4 ms·

Just because the Republican party is traditionally associated with states' rights doesn't mean they should always have to give precedence to states. The sway o

Just because the Republican party is traditionally associated with states' rights doesn't mean they should always have to give precedence to states. The sway of ideologies should be balanced with a willingness to judge issues on their own merit. Allowing states to enact their own regulations in this case would be incredibly burdensome to internet businesses looking to operate in multiple states (so all of them), there's a good reason for net neutrality laws to be uniform across the whole country.

wtallis 9y ago
> incredibly burdensome to internet businesses looking to operate in multiple states (so all of them) Not all of them. Just the ones that want to lay cable in that particular state. Most internet companies are only concerned with deploying physical infrastructure to a handful of data centers, and leaving the rest of the connectivity up to their ISPs. ISPs providing major backbone links would be subject to the hassle of different state regulations, but ISPs providing last-mile service only need to care about the laws of the states their particular customers reside in.
maxxxxx 9y ago
It's always burdensome to have different laws in different states. Different sales tax in different states is a major PITA for example. I don't think this is different from other laws.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Which is why criticism of Republicans for this on the basis of the law not meshing with one of their supposed foundational ideologies is stupid. We should not be ridiculing people for not being ideologues. We live in a time when we need people to not be ideologues.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    They are endlessly repeating their ideology for everything else. I would have had more respect for them if they had said that it's up to the states whether they want net neutrality or not. The same way they are advocating with health care, environmental rules and everything else.
  - haZard_OS 9y ago
    There is, I think most will agree, a difference between being an ideologue and being consistent. Inconsistency in the application of one's proclaimed first principles should be criticized unless and until the inconsistency is justified with reason and evidence.

wtallis 9y ago

> incredibly burdensome to internet businesses looking to operate in multiple states (so all of them) Not all of them. Just the ones that want to lay cable in that particular state. Most internet companies are only concerned with deploying physical infrastructure to a handful of data centers, and leaving the rest of the connectivity up to their ISPs. ISPs providing major backbone links would be subject to the hassle of different state regulations, but ISPs providing last-mile service only need to care about the laws of the states their particular customers reside in.

maxxxxx 9y ago

It's always burdensome to have different laws in different states. Different sales tax in different states is a major PITA for example. I don't think this is different from other laws.

meri_dian 9y ago
Which is why criticism of Republicans for this on the basis of the law not meshing with one of their supposed foundational ideologies is stupid. We should not be ridiculing people for not being ideologues. We live in a time when we need people to not be ideologues.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  They are endlessly repeating their ideology for everything else. I would have had more respect for them if they had said that it's up to the states whether they want net neutrality or not. The same way they are advocating with health care, environmental rules and everything else.
- haZard_OS 9y ago
  There is, I think most will agree, a difference between being an ideologue and being consistent. Inconsistency in the application of one's proclaimed first principles should be criticized unless and until the inconsistency is justified with reason and evidence.