13 ms·

Now that the FCC has repealed net neutrality, let’s adopt it in California

457 points by e_hup 9y ago

godgod 9y ago
RESIST!
sova 9y ago
Ever heard of the Supremacy Clause?
- fjabre 9y ago
  Ever heard of the prohibition? The government had supremacy there too.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - sova 9y ago
    fair point
- gruez 9y ago
  IANAL, but near the end he says he'll be including it as a condition to certain things that the state has control over. maybe that's how they get around that issue?
  - fleitz 9y ago
    Exactly, they won't regulate the internet but if you don't offer net neutrality you can't get a business license, construction permits, etc. Whether this is good or bad is another matter but that's how they'll do it.
- cantrip 9y ago
  It's a repeal of federal rules so California is free to create their own laws regarding this issue.
- rosser 9y ago
  "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."
  - UncleEntity 9y ago
    Going to go out on a limb here and say the very fact the FCC exists leads one to assume this is one of things delegated to the federal government -- at least in their opinion.
    - rosser 9y ago
      Pai has specifically claimed the FCC can pre-empt State-level Net Neutrality initiatives. AFAIK, however, that's up to an appellate court to decide, which hasn't happened yet. (Another comment in another thread cites the recent case the FCC lost regarding its ability to pre-empt municipal broadband — see TN, NC v. FCC — which is probably somewhat dispositive.) EDIT: also: "delegated to the United States by the Constitution". Note the emphasis. The FCC can assert all the authority it wants, but absent an Amendment to that effect, or a specific ruling on that question by a "court of competent authority", I don't believe the matter is nearly as settled as you suggest.
  - danesparza 9y ago
    Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Forced_participation_or_commandeering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_... If it's true for handguns, it's true for the Internet. I say Californians might have a shot at this (as would any other state)
    - UncleEntity 9y ago
      The city/state/D.C handgun bans got overturned by the Supreme Court not too long ago on constitutional grounds.
      - 9y ago
UncleEntity 9y ago
Haven't read TFA but I'm going to say the internet most definitely falls under 'interstate commerce' so California isn't able to regulate it.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Interstate commerce for some, but not for others. The modern 'conservative' stance towards the affairs of the day.
- larrik 9y ago
  Definitely an interesting subject, but I would think with how heavily regulated cable and phone lines are, that California could enforce it on ISPs for their residents, at least.
- rosser 9y ago
  California is most definitely within its rights to regulate businesses operating within the state. If an ISP wants to sell its service to CA residents, it can abide by CA laws.
  - epicide 9y ago
    Even if that's true, that's not even half the problem. Especially because of the public outcry, I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs even lower consumer prices to try and drive the point home of "told you so". Then, on the other side, they get to play mafia with internet-based businesses.
- Posibyte 9y ago
  Can you elaborate on how this would fall under interstate commerce? As I see it, they'd be regulating how they treat in-state customers and their connections, not anything coming across the state-lines. i.e. They aren't saying Comcast isn't allowed to do things to a line for a customer in Utah.
  - UncleEntity 9y ago
    Sure, if the server and customer are both in Ca but if the server is elsewhere and they do their traffic shaping outside of state lines there isn't much that can be done. I never paid much attention to what they got up to before the feds stepped in but I kind of doubt it was a last mile problem, once the packet got that far why mess with it? But, knowing California, they'll do one of those "...and any packet destined for a customer in California."
uptown 9y ago
See also HB 2282 in Washington State: http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2282&Year=2017 http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2282&Year=2017 http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2282.pdf http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Hou...
dsr_ 9y ago
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-or... (tl;dr: fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ )
- curt15 9y ago
  Given that the FCC only recently lost a court case about its authority to preempt state laws banning muni broadband, how would this situation be any different?
  - jandrese 9y ago
    Because this one would serve the interests of the rich and well connected? I tend to agree that the FCC probably won't be able to ban states from enacting their own form of net neutrality, but I've seen the courts side with business interests with weak arguments more times than I'd like.
  - smelendez 9y ago
    Not a lawyer but I believe a lot of the argument there hinged on municipalities legally being creations of the states, with only the powers the states choose to give them. Courts are wary of letting the federal government regulate how states organize themselves.
- cabaalis 9y ago
  Funny, I was listening to oral arguments on the Supreme Court last night on the way home from work. I'm not a lawyer, but my layman interpretation of what they were arguing (specifically in reference to sports betting) is that if the federal government chooses not to regulate something, they cannot also preempt state regulations. I reserve to right to have completely misunderstood the legalese that I was hearing :)
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    I believe the 10th Amendment covers what you are thinking of. >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. If the Federal government chooses not to regulate it, then the states should be allowed to do so. Edit: Here the FCC is choosing to not regulate Telecoms as "Common Carriers", so would not the states then be allowed to do so, barring other federal agencies that may be able to regulate "Common Carriers" (ala the FTC)? Honest question.
kej 9y ago
The same FCC that got rid of the net neutrality rules has the ability to make a rule that preempts any state level neutrality rules.
- Aloha 9y ago
  which may or may not be constitutional.
- r00fus 9y ago
  It's either amusing or sad that the party that ran on "states rights" in 2000 is now exercising whatever power it can to limit states' authority. Where is libertarianism?
  - Aloha 9y ago
    > Where is libertarianism? Largely still arguing about what it means to be a libertarian.
  - fapjacks 9y ago
    Like everything else, it's been trampled on and buried deep in the mud as everyone races to the "us versus them" false dichotomy. We won't get over this ridiculous pro-big-business wealth redistribution project until people can think beyond fighting for their favorite color.
    - okreallywtf 9y ago
      I have to disagree, not because I want to though. One party has shown itself time and time again to put the interests of business far above those of the consumer and in many cases, act totally contrary to what opinion polling shows their constituents actually want on issues like gun control and net neutrality [1][2]. Given the fact that we only have 2 viable parties (yes it would be nice if that weren't the case but it is), what choice do we have but to dogpile on the party that responds at least somewhat to what constituents want and consistently supports pro-consumer policies? Sure both parties take money from wall street, but which one actually tries to protect the consumer from the excesses of wall street? People just keep saying "well they are all corrupt", don't look at who takes money and how much look at how their opinions and actions change after they take the money! I'm against false dichotomy and false equivalencies. The only avenue I see is to make democratic reforms part of the democratic party platform where we prevent these problems in the long term. That will show if they can be a truly mature party, one that is willing to give up power to restore long term viability to our democracy. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/03/lots-of-republicans-actually-support-gun-control/?utm_term=.468f612e9b2a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/0... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.0f74dbfc027d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...
AndyMcConachie 9y ago
The inter-state commerce clause allows Federal Law to preempt state law in this case. Congress has imbued the FCC with the power to regulate(see Chevron v EPA) exactly this. States have no reserved power to regulate the behavior of telecoms.
- myrandomcomment 9y ago
  Well that is not really true depending on if the state has ever regulated something in the past. For example cars used to come with CA emissions standard as an item because CA regulated air quality before the federal government. It is not in cache right now but I believe they way it came down was if the state has regulated in the past and the state rules are stronger then the federal then the state wins.
  - bdhess 9y ago
    CA got an exemption for CARB written into the federal emissions law at the time it was drafted. That's not the same as being grandfathered in just by virtue of having been the first to regulate.
    - myrandomcomment 9y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I do believe there was some threat of case law behind this (back to states rights). Interesting background of the current president trying to pull the waver here: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-california-clean-air-act-waiver-climate-change/518649/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...
- shmerl 9y ago
  FCC failed to preempt local state laws that ban municipal broadband. How is that different? Or FCC only can do it when serving monopolists?
  - bdhess 9y ago
danjoc 9y ago
The current NN repeal is working out exactly the way Pai said it would. As he cited, the problem is lack of competition. The solution is competition. All the discussion happening today is about how to start an ISP to prevent cable monopolies abusing their position. The repeal is working exactly the way Pai said it would. It is encouraging new ISP entrants. Startup ISPs are the answer. NN supporters still don't realize they've been on the wrong side the entire time.
- jandrese 9y ago
  In what way did Net Neutrality prevent people from starting an ISP? Please be specific.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    I would suggest you read what Mr Pai said. He went into this subject. https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-ajit-pai-brendan-carr-fcc-statements-net-neutrality-repeal https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-a... Small internet services were being shut out due to the Title II regulations.
    - rosser 9y ago
      Right, because what Pai has to say on the subject is going to be neutral, factual, balanced, well-informed, and honestly informative...
    - jandrese 9y ago
      His argument appears to be that it was too much paperwork for a startup ISP. I have to admit I have no idea if this is the case, but it seems like someone running cables/fiber across a private land should already be adept at filing out paperwork.
    - simplify 9y ago
      It's likely cherry-picked. There are many small ISPs who signed a letter saying otherwise: > We [ISPs across the country] have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet. https://www.eff.org/files/2017/06/27/isp_letter_to_fcc_on_nn_privacy_title_ii.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2017/06/27/isp_letter_to_fcc_on_nn...
warent 9y ago
I was under the impression that the majority voice in this argument (i.e. mortal American citizens) was completely against this. Yet it still ended up that they dismantled net neutrality. If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Maybe I'm missing something but this seems like a good example that our voice in the US doesn't matter beyond local things like whether or not your town will allocate money towards a new public swimming pool. Go vote on whether or not you get a nice new swimming pool. The monopolists are the only ones that have a voice in grown-up topics. That's what I'm gathering from this. Accurate or alarmist nonsense?
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Because the majority (at least, as weighted for electoral influence in both political branches of government) has prioritized other things in voting for representatives. Legislation, whether direct votes or through representatives, involves not only opinions on particular questions, but opinions on the relative priority of questions, which effects how questions are aggregated and how those aggregated questions are answered. The majority wants net neutrality, sure, but continuously says (by voting) that they care about it much less than they care about other things, and that they are willing to sacrifice NN tomget those other things.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    I don't think there's any basis to say the majority voted for other things over net-neutrality. The Republicans mostly hold power with minority votes. In generaly, the things that the majority want don't get enacted under the US system e.g. the tax bill with very low approval, so net neutrality falls into the general bucket of stuff that the majority want but that the Republicans don't want to them have.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I don't think there's any basis to say the majority voted for other things over net-neutrality An absolute majority of voters casting ballots for the House of Representatives in 2016 voted for either Republican or Libertarian candidates, both parties opposed to the FCC regulating for net neutrality and Congress legislating in favor of net neutrality. It's a little less clear in the Presidential election, in part because you have to go beyond the top four candidates tomget a majority on either side, and detailed information on minor (often no-party) candidate positions on the issue can be hard to find. And the Senate requires aggregating across different election years.
ruffrey 9y ago
The real solution to the problem, as I see it, is not even Net Neutrality (though I strongly support Net Neutrality). The solution is to break the monopolistic stranglehold on last-mile internet service. If it were possible to have competition in the last-mile ISP space, then consumers could vote with their wallets and choose those ISPs who supported Net Neutrality. An alternate partial solution would be to force companies breaking net neutrality to report it on their customer's bill.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  These are orthogonal issues. Net neutrality is important regardless of isp options. Not only on principle either, not everywhere will naturally have competition.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    > not everywhere will naturally have competition. Many rural areas have only one grocery store.
    - Afforess 9y ago
      And this is universally agreed to be a bad situation.[1] Do not play word games. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happened-when-walmart-left https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happene...
      - dominotw 9y ago
        I didn't say it wasn't bad. We aren't discussing good and bad. We are discussing a specific situation that requires govt intervention. I am implying this is a equivalent situation where govt didn't create rules for grocery stores to call all brands of goods equally. Also, that is not what a word game is.
        Afforess 9y ago
cletus 9y ago
I'm all in favour of treating Internet access as the "fourth utility". It's clear it's become almost as essential to modern life as electricity. I do however find the doom and gloom prognostications around Title II repeal to be incredibly hyperbolic and unhelpful. Fact is, Title II was only introduced in 2015. It's not like repeal in 2017 is going to end the Internet overnight. There are three problems here: 1. The US has a harebrained notion of "competition" in creating regional monopolies. 2. It actually doesn't make much sense to build multiple last-mile networks. This is called an overbuild and is rather wasteful given the capex involved. It's also why strict rules are in place for utilities: it underscores the fact that utilities are monopolies and seeks to prevent overbuilds. 3. ISPs have been allowed to frame the debate on peering with outright falsehoods. Specifically, the likes of Comcast claim that it's "unfair" that the likes of Netflix can "push" data onto their network for free no less. Netflix of course isn't pushing anything. Comcast's customers are requesting it. It's all just a thinly-veiled attempt to stifle VOD providers to prop up dying (yet profitable) cable TV businesses. The fact that politicians aren't able to or don't want to see through this is both unsurprising and disappointing. Adopting net neutrality laws at a state level is an interesting idea that may force Federal regulatino. I mean what's worse that one set of Federal rules for a large company? 50 sets of state rules, that's what. Even if just CA and NY adopt this, that's already a sizable amount of the population.
- ardit33 9y ago
  You must be young? I remember a time when you couldn't text to other carrier, while Europe had it since the 90s. I remember how your carrier would not let you use facetime/skype etc.... Anyway, you are paying for access to internet and you should have it. This is akin to letting a private entity building a private highway on a public ground, and the owner of the highway can say: Only Audis and BMWs are allowed here...
  - oceanplexian 9y ago
    It's not "public ground". Electric companies and utilities acquire a mixture of easements, most of which are actually private, and listed on a property title.
noncoml 9y ago
Forget about Net-Neutrality, it's gone, it's a dead horse. Let's see some competition. I cannot believe that I live in the middle of the infamous Silicon Valley and only have a single choice when it comes to fast broadband, and that one goes down every other month for 3-8 hours.
- rconti 9y ago
  I've got Comcast gigabit, in San Mateo county. I took the time today to inquire (again) with Wave/Astound, Sonic, AT&T about FTTH. AT&T gave me the worst rep humanly possible. I spent 20mins on the phone with her for her to still utterly misunderstand my question, as she was apparently unable to understand or speak english. I already knew Gigapower was not available, I just want SOMEONE to tell me when they plan to offer service at my house, less than a mile from the Redwood City / Spring St CO. No luck. Sonic did the usual "maybe if you sign up for DSL and you talk all of your friends and neighbors into signing up, we'll vaguely consider bringing FTTH in 2050". Wave actually had me enter my info and said someone would check my neighborhood (!?) and get back to me within a couple of days. I'd love to pay, whatever, $1000 to get someone to bring some FTTH here and subsequently make it available to neighbors, improve their local service offerings, etc. We'll see.
  - scurvy 9y ago
    I used to defend Sonic as a scrappy startup fighting the good fight for good people. But seriously, it's tiring and old. They needed to raise money to roll out fiber to more than 25 people in the sticks. They didn't and I think a large part of it I was Dane didn't want to give up control in return for capital. OK, that's his choice, but I'm no longer going to laud Sonic. It's basically a cute toy if you're lucky, not a real company.
    - freetime2 9y ago
      I think building out FTTH networks, and doing so profitably, is harder than you give it credit for. Look at all of the issues that Google and Verizon have run into - and they have all of the resources in the world at their disposal.
toomim 9y ago
This is the way to do it. Let the individual states experiment and decide. If net neutrality really IS good/bad, you'll notice it when you cross state borders and go online.
- m52go 9y ago
  Thank you. While last mile device monopolies we certainly relevant, the root issue here is that this really isn't a federal government problem. Which is probably why the courts have been rejecting the FCC's attempts at enforcing net neutrality for the past 12 years.
- bo1024 9y ago
  Not if you view NN as a human rights / free speech issue in addition to an economic one.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
doggydogs94 9y ago
I suppose CA could set net neutrality regulations for web users in CA connecting to web services in CA. I guess you could implement this if CA got their own internet country code; I think .ca is already taken though.
- _-david-_ 9y ago
  .ca is for Canada, .cal is owned by Google. .cali is available though.
exabrial 9y ago
I'm all for the people of California to do this! If you've seen my previous posts, you'll know I'm anti Title II, because I think it's a terrible way to achieve the goal. I think state laws, relative to local context, are absolutely the way to go.
Steeeve 9y ago
Too little, too late.
VeronicaJJ123 9y ago
Sorry. I would rather trust Comcast and ATT than the gentleman(?) called Jerry Brown. California politicians energies are best wasted on global warming and gender equality than technology.

457 points by e_hup 9y ago

godgod 9y ago

RESIST!

sova 9y ago

Ever heard of the Supremacy Clause?

fjabre 9y ago
Ever heard of the prohibition? The government had supremacy there too.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sova 9y ago
  fair point
gruez 9y ago
IANAL, but near the end he says he'll be including it as a condition to certain things that the state has control over. maybe that's how they get around that issue?
- fleitz 9y ago
  Exactly, they won't regulate the internet but if you don't offer net neutrality you can't get a business license, construction permits, etc. Whether this is good or bad is another matter but that's how they'll do it.
cantrip 9y ago
It's a repeal of federal rules so California is free to create their own laws regarding this issue.
rosser 9y ago
"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."
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  Going to go out on a limb here and say the very fact the FCC exists leads one to assume this is one of things delegated to the federal government -- at least in their opinion.
  - rosser 9y ago
    Pai has specifically claimed the FCC can pre-empt State-level Net Neutrality initiatives. AFAIK, however, that's up to an appellate court to decide, which hasn't happened yet. (Another comment in another thread cites the recent case the FCC lost regarding its ability to pre-empt municipal broadband — see TN, NC v. FCC — which is probably somewhat dispositive.) EDIT: also: "delegated to the United States by the Constitution". Note the emphasis. The FCC can assert all the authority it wants, but absent an Amendment to that effect, or a specific ruling on that question by a "court of competent authority", I don't believe the matter is nearly as settled as you suggest.
- danesparza 9y ago
  Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Forced_participation_or_commandeering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_... If it's true for handguns, it's true for the Internet. I say Californians might have a shot at this (as would any other state)
  - UncleEntity 9y ago
    The city/state/D.C handgun bans got overturned by the Supreme Court not too long ago on constitutional grounds.
    - 9y ago

UncleEntity 9y ago

Haven't read TFA but I'm going to say the internet most definitely falls under 'interstate commerce' so California isn't able to regulate it.

wavefunction 9y ago
Interstate commerce for some, but not for others. The modern 'conservative' stance towards the affairs of the day.
larrik 9y ago
Definitely an interesting subject, but I would think with how heavily regulated cable and phone lines are, that California could enforce it on ISPs for their residents, at least.
rosser 9y ago
California is most definitely within its rights to regulate businesses operating within the state. If an ISP wants to sell its service to CA residents, it can abide by CA laws.
- epicide 9y ago
  Even if that's true, that's not even half the problem. Especially because of the public outcry, I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs even lower consumer prices to try and drive the point home of "told you so". Then, on the other side, they get to play mafia with internet-based businesses.
Posibyte 9y ago
Can you elaborate on how this would fall under interstate commerce? As I see it, they'd be regulating how they treat in-state customers and their connections, not anything coming across the state-lines. i.e. They aren't saying Comcast isn't allowed to do things to a line for a customer in Utah.
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  Sure, if the server and customer are both in Ca but if the server is elsewhere and they do their traffic shaping outside of state lines there isn't much that can be done. I never paid much attention to what they got up to before the feds stepped in but I kind of doubt it was a last mile problem, once the packet got that far why mess with it? But, knowing California, they'll do one of those "...and any packet destined for a customer in California."

uptown 9y ago

See also HB 2282 in Washington State: http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2282&Year=2017 http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2282&Year=2017 http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2282.pdf http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/Hou...

dsr_ 9y ago

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-or... (tl;dr: fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/ )

curt15 9y ago
Given that the FCC only recently lost a court case about its authority to preempt state laws banning muni broadband, how would this situation be any different?
- jandrese 9y ago
  Because this one would serve the interests of the rich and well connected? I tend to agree that the FCC probably won't be able to ban states from enacting their own form of net neutrality, but I've seen the courts side with business interests with weak arguments more times than I'd like.
- smelendez 9y ago
  Not a lawyer but I believe a lot of the argument there hinged on municipalities legally being creations of the states, with only the powers the states choose to give them. Courts are wary of letting the federal government regulate how states organize themselves.
cabaalis 9y ago
Funny, I was listening to oral arguments on the Supreme Court last night on the way home from work. I'm not a lawyer, but my layman interpretation of what they were arguing (specifically in reference to sports betting) is that if the federal government chooses not to regulate something, they cannot also preempt state regulations. I reserve to right to have completely misunderstood the legalese that I was hearing :)
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  I believe the 10th Amendment covers what you are thinking of. >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. If the Federal government chooses not to regulate it, then the states should be allowed to do so. Edit: Here the FCC is choosing to not regulate Telecoms as "Common Carriers", so would not the states then be allowed to do so, barring other federal agencies that may be able to regulate "Common Carriers" (ala the FTC)? Honest question.

kej 9y ago

The same FCC that got rid of the net neutrality rules has the ability to make a rule that preempts any state level neutrality rules.

Aloha 9y ago
which may or may not be constitutional.
r00fus 9y ago
It's either amusing or sad that the party that ran on "states rights" in 2000 is now exercising whatever power it can to limit states' authority. Where is libertarianism?
- Aloha 9y ago
  > Where is libertarianism? Largely still arguing about what it means to be a libertarian.
- fapjacks 9y ago
  Like everything else, it's been trampled on and buried deep in the mud as everyone races to the "us versus them" false dichotomy. We won't get over this ridiculous pro-big-business wealth redistribution project until people can think beyond fighting for their favorite color.
  - okreallywtf 9y ago
    I have to disagree, not because I want to though. One party has shown itself time and time again to put the interests of business far above those of the consumer and in many cases, act totally contrary to what opinion polling shows their constituents actually want on issues like gun control and net neutrality [1][2]. Given the fact that we only have 2 viable parties (yes it would be nice if that weren't the case but it is), what choice do we have but to dogpile on the party that responds at least somewhat to what constituents want and consistently supports pro-consumer policies? Sure both parties take money from wall street, but which one actually tries to protect the consumer from the excesses of wall street? People just keep saying "well they are all corrupt", don't look at who takes money and how much look at how their opinions and actions change after they take the money! I'm against false dichotomy and false equivalencies. The only avenue I see is to make democratic reforms part of the democratic party platform where we prevent these problems in the long term. That will show if they can be a truly mature party, one that is willing to give up power to restore long term viability to our democracy. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/03/lots-of-republicans-actually-support-gun-control/?utm_term=.468f612e9b2a https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/0... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12/this-poll-gave-americans-a-detailed-case-for-and-against-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-the-reaction-among-republicans-was-striking/?utm_term=.0f74dbfc027d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/12...

AndyMcConachie 9y ago

The inter-state commerce clause allows Federal Law to preempt state law in this case. Congress has imbued the FCC with the power to regulate(see Chevron v EPA) exactly this. States have no reserved power to regulate the behavior of telecoms.

myrandomcomment 9y ago
Well that is not really true depending on if the state has ever regulated something in the past. For example cars used to come with CA emissions standard as an item because CA regulated air quality before the federal government. It is not in cache right now but I believe they way it came down was if the state has regulated in the past and the state rules are stronger then the federal then the state wins.
- bdhess 9y ago
  CA got an exemption for CARB written into the federal emissions law at the time it was drafted. That's not the same as being grandfathered in just by virtue of having been the first to regulate.
  - myrandomcomment 9y ago
    Thanks for the clarification. I do believe there was some threat of case law behind this (back to states rights). Interesting background of the current president trying to pull the waver here: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-california-clean-air-act-waiver-climate-change/518649/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/trump-ca...
shmerl 9y ago
FCC failed to preempt local state laws that ban municipal broadband. How is that different? Or FCC only can do it when serving monopolists?
- bdhess 9y ago

danjoc 9y ago

The current NN repeal is working out exactly the way Pai said it would. As he cited, the problem is lack of competition. The solution is competition. All the discussion happening today is about how to start an ISP to prevent cable monopolies abusing their position. The repeal is working exactly the way Pai said it would. It is encouraging new ISP entrants. Startup ISPs are the answer. NN supporters still don't realize they've been on the wrong side the entire time.

jandrese 9y ago
In what way did Net Neutrality prevent people from starting an ISP? Please be specific.
- danjoc 9y ago
  I would suggest you read what Mr Pai said. He went into this subject. https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-ajit-pai-brendan-carr-fcc-statements-net-neutrality-repeal https://www.recode.net/2017/12/14/16777356/full-transcript-a... Small internet services were being shut out due to the Title II regulations.
  - rosser 9y ago
    Right, because what Pai has to say on the subject is going to be neutral, factual, balanced, well-informed, and honestly informative...
  - jandrese 9y ago
    His argument appears to be that it was too much paperwork for a startup ISP. I have to admit I have no idea if this is the case, but it seems like someone running cables/fiber across a private land should already be adept at filing out paperwork.
  - simplify 9y ago
    It's likely cherry-picked. There are many small ISPs who signed a letter saying otherwise: > We [ISPs across the country] have encountered no new additional barriers to investment or deployment as a result of the 2015 decision to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and have long supported network neutrality as a core principle for the deployment of networks for the American public to access the Internet. https://www.eff.org/files/2017/06/27/isp_letter_to_fcc_on_nn_privacy_title_ii.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2017/06/27/isp_letter_to_fcc_on_nn...

warent 9y ago

I was under the impression that the majority voice in this argument (i.e. mortal American citizens) was completely against this. Yet it still ended up that they dismantled net neutrality. If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Maybe I'm missing something but this seems like a good example that our voice in the US doesn't matter beyond local things like whether or not your town will allocate money towards a new public swimming pool. Go vote on whether or not you get a nice new swimming pool. The monopolists are the only ones that have a voice in grown-up topics. That's what I'm gathering from this. Accurate or alarmist nonsense?

dragonwriter 9y ago
> If it's true that the majority wanted to keep net neutrality, then how come the majority was ignored? Because the majority (at least, as weighted for electoral influence in both political branches of government) has prioritized other things in voting for representatives. Legislation, whether direct votes or through representatives, involves not only opinions on particular questions, but opinions on the relative priority of questions, which effects how questions are aggregated and how those aggregated questions are answered. The majority wants net neutrality, sure, but continuously says (by voting) that they care about it much less than they care about other things, and that they are willing to sacrifice NN tomget those other things.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  I don't think there's any basis to say the majority voted for other things over net-neutrality. The Republicans mostly hold power with minority votes. In generaly, the things that the majority want don't get enacted under the US system e.g. the tax bill with very low approval, so net neutrality falls into the general bucket of stuff that the majority want but that the Republicans don't want to them have.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I don't think there's any basis to say the majority voted for other things over net-neutrality An absolute majority of voters casting ballots for the House of Representatives in 2016 voted for either Republican or Libertarian candidates, both parties opposed to the FCC regulating for net neutrality and Congress legislating in favor of net neutrality. It's a little less clear in the Presidential election, in part because you have to go beyond the top four candidates tomget a majority on either side, and detailed information on minor (often no-party) candidate positions on the issue can be hard to find. And the Senate requires aggregating across different election years.

ruffrey 9y ago

The real solution to the problem, as I see it, is not even Net Neutrality (though I strongly support Net Neutrality). The solution is to break the monopolistic stranglehold on last-mile internet service. If it were possible to have competition in the last-mile ISP space, then consumers could vote with their wallets and choose those ISPs who supported Net Neutrality. An alternate partial solution would be to force companies breaking net neutrality to report it on their customer's bill.

jimktrains2 9y ago
These are orthogonal issues. Net neutrality is important regardless of isp options. Not only on principle either, not everywhere will naturally have competition.
- dominotw 9y ago
  > not everywhere will naturally have competition. Many rural areas have only one grocery store.
  - Afforess 9y ago
    And this is universally agreed to be a bad situation.[1] Do not play word games. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happened-when-walmart-left https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happene...
    - dominotw 9y ago
      I didn't say it wasn't bad. We aren't discussing good and bad. We are discussing a specific situation that requires govt intervention. I am implying this is a equivalent situation where govt didn't create rules for grocery stores to call all brands of goods equally. Also, that is not what a word game is.
      - Afforess 9y ago

cletus 9y ago

I'm all in favour of treating Internet access as the "fourth utility". It's clear it's become almost as essential to modern life as electricity. I do however find the doom and gloom prognostications around Title II repeal to be incredibly hyperbolic and unhelpful. Fact is, Title II was only introduced in 2015. It's not like repeal in 2017 is going to end the Internet overnight. There are three problems here: 1. The US has a harebrained notion of "competition" in creating regional monopolies. 2. It actually doesn't make much sense to build multiple last-mile networks. This is called an overbuild and is rather wasteful given the capex involved. It's also why strict rules are in place for utilities: it underscores the fact that utilities are monopolies and seeks to prevent overbuilds. 3. ISPs have been allowed to frame the debate on peering with outright falsehoods. Specifically, the likes of Comcast claim that it's "unfair" that the likes of Netflix can "push" data onto their network for free no less. Netflix of course isn't pushing anything. Comcast's customers are requesting it. It's all just a thinly-veiled attempt to stifle VOD providers to prop up dying (yet profitable) cable TV businesses. The fact that politicians aren't able to or don't want to see through this is both unsurprising and disappointing. Adopting net neutrality laws at a state level is an interesting idea that may force Federal regulatino. I mean what's worse that one set of Federal rules for a large company? 50 sets of state rules, that's what. Even if just CA and NY adopt this, that's already a sizable amount of the population.

ardit33 9y ago
You must be young? I remember a time when you couldn't text to other carrier, while Europe had it since the 90s. I remember how your carrier would not let you use facetime/skype etc.... Anyway, you are paying for access to internet and you should have it. This is akin to letting a private entity building a private highway on a public ground, and the owner of the highway can say: Only Audis and BMWs are allowed here...
- oceanplexian 9y ago
  It's not "public ground". Electric companies and utilities acquire a mixture of easements, most of which are actually private, and listed on a property title.

noncoml 9y ago

Forget about Net-Neutrality, it's gone, it's a dead horse. Let's see some competition. I cannot believe that I live in the middle of the infamous Silicon Valley and only have a single choice when it comes to fast broadband, and that one goes down every other month for 3-8 hours.

rconti 9y ago
I've got Comcast gigabit, in San Mateo county. I took the time today to inquire (again) with Wave/Astound, Sonic, AT&T about FTTH. AT&T gave me the worst rep humanly possible. I spent 20mins on the phone with her for her to still utterly misunderstand my question, as she was apparently unable to understand or speak english. I already knew Gigapower was not available, I just want SOMEONE to tell me when they plan to offer service at my house, less than a mile from the Redwood City / Spring St CO. No luck. Sonic did the usual "maybe if you sign up for DSL and you talk all of your friends and neighbors into signing up, we'll vaguely consider bringing FTTH in 2050". Wave actually had me enter my info and said someone would check my neighborhood (!?) and get back to me within a couple of days. I'd love to pay, whatever, $1000 to get someone to bring some FTTH here and subsequently make it available to neighbors, improve their local service offerings, etc. We'll see.
- scurvy 9y ago
  I used to defend Sonic as a scrappy startup fighting the good fight for good people. But seriously, it's tiring and old. They needed to raise money to roll out fiber to more than 25 people in the sticks. They didn't and I think a large part of it I was Dane didn't want to give up control in return for capital. OK, that's his choice, but I'm no longer going to laud Sonic. It's basically a cute toy if you're lucky, not a real company.
  - freetime2 9y ago
    I think building out FTTH networks, and doing so profitably, is harder than you give it credit for. Look at all of the issues that Google and Verizon have run into - and they have all of the resources in the world at their disposal.

toomim 9y ago

This is the way to do it. Let the individual states experiment and decide. If net neutrality really IS good/bad, you'll notice it when you cross state borders and go online.

m52go 9y ago
Thank you. While last mile device monopolies we certainly relevant, the root issue here is that this really isn't a federal government problem. Which is probably why the courts have been rejecting the FCC's attempts at enforcing net neutrality for the past 12 years.
bo1024 9y ago
Not if you view NN as a human rights / free speech issue in addition to an economic one.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

doggydogs94 9y ago

I suppose CA could set net neutrality regulations for web users in CA connecting to web services in CA. I guess you could implement this if CA got their own internet country code; I think .ca is already taken though.

_-david-_ 9y ago
.ca is for Canada, .cal is owned by Google. .cali is available though.

exabrial 9y ago

I'm all for the people of California to do this! If you've seen my previous posts, you'll know I'm anti Title II, because I think it's a terrible way to achieve the goal. I think state laws, relative to local context, are absolutely the way to go.

Steeeve 9y ago

Too little, too late.

VeronicaJJ123 9y ago

Sorry. I would rather trust Comcast and ATT than the gentleman(?) called Jerry Brown. California politicians energies are best wasted on global warming and gender equality than technology.