D
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Justice Department Sues California Over Net Neutrality Law
- Thread starter AlphaAtlas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- internet net neutrality
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,909
Lets ignore that Net Neutrality was removed not because the people voted for it to be removed, but because Verizon lobbied for it to be removed. When we went to the FCC website and told them we want Net Neutrality to stay and crashed the website, they said it was hacked. But them motherfuckers used my dead Grandma to make a fake post in support of removing Net Neutrality.
Nation of laws paid for by Verizon. Seriously, why hasn't Ajit Pai been fired?
Why hasn't the removal of Net Neutrality been taken to court because it's obvious Ajit Pai was paid by lobbying money to do so. The law is bogus when it was put in by corruption.
NWRMidnight
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2010
- Messages
- 352
Oh how the sheep have been mislead. And since this isn't a P&R forum, that is all I can say on this topic.
As for the NN lawsuit, since their are no federal laws currently on the books for NN, now that the FCC has repealed NN and it's been removed, the states are within their legal rights to create their own. If there where Federal NN laws on the books, then it would be a different story, but their are not. See the the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution.
I am pretty sure that all the legal analysts have already stated that this is incorrect, that they removed themselves from having any control when they repealed NN. But I may be mistaken. That is why it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
No, the FCC can't simply decide that the Internet is outside their jurisdiction. What they did is move it from one regulatory area to another, but it is still under their authority.
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,351
States always loose.
I could be wrong, but that's not the way the Commerce Clause of the constitution works. The FCCs prior claims (now rescinded) were undertaken under Title II, which traces its authority to the Commerce Clause. The regulation of Interstate Commerce is reserved as the sole responsibly of the federal government. Unlike rights and responsibilities "not otherwise enumerated", which are reserved for the states, this one is actually pretty clearly and exclusively federal. The Feds decision not to regulate does not create any right for the states to do so.
I don't suppose anyone told you this, and that you missed it in the news. Net Neutrality was not "appealed" repealed" or abolished, or destroyed.
The Internet was reclassified as Title I instead of Title II. Some rules were removed, others were left in place and remain. It's not a complete reversion to what things were before.
I recommend to you that if you care at all, go look into it. G look for what Pai left in place because he didn't get rid of all of it.
The sooner you learn what remains in place, the sooner you can adjust to your incorrect assumptions which I will allow are largely due to biased media leaving out the truth in order to muddy the waters.
Oh FFS. Every. Single. Thread.
That's the thing.. under title i the fcc lost in court as being the regulatory authority, so no authority= states authority valid? Or isps under title ii still? Meh.
Unconstitutional law as it discriminates against men.
They also included in the law that there has to be at least 1 man on every board of directors to be fare.
I assume you also know that they plan to increase that number until they eventually require that at least 50% of all board of director positions be women.
I would expect most large companies to move their main office out of California long before they hit the 50% number.
Patton187
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2012
- Messages
- 672
A tarrif war isn't what I'd call an agreement.
Patton187
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2012
- Messages
- 672
Man, such virtue.
Patton187
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2012
- Messages
- 672
Lose
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,863
*Shrug* Glad I do not live in California, I already live in one of the most heavily taxed state, NY, and the most heavily taxed counties, Erie, in the country. :O Cali makes their decisions based upon what the elites say anyways, not on the people themselves. I would truly question why Cali would create a law unless it benefits them greatly in some way. Maybe it is the elections coming up and this is just a ploy to get votes, who knows.
Donald Bell
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2018
- Messages
- 160
My definition is the normal one, not the Alex Jones/Rush Limbaugh/Fox News version which tends to be a moving target depending on who we are talking about.
Low unemployment is good, lack of economic sustainability is bad (penny wise pound foolish)
Trade deficits is a term I hear thrown around quite a bit on TV by people who have clearly never taken an economics class. Trade deficits and trade surpluses are neither good nor bad. People hear "deficit" and think "Oh that's bad." It isn't. American workers are losing more jobs to automation than any other factor. (losing jobs ≠ unemployment)
You are in the minority if you are paying less in taxes and calculating your 2018 taxes correctly. Small business owners are going to be hit hard when they do their 2018 taxes. Also, the little bit that some in the middle class may be benefiting is a result of "trickle down economics", which is completely unsustainable.
Is this where I'm supposed to say "fake news"? I mean, cmon... Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=nor...ubdAhXRoFMKHZBqCR8Q_AUIDigB&biw=2560&bih=1337
The US can make all the oil it wants, it will never be energy independent, especially with fossil fuels.
Ride the wave while you can.
I'm was life long Republican until 2016. I can't stand Hilary Clinton. However, Trump is a toddler who has accomplished less than nothing. He is an amalgamation of ignorance, propaganda, and social media. The irony of Reds who have said the Blues were running a shadow government, when the current administration is sending anonymous OP-ED letters admitting to just that. They have to give Trump his binkie and his crayons while the adults try to keep the country together after each tantrum. He is an embarrassment who has a sick fascination with dictators, no perspective when it comes to the working class, and zero human decency.
Whether by pride, indoctrination, or just plain ignorance, I know that many choose to only see Trump as some sort of divine savior. Those people need to gain some perspective. There is a world that exists outside of me, myself, and I. Trump is the most unpopular President of all time. Yet, he is even less popular outside the US.
I understand the demographic on [H]. I understand that most of this will fall on deaf ears. I'm just sick of certain people singing that clouds are suddenly raining money since Jan 2017.
Donald Bell
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2018
- Messages
- 160
FCC ruled that the Internet is not Title II. The FCC now has no control of the Internet providers, deferring to the FTC. State passes law, FCC says it has the control to make States not have control over non-Title II entities which the FCC has no control over. There is no law. There is no defiance, other than against the wishes of the GOP. The wishes of the GOP aren't laws. If the Fed wants to protect the providers, it has to pass laws to do just that, They can't not have laws and not allow States to pass laws. There is also precedent that shows California is legally in the right. News sources outside of Fox News are talking about it.
Donald Bell
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2018
- Messages
- 160
Yeah, but "me, me, me, now, now, now!"
Who cares that most of the economic growth is a result of the policies laid by the previous administration (who I didn't even vote for in either election *gasp*)
Donald Bell
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2018
- Messages
- 160
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
And yet you fell for it? Lots of people saying things regardless of content let them no one that has a clue knows it has no basis in reality.
Just people parroting for the sake of parroting what the great leader tells them. Nothing exclusive to America
I would like to see what happens in the lawsuit and after that reality might have caught up with the situation doubt that the FCC will be unchanged in the event of political change.
Call me crazy, but I'd like to be able to follow the tech news (and related discussion) here without constantly being subjected to inane political screeds. I have in-laws for that.
Edit: And here's the thing I don't get: Any actual fiscal conservative would find Trump's administration an absolute, unmitigated disaster. Trump is NOT a conservative. Why are so many people Rs drinking the Trump Kool-Aid? The man is poisoning the well for at least a generation.
Last edited:
Twisted Kidney
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,094
State's Rights matter right up until the politicians I worship tell me they are a bad idea.
Indeed. See almost every wedge issue in the country over the last 75 years or so.
Thinking more about it, i think states might prevail.. or at least should .
FCC can't have it both ways, declare themselves hands off, to then not be hands off. If medicare said well im out of the regulations business... hospitals don't need to comply with anything and will still get paid.. then what? They going to sue states that step in to address concerns about safety in healthcare? I mean even if they wrote it in rules, it should be pretty transparent to a judge what is going on.. can the federal government really dictate to the states well, the rules are no rules or very little rules, but also, we can't have any of your laws either , even if not contradictory when it comes to X ( fcc, whatever).
FCC can't have it both ways, declare themselves hands off, to then not be hands off. If medicare said well im out of the regulations business... hospitals don't need to comply with anything and will still get paid.. then what? They going to sue states that step in to address concerns about safety in healthcare? I mean even if they wrote it in rules, it should be pretty transparent to a judge what is going on.. can the federal government really dictate to the states well, the rules are no rules or very little rules, but also, we can't have any of your laws either , even if not contradictory when it comes to X ( fcc, whatever).
I don't get this at all. The FCC never said "hand's off". The FCC said, (how did it go?), a "light touch" regulation? This isn't hands off or an abdication of regulatory responsibility, it was a reclassification of the level of regulatory oversight for more intense, to less intense.
The US Postal Service is an independent Federal Agency "responsible for providing postal service in the United States, including its insular areas and associated states."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
States have tried to levy Tolls on the mail service unsuccessfully as this power has been granted to the Federal Government. The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Postal Powers were reserved to the Federal Government by Congress, and the States were denied power over it. Therefor, although private enterprise (UPS, FEDEX, etc..), may engage in delivery services, the States, as organs of government are denied such powers.
The same sort of relationship exists with regards to the FCC. This element of the Federal Government has been charged and given sole regulatory power over communications services; "The FCC was formed by the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the radio regulation functions of the Federal Radio Commission. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
Cali is going to lose this one.
Last edited:
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
Maybe not you per say Icpiper, but plenty of folks were saying.. "The FCC is backing off so states can do their own thing this should be a state issue." now that the FCC has backed off and states are stepping up as clearly the understood the exact same thing all of the Republican... backers... are here saying. "No this was never for the states the corporations need to regulate themselves." And we all know how well that will work. Same reason we broke up Bell decades ago.
The States do not have the authority to do this at all. "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government created by statute (47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable."
The States have not been granted this power, it was granted to the Federal Government to regulate, therefor the States can not and that is why Cali is being sued over it.
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
If the states can prove that the local distribution of internet access is not interstate commerce they can do as they like. The providers in question don't own the lines of major distribution that Nortel and others put in place. They own the local distribution.
So I would argue that as long as the ISP business is registered as a singular entity in the state then the state can regulate them. If they are registered as a global entity doing distribution to multple states from a singular hub then they would be subject to federal regulation only.
As most providers are registered as local ISP's in order to avoid being labeled as anti competitive even though they enforce protection from the local governments, they are subject to state regulation while the larger backbones are Federal only.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,598
Rules #1
(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS, NO TROLLING. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm, this includes personal attacks in signatures. NO POLITICAL DISCUSSION OUTSIDE OF THE SOAPBOX SUBFORUM. http://hardforum.com/account/upgrades
(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS, NO TROLLING. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm, this includes personal attacks in signatures. NO POLITICAL DISCUSSION OUTSIDE OF THE SOAPBOX SUBFORUM. http://hardforum.com/account/upgrades
The local distribution of internet access is not at question. Regulatory authority is.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/31/17805892/california-sb822-net-neutrality-law-vote
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/technology/net-neutrality-california.html
All of those providers, local or otherwise are engaged in providing internet service which is the single greatest vehicle of interstate commerce. People all over the country use the internet in order to purchase services and products from acrossed the world. You can't separate one from the other, these businesses, even the local ones are all engaged in interstate commerce as a service. They provide the services off which interstate commerce depends.
Turn them all off tomorrow, then measure the impact on interstate and international trade.
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
So you are saying that states prohibiting specific throttling of legal content on the internet is going to adversely effect the internet services provided? Or are you saying states enacting different policies on a state by state basis will impact the quality of service? I know you are stating legality. Nobody is saying turn it all of between us here.
So if I am a company lets say called Oncor. All I do is local power distribution of power. I manage power distribution stations and make sure that the power that comes over the larger lines makes it to homes. My Role is NOT to get the power to the region to but equitably deliver the power coming in.
Now I can sell you power if it is Green from a windmill, Green from a Solar farm, Standard from a Coal or other plant, or even nuclear. Based on generation. It all comes over the same lines.
I am regulated by the state. I would offer that power is also required for interstate commerce. If the local power distrubtion network can be state regulated. And the larger line carriers of power are Federally regulated. (Guess what... they are I'm familiar with the industry.)
Why is it that we can not do the same with the internet? (because that's where were headed anyway.)
The answer is actually that we can. All of the tools are effectively in place to allow all of this. The simple fact of the matter is it would be harmful to see how traffic manipulation is being done by many of the larger ISP's.
So if I am a company lets say called Oncor. All I do is local power distribution of power. I manage power distribution stations and make sure that the power that comes over the larger lines makes it to homes. My Role is NOT to get the power to the region to but equitably deliver the power coming in.
Now I can sell you power if it is Green from a windmill, Green from a Solar farm, Standard from a Coal or other plant, or even nuclear. Based on generation. It all comes over the same lines.
I am regulated by the state. I would offer that power is also required for interstate commerce. If the local power distrubtion network can be state regulated. And the larger line carriers of power are Federally regulated. (Guess what... they are I'm familiar with the industry.)
Why is it that we can not do the same with the internet? (because that's where were headed anyway.)
The answer is actually that we can. All of the tools are effectively in place to allow all of this. The simple fact of the matter is it would be harmful to see how traffic manipulation is being done by many of the larger ISP's.
verylostindeed
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2004
- Messages
- 660
A lot of FUD in this thread.
California has effectively no chance at prevailing in this lawsuit. This is a straight forward exercise of the dormant commerce clause doctrine. The federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce includes the right to say that interstate commerce shall NOT be regulated in a particular fashion. The FCC's actions on net neutrality preclude the states from taking a contrary position.
Don't like that? Your remedy lies with Congress, which . . . good luck with that!
California has effectively no chance at prevailing in this lawsuit. This is a straight forward exercise of the dormant commerce clause doctrine. The federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce includes the right to say that interstate commerce shall NOT be regulated in a particular fashion. The FCC's actions on net neutrality preclude the states from taking a contrary position.
Don't like that? Your remedy lies with Congress, which . . . good luck with that!
verylostindeed
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2004
- Messages
- 660
You are very much mistaken. California has no chance in this lawsuit.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Power delivery has just as much interstate commerce and yet there are both federal, state, and local regulations regarding the delivery. The state and local regulations apply to only those portions of the electrical grid which are local to the state or city/town, respectively. Likewise, there are myriad local and state telecommunication rules and laws that have been upheld as perfectly legal, even though the FCC apparently owns it all...
And you damn well can separate the state/local infrastructure from the interstate infrastructure. Hell, the telecommunications companies do it internally on a daily basis.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Um, considering that the DOJ is trying to do something which they were slapped on just a couple year ago involving the FCC and preemption.... California has a very very good chance on prevailing on this. The preemption power of the FCC was ruled extremely weak not even 4 years ago in federal appeals court.
verylostindeed
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2004
- Messages
- 660
I mean, not even a month ago the 8th Circuit upheld FCC's preemption authority over information services.
To be clear, I'm not a fan of the administration's actions to put it very mildly, but they should win this case on the law.
Power companies are regulated under Title II.
Not Title I.
And we are not talking about regulating who puts cables where. We are talking about service delivery.
Look, we are not going to come together on this so I'm fine with allowing the US Courts to figure it out.
4 Years ago when the Internet was classified as a Title II utility?
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Under which the FCC had significantly more authority. It is likely that California is going to use both Verizon vs FCC and Tennessee vs FCC to basically fubar the ISPs which will have some irony (first was what voided NN under Title I and second was what voided FCC preemption of state bans on municipal networks, both of which have rather significant precedent against the current DOJ action).
Power companies aren't under Title I or II, they are under FERC. About the only interaction the FCC has with power companies is regulations on wayward EMI from transmission lines.