6 ms·

It really should be up to the states

Thrymr 9y ago
How so? Because the federal government has abrogated its responsibility? Surely compliance with 50 different sets of regulations would be much more burdensome than a single national regulation.
- splintercell 9y ago
  It's a feature not a bug. If you believe that nobody should do X, where X could be any public policy on a gradient (whether it's sales tax, income tax, etc), then sure you'd consider this as a bug, but it helps in figuring out the good solutions much faster.
- HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
  As far as I can tell as a non-american: people support states rights when the federal government does something they dislike, and they support federalisation when it does something they do like. Most people aren't very principled about it.
  - dsr_ 9y ago
    Mostly that's true. More specifically, the Republican Party is a champion of states' rights when it comes to regulating civil liberties or implementing health care, education and anti-poverty measures. They are quiet about states' rights when it comes to control of corporations, where they prefer to have the power centralized but unused. The Democratic Party, by way of contrast, never talks about states' rights, but supports various individual initiatives that align with their federal policy. There are very few people who care about states' rights as a concept divorced from particular policies.
    - kevin_b_er 9y ago
      They are a champion of states' rights where it affects their sponsors' bottom lines and fiercely opposed where it affects their sponsors' bottom lines. Always follow the money.
    - aerotwelve 9y ago
      The right-wing contempt for local control is going even further nowadays. After the 2016 elections, counties in my home state of Iowa are no longer allowed to set a minimum wage that is higher than the state's level (which is, of course, $7.25)[1]. By traditional conservative thought, a county would only be hurting themselves by setting a minimum wage that's too high; companies and their jobs would leave if it wasn't competitive. Of course, if raising the minimum wage didn't kill jobs, others could point to it as evidence that it may be feasible to increase it statewide. So it's gotta go. [commentary: I grew up in a conservative family, but I don't recognize the modern Republican Party.] [1] http://www.thegazette.com/gov-branstad-signs-bill-to-roll-back-minimum-wage-20170330 http://www.thegazette.com/gov-branstad-signs-bill-to-roll-ba...
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - craftyguy 9y ago
        > [commentary: I grew up in a conservative family, but I don't recognize the modern Republican Party.] I don't think even Ronald Reagan would recognize the modern republican party.
    - HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
      Another example is the American left got into the states rights/seccession thing after Trump with "Calexit".
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    Unfortunately, these themes are showing to be sadly true about people. Most everyone becomes a civil libertarian when their rights are violated[1], but not when we violate the rights of others[2]. Some pedantry on word choice: federalism is more like equal state/central gov power; confederalism is pro-states rights. 1- https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie-roiphe-article-show-how-concerns-for-due-process-and-civil-liberties-are-highly-selective-and-self-centered/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie... 2-https://youtu.be/YtEk5A1dRyY https://youtu.be/YtEk5A1dRyY
- smileysteve 9y ago
  The difficulty in compliance to 50 different regulations is exactly what's going to drive Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to re-lobby for a legislative (permanent) position of the FCC on NN.
- hedora 9y ago
  If we can make it burdensome enough to comply with multiple state’s laws, then there will be no inter-state ISP’s. That’d be great for competition in the residential broadband market (at least compared to the status quo). A better approach would be to simply break up all the big ISPs and telcos, of course.
- SllX 9y ago
  Direct-to-consumer/business ISPs only have to comply with the State regulations that they choose to operate in. Sonic.net doesn't have to worry about Floridian regulations, but Comcast has to worry about Californian and Floridian regulations because they have operations in both States. That said, they are also large enough to take on that extra burden and still profit, with no loss of competitive advantage. I'm not worried about making it easier for ISPs to expand across State lines because I don't live in 50 different States. I live in one, and I want the right package of regulations for the place that I live, not the millions of places I don't, for every ISP in my area, not the hundreds to thousands that aren't.
antishatter 9y ago
It seems a somewhat complex issue. One the one hand companies that control the internet and the infrastructure in use often spreads across state lines and regions. The other hand is that it is very difficult to claim the internet infrastructure and needs of a place like Washington or California are analogous to the needs of much more rural parts of the country. I generally find myself against states rights in terms of civil liberties or personal rights and in favor of them with regards to business in their de facto economic region except in the case previously mentioned such as the violation of rights. It seems plausible that the FCC shouldn't be able to regulate or control policy on net neutrality and that their control of the internet is basically because at the time questions of regulation came up there was not better place to stick the internet. However, now that the internet has become an effective necessity I'd imagine placing it's control under something more akin to the Public utilities commission may make the most sense. edit: Maybe the real solution is public internet projects, I have heard of several that seemed to go quite well.

How so? Because the federal government has abrogated its responsibility? Surely compliance with 50 different sets of regulations would be much more burdensome than a single national regulation.

splintercell 9y ago
It's a feature not a bug. If you believe that nobody should do X, where X could be any public policy on a gradient (whether it's sales tax, income tax, etc), then sure you'd consider this as a bug, but it helps in figuring out the good solutions much faster.
HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
As far as I can tell as a non-american: people support states rights when the federal government does something they dislike, and they support federalisation when it does something they do like. Most people aren't very principled about it.
- dsr_ 9y ago
  Mostly that's true. More specifically, the Republican Party is a champion of states' rights when it comes to regulating civil liberties or implementing health care, education and anti-poverty measures. They are quiet about states' rights when it comes to control of corporations, where they prefer to have the power centralized but unused. The Democratic Party, by way of contrast, never talks about states' rights, but supports various individual initiatives that align with their federal policy. There are very few people who care about states' rights as a concept divorced from particular policies.
  - kevin_b_er 9y ago
    They are a champion of states' rights where it affects their sponsors' bottom lines and fiercely opposed where it affects their sponsors' bottom lines. Always follow the money.
  - aerotwelve 9y ago
    The right-wing contempt for local control is going even further nowadays. After the 2016 elections, counties in my home state of Iowa are no longer allowed to set a minimum wage that is higher than the state's level (which is, of course, $7.25)[1]. By traditional conservative thought, a county would only be hurting themselves by setting a minimum wage that's too high; companies and their jobs would leave if it wasn't competitive. Of course, if raising the minimum wage didn't kill jobs, others could point to it as evidence that it may be feasible to increase it statewide. So it's gotta go. [commentary: I grew up in a conservative family, but I don't recognize the modern Republican Party.] [1] http://www.thegazette.com/gov-branstad-signs-bill-to-roll-back-minimum-wage-20170330 http://www.thegazette.com/gov-branstad-signs-bill-to-roll-ba...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      > [commentary: I grew up in a conservative family, but I don't recognize the modern Republican Party.] I don't think even Ronald Reagan would recognize the modern republican party.
  - HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
    Another example is the American left got into the states rights/seccession thing after Trump with "Calexit".
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Unfortunately, these themes are showing to be sadly true about people. Most everyone becomes a civil libertarian when their rights are violated[1], but not when we violate the rights of others[2]. Some pedantry on word choice: federalism is more like equal state/central gov power; confederalism is pro-states rights. 1- https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie-roiphe-article-show-how-concerns-for-due-process-and-civil-liberties-are-highly-selective-and-self-centered/ https://theintercept.com/2018/02/05/the-nunes-memo-and-katie... 2-https://youtu.be/YtEk5A1dRyY https://youtu.be/YtEk5A1dRyY
smileysteve 9y ago
The difficulty in compliance to 50 different regulations is exactly what's going to drive Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to re-lobby for a legislative (permanent) position of the FCC on NN.
hedora 9y ago
If we can make it burdensome enough to comply with multiple state’s laws, then there will be no inter-state ISP’s. That’d be great for competition in the residential broadband market (at least compared to the status quo). A better approach would be to simply break up all the big ISPs and telcos, of course.
SllX 9y ago
Direct-to-consumer/business ISPs only have to comply with the State regulations that they choose to operate in. Sonic.net doesn't have to worry about Floridian regulations, but Comcast has to worry about Californian and Floridian regulations because they have operations in both States. That said, they are also large enough to take on that extra burden and still profit, with no loss of competitive advantage. I'm not worried about making it easier for ISPs to expand across State lines because I don't live in 50 different States. I live in one, and I want the right package of regulations for the place that I live, not the millions of places I don't, for every ISP in my area, not the hundreds to thousands that aren't.

antishatter 9y ago

It seems a somewhat complex issue. One the one hand companies that control the internet and the infrastructure in use often spreads across state lines and regions. The other hand is that it is very difficult to claim the internet infrastructure and needs of a place like Washington or California are analogous to the needs of much more rural parts of the country. I generally find myself against states rights in terms of civil liberties or personal rights and in favor of them with regards to business in their de facto economic region except in the case previously mentioned such as the violation of rights. It seems plausible that the FCC shouldn't be able to regulate or control policy on net neutrality and that their control of the internet is basically because at the time questions of regulation came up there was not better place to stick the internet. However, now that the internet has become an effective necessity I'd imagine placing it's control under something more akin to the Public utilities commission may make the most sense. edit: Maybe the real solution is public internet projects, I have heard of several that seemed to go quite well.