or is just trying to make a political statement at taxpayer cost.
ding ding.... we have a winner.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
or is just trying to make a political statement at taxpayer cost.
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.
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.
Yes, the entire issue is millennials streaming. Thank you for clearing that up.
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.
If you are clever you can make a case for just about anything under the sun falling under the commerce clause.
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?
Lol that doesn't really matter all the isps here in Washington have bandwidth caps even when NN was a thing.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
FTC has every authority to maintain rules for interstate commerce. The FCC has stated this fact in the past.FTC has no authority in this area. Only the FCC has federal authority on interstate communication which they've abdicated.
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?
FTC has every authority to maintain rules for interstate commerce. The FCC has stated this fact in the past.
I guess we're living in different universes: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.
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.”
"
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.That's related to false advertisement. NOT other regulatory authority over ISPs.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
My point was they already settled with the FTC...the big penalty was they now have to disclose what they are doing.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.
Then why was Netflix brought up in the first place?
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 !
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:Alright! Tear it apart booiiiissss!!!
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.
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.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.
I can't tell if you're serious or not.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?
Edit: Oh right, 11 posts. My bad for getting trolled. Welcome to the ignore list.