5 ms·

They could try but the FCC would almost certainly contest that the states do not have the right to pass such laws. Additionally there is nothing stopping the FC

They could try but the FCC would almost certainly contest that the states do not have the right to pass such laws. Additionally there is nothing stopping the FCC from passing rules forbidding states from regulating net neutrality.

dawnerd 9y ago
States could make life really hard for the companies. Impose taxes on those that are not neutral, make permitting difficult and even start up state run internet.
- briantakita 9y ago
  That's the idea. Get the Federal government out of the business of regulating the internet & open it up to competition. The cartel practices of the ISP oligopoly is a separate issue. They bought the state legislatures. The people of each state that is under the influence of the ISP cartels should demand an open internet for their state.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
States should try and let the FCC slog through the courts to stop it.
- Spivak 9y ago
  I mean they might be able to but why do you think the states are going to be so opposed to this?
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Because they’re more accountable to their constituents than the FCC.
otp124 9y ago
Could you explain how the FCC has superiority here? Doesn’t the constitution allow states to set local laws for things that aren’t expressly dictated in the constitution? Please forgive my limited legal knowledge.
- sdenton4 9y ago
  The Constitution gives the federal government the ability to regulate interstate commerce, which, effectively, means almost everything. Taxing the hell out of non neutral ISPs at the state level may be viable, though? IANAL... It may be a case where a successful state level action in (say) New York and California covers enough people that national ISPs won't want to build a whole second system for all the other states; this is how many California environmental protection laws become de facto national.
- howard941 9y ago
  The FCC is superior because it involves interstate commerce. Whether a local law can survive alongside a federal law depends on whether there's undue conflict, and conflict is determined by whether the local law intolerably intrudes on the federal law's scheme. Intolerable intrusion isn't the actual term of art but it may not matter because fed/state conflict doctrine is a big bowl of mush.

dawnerd 9y ago

States could make life really hard for the companies. Impose taxes on those that are not neutral, make permitting difficult and even start up state run internet.

briantakita 9y ago
That's the idea. Get the Federal government out of the business of regulating the internet & open it up to competition. The cartel practices of the ISP oligopoly is a separate issue. They bought the state legislatures. The people of each state that is under the influence of the ISP cartels should demand an open internet for their state.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

States should try and let the FCC slog through the courts to stop it.

Spivak 9y ago
I mean they might be able to but why do you think the states are going to be so opposed to this?
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Because they’re more accountable to their constituents than the FCC.

otp124 9y ago

Could you explain how the FCC has superiority here? Doesn’t the constitution allow states to set local laws for things that aren’t expressly dictated in the constitution? Please forgive my limited legal knowledge.

sdenton4 9y ago
The Constitution gives the federal government the ability to regulate interstate commerce, which, effectively, means almost everything. Taxing the hell out of non neutral ISPs at the state level may be viable, though? IANAL... It may be a case where a successful state level action in (say) New York and California covers enough people that national ISPs won't want to build a whole second system for all the other states; this is how many California environmental protection laws become de facto national.
howard941 9y ago
The FCC is superior because it involves interstate commerce. Whether a local law can survive alongside a federal law depends on whether there's undue conflict, and conflict is determined by whether the local law intolerably intrudes on the federal law's scheme. Intolerable intrusion isn't the actual term of art but it may not matter because fed/state conflict doctrine is a big bowl of mush.