5 ms·

I absolutely disagree for a number of reasons. First, let's stop pretending that 50 state disclosure laws create some massive undue burden for a company that's

I absolutely disagree for a number of reasons. First, let's stop pretending that 50 state disclosure laws create some massive undue burden for a company that's big enough to be an ISP in all 50 states. That would be a similar argument to saying that states shouldn't have minimum wages because it's "too hard" for Walmart to have 50 different state minimum wage laws. The only difference is disclosure laws are vastly more simple than labor laws. Second, even if you assume the cable industry should have a single uniform standard, that's up to Congress, not the FCC to determine, so not only should Big Cable lose this on the grounds that state-level consumer protections are a good thing, they should on the grounds that the FCC has absolutely no authority to do this.

tertius 9y ago
I completely agree with you regarding the FCC's ability to create "law" and not just weak "regulation" or "rules" and also that the 10th amendment shouldn't be trampled on. I disagree that already having an HR department to deal with employees and labor laws is equal to something else they have to comply with. Not a fair comparison. I do agree though that the burden is not undue.
- ctrl-j 9y ago
  > ... already having an HR department to deal with employees and labor laws Isn't the HR department a thing because of the employee labor laws? Maybe they need a "Legal team" to manage their compliance with state regulations? Or is it possible Comcast already has a legal team covering all the other state regulations they already have to comply with?
  - tertius 9y ago
    And I follow the example. Except that it is not unique to telecoms and they already exist and are already a part of fixed costs.
wmeredith 9y ago
> create some massive undue burden for a company that's big enough to be an ISP in all 50 states Feature; not bug.
- Spivak 9y ago
  Okay, we get it: big companies are bad, small companies are good. If that's your position why not just go for a largeness tax rather than passive aggressively adding stupid regulations like this.
  - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
    Wow Spivak, tell us your true feelings darling. Lobbyists get corporations out of paying tax. Lobbyists get larger companies out of doing anything that might hurt the CEOs bonus. I know you know this. Why pretend otherwise?
  - jhall1468 9y ago
    No, large companies with government granted monopolies are going to have higher regulation out of necessity. They already rank lower than any other companies on customer service purely because they don't have to care.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> let's stop pretending that 50 state disclosure laws create some massive undue burden for a company that's big enough to be an ISP in all 50 states It's survivable, if inconvenient, for Comcast. It nukes the potential for upstarts. This "only big companies are in this industry so it's fine if we add a bunch of onerous regulation" attitude is self-defeating. > the cable industry [having] a single uniform standard...[is] up to Congress, not the FCC Congress delegated rule-making authority to the FCC with the Communications Act of 1934 [1]. This is how agencies work [2]. [1] http://www.legisworks.org/congress/73/publaw-416.pdf http://www.legisworks.org/congress/73/publaw-416.pdf [2] http://www.theintelligencer.com/local/article/Congressional-authority-to-delegate-power-10440570.php http://www.theintelligencer.com/local/article/Congressional-...
- throwaway76543 9y ago
  > It nukes the potential for upstarts. Upstarts only have to deal with one state.
- idbehold 9y ago
  Wouldn't it make sense for a startup to begin in a single state and only expand once they have enough money/time to comply with laws and regulations in other states?
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    From your statement is a great parallel to Uber, which ignores local laws and has never made a profit. Yet, Uber is thought of by many as a successful company. Many times companies grow in order to continue to be able to grow.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    Depends on your technology. I used to finance satellites. State-by-state rules were a driving reason (for being-launched and yet-to-be launched constellations) behind most operators settling on selling bandwidth to ISPs, who have compliance and regulation figured out, versus trying to compete with them.
- 9y ago
Spivak 9y ago
Why wouldn't they have the authority to do this? They were delegated their authority by Congress with the Communications Act. You can take issue with the fact that Congress is even allowed to delegate their authority, but given that, their rules seem to be no less law than what is passed by Congress.
- jhall1468 9y ago
  Because no where in the Communications Act does it say that federal regulations usurp state regulations when the state regulations are more strict. They are delegated the authority to regulate ISPs, not overrule states.

tertius 9y ago

I completely agree with you regarding the FCC's ability to create "law" and not just weak "regulation" or "rules" and also that the 10th amendment shouldn't be trampled on. I disagree that already having an HR department to deal with employees and labor laws is equal to something else they have to comply with. Not a fair comparison. I do agree though that the burden is not undue.

ctrl-j 9y ago
> ... already having an HR department to deal with employees and labor laws Isn't the HR department a thing because of the employee labor laws? Maybe they need a "Legal team" to manage their compliance with state regulations? Or is it possible Comcast already has a legal team covering all the other state regulations they already have to comply with?
- tertius 9y ago
  And I follow the example. Except that it is not unique to telecoms and they already exist and are already a part of fixed costs.

wmeredith 9y ago

> create some massive undue burden for a company that's big enough to be an ISP in all 50 states Feature; not bug.

Spivak 9y ago
Okay, we get it: big companies are bad, small companies are good. If that's your position why not just go for a largeness tax rather than passive aggressively adding stupid regulations like this.
- throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  Wow Spivak, tell us your true feelings darling. Lobbyists get corporations out of paying tax. Lobbyists get larger companies out of doing anything that might hurt the CEOs bonus. I know you know this. Why pretend otherwise?
- jhall1468 9y ago
  No, large companies with government granted monopolies are going to have higher regulation out of necessity. They already rank lower than any other companies on customer service purely because they don't have to care.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> let's stop pretending that 50 state disclosure laws create some massive undue burden for a company that's big enough to be an ISP in all 50 states It's survivable, if inconvenient, for Comcast. It nukes the potential for upstarts. This "only big companies are in this industry so it's fine if we add a bunch of onerous regulation" attitude is self-defeating. > the cable industry [having] a single uniform standard...[is] up to Congress, not the FCC Congress delegated rule-making authority to the FCC with the Communications Act of 1934 [1]. This is how agencies work [2]. [1] http://www.legisworks.org/congress/73/publaw-416.pdf http://www.legisworks.org/congress/73/publaw-416.pdf [2] http://www.theintelligencer.com/local/article/Congressional-authority-to-delegate-power-10440570.php http://www.theintelligencer.com/local/article/Congressional-...

throwaway76543 9y ago
> It nukes the potential for upstarts. Upstarts only have to deal with one state.
idbehold 9y ago
Wouldn't it make sense for a startup to begin in a single state and only expand once they have enough money/time to comply with laws and regulations in other states?
- IncRnd 9y ago
  From your statement is a great parallel to Uber, which ignores local laws and has never made a profit. Yet, Uber is thought of by many as a successful company. Many times companies grow in order to continue to be able to grow.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Depends on your technology. I used to finance satellites. State-by-state rules were a driving reason (for being-launched and yet-to-be launched constellations) behind most operators settling on selling bandwidth to ISPs, who have compliance and regulation figured out, versus trying to compete with them.
9y ago

Spivak 9y ago

Why wouldn't they have the authority to do this? They were delegated their authority by Congress with the Communications Act. You can take issue with the fact that Congress is even allowed to delegate their authority, but given that, their rules seem to be no less law than what is passed by Congress.

jhall1468 9y ago
Because no where in the Communications Act does it say that federal regulations usurp state regulations when the state regulations are more strict. They are delegated the authority to regulate ISPs, not overrule states.