the resources to fight State government.
 
Lenard said:
Washington State has no regulatory agency that has any idea how anything on the internet works. Might as well as a Dairy Queen manager how to run a Cow Milking Operation. Just because there is a law/regulation doesn't mean there is a way to enforce it. Big ISP's will simply tell the state to F-off if they want to. The state will then have to sue. I suspect this will devolve into a way to keep big ISP as monopolies. In fact it may be the true purpose. Small ISP don't have the resources to fight State government.
Click to expand...
This is exactly correct for a problem that needs to be highlighted. Small businesses and individuals do not have the power to fight entities like the state because the state has unlimited funds and will to make life miserable. Big corporations can afford fighting entities like the state because they have budgets exactly for this reason. It's a barrier to entry that enforces their grip on the monopolies/duopolies they have established.
Even small isps which i'm sure exist to some extent will have to bend over backwards to accommodate the state's legislature regardless if it's fully legal and vetted. Big companies can just tie it up in court.
 
bugleyman said:
Sorry, I honestly can't tell if you're kidding, or if you're just a raging asshole.

I've never been to HuffPost or Slate. I've made no mention of social justice. Not that any of that matters, since this thread isn't about me. It's about NN, and I'm asking questions because I'm having trouble believing the apparent lack of rational thought on display in this thread.

But really, nothing here in any way justifies your bizarrely hostile, imbecilic tirade. Seriously...what is wrong with you? :facepalm:

Edit: Oh right, 11 posts. My bad for getting trolled. Welcome to the ignore list.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're serious or not.
Netflix is one of the main reasons why NN laws existed to begin with.
To boil it all down to a small clip that's understandable, ISPs wanted to make more money. There are interconnect agreements in which big networks pay each other depending on the amount of traffic that flows to and from them. Last leg ISPs generally have to pay money out because they consume a lot more than they create. They purposely throttled Netflix and blamed it on netflix because they wanted netflix to pay them for the bandwidth their users were using even though their users were already paying for the bandwidth. It's called double dipping.
Eventually because they hid the fact that they were throttling and netflix saw this as a threat to it's marketshare (customers were getting upset they couldn't utilize the service they were paying for any were being directed to netflix from the ISPs) they bent to extortion and decided to pay for hosted servers on the major ISPs networks paying them a pretty penny.

The problem is that most startups cannot afford such a cost and ISPs throttling services is a very questionable action considering they've been sued in the past for doing exactly that.

Asking why Netflix was brought up during a discussion about NN shows at best you're being obtuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top