6 ms·

It will be interesting to see whether American and European views of the internet converge or diverge in the long term. I've noticed that American norms tend to

by Bakary 8y ago

It will be interesting to see whether American and European views of the internet converge or diverge in the long term. I've noticed that American norms tend to flow towards the old world, and the reverse is rarely true, the GDPR being the most impressive counter-example I've seen. Or perhaps we will all move towards something similar to the Chinese model?

MichaelApproved 8y ago
The story isn't over within the United States. Many states are defying the FCCs interpretation and enacting their own version of net neutrality. It's going to be interesting to see if the FCC tries to strike those local laws down and how ISPs will handle the things from State to state.
- juliangoldsmith 8y ago
  I don't think the FCC would have the power to strike down local laws, if they even had any desire to. The best they could probably do would be a lawsuit, but the states would be well within their rights to add new laws on top of federal ones.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    What makes you so confident the FCC couldn't win in court? My understanding is that states have some right to additionally regulate, but only to the extent that federal law allows it.
    - blind_boy_grunt 8y ago
      In Tennessee v. FCC, [1] the FCC, under the authority of §706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, attempted to preempt state laws that prohibit municipalities from building their own broadband networks under certain circumstances (these laws were obviously lobbied and passed by ISPs in the state legislatures). This was struck down by courts because, although the supremacy clause means that federal law supplants state law, the federal law at hand was so far removed from what the FCC was doing in this particular case, that the FCC was essentially creating "directives" which overruled state law in pursuit of a vague goal that was defined in federal law. In essence, federal administrators/bureaucrats had the power to overrule state law. Although the ISPs "won" in that decision, it cuts both ways -- which means that any attempt by the FCC to preempt net neutrality regulations under §706 is likely to fail as well. Sorry if my take is a little confusing, here is some more coverage: [2], [3]. [1] http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/08/10/fcc-loses-bid-to-preempt-municipal-broadband-laws-in-tennessee-n-c/#7e9e24a64e7f https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/08/10/fcc-los... [3] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/in-blow-to-muni-broadband-fcc-loses-bid-to-overturn-state-laws/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/in-blow-to-muni-...
      - Avshalom 8y ago
        Problem is: if New Mexico passes a Net Neutrality law but all of the Netflix data centers are in Arizona it's suddenly going to be "interstate commerce"
        ashelmire 8y ago
        Something being interstate commerce does not prevent states from legislating on it. Under that logic, states couldn't regulate the sale of anything produced in another state, which is obviously untrue.
        Avshalom 8y ago
        no it just means that the federal government has constitutional power to over rule it if they feel like it, no need to argue on the basis of any existing case law.
        blind_boy_grunt 8y ago
        Yes, and congress could pass a law banning net neutrality. But under current law, the FCC is not able to issue a directive doing the same thing. A law banning NN will never get passed due to gridlock (thankfully), so barring some huge change in public opinion I don't see states being prohibited from enforcing NN.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - juliangoldsmith 8y ago
      States have room to pass whatever regulation they want by default. It only becomes a problem when it conflicts with federal law, in which case federal law always takes precedence.
  - cavanasm 8y ago
    So it's a little more complicated than that? In their repeal, the FCC argued that the FCC had no authority to enact net neutrality or regulate ISPs. Prior to that, the FCC was considered to have had absolute authority over the issue and it was generally felt states had no standing on the issue. So states are seizing on the FCC saying they can't regulate it, while the FCC is now trying to claw back their argument and claim ISPs exist in a regulatory void where no one can regulate them until Congress passes new legislation.
    - juliangoldsmith 8y ago
      >the FCC is now trying to claw back their argument How so? Based on what I've read, I've gotten the impression that the Internet will be primarily regulated by the FTC, instead of the FCC. That would mean that ISPs aren't able to engage in anticompetitive practices, but are pretty free otherwise. I haven't heard anything about states' standing on the issue. Unless there are explicit federal laws saying that the government can't regulate the Internet (which seems unlikely), it's pretty cut-and-dried that states would be able to pass legislation to affect ISPs in their jurisdiction.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    There's a concept called "preemption" in US law. If a state and the federal government has laws that conflict, federal law wins and the state's law is voided. What this means is that if the federal government wishes to regulate something, it can direct that the states' regulations are circumscribed or voided. The FCC first tried to regulate net neutrality, but that was struck down by a court as beyond its remit, since ISPs weren't common carriers. So the FCC declared that ISPs were in fact eligible for Title II regulation, which effects preemption of state-level regulations. Except the current administration has had the FCC declare that ISPs are not Title II carriers, and therefore FCC has no right to regulate them... which makes it difficult to argue that the federal regulations (which no longer exist) can preempt state regulations.
    - 0xfeba 8y ago
      > Since ISPs weren't common carriers Cable ISPs weren't/aren't. Dial-up ISPs have been under Title II since the 90s. That is, net neutrality applies if you access the internet via dial-up, but not via cable/fiber.
      - 0xfeba 8y ago
        Correction -- Dial-up ISPs have been under Title II since the 80s up until 2005.
- 0xfeba 8y ago
  > states are defying the FCCs interpretation and enacting their own version of net neutrality. Just for internet access from government entities, schools, administrations, etc.
chimeracoder 8y ago
> It will be interesting to see whether American and European views of the internet converge or diverge in the long term. I've noticed that American norms tend to flow towards the old world, and the reverse is rarely true, the GDPR being the most impressive counter-example I've seen. This is a pretty common meme, but it's hardly true. For example, from a proposal introduced (ironically) on the same day GDPR enforcement began: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/eus-copyright-proposal-extremely-bad-news-everyone-even-especially-wikipedia https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/eus-copyright-proposal.... On the matter of copyright: while the US takes a lot of flak for its treatment of copyright law in a number of high-profile cases, in a lot of ways, Europe has consistently led the trend towards more corporate-friendly copyright law. The first extension of copyright terms in the US was actually done explicitly to harmonize US law with European law at the time (though it's since been extended further). Furthermore, several EU countries already have much stricter laws or stricter enforcement of laws that make it more difficult to access content over Bittorrent - including content shared legally! - compared to the US. The UK already has passed laws banning a whole slew of pornography that's legal in most of the world (including the rest of the EU and the US), and laws requiring identity verification for accessing pornographic sites.
- Bakary 8y ago
  Thanks for alerting me to this. Regarding the UK, it does indeed appear to be on a different track than the other European nations and the US, but I might be operating under an incorrect impression as before.
wooter 8y ago
If the "new world" involves anti free speech laws which get you a visit from the police for nonviolent facebook posts, bans on porn, the regressive gdpr law, useless cookie laws, tragic lack of startups, etc. I'll take the American system please and thank you.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  You mean like being jailed for your dog giving a Nazi salute, or becsuse you blogged on some rapists and mentioned their religion? Yes, American system is vastly preferable to that.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    Please don't feed the trolls.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
I think we need a "US vs EU whataboutism" equivalent of Godwin's Law, based on the fact that every single discussion on this site seems to devolve into this in short order.

by Bakary 8y ago

MichaelApproved 8y ago

The story isn't over within the United States. Many states are defying the FCCs interpretation and enacting their own version of net neutrality. It's going to be interesting to see if the FCC tries to strike those local laws down and how ISPs will handle the things from State to state.

juliangoldsmith 8y ago
I don't think the FCC would have the power to strike down local laws, if they even had any desire to. The best they could probably do would be a lawsuit, but the states would be well within their rights to add new laws on top of federal ones.
- wpietri 8y ago
  What makes you so confident the FCC couldn't win in court? My understanding is that states have some right to additionally regulate, but only to the extent that federal law allows it.
  - blind_boy_grunt 8y ago
    In Tennessee v. FCC, [1] the FCC, under the authority of §706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, attempted to preempt state laws that prohibit municipalities from building their own broadband networks under certain circumstances (these laws were obviously lobbied and passed by ISPs in the state legislatures). This was struck down by courts because, although the supremacy clause means that federal law supplants state law, the federal law at hand was so far removed from what the FCC was doing in this particular case, that the FCC was essentially creating "directives" which overruled state law in pursuit of a vague goal that was defined in federal law. In essence, federal administrators/bureaucrats had the power to overrule state law. Although the ISPs "won" in that decision, it cuts both ways -- which means that any attempt by the FCC to preempt net neutrality regulations under §706 is likely to fail as well. Sorry if my take is a little confusing, here is some more coverage: [2], [3]. [1] http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0189p-06.pdf [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/08/10/fcc-loses-bid-to-preempt-municipal-broadband-laws-in-tennessee-n-c/#7e9e24a64e7f https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/08/10/fcc-los... [3] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/in-blow-to-muni-broadband-fcc-loses-bid-to-overturn-state-laws/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/in-blow-to-muni-...
    - Avshalom 8y ago
      Problem is: if New Mexico passes a Net Neutrality law but all of the Netflix data centers are in Arizona it's suddenly going to be "interstate commerce"
      - ashelmire 8y ago
        Something being interstate commerce does not prevent states from legislating on it. Under that logic, states couldn't regulate the sale of anything produced in another state, which is obviously untrue.
        Avshalom 8y ago
        no it just means that the federal government has constitutional power to over rule it if they feel like it, no need to argue on the basis of any existing case law.
      - blind_boy_grunt 8y ago
        Yes, and congress could pass a law banning net neutrality. But under current law, the FCC is not able to issue a directive doing the same thing. A law banning NN will never get passed due to gridlock (thankfully), so barring some huge change in public opinion I don't see states being prohibited from enforcing NN.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - juliangoldsmith 8y ago
    States have room to pass whatever regulation they want by default. It only becomes a problem when it conflicts with federal law, in which case federal law always takes precedence.
- cavanasm 8y ago
  So it's a little more complicated than that? In their repeal, the FCC argued that the FCC had no authority to enact net neutrality or regulate ISPs. Prior to that, the FCC was considered to have had absolute authority over the issue and it was generally felt states had no standing on the issue. So states are seizing on the FCC saying they can't regulate it, while the FCC is now trying to claw back their argument and claim ISPs exist in a regulatory void where no one can regulate them until Congress passes new legislation.
  - juliangoldsmith 8y ago
    >the FCC is now trying to claw back their argument How so? Based on what I've read, I've gotten the impression that the Internet will be primarily regulated by the FTC, instead of the FCC. That would mean that ISPs aren't able to engage in anticompetitive practices, but are pretty free otherwise. I haven't heard anything about states' standing on the issue. Unless there are explicit federal laws saying that the government can't regulate the Internet (which seems unlikely), it's pretty cut-and-dried that states would be able to pass legislation to affect ISPs in their jurisdiction.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  There's a concept called "preemption" in US law. If a state and the federal government has laws that conflict, federal law wins and the state's law is voided. What this means is that if the federal government wishes to regulate something, it can direct that the states' regulations are circumscribed or voided. The FCC first tried to regulate net neutrality, but that was struck down by a court as beyond its remit, since ISPs weren't common carriers. So the FCC declared that ISPs were in fact eligible for Title II regulation, which effects preemption of state-level regulations. Except the current administration has had the FCC declare that ISPs are not Title II carriers, and therefore FCC has no right to regulate them... which makes it difficult to argue that the federal regulations (which no longer exist) can preempt state regulations.
  - 0xfeba 8y ago
    > Since ISPs weren't common carriers Cable ISPs weren't/aren't. Dial-up ISPs have been under Title II since the 90s. That is, net neutrality applies if you access the internet via dial-up, but not via cable/fiber.
    - 0xfeba 8y ago
      Correction -- Dial-up ISPs have been under Title II since the 80s up until 2005.
0xfeba 8y ago
> states are defying the FCCs interpretation and enacting their own version of net neutrality. Just for internet access from government entities, schools, administrations, etc.

chimeracoder 8y ago

> It will be interesting to see whether American and European views of the internet converge or diverge in the long term. I've noticed that American norms tend to flow towards the old world, and the reverse is rarely true, the GDPR being the most impressive counter-example I've seen. This is a pretty common meme, but it's hardly true. For example, from a proposal introduced (ironically) on the same day GDPR enforcement began: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/eus-copyright-proposal-extremely-bad-news-everyone-even-especially-wikipedia https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/eus-copyright-proposal.... On the matter of copyright: while the US takes a lot of flak for its treatment of copyright law in a number of high-profile cases, in a lot of ways, Europe has consistently led the trend towards more corporate-friendly copyright law. The first extension of copyright terms in the US was actually done explicitly to harmonize US law with European law at the time (though it's since been extended further). Furthermore, several EU countries already have much stricter laws or stricter enforcement of laws that make it more difficult to access content over Bittorrent - including content shared legally! - compared to the US. The UK already has passed laws banning a whole slew of pornography that's legal in most of the world (including the rest of the EU and the US), and laws requiring identity verification for accessing pornographic sites.

Bakary 8y ago
Thanks for alerting me to this. Regarding the UK, it does indeed appear to be on a different track than the other European nations and the US, but I might be operating under an incorrect impression as before.

wooter 8y ago

If the "new world" involves anti free speech laws which get you a visit from the police for nonviolent facebook posts, bans on porn, the regressive gdpr law, useless cookie laws, tragic lack of startups, etc. I'll take the American system please and thank you.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
You mean like being jailed for your dog giving a Nazi salute, or becsuse you blogged on some rapists and mentioned their religion? Yes, American system is vastly preferable to that.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  Please don't feed the trolls.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago

I think we need a "US vs EU whataboutism" equivalent of Godwin's Law, based on the fact that every single discussion on this site seems to devolve into this in short order.