Justice Department Sues California Over Net Neutrality Law

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
After California's Senate passed the bill earlier this month, Governor Jerry Brown signed California's net neutrality bill into law this weekend. But before the ink was even dry, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California in an attempt to stop the bill. The federal government claims that its the FCC's job to regulate broadband communication, while ISP lobbying groups say they wish to avoid "50 states stepping in with their own conflicting open internet solutions." The FCC repealed net neutrality nation wide earlier this year, and FCC chairman Ajit Pai strongly protested the bill after it passed through California's legislature.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that California's net neutrality law was illegal because Congress granted the federal government, through the F.C.C., the sole authority to create rules for broadband internet providers. "States do not regulate interstate commerce - the federal government does," Mr. Sessions said in a statement. "Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy."
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 278999

Guest
So not only is the FCC not doing their job they are now purposefully attacking an open approach to the Internet?

Ajit Pai should be investigating by the FBI. Now that would be a good use of their resources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

UnrealCpu

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
2,763
you kids obvously are not aware what has been going on the last year when it comes to what the FCC chairman can do or change when it comes to the internet. Trump has basically changed everything what the obama era gave us and will continue to be big changes in the future. The new China trade agreement is one of them where PC parts will be increased in price across the board.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
Wait... I thought they scrapped net neutrality because the internet was outside the scope of the FCC?!

They're now claiming that the FCC made the ruling because of interstate commerce being a requirement of internet regulations, thus it can only be regulated from the federal government. The role back was for a "consumer friendly" version.

I think they underestimated the backlash and are attacking the biggest target to try and get some caselaw to attack the other 20+ states that are putting in similar laws.
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
you kids obvously are not aware what has been going on the last year when it comes to what the FCC chairman can do or change when it comes to the internet. Trump has basically changed everything what the obama era gave us and will continue to be big changes in the future. The new China trade agreement is one of them where PC parts will be increased in price across the board.

I could care less about tariffs. (Honestly) The money goes to the gov't I'm hoping it will be used to someway offset the effects of trade deficit. But it will likely be spent on some big corporation on some over budget defense black box project.

But the upshot of tariffs is that encourage business to source locally. That in the long term is GOOD for our economy. Stagflation is the result of outsourcing and the loss of semi-skilled middle income jobs. The steel tariff affected our own industry. Now we always bought American, but now the tariffs are in place, steel mills can raise the price to somewhere where they can actually make a small profit. (Steel mills in places like China are subsidized by the government and the steel is inferior and sold to USA BELOW cost) It has been predatory like this for years with all this dumping. And we really do need our steel mills. Steel mills, transportation, and energy sectors are some of the things that made this country great. Technology can be stolen or duplicated unfortunately. So the only recourse is to put up walls to protect the industries in question.

OPEC got worried with all our Shale NG drilling. That's why the price of gas plummeted because they were worried we would become self sufficient and a destabilizing force in their market for which they had control. So they sold us product so low in cost it forced Shale drillers to go bankrupt.

That said I know tariffs will be out with the next administration. Especially when the next recession hits. It will be a tool to boost the markets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Wait... I thought they scrapped net neutrality because the internet was outside the scope of the FCC?![/QUOTE
I agree..
I thought they lost initially ( the fcc) because NN was ruled its outside the fcc UNLESS title II, which the fcc reclassified them as under Obama.. so now what? They don't want to regulate, but also not let others regulate?.. besides even if they do have complete control, isn't like in other things like EPA where states can make STRICTER regulations but not less? Here the feds are suing against stricter regulations, they should lose i think...
 
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
I thought they lost initially ( the fcc) because they it was ruled its outside the fcc UNLESS title II, which the fcc reclassified them as under Obama.. so now what? They don't want to regulate, but also not let others regulate?.. besides even if they do have complete control, isn't like in other things like EPA where states can make STRICTER regulations but not less? Here the feds are suing against stricter regulations, they should lose i think...

According to the constitution no state can create laws that usurp power away from federal laws. (Hence forth the contention from POT friendly states versus the feds which have it listed as a regulated Narcotic.) HOWEVER there are no laws in place regarding regulation. So there is no USURPING of laws.
 

JosiahBradley

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 19, 2006
Messages
1,791
I hope they start throttling services and Netflix jumps to 100$ a month. That way everyone wins when I disconnect all my services and no one makes any money. Capitalism is a two way street. If you piss off the consumer enough you lose money as well. This is why toasters don't cost 5000$ because even though almost everyone is going to buy one you need to strike a balance between need and cost. Same with the Internet. Make it impossible for me to actually use the damn thing I'm going back to reading physical books.
 

Dead Parrot

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
2,831
The court arguments on this could be entertaining. IIRC, the way the Obama FCC tried to do NN was through a Title II kludge. The Trump FCC undid that and basically said they can't/shouldn't regulate NN at all. So for the Justice Dept to argue it is solely the FCC's realm to regulate when the FCC has said they don't want it could well leave an opening for Cali to argue that since the FCC gave it up, the states can step in if they so choose. Then you get into the thing about is an ISP providing a service an interstate commerce activity. Especially for a land line type service like cable or DSL. The service is provided at a fixed point that doesn't cross state lines. Cell data service is likely interstate since phones can roam. States have a lot of regulations on phone and cable service. Not sure how different ISP services will be found by the courts.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
22,819
After California's Senate passed the bill earlier this month, Governor Jerry Brown signed California's net neutrality bill into law this weekend. But before the ink was even dry, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California in an attempt to stop the bill. The federal government claims that its the FCC's job to regulate broadband communication, while ISP lobbying groups say they wish to avoid "50 states stepping in with their own conflicting open internet solutions." The FTC repealed net neutrality nation wide earlier this year, and FTC chairman Ajit Pai strongly protested the bill after it passed through California's legislature.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that California's net neutrality law was illegal because Congress granted the federal government, through the F.C.C., the sole authority to create rules for broadband internet providers. "States do not regulate interstate commerce - the federal government does," Mr. Sessions said in a statement. "Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy."
Wow, you guys are mixing up your alphabet soup agencies in adjacent sentences.
According to the constitution no state can create laws that usurp power away from federal laws. (Hence forth the contention from POT friendly states versus the feds which have it listed as a regulated Narcotic.) HOWEVER there are no laws in place regarding regulation. So there is no USURPING of laws.
The federal government is arguing that internet service is interstate commerce, which is a power that is enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government.
 
D

Deleted member 278999

Guest
The court arguments on this could be entertaining. IIRC, the way the Obama FCC tried to do NN was through a Title II kludge. The Trump FCC undid that and basically said they can't/shouldn't regulate NN at all. So for the Justice Dept to argue it is solely the FCC's realm to regulate when the FCC has said they don't want it could well leave an opening for Cali to argue that since the FCC gave it up, the states can step in if they so choose. Then you get into the thing about is an ISP providing a service an interstate commerce activity. Especially for a land line type service like cable or DSL. The service is provided at a fixed point that doesn't cross state lines. Cell data service is likely interstate since phones can roam. States have a lot of regulations on phone and cable service. Not sure how different ISP services will be found by the courts.

See, but this gets back to a central point that the US is a union of states and to some degree what a state wants to do it can and will. Take Marijuana for example. Still illegal federally but you're welcome to smoke it up in CA.

With great power comes great responsibility and the FCC royally fucked up.

I mean, what is the fed going to do? Force California to comply? Then other states would be like:

tom-delonge-wtf1.gif

And bam. Civil War 2.0.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 93354

Guest
Wow, you guys are mixing up your alphabet soup agencies in adjacent sentences.

The federal government is arguing that internet service is interstate commerce, which is a power that is enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government.

It's a weak argument. Throttling and all occurs at the ISP interconnect point which is semi-local. They all run off Tier 3 providers. Those are the true internet backbones that cross states.
 

Rebeldawg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 22, 2007
Messages
251
Why does the article state that it's the FCC correctly the first time, but then the rest of the time it refers to it as the FTC? Since Ajit Pai worked for Verizon formerly, it doesn't surprise me that the FCC is suing California as they're attempting to prevent ISPs from double-dipping and it'll hurt his former masters bottom line.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
778
I agree..
I thought they lost initially ( the fcc) because NN was ruled its outside the fcc UNLESS title II, which the fcc reclassified them as under Obama.. so now what? They don't want to regulate, but also not let others regulate?.. besides even if they do have complete control, isn't like in other things like EPA where states can make STRICTER regulations but not less? Here the feds are suing against stricter regulations, they should lose i think...

this.
very much this
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
States that actually enforce net neutrality laws are going to win out on this. Since the federal government decided not to regulate net neutrality it falls to the states to do so. Heck if Texas did the same my vote might be different in the upcoming election. That's how much things like this matter to people.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
I applaud California for standing up to the bullshit this administration is pulling

As a native Californian, I'm sick of the constant anti-trump everything coming from the Democrats in this state.

The Democrats are spending huge amounts of money in my local congressional district to unseat the current Republican. I get fliers in the mail almost every day.
Funny part, is that the fliers are so anti-trump and so anti every good thing he has done, they make me want to vote for the Republican even more. :D
 

cjcox

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,794
It's California... so tax the Internet providers to death, but allow a rebate for those services and such that operate "freely" (force morality through coercion.... it's the California way!).
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,785
As a native Californian, I'm sick of the constant anti-trump everything coming from the Democrats in this state.

The Democrats are spending huge amounts of money in my local congressional district to unseat the current Republican. I get fliers in the mail almost every day.
Funny part, is that the fliers are so anti-trump and so anti every good thing he has done, they make me want to vote for the Republican even more. :D
Must be the world's smallest flier ever :)
I hope they start throttling services and Netflix jumps to 100$ a month. That way everyone wins when I disconnect all my services and no one makes any money. Capitalism is a two way street. If you piss off the consumer enough you lose money as well. This is why toasters don't cost 5000$ because even though almost everyone is going to buy one you need to strike a balance between need and cost. Same with the Internet. Make it impossible for me to actually use the damn thing I'm going back to reading physical books.
Make America great again !!
America only country in the world that has a hard time competing with 3rd world countries internet :)
 

Donald Bell

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
160
Seems like the Fed wants to "give power back to the States" unless those States are blue...
 

Donald Bell

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
160
As a native Californian, I'm sick of the constant anti-trump everything coming from the Democrats in this state.

The Democrats are spending huge amounts of money in my local congressional district to unseat the current Republican. I get fliers in the mail almost every day.
Funny part, is that the fliers are so anti-trump and so anti every good thing he has done, they make me want to vote for the Republican even more. :D

You must subscribe to the alternate definition of "good"... :rolleyes:
 

Donald Bell

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
160
I hope they start throttling services and Netflix jumps to 100$ a month. That way everyone wins when I disconnect all my services and no one makes any money. Capitalism is a two way street. If you piss off the consumer enough you lose money as well. This is why toasters don't cost 5000$ because even though almost everyone is going to buy one you need to strike a balance between need and cost. Same with the Internet. Make it impossible for me to actually use the damn thing I'm going back to reading physical books.

I keep having to explain over and over again: publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to make as much money as possible for their share holders. The only thing stopping mega corps from bleeding citizens dry is government intervention. Pick your poison. Do you want to be secretly controlled by companies (who have trained you to think that you have a say by voting with your wallet) or do you want to rely on the government, as intended by the Constitution, to protect the rights of citizens? Corporations aren't citizens. Corporations aren't people. Corporations aren't your favorite sports team or your favorite bands. There is no reason to root for a company like ATT with a half trillion dollars in assets that profits billions of dollars a year. They aren't your friend.

And, to put it in perspective, if you pulled out from ATT internet @$100/month, you would account for a 0.000003% loss in yearly revenue for ATT. Voting with your wallet won't work on them.
 

Cyraxx

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,060
I'm pretty conservative - and this isn't conservative action.... The conservative action would stand-up for states having their right to impose laws as they seem fit.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,071
You must subscribe to the alternate definition of "good"... :rolleyes:

Well, considering today's definition of good and what the actual definition of good is, I would say yes, he does subscribe to what today's world would consider the alternate definition of good. :D Ah, oh well, states do not have the rights they used to anymore and this has been this way for a very long time. (Mind you, I did not say they don't have the rights themselves, just that they have been redefined and removed.) :D California is a beautiful place to visit but I would not want to live there.
 

XvMMvX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,665
You must subscribe to the alternate definition of "good"... :rolleyes:

More money in my pocket, a booming economy, and a good outlook for the foreseeable future... yes that is good. No MSM isn't telling you this you have to actually be in and understand business to get it. Our companies can't find trucks, drivers, materials, etc. There are giant backlogs happening right now.

All the other shit lefties get their panties in a twist about means dick.

If your platform is higher taxes on the "rich and corporations" then I am not voting for you... full stop.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
You must subscribe to the alternate definition of "good"... :rolleyes:

Guess it depends on your definition of "good"

I'd consider the lowest unemployment in decades good, but I can see how the left hates people getting jobs and no longer needing to depend on the government.

I'd consider new trade agreements that lower trade deficits as good for American workers.

I'd consider tax cuts that stimulate the economy and help the middle class good, but rich people in high tax blue states don't like having their tax breaks limited.
(I live in California which is a high tax blue state, but the tax cuts are saving me about $2,000 this year because I have a middle class income and don't have a $800,000 mortgage)

I'd consider it good that North Korea is no longer sending rockets over Japan, and no longer testing Nukes, but I guess others disagree.

I'd consider the US becoming more energy independent good, but the left hates that we are producing more oil.

I'd consider the record stock market good news for most Americans who have retirement accounts.
The last 2 years of gains means that I actually might be able to retire before I'm 70. (Hard to save in a high tax, high cost of living blue state)

I suggest looking at Trumps accomplishments and imagining these where all due to your favorite candidate instead of Trump. You might find a lot to support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
Guess it depends on your definition of "good"

I'd consider the lowest unemployment in decades good, but I can see how the left hates people getting jobs and no longer needing to depend on the government.

I'd consider new trade agreements that lower trade deficits as good for American workers.

I'd consider tax cuts that stimulate the economy and help the middle class good, but rich people in high tax blue states don't like having their tax breaks limited.
(I live in California which is a high tax blue state, but the tax cuts are saving me about $2,000 this year because I have a middle class income and don't have a $800,000 mortgage)

I'd consider it good that North Korea is no longer sending rockets over Japan, and no longer testing Nukes, but I guess others disagree.

I'd consider the US becoming more energy independent good, but the left hates that we are producing more oil.

I'd consider the record stock market good news for most Americans who have retirement accounts.
The last 2 years of gains means that I actually might be able to retire before I'm 70. (Hard to save in a high tax, high cost of living blue state)

I suggest looking at Trumps accomplishments and imagining these where all due to your favorite candidate instead of Trump. You might find a lot to support.


Lets see if Trumps policies survive 8-10 years. then you will feel the full impact of the changes he has implemented. Not to say he hasn't been good to big business. I truly believe he has. But the way he has been good in my non doctored opinion is that it is good for short term gains and bad for long term gains.

In essence we are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and soon enough Peter is going to be done with it and shit will hit the fan.

(Wow that last sentence even impressed me.)

To rephrase. I think his actions will have a much greater and longer setting negative impact on our economy and our social well being as a nation than the brief short term gains we are seeing.
 

PaulP

Gawd
Joined
Oct 31, 2016
Messages
776
Wait... I thought they scrapped net neutrality because the internet was outside the scope of the FCC?!
You thought wrong. The US Congress gave the FCC the power to regulate all forms of electronic communication, including the Internet. If the FCC decides not to regulate it in a particular manner, whatever the reasoning, this does not allow the individual states to step in and do it for themselves. You can moan and bitch about it all you want, but this is a nation of laws, and the law(s) that established the FCC are the current law of the land. If you don't like it, you are free to either leave or vote for people that will change it. Simply defying a law you don't like (without any consequences) is not an option. California will soon discover this. Frankly, I think they already know they will lose; this is just a symbolic gesture on their part.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
To rephrase. I think his actions will have a much greater and longer setting negative impact on our economy and our social well being as a nation than the brief short term gains we are seeing.

And I believe the long term gains will be even better than the short term, unless this country elects someone who takes us back to the failed policies of the previous administration.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, and wait to see the results.
 
Last edited:
Top