5 ms·

> 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 broadb

> 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
      - specialist 8y ago
        Whataboutism is so tedious. There are plenty of other contributors, both direct and indirect. PACs, billionaires, unions, earned media, Russians, grandmas, etc.
        WillPostForFood 8y ago
        On both sides, yes. I'd say the Democrats are more dishonest. GOP claims to be the pro-business party, so no surprise when they act that way. Democrats take the corporate money, pay lip service to the left, and act pro-business as well. Look at Obamacare - we didn't get single payer, we got government subsidies for insurance companies.
        pm90 8y ago
        Obamacare was a compromise precisely because the Democrats had to make it palatable to Republicans. If it was upto Democrats, they would have passed Single Payer.
        amanaplanacanal 8y ago
        Obama was under the illusion that he could reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans, and tried very hard to do something that both sides could support. I think he didn't realize yet that making sure your side has wins, and the other side has losses, is how the game is played now at that level. So after all that, he got no Republican votes. Even thought the plan was, at it's base, a conservative plan. He was naive.
        pm90 8y ago
        Which is really what infuriates me to no end. I'm not saying Obama was perfect, but he was engaging in good-faith dealmaking, hoping to get everyone on board. But the Republicans weren't. And now, everyone seems to think that Mitch McConnell is a super effective Senate leader. But at what cost? Republicans seem to be plagued by a lot of short term thinking... Precisely what the Senate, with its long tenure, was supposed to avoid.
- funkjunky 8y ago
  They do have an ideology: fascism. And fascism can be (and has been) defined as a consolidation of power as a reaction to/against "the left" amidst popular enthusiasm and declining support for democratic institutions. By only focusing on the GOP "donor class", you're missing what really connected and drives them. If it was just about donors, then Google, et.al. could have bought out the GOP and swung them to a pro immigrant, pro technology platform fairly easily. But it isn't just about money, it's about various factions of society with a common enemy on "the left" coming together and reacting against whatever it is "the left" represents in that society. This is why it doesn't matter what is said or done one minute vs. the next, or facts, or the law, or democracy, or philosophical/religious morality, etc. It is only about consolidating power at any cost, attacking/undermining anything that represents leftist or democratic institutions and ideologies, and scapegoating allies of the left such as minorities, immigrants, academia, environmentalists, and the media. In this case, "net neutrality" is considered a leftist ideology, much like climate change. Therefore it is imperative that it be destroyed, and it isn't just isps that will fight against it. Here's an entertaining, upsetting, and fairly well researched video (part of series) that goes in depth on it: https://youtu.be/fIN8oxnw__I https://youtu.be/fIN8oxnw__I
  - robdachshund 8y ago
    I like how I'm shadowbanned for no apparent reason but you're free to call people fascist on a programming forum.
jorblumesea 8y ago
Both sides are only "states rights" if it benefits them on any given issue. Dems are against states rights until they get to pass legislation legalizing pot or net neutrality, then suddenly it's not so bad. Similarly, Republicans are all for states rights until some blue state starts passing legislation they disagree with. Both sides twist the issue to their advantage. Rights for me, not for thee.
westurner 8y ago
Expansion of federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause is an egregious violation of Constitutional law. Does the federal government have the enumerated right under the Commerce Clause to, for example, ban football for anyone that doesn't have a disability? No! Was the Commerce Clause sufficient authorization for Federal prohibition of alcohol? No! An Amendment to the Constitution was necessary. And, Federal Alcohol and the unequal necessary State Alcohol prohibitions miserably failed to achieve the intended outcomes. Where is the limit? How can they claim to support a states' rights, limited government position while expanding jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause? "Substantially affecting" interstate commerce is a very slippery slope. Furthermore, de-classification from Title II did effectively - as the current administration's FCC very clearly argued (in favor of special interests over those of the majority) - relieve the FCC of authority to regulate ISPs: they claimed that it's FTC's job and now they're claiming it's their job. Without Title II classification, FCC has no authority to preempt state net neutrality regulation. California and Washington have the right to regulate ISPs within their respective states. Outrageous! Limited government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government States' rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights [Interstate] Commerce Clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause Net neutrality in the United States > Repeal of net neutrality policy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Repeal_of_net_neutrality_policy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United...
- pas 8y ago
  The limit is established, and constantly reevaulated by the Supreme Court. For example it was held that gun control cannot be done through the Commerce Clause. Car emissions and ISPs are different. As ISPs are very much perfect examples of truly local things (they need to reach your devices with EM signals either via cables or air radio), the Federal government might try to argue that the net neutrality regulation of California affects the whole economy substantially, because it allows too much interstate competition due to the lack of bundling/throttling by ISPs. Similarly, the problem with car emissions might be that requiring thing at the time of sale affects what kind of cars are sold to CA. Is the Commerce Clause too vague? Yes. Is there a quick and sane way to fix it? I see none. Is it at least applied consistently? Well, sort of. But we shall see.

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
    - specialist 8y ago
      Whataboutism is so tedious. There are plenty of other contributors, both direct and indirect. PACs, billionaires, unions, earned media, Russians, grandmas, etc.
      - WillPostForFood 8y ago
        On both sides, yes. I'd say the Democrats are more dishonest. GOP claims to be the pro-business party, so no surprise when they act that way. Democrats take the corporate money, pay lip service to the left, and act pro-business as well. Look at Obamacare - we didn't get single payer, we got government subsidies for insurance companies.
        pm90 8y ago
        Obamacare was a compromise precisely because the Democrats had to make it palatable to Republicans. If it was upto Democrats, they would have passed Single Payer.
        amanaplanacanal 8y ago
        Obama was under the illusion that he could reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans, and tried very hard to do something that both sides could support. I think he didn't realize yet that making sure your side has wins, and the other side has losses, is how the game is played now at that level. So after all that, he got no Republican votes. Even thought the plan was, at it's base, a conservative plan. He was naive.
        pm90 8y ago
        Which is really what infuriates me to no end. I'm not saying Obama was perfect, but he was engaging in good-faith dealmaking, hoping to get everyone on board. But the Republicans weren't. And now, everyone seems to think that Mitch McConnell is a super effective Senate leader. But at what cost? Republicans seem to be plagued by a lot of short term thinking... Precisely what the Senate, with its long tenure, was supposed to avoid.
funkjunky 8y ago
They do have an ideology: fascism. And fascism can be (and has been) defined as a consolidation of power as a reaction to/against "the left" amidst popular enthusiasm and declining support for democratic institutions. By only focusing on the GOP "donor class", you're missing what really connected and drives them. If it was just about donors, then Google, et.al. could have bought out the GOP and swung them to a pro immigrant, pro technology platform fairly easily. But it isn't just about money, it's about various factions of society with a common enemy on "the left" coming together and reacting against whatever it is "the left" represents in that society. This is why it doesn't matter what is said or done one minute vs. the next, or facts, or the law, or democracy, or philosophical/religious morality, etc. It is only about consolidating power at any cost, attacking/undermining anything that represents leftist or democratic institutions and ideologies, and scapegoating allies of the left such as minorities, immigrants, academia, environmentalists, and the media. In this case, "net neutrality" is considered a leftist ideology, much like climate change. Therefore it is imperative that it be destroyed, and it isn't just isps that will fight against it. Here's an entertaining, upsetting, and fairly well researched video (part of series) that goes in depth on it: https://youtu.be/fIN8oxnw__I https://youtu.be/fIN8oxnw__I
- robdachshund 8y ago
  I like how I'm shadowbanned for no apparent reason but you're free to call people fascist on a programming forum.

jorblumesea 8y ago

Both sides are only "states rights" if it benefits them on any given issue. Dems are against states rights until they get to pass legislation legalizing pot or net neutrality, then suddenly it's not so bad. Similarly, Republicans are all for states rights until some blue state starts passing legislation they disagree with. Both sides twist the issue to their advantage. Rights for me, not for thee.

westurner 8y ago

Expansion of federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause is an egregious violation of Constitutional law. Does the federal government have the enumerated right under the Commerce Clause to, for example, ban football for anyone that doesn't have a disability? No! Was the Commerce Clause sufficient authorization for Federal prohibition of alcohol? No! An Amendment to the Constitution was necessary. And, Federal Alcohol and the unequal necessary State Alcohol prohibitions miserably failed to achieve the intended outcomes. Where is the limit? How can they claim to support a states' rights, limited government position while expanding jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause? "Substantially affecting" interstate commerce is a very slippery slope. Furthermore, de-classification from Title II did effectively - as the current administration's FCC very clearly argued (in favor of special interests over those of the majority) - relieve the FCC of authority to regulate ISPs: they claimed that it's FTC's job and now they're claiming it's their job. Without Title II classification, FCC has no authority to preempt state net neutrality regulation. California and Washington have the right to regulate ISPs within their respective states. Outrageous! Limited government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government States' rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights [Interstate] Commerce Clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause Net neutrality in the United States > Repeal of net neutrality policy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Repeal_of_net_neutrality_policy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United...

pas 8y ago
The limit is established, and constantly reevaulated by the Supreme Court. For example it was held that gun control cannot be done through the Commerce Clause. Car emissions and ISPs are different. As ISPs are very much perfect examples of truly local things (they need to reach your devices with EM signals either via cables or air radio), the Federal government might try to argue that the net neutrality regulation of California affects the whole economy substantially, because it allows too much interstate competition due to the lack of bundling/throttling by ISPs. Similarly, the problem with car emissions might be that requiring thing at the time of sale affects what kind of cars are sold to CA. Is the Commerce Clause too vague? Yes. Is there a quick and sane way to fix it? I see none. Is it at least applied consistently? Well, sort of. But we shall see.