4 ms·

Serious question: Is having state-level net neutrality laws actually good policy?

by thehardsphere 9y ago

horsecaptin 9y ago
It allows for more experimentation than say a national level policy which is far more inflexible.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Well, sure. I get that sort of argument for something like tax policy. But is this actually an experiment that should be run at the state level? I mean, having 50 different net neutrality laws that all actually mean and require different things doesn't strike me as being efficient.
  - freeone3000 9y ago
    Better than nothing. With an uncooperative federal government, we'll take what we can get.
rokob 9y ago
I have been struggling with this question also. The responsibility of the state government is similar to the federal government in that they are meant to represent the interests of their citizens. Within a state it is undoubtably good policy to provide a mechanism for enforcing a positive social good like utility regulation if that is what the residents of that state want. The flip side is that the internet is necessarily interstate commerce and hence the federal government can always invoke the interstate commerce clause (the same argument they use for drug policy) to do whatever they want. However, as we see states invoking their rights to designate drug policy within their borders this seems to be a natural policy extension. I think what you are bringing up though is the quagmire that could result from trying to build a network that has to abide by 50 different regulatory systems. I would like to see an independent third party draft regulation on net neutrality that each participating state could then adopt through their own procedures. I know that probably won't happen, but it would be nice to see a form of "collective bargaining" among the states. Personally, it is good policy for states to support net neutrality if that is what their constituents want. But the implementation might be a shit show.
phlakaton 9y ago
Another serious question: is having state-level net neutrality laws even Constitutional? The FCC's repeal of net neutrality contains a preëmption clause preventing state and local governments from imposing their own inconsistent restrictions (1), and it will be using its authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to defend it (2). I understand their claim to be that it's impracticable to distinguish between interstate and intrastate network traffic, and that states would only have authority to constrain the latter. (3) I'm not sure how my dear state of California is working around that, or if this action is just kicking off a ball that will be headed directly to the courts. (1) FCC 17-166, https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0105/FCC-17-166A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201... , para. 195. (2) Ibid, para. 197–204. (FCC's authority under the Commerce Clause is established in the Communications Act of 1934, updated under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These and existing case law are cited as legal justification.) (3) Ibid, para. 200.
- briffle 9y ago
  The simple answer is the laws don't enforce net neutrality. They say that the state government (schools, agencies, etc) Can't purchase any networking/etc from companies that don't follow net neutrality. Kind of like forcing "prevailing wage" on construction contracts, instead of raising minimum wage state-wide.
  - sp_nster 9y ago
    Hopefully someone here can shed some light on my limited understanding regulations, but aren't internet services, because they are inter-state in nature out of the jurisdiction of the state?
    - Noted 9y ago
      No, if they operate in the state then they are part of the state's jurisdiction. All terrestrial internet services would have to have some presence in the state otherwise they wouldn't be able to provide internet access. Multi-state entities have to follow the laws and regulations of each place they have a presence, not just federal laws.

Serious question: Is having state-level net neutrality laws actually good policy?

horsecaptin 9y ago

It allows for more experimentation than say a national level policy which is far more inflexible.

thehardsphere 9y ago
Well, sure. I get that sort of argument for something like tax policy. But is this actually an experiment that should be run at the state level? I mean, having 50 different net neutrality laws that all actually mean and require different things doesn't strike me as being efficient.
- freeone3000 9y ago
  Better than nothing. With an uncooperative federal government, we'll take what we can get.

rokob 9y ago

I have been struggling with this question also. The responsibility of the state government is similar to the federal government in that they are meant to represent the interests of their citizens. Within a state it is undoubtably good policy to provide a mechanism for enforcing a positive social good like utility regulation if that is what the residents of that state want. The flip side is that the internet is necessarily interstate commerce and hence the federal government can always invoke the interstate commerce clause (the same argument they use for drug policy) to do whatever they want. However, as we see states invoking their rights to designate drug policy within their borders this seems to be a natural policy extension. I think what you are bringing up though is the quagmire that could result from trying to build a network that has to abide by 50 different regulatory systems. I would like to see an independent third party draft regulation on net neutrality that each participating state could then adopt through their own procedures. I know that probably won't happen, but it would be nice to see a form of "collective bargaining" among the states. Personally, it is good policy for states to support net neutrality if that is what their constituents want. But the implementation might be a shit show.

phlakaton 9y ago

Another serious question: is having state-level net neutrality laws even Constitutional? The FCC's repeal of net neutrality contains a preëmption clause preventing state and local governments from imposing their own inconsistent restrictions (1), and it will be using its authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to defend it (2). I understand their claim to be that it's impracticable to distinguish between interstate and intrastate network traffic, and that states would only have authority to constrain the latter. (3) I'm not sure how my dear state of California is working around that, or if this action is just kicking off a ball that will be headed directly to the courts. (1) FCC 17-166, https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0105/FCC-17-166A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201... , para. 195. (2) Ibid, para. 197–204. (FCC's authority under the Commerce Clause is established in the Communications Act of 1934, updated under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. These and existing case law are cited as legal justification.) (3) Ibid, para. 200.

briffle 9y ago
The simple answer is the laws don't enforce net neutrality. They say that the state government (schools, agencies, etc) Can't purchase any networking/etc from companies that don't follow net neutrality. Kind of like forcing "prevailing wage" on construction contracts, instead of raising minimum wage state-wide.
- sp_nster 9y ago
  Hopefully someone here can shed some light on my limited understanding regulations, but aren't internet services, because they are inter-state in nature out of the jurisdiction of the state?
  - Noted 9y ago
    No, if they operate in the state then they are part of the state's jurisdiction. All terrestrial internet services would have to have some presence in the state otherwise they wouldn't be able to provide internet access. Multi-state entities have to follow the laws and regulations of each place they have a presence, not just federal laws.