10 ms·

Sorry 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

Sorry 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 ago
The 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 ago
  But 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 ago
If 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 ago
  Not 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.
  - Vendan 8y ago
    I don't have an ISP to talk to the ISP's server, I have an ISP to talk to the global internet, so it's very much not local...
    - pas 8y ago
      Your choices of ISPs is. You buy a connection to a network. Thus the trade happens between you and locally present businesses. The interstate effect could be due to different services available on the network. So due to the lack of throttling the bundles that the ISPs like to sell wouldn't work, because you could easily buy Netflix or any other non local content.
      - Vendan 8y ago
        My selection of ISPs is local, but so is my selection of power companies, housing, heck, even grocery stores. I choose my ISP on primarily non-local considerations, so I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as you state. (i.e. I choose my ISP because of it's connections to other states and countries, not because of my connection to it.)
        pas 8y ago
        But there's no market for ISPs where far away ISPs come and present their connections to you. Similarly with housing, even though it's physically possible, real estate markets don't go to the buyers, you don't see houses physically moving to potential buyers. Similarly, thousand mile cables are not laid down for everyone. And out of state grocery stores don't go to you, even though you can go to them online nowadays. (And in that sense they advertise to you from out of state.) So, just as you can pick a barber/hairdresser because it can show you the newest trends from other barbers from out of state, you still do the transaction locally, even if the whole hair-onomy might be global. That said, this is a complex multifaceted problem. (Otherwise everyone would have understood it well by now, even Pai, and everyone would be on the same side, etc. Just as water is wet, the Earth is round, vaccines have amazing cost-benefit ratio, the climate is changing, and emission reduction is the right response, and so on. Ha-ha.) And ultimately we can reason however we want, it's up to some judges to figure this out. If there were a federal law regulating ISPs, and the whole telecom market, and they were challenged based on lack of constitutional authorization, it'd probably get dismissed fast. (As there are already such laws.) But this is the other way around, and on top of that this is a set of regulations that don't clash with the federal ones, they are merely stricter. (And I'm completely out of my depth about the question of whether the FCC could write rules that'd give rights to ISPs that states can't abridge - or only Congress could do that. But I suspect it can, but only if the regulation has a substantial difference in interstate commerce --- which is the question, is there even an interstate ISP market, and I guess that there isn't.)
Alex3917 8y ago
> Isn't this the same thing as regulating car emissions? My understanding is that federal law gives states the option of either following the EPA rules or the CARB rules.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  Nah, the clean air act specifically is meant to be cooperative with the states and for the states to retain some authority.
DannyBee 8y ago
California's rules are explicitly allowed by the clean air act, otherwise they would not be okay. See, e.g, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7416 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7416 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7402 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7402 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7410 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7410
- IncRnd 8y ago
  Those links are about air pollution not general interstate commerce or Title II.
  - avs733 8y ago
    The parent post was about air pollution rules and whether/why/why not they could be used as a corollary to understand what might happen in this case. The post you are responding to explains that the specific type of legislation that the parent is asking about was explicitly identified in federal law as allowable.
    - IncRnd 8y ago
      Thank you.
      - avs733 8y ago
        Welcome!
everdev 8y ago
> Like California’s auto emissions laws that forced automakers to adopt the standards for all production, the state’s new net neutrality rules could push broadband providers to apply the same rules to other states. I think you're right, the motives are very similar. > Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that California’s net neutrality law was illegal because Congress granted the federal government, through the F.C.C., the sole authority to create rules for broadband internet providers. “States do not regulate interstate commerce — the federal government does,” Mr. Sessions said in a statement. I thought Republicans were pro-states rights and limited government? How does their position on this jive with their ideology?
- wolf550e 8y ago
  The GOP does not have an ideology. Anything you could name as a position of their ideology they will (and did) betray for either "winning" or at the behest of their corporate masters.
  - exabrial 8y ago
    You left out how both... all political parties cater to special interests but otherwise accurate
    - pm90 8y ago
      > all political parties cater to special interests but otherwise accurate Your statement is so broad as to be effectively meaningless. Sun rises in the east. So what? The difference is that the GP is beholden completely to its corporate masters and does not hesitate in engaging in lies, false propaganda and bad faith politics to achieve its goals. All of which are corrupt and very anti-democratic.
      - WillPostForFood 8y ago
        Democrats now get as much money from corporations as Republicans, but no strings attached, eh? https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/sectors.php?cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/sectors.php?cycle=2018

devindotcom 8y ago

The 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 ago
But 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 ago

If 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 ago
Not 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.
- Vendan 8y ago
  I don't have an ISP to talk to the ISP's server, I have an ISP to talk to the global internet, so it's very much not local...
  - pas 8y ago
    Your choices of ISPs is. You buy a connection to a network. Thus the trade happens between you and locally present businesses. The interstate effect could be due to different services available on the network. So due to the lack of throttling the bundles that the ISPs like to sell wouldn't work, because you could easily buy Netflix or any other non local content.
    - Vendan 8y ago
      My selection of ISPs is local, but so is my selection of power companies, housing, heck, even grocery stores. I choose my ISP on primarily non-local considerations, so I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as you state. (i.e. I choose my ISP because of it's connections to other states and countries, not because of my connection to it.)
      - pas 8y ago
        But there's no market for ISPs where far away ISPs come and present their connections to you. Similarly with housing, even though it's physically possible, real estate markets don't go to the buyers, you don't see houses physically moving to potential buyers. Similarly, thousand mile cables are not laid down for everyone. And out of state grocery stores don't go to you, even though you can go to them online nowadays. (And in that sense they advertise to you from out of state.) So, just as you can pick a barber/hairdresser because it can show you the newest trends from other barbers from out of state, you still do the transaction locally, even if the whole hair-onomy might be global. That said, this is a complex multifaceted problem. (Otherwise everyone would have understood it well by now, even Pai, and everyone would be on the same side, etc. Just as water is wet, the Earth is round, vaccines have amazing cost-benefit ratio, the climate is changing, and emission reduction is the right response, and so on. Ha-ha.) And ultimately we can reason however we want, it's up to some judges to figure this out. If there were a federal law regulating ISPs, and the whole telecom market, and they were challenged based on lack of constitutional authorization, it'd probably get dismissed fast. (As there are already such laws.) But this is the other way around, and on top of that this is a set of regulations that don't clash with the federal ones, they are merely stricter. (And I'm completely out of my depth about the question of whether the FCC could write rules that'd give rights to ISPs that states can't abridge - or only Congress could do that. But I suspect it can, but only if the regulation has a substantial difference in interstate commerce --- which is the question, is there even an interstate ISP market, and I guess that there isn't.)

Alex3917 8y ago

> Isn't this the same thing as regulating car emissions? My understanding is that federal law gives states the option of either following the EPA rules or the CARB rules.

DannyBee 8y ago
Nah, the clean air act specifically is meant to be cooperative with the states and for the states to retain some authority.

DannyBee 8y ago

California's rules are explicitly allowed by the clean air act, otherwise they would not be okay. See, e.g, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7416 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7416 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7402 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7402 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7410 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7410

IncRnd 8y ago
Those links are about air pollution not general interstate commerce or Title II.
- avs733 8y ago
  The parent post was about air pollution rules and whether/why/why not they could be used as a corollary to understand what might happen in this case. The post you are responding to explains that the specific type of legislation that the parent is asking about was explicitly identified in federal law as allowable.
  - IncRnd 8y ago
    Thank you.
    - avs733 8y ago
      Welcome!

everdev 8y ago

> Like California’s auto emissions laws that forced automakers to adopt the standards for all production, the state’s new net neutrality rules could push broadband providers to apply the same rules to other states. I think you're right, the motives are very similar. > Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that California’s net neutrality law was illegal because Congress granted the federal government, through the F.C.C., the sole authority to create rules for broadband internet providers. “States do not regulate interstate commerce — the federal government does,” Mr. Sessions said in a statement. I thought Republicans were pro-states rights and limited government? How does their position on this jive with their ideology?

wolf550e 8y ago
The GOP does not have an ideology. Anything you could name as a position of their ideology they will (and did) betray for either "winning" or at the behest of their corporate masters.
- exabrial 8y ago
  You left out how both... all political parties cater to special interests but otherwise accurate
  - pm90 8y ago
    > all political parties cater to special interests but otherwise accurate Your statement is so broad as to be effectively meaningless. Sun rises in the east. So what? The difference is that the GP is beholden completely to its corporate masters and does not hesitate in engaging in lies, false propaganda and bad faith politics to achieve its goals. All of which are corrupt and very anti-democratic.
    - WillPostForFood 8y ago
      Democrats now get as much money from corporations as Republicans, but no strings attached, eh? https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/sectors.php?cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/sectors.php?cycle=2018