10 ms·
Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law
- dd36 8y agoSo was this lawsuit prepared by a lobbyist’s law firm? How on earth would DoJ be ready this quickly?
- aw1621107 8y agoProbably because the bill didn’t pop out of nowhere. There was debate over the bill in the legislature, news stories, etc.
- close04 8y agoUnfortunately this doesn’t exclude the premise above. I’m sure lobbyists are all over this.
- dd36 8y agoWhy would DoJ spend time drafting a lawsuit against a law that isn’t yet law? Just seems odd. Why is DoJ sending messages on behalf of telecoms? Doesn’t DoJ have enough on its plate?
- olliej 8y agoThat's the point, the DoJ isn't spending time, they're regurgitating material produced by lawyers working for the carriers. Why is DoJ sending messages on behalf of the carriers? Because the current administration has demonstrated it will do anything they're paid to do. Doesn't the DoJ have enough on its plate? Like what? The purpose of the DoJ is /ostensibly/ to protect people from abuses by people who have more money/resources than them. Including the police. The GOP/WH has demonstrated that human rights are low priority compared to most other things (especially those that can pay them).
- mrhappyunhappy 8y agoDon’t forget when the too big to fail banks were given passes without so much a slap on the wrist under Holder’s oversight. The whole thing is a joke. Oh and he is now back serving the masters he protected. I can only imagine how much they are paying him for doing their bidding.
- olliej 8y agoThat process started under the bush administration, so it’s not just dems. The answer for that of course is that banks especially pay every representative, regardless of party.
- pas 8y agoI agree with the need for more responsibility assignment, but claiming that banks were given a pass as a somehow atrocious thing is just shouting for mob justice. The way would have been through Congress, SEC, FTC and the other relevant bodies. The DoJ did pursue investigations against banks, but ... guess what, they were very likely compliant with criminal law, thus there was not much to stand on, and you are right, that it's a joke, because despite this, the DoJ managed to secure billions on Deferred Prosecution Agreements. Do I weep for poor banks? Fuck no, but I hate the arbitrariness of this "justice". No, this was no justice - as everyone rightly feels, but the DoJ was not in the position to make things right, Congress was. They could have mandated simpler, safer, cheaper banking for everyone, they could have taxed the irresponsible lenders and borrowers, they could have empowered the SEC to be able to proactively act, but no, they did only regulate a few investment banking things (and created a new consumer protection bureau, that is being gutted by the current administration). Furthermore, the lack of criminal convictions is of course a problem, but just that would not be enough to disincentivize fraud and other criminal behavior, like money laundering. Both (as in personal responsibility for branch managers and hefty fines for the whole corporation) are needed to keep things in check. And the DoJ does not go after persons, most likely because the enormous interference from the whole war on x, from the ATF, DEA, DoD, etc. at the affected regions.
- dd36 8y agoWhat if Brown vetoed it?
- loeg 8y agoHis veto rate is around 12% (88% signed). It's relatively unlikely. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article179212971.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...
- onetimemanytime 8y agoThose numbers are misleading. For most bills he is likely asked if he'd go along with it, before the bill is even written.
- dd36 8y agoHe regularly vetoes bills that I wouldn’t expect him to. It’s just odd to me is all. A few weeks after it becomes law makes sense for DoJ. A telecom might file for an emergency injunction but the DoJ?
- CalChris 8y agoNope. US Attorneys but this was passed awhile ago so they had time to prepare a filing. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1097306/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1097306/downl...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zwerdlds 8y agoSorry if I get some basic understanding of the law wrong but... Isn't this the same thing as regulating car emissions? Doesn't 822 only apply to providers in the state itself? Wouldn't it be that the telecoms are welcome to engage in another method of end-customer billing in other states? What am I missing?
- devindotcom 8y agoThe idea is that California's law conflicts with a federal rule, the one the FCC recently put into effect. The FCC says its authority preempts that of states on issues like broadband providers, which in a way provide interstate services, arguably making it a federal issue. That's far from settled however and this lawsuit will be a closely watched one.
- komali2 8y agoBut I thought the whole idea was that the FCC is refusing to regulate the internet, because it's not their jurisdiction to do so? Wasn't that Pai's reasoning? I'm having trouble finding a source though so maybe my memory's off.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y agoIf the commerce clause covers a farmer growing his own wheat that he doesn’t sell, it covers internet regulation. The question is if the FCC is authorized by Congress to set the regulations nationwide for internet companies.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pas 8y agoNot so fast. The same clause also does not cover a lot of things. And ISPs are very much the perfect example of truly local things. And those are not covered. But we shall see what the courts find.
- org3432 8y agoWhat's odd too is that Washington State passed a net neutrality law and I don't see any FCC response to block it. So why only California? https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzkx83/which-states-have-net-neutrality-washington https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzkx83/which-stat...
- ForrestN 8y agoCalifornia has been especially committed to challenging some of the administration's various injustices. Trump has made California one of his symbolic, non-white boogeymen in order to manipulate his "base." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/us/politics/trump-california-lawsuits.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/us/politics/trump-califor...
- village-idiot 8y agoNot unique to Trump. California has been the boogeyman of the right for quite a while now.
- guelo 8y agoBut if a liberal makes a joke abut southern rednecks than they get all indignant about how elitist and offensive they are. So tiresome.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- justtopost 8y agoBigotry is wrong on both sides. Seems odd to make it partisan when 'both' sides are spewing hate. Most of us just wish either extreme would pack it in.
- village-idiot 8y agoI believe that pointing to a location and saying “look at what policies X and Y have done, let us adjust our messaging and policies in accordance with this new information” is perfectly fair. Characterizing the locals in those environs as inferior or fundamentally incorrect is morally wrong. So in this regard, desparaging california’s policies is completely fair. So would bashing on say, Kansas. But calling California the home of “libtards” or calling Kansas full of rednecks would not be fair.
- mychael 8y agoNet "neutrality" protects competitors from competition. Good on Jeff Sessions.
- forrrealman 8y agoI've never understood this style of comment. You say you agree and make a claim, but might you care to substantiate it or otherwise elaborate on your point of view? I am not saying you are wrong, just, I can't actually engage with the comment here because it doesn't provide anything to engage with.
- jumelles 8y agoThere is no substantiation.
- DannyBee 8y agoThe interesting part of this to me is that if you read the details the FCC published about the order that was signed, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf it goes into great detail about the court cases about why the FCC has no authority to effectively regulate net neutrality unless the ISP's are classified under Title 2. (This is true, in fact, and the court cases it cites and the DC circuit have been clear on this point for years) The order then reclassifies the ISP's outside of Title II. Outside of the arguments around privacy jurisdiction (which were always dual jurisdiction with the FTC), i don't know what they are thinking. Given that the courts have already decided the FCC has no authority to regulate in this space (outside of Title II), and Ajit himself has said it numerous times, arguing pre-emption seems like a loser. If they don't have the authority to regulate around it, it's hard to see how they will argue they have the right to pre-empt others: all the court rulings involve determinations about the scope of the statutes involved, which in turn is a valuation of what congress intended to regulate/how far pre-emption goes. It'll be interesting to read the complaint to see what leg they are trying to stand on. Besides the existing court cases making super-clear the lack of authority, just the sheer the number of statements and orders from Ajit saying the FCC has no authority here seems like it will be hard for the FCC to overcome. They would have been much better off saying "we have plenty of authority here and we explicitly choose not to exercise it"
- tzs 8y agoDid the order that killed net neutrality move them back to being Title I "information services"? There have already been court rulings that states cannot regulate Title I information services. There was one just decided a few weeks ago in the 8th Circuit, Charter Advanced Services (MN), LLC v. Lange [1]. Pai immediately praised that decision [2]. That, in this suit coming so soon after that, suggests that is going to be the approach. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16244426479419445038&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=162444264794194... [2] https://www.fcc.gov/document/court-preempts-state-regulation-information-services-pai-statement https://www.fcc.gov/document/court-preempts-state-regulation...
- 8y ago
- analog31 8y agoI wonder how the business that I conduct with my ISP is "interstate commerce." The wire connecting my house to my ISP begins and ends in my state. As I understand things, it's the speed of data running up and down that wire that net neutrality seeks to protect.
- exabrial 8y agoSilicon valley is a unique and quite humorous example of your point, but to play devil's advocate, the internet definitely extends beyond California
- mcny 8y agoIs the last mile local or interstate? I know we used this for the healthcare law, affordable care act ACA which I never understood. Is it illegal to shut down a quick service restaurant location for health code violation? Food extends beyond California as well.
- pas 8y agoIs there a substantial economic effect of regulating the activity? Well, California might be its own enemy this time, but so is are the Federalist judges the GOP/Republicans prefer. As CA is too big to hide in the bushes, anything it does has likely substantial effect on the US - though it's easy to argue that ISPs are _very_ adept at adapting to local regulations, so they would simply configure their network devices this or that way depending where the subsribers are. And of course Federalist judges are not exactly that consistent either. So we shall see, but I sincerely don't see how this would affect interstate ISP markets substantially.
- gizmo686 8y agoWickard v. Filburn It is considered interstate commerce to grow wheat on one's own farm to feed one's own animals under the theory that by doing so, he removed himself from the interstate wheat market (where he would otherwise have bought his wheat). Since the internet plays a major role in interstate markets, one could easily extend this arguement to say that even local internet connections are interstate commerce. One could actually argue that most anything is interstate commerce. This is one of the main reasons we don't hear courts arguing that federal laws overstep the constitutional authority of the federal government: everything is interstate commerce.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- olliej 8y agoI feel like it would be a perfectly American solution to say that utilities only get free access to people's property and city's resources if they are neutral utilities. And for anything else require they pay the property owner or city/county (as appropriate) at market rates per square foot of usage. Basically if you have a "utility" line on my property I can't use that space, so you better actually bye a utility.
- doe88 8y agoNot surprised. Republicans advocate for judicial restraint only as long as it suits them.
- stephengillie 8y agoIt's impossible to have a moderate discussion when extremists keep shouting at each other.
- briandear 8y agoAnd Democrats argue states’ rights when it suits them.
- reitanqild 8y agoUpvoted you both. I think this should be the key takeaway: it shouldn't be us vs them. Decent people exist on both sides, but they don't seem to run the show on either side :-/
- maym86 8y agoThe net neutrality debate is about the repeal of fedral rules rather than adding an additional law. Thus a state's right to set their own rules applies. There is no fedral law to make ISPs behave in a certain way, just the lack of one, so the states should be able to set their own rules in cases like this as long as they are not unconstitutional. States' rights do not apply in the opposite case when a fedral rule is made and the states don't want to enforce it or have a law that contradicts it. Their laws can't undermine the fedral law. Hope that's helpful for your understanding of why this is different to the normal "states' rights" argument which is invoked when a state wants to avoid fedral rules.
- pm90 8y agoDemocrats use state rights to protect scientifically and economically sound policies when there is an obvious bad faith actions on the part of the Federal Government.
- 8y ago
- jhabdas 8y agoThe article disappears the moment I touch it within the HN app. Who needs paywalls when you can just force the attention onto your site.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoIntention wise, I am with CA, but we cannot have each state have their own laws when it comes to the internet. We'd have the nightmare of dealing with gazillions of jurisdictions.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> I am with CA, but we cannot have each state have their own laws when it comes to the internet. We can certainly have each state have their own laws as to the terms on which internet service can be sold to consumers. > We'd have the nightmare of dealing with gazillions of jurisdictions. Which is true of consumer sales of many goods and services.