California Senate Defies FCC, Approves Net Neutrality Law (arstechnica.com) 292
The California State Senate yesterday approved a bill to impose net neutrality restrictions on Internet service providers, challenging the Federal Communications Commission attempt to preempt such rules. From a report: The FCC's repeal of its own net neutrality rules included a provision to preempt state and municipal governments from enforcing similar rules at the local level. But the governors of Montana and New York have signed executive orders to enforce net neutrality and several states are considering net neutrality legislation.
The FCC is already being sued by t21 states and the District of Columbia, which are trying to reverse the net neutrality repeal and the preemption of state laws. Attempts to enforce net neutrality rules at the state or local level could end up being challenged in separate lawsuits.
The FCC is already being sued by t21 states and the District of Columbia, which are trying to reverse the net neutrality repeal and the preemption of state laws. Attempts to enforce net neutrality rules at the state or local level could end up being challenged in separate lawsuits.
States are out of control (Score:5, Funny)
If we let them get away with this, soon we'll be seeing Schedule 1 narcotics sold in corner shops!
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad pot's not a hallucinogen. I wouldn't mind being able to buy it in the corner shop, but I guess I'll have to make do with smack.
Re:States are out of control (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad pot's not a hallucinogen.
Common side effects include dizziness, feeling tired, vomiting, and hallucinations. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. I've done extensive research in the area and, although it has profoundly different effects on different people, vomiting and hallucinations are not "common." As in, I've never even heard of a person responding to pot by barfing. Mushrooms, alcohol, yeah. Even tobacco tends to nauseate more than cannabis. You'd have to really stretch the definition of "hallucinations" to fit anything I've seen.
Re:States are out of control (Score:5, Informative)
In this case Wikipedia's editor misinerpreted this sentence in the source materials:
Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response
That sentence sounds like pot is causing nausea and vomiting, but in fact it's talking about treating nausea and vomiting with pot so a "complete response" is a total reduction in those symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, oh! Do me next!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, I'm more Republican and am all for States rights. Personally, I think the States pushing this is the only way to really to handle the matter, much like Gay Marriage was passed in the majority of States and drove the Federal policy. I think that's actually working as the Constitution was designed. Alternatively, Jury Nullification is a tool the public can use against some of these drug laws.
The left rediscovers decentralization? (Score:2)
Contrary to popular myth, the "states rights" tradition goes back to Thomas Jefferson, the ratifying conventions of the Constitution, and the Virginia / Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc
At the same time, I agree with you that many partisan hacks on the right will have a problem with this, just as many partisan hacks on the left have a problem with his sort of thing when they are in power. The system itself is the problem.
It is not a left-right issue to think that 535 peo
Re: (Score:3)
It was in the constitution partially in order to get the slave holding states to join the union.
As for centralized control, this was the original idea of the Republicans, before being diverted in the 60s by the segregationists. The states today are much more homogenous than in the early years, the state borders don't really mean so much these days, people move across borders on a whim, many even commute to their jobs in different state.
The 535 people are all elected by the people. These are not foreigners
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say that it's older than America, but it's clearly older than the United States, as it was one of the principles of the Articles of Confederation. It's also embedded into the US Constitution, though the government in power always ignores that. I believe it's the 10th amendment. Which, in any rational system, would take precedence over things like the Interstate Commerce Clause, as it was an amendment to the main document. Unfortunately, enforcement is left up to those who benefit by ignoring
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The left rediscovers decentralization? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the myth is that uttering the phrase "state's rights" make you racist. it doesn't.
It doesn't, but you do have to be aware of the context in which it was originally uttered loudly. And that context was not just preserving slavery, but also asking other states to respect it and send runaways back home. If you don't take that into account when you post about states' rights, you're going to be taken for a racist. I haven't checked up on your posting history, so I don't know that's what's happened, but it's not unlikely.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:States are out of control (Score:4)
Truth. I guess the FCC is learning what all of us have always known. The internet is a self correcting system. It will automatically route around blockages. I guess this works for legislative dumbassary too.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess this works for legislative dumbassary too.
only in cases of nearly terminal dumbassary though. The Internet routes around even minimal damage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The decision in that case was really just following the precedent set in 1942 in Wickard vs. Filburn [wikipedia.org]
There's a list, right there in the Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution lists which things the federal government can do. It then says that all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. It actually says that last part THREE TIMES, just to be certain nobody can miss it.
It then says that on these listed subjects that the federal government is allowed to legislate, federal law is the supreme law of the land, anything in state law notwithstanding:
--
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
--
Either regulating nationwide ISPs regarding NN is NOT an enumerated power, in which case the FCC has no authority at all and can't do anything, or the feds have the power and the states do not. The Constitution does not allow for dueling laws, with some states having valid laws that contradict federal law.
It is claimed that the federal government has the power under the Interstate Commerce Clause:
--
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
--
The federal rules apply companies *selling interstate* ISP services, so it sounds a lot like "commerce ... among the several states". The wording of thay clause *is* broad, but obviously it's intended to cover a limited number of things, so perhaps whenever something is questionable it should be interpreted fairly strictly.
Moving along, the very first sentence of Article 1 says that all law-making authority is vested in Congress, who cannot delegate it to any other branch of government. Later it says the job of the Executive branch is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". So executive branch entities such as the FCC must enforce the laws that Congress passes.
The question therefore is if Congress did in fact pass such a law and direct the FCC to enforce it. It is claimed that Congress did so with the Communications Act of 1934. Just by the title of the act alone, we can see it's going to be questionable whether, in 1934, Congress could have made any kind of law about the internet. In fact Congress made a law about the phone company (the ONE interstate phone company).
It seems likely that the feds CAN regulate ISPs in this way, subject to first amendment and other rights, and then states could not trample on federal law. It also seems rather likely that Congress has not yet passed a bill requiring ISPs to implement Network Neutrality ideas, and without such a law the FCC has nothing to enforce.
Re:States are out of control (Score:4, Interesting)
As soon as you allow that, you've **eliminated** the black market for those drugs, with one single swoop of the pen.
Not true. I live in New Mexico and am a daily cannabis user. In spite of their medicinal program, I assure you that NM still has a thriving black market for pot. I get my weed from the dispensaries, but I could get it cheaper off the streets. The only street-dealers I know details for get their weed from growers in CA.
everybody wins
Almost everyone agrees with you. Everyone except this Keebler-elf-turned-evil named Sessions.
Re:States are out of control (Score:4)
Almost everyone agrees with you. Everyone except this Keebler-elf-turned-evil named Sessions.
Naw, Keebler elves are bastion of yumminess. They can't turn evil. I'm thinking he looks more like this comic book villain, and acts like him too. Do you suppose if we could get him to say his name backwards he would vanish back to his home dimension, or be sucked up his own asshole? I'm good with ether.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe we have photographic proof of your clam.
https://i.imgflip.com/1qu4bo.j... [imgflip.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think sale should be an infraction (local option), and advertising it should be a misdemeanor, except that I'm fine with advertising it on electronic media being a felony...and no other penalties. I also think the tax should be slightly lower than that on tobacco.
I don't want marijuana to be some sort of legal power group, but I also disapprove of it being an illegal power group. Just design the laws to split things up into small growers and vendors, and to discourage large businesses from g
Re:States are out of control (Score:4, Insightful)
True, and you can now CLAIM to be using legit stuff because there's no way to know either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Is purchasing from a non-legit source illegal, for the purchaser? Or just illegal for the seller?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not going to research it right now, but I'll bet more minors were drinking after prohibition ended. Doesn't mean ending prohibition was a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the $9 that I paid for a 1/2 oz joint was too much?
If you paid $9 for 0.5 oz, you did REALLY well. Even the Mexican schwag I smoked in college cost $120/QP. If you rolled 0.5 oz into ONE JOINT, you're a champ among champs. Are you sure you didn't overpay for a 0.5 g joint?
Re: (Score:2)
The $9/g stuff I get at the dispensary is barely even the same beast as the Mexican schwag I smoked in college. It was a lot cheaper back then, but I can't remember the last time I bought weed that tasted like the tire it was transported in.
Re: (Score:3)
The $9/g stuff I get at the dispensary is barely even the same beast as the Mexican schwag
No surprises there. Everyone knows the Mexican's grow the best.
This is why you need to elect me president in 2020. I'll legalize it, then I'll work out a deal with Mexico on trade so they can bring it across without use of catapults. I'll make it required mediation for congress and anyone who watches Foxnews or CNN. An of course with anything government there will be a small tax on it.
This as president I will solve several problems at once. I'll will make America great again by moderating the assh
Re: (Score:3)
Granted, that I know next to nothing about cannabis. I've only smoked it once in my life, and I've only been drunk once too, and I can say that I didn't care for ether feeling. But that is just me. Honestly, I would rather be around a bunch of people smoking than drinking.
I've never been to a party where people where drinking and the cops didn't show up at least once. But I still remember my last college party where it was just a bunch of friends and friends of friends sitting around smoking. At s
Re: (Score:3)
I was once an avid pot smoker (I still enjoy occasionally from time to time) and your description of stoned people cleaning completely baffles me. In my experience stoner's homes tend to be less that tidy to be polite
With that said, stoned people are certainly less abrasive to be around sober than people drinking. Stoned people don't start fights or drama and they don't yell and bother your neighbors. If delivery isn't ordered in a timely manner they will eat you out of house and home though.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair I don't know what happened after I went to bed. For all I know they might have called a maid service, or a pack of cleaning smurfs.
they will eat you out of house and home though
Truer words have rarely been said. I do know that when I woke up the next morning there was a bag of Cheetos left alive.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasn't a bag of cheetos left alive I mean to say.
Re: (Score:3)
And weed NEVER met the definition of a narcotic, that was just puritanical bullshit by moralising assholes.
How would you suggest we keep those uppity jazz musicians under control?
Re:States are out of control (Score:5, Funny)
This ticks me off (Score:2)
Back when Reefer Madness [wikipedia.org] was put together, common metronomes were mechanical.
So it was difficult to provide a reasonable jazz time signature. [scientificamerican.com] Consequently, they had to jail all the non-white people.
Otherwise your daughters might not have marched up to the altar in 4/4 time, y'see?
States vs. housing associations (Score:2)
What argument is there, that would support allowing the States to impose addition restrictions on communication-providers, that would not also apply to allowing same to homeowner associations [atgf.com]? And vice versa?
Personally, I don't think, FCC should have any power over the HA's either — but many people don't agree. These people should support FCC's primate over States too, or else their view is self-inconsistent and thus automatically and objectively wrong...
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that the FCC has asserted it's authority over state, local and land use contracts (I.e HOAs) with it's OTARD rule, where they specifically disallowed any rules which prevented a homeowner from putting up a TV antenna. They also require "reasonable accommodation" of armature radio stations by state and local regulations (though refused to override your HOA on this issue).
It's pretty much a done deal that the FCC has the authority to do this if they wish....
The long and winding road (Score:2)
Well, you wouldn't want your armature wound improperly, would you?
I suppose armatures are regulated by FCC field offices.
I'll just motor off, now...
Re: (Score:2)
touché sir... Sorry my spelling is bad, but I'm just an engineer, not a technical writer.
Re: (Score:3)
I do indeed. And I disapprove of it as a government overreach.
But most /.-ers celebrate that, while denouncing the same Comission's other, most recent, overreach — the pre-emption of the State's attempts to impose their own "net neutrality".
You can approve of both, or reject both. But you can not pick only one of these — and remain self-consistent. That was my point.
Re: (Score:2)
So you claim that all states' rights situations are exactly like any other states' rights situation? And that there's no ground to look at possible differences and base one's position on those?
Re:States vs. housing associations (Score:4)
Here's a simple answer for you. Congress delegated regulatory authority for a few things to the FCC.
The first and most important delegation is the wireless spectrum, they gave the authority to the FCC to regulate the use of the radio spectrum to prevent interference and maximize the value. This power is essentially unrestricted with regard to wireless transmissions under the conditions Congress placed on the regulation (the FCC can't regulate military communications for example).
The Second is congress delegated to the FCC the ability to regulate wire-line services declared to be "Title II", basically services deemed to be essential. This power also allows the FCC to decide if something is Title II or not. In the early days of telephone this was to allow the FCC to regulate interstate communication and was later expanded to allow them to regulate the POTS system for things like 911 etc, it later was expanded to cover Cable TV (which was then removed in the 90's with the exception of explicit content) The Title II regulations are the only authority under which the FCC can regulate wire-line services at this time. The last court case the FCC lost explicitly noted this. If it's not Title II, the FCC doesn't have ANY authority to regulate and that includes blocking state level regulation. Without Title II they can't do anything and they've been stomped in courts at least 3 times for trying to do so without the Title II decleration.
So much for Republicans supporting states rights (Score:5, Insightful)
When Republicans talk about "States rights", they really mean the right of states to pass laws that discriminate against people. They do not mean the right for states to establish their own drug laws [politico.com] nor for states to adopt laws like net neutrality [arstechnica.com].
See, Republicans only complain about the big bad federal government when they pass laws they don't like. In other words, Republicans want to be bigots, and want to pass laws to support their bigotry, and cry "states rights" only to support their hateful agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So much for Republicans supporting states right (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, nobody cares about power grabs when it is a grab for power one likes, like net neutrality, but hate it when it is for what one doesn't like, like net neutrality.
The Rest Of Us make up our minds based on the issue at hand not a party affiliation.
You ought to try it, comrade.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't the purpose of belonging to a political party to let someone else do the thinking for you?
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose is to try to exert some minor political influence (all most of us can hope for). I have my own political views, and the Democrats are almost always closer to those than the Republicans, particularly in the last couple of decades. I don't know of a better way to spend a little work and a little money trying to change how the country is run.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true then people wouldn't be screaming about how the Republicans are evil for repealing Net Neutrality
I think people are smart enough to draw their own conclusions.
The proposal put forth by the Obama FCC was atrocious.
First time I've heard that. Out here in the real world you have to qualify your comments. Disregarded.
It's clear most people advocating for the FCC Net Neutrality rules have no idea what they say or what they will mean.
I'm just glad we have smart people like you to lead us dumb people and tell us what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you two guys have found some common ground. Can you agree that you're going to start voting against Democrats and Republicans (as well as doing anything else you can, to undermine this party), instead of continuing to vote for (ans otherwise support) th
Difference between CA law and NY & MT (Score:2)
It looks like California's law attempts to regulate the businesses directly.
The versions in New York and Montana are different, they deal with the state's business agreements. That is, if the company doesn't stand by the same net neutrality rules the state will stop the business.
Montana certainly isn't a big state for funding and they said they've got about $50M in contracts. Losing that much business wouldn't directly hurt AT&T or similar companies, but awarding a $50M contract plus rollout costs ac
That's how California rolls (Score:5, Funny)
So now we've got Net Neutrality, abundant cheap produce, legal weed, blondes in short-shorts, and surfing. It's 75 degrees and sunny on the 30th of January and I'm about to ride my bike down to the beach.
Suck it, red state losers. You can keep your meth, guns and fat girls. If this is socialism, I'm in for two.
https://youtu.be/R_q6aRwoV3M [youtu.be]
Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the shit we tell rust-belt people so they don't come here.
The beach I'm going to today, I think maybe in Cayucos (there are ten beaches within ten miles of me) is perfectly clean. I mean, I've lived in California since September, and I still haven't seen litter anywhere.
Also, California now has a $6.1 billion SURPLUS. If you believe that's because of bad calculations, you might want to tell the Wall Street Journal how to use a "calculator's basic functions", because clearly you're the only one who knows how they work.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/j... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Be quiet you, the less people know about how fantastic the weather and amenities are in California the better.
Say it with me, there are no beaches in California. Everyone is raped and murdered at least once, the state is hopelessly broke and taxes are at 400% and everyone is ugly plus it snows 24/7/365 often 10' at a time. California is HORRIBLE, don't move there, don't visit and definitely don't even talk about it because it's that horrible.
End of discussion.
Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone is raped and murdered at least once
Yeah, I've been murdered four times already!
Re: (Score:2)
Also, California now has a $6.1 billion SURPLUS
http://reason.com/blog/2017/09... [reason.com]
https://californiapolicycenter... [california...center.org]
http://www.sacbee.com/news/pol... [sacbee.com]
Tell us again about that $6.1 billion surplus.
Re: (Score:3)
Be glad to. Here is a more recent article from the Sacramento Bee that tells us the state actually has a $19 billion surplus.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/pol... [sacbee.com]
Your other two citations are a right-wing "think tank" and a libertarian magazine. But you don't trust the Wall Street Journal, right? And really, jwhyche, why don't you get a life and stop stalking me? It's getting a little creepy.
Re:California: needles, hobo piss and bankruptcy (Score:5, Interesting)
So, what you're saying is that California has a debt-to-GDP ratio that's better than Texas, Kentucky, Alaska, Louisiana, South Carolina , Indiana and all states combined.
If the state of California is going to go belly up, there will be a host of red states that go belly up first, which is some comfort.
Meanwhile, the quality of life is a whole lot better in California than it is in Texas, Kentucky, Alaska, Louisiana, South Carolina or Indiana.
Re: (Score:3)
I love having karma to burn, almost as much as I love shining the cold hard light of truth snowflakes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do know that California is one of the largest food growers in the country, right? No of course you didn't. That would require intelligence and you are sorely lacking in any. Let's see how long those red states last without California subsidizing their tick like status.
Re: (Score:3)
California imports a great deal of water from the surrounding states, with a lions share of imported water coming from the Colorado river. A simple fact is that California uses more water than it produces. The fact that California has been under a drought for the past few years doesn't help. Here is some reading to bring you up to date on the California water problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://californiawaterblog.co... [californiawaterblog.com]
https://www.mercurynews.com/20... [mercurynews.com]
California has made great stri
Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? (Score:5, Informative)
Wasn't the point of striking NN to cede power that the FCC really doesn't have and allow states to figure out what's best for themselves? Or does that not fit the anti-Trump narrative?
Given that the FCC specifically forbade States and Cities from drafting their own net neutrality legislation, gonna go with "no"?
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
Re: (Score:3)
Citing information would seriously degrade his TPH (trolls per hour). Not going to happen.
Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC's rollback of Net Neutrality rules was ostensibly predicated on the premise that the FCC "doesn't have the authority" to enforce Net Neutrality. If that's the stance the FCC wants to take that's fine, but they then can't turn around and say they do have the authority to preempt states from adopting their own Net Neutrality measures. You can't have it both ways. Things would be different if Congress had passed a preemption, but as it stands I think the FCC would have a very hard time winning this fight in court given their contradictory statements on their ability to adjudicate how ISP's handle delivery of data.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC's rollback of Net Neutrality rules was ostensibly predicated on the premise that the FCC "doesn't have the authority" to enforce Net Neutrality. If that's the stance the FCC wants to take that's fine, but they then can't turn around and say they do have the authority to preempt states from adopting their own Net Neutrality measures. You can't have it both ways. Things would be different if Congress had passed a preemption, but as it stands I think the FCC would have a very hard time winning this fight in court given their contradictory statements on their ability to adjudicate how ISP's handle delivery of data.
Well there is that... and states and municipalities should have every right to dictate terms of use for the telecoms that are using the public rights of ways to hang or lay their cables. I know the interstate commerce clause is usually interpreted to give federal law the benefit of the doubt... but at some point if the Federal Government is saying they are stepping back from regulations then the states have every right to step in at least for activities inside their respective states.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Last mile isn't interstate.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC's only authority to regulate wire-line services is via a Title II designation, the Wheeler NN regulations prior to the ones that were just repealed were tossed by the federal courts for this very reason. If you classify it an unregulated data service the FCC is waiving all authority to regulate it. It's either Title II and subject to regulation or it's not Title II and the FCC has no authority to regulate. This is exactly what the verdict in the last case says and it's the reason Wheeler reclassifie
Re:Defied? Wasn't this the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Montana's plan doesn't regulate ISPs and doesn't enforce Net Neutrality rules. Montana just updated their requirements to bid for state contracts to require that any ISP that wants a state contract MUST fully support net neutrality. The FCC can't tell the state not to change requirements for state contracts. They aren't telling ISPs that they can't violate net neutrality, just saying if you want the lucrative contract, you gotta follow it. If no ISPs are willing to do it, then a start up will and they'll get the lucrative state contract and grow and become a local threat. Suddenly it is in the ISPs best interests to follow net neutrality in Montana. And now New York has followed suit. If California is doing the same thing then ISPs are going to be feeling imense financial pressure very soon to just do net neutrality.
They won the battle at the federal level, but winning that battle unleased full blown war with the states and that is a war they can't win because they depend on states toeing the line. If states start repealing bans on municipal ISPs then it's truly over.
At least lets option to buy (Score:2)
That's good. Leased wars are always returned in such bad shape; the next user in line always ends up with the short end of the stick. We really should buy all our wars cash on the barrelhead.
Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? (Score:2)
I question how much money Montana actually spends on ISP services?
For example, many/most public schools pay for internet services with federal eRate money.
Many/most municipalities negotiate monopoly service agreements with carriers in exchange for free internet service connections for libraries, gov't offices, etc.
It's fine for the state to take a principled stand on the issue, but this will have ZERO effect on the average citizen of the state, except maybe causing their gov't to spend more money for intern
Re: (Score:2)
You're acting like it's hard and expensive to set up an ISP. That's not true, it's just been uneconomic, because the big players have taken all the business. But it's actually rather cheap and easy...as long as you use the lines that someone else has installed. And even local installation isn't THAT hard as long as you can obtain right of way. (And if the Telco agencies get into a fight with the state, they may have a hard time obtaining right of way, and need to use the state's lines. So they won't.)
T
Re: (Score:2)
Does the FCC have the *authority* to do that though? They are charged with regulating communications - not state legislatures. If an executive-branch bureaucrat can unilaterally restrict what state governments can do, then I think we have a little bit of a problem with the whole "democracy" thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Look, we get that you're horrified that anyone in the Trump administration has made a total ass of himself, but denying facts and crying about it won't help.
Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? (Score:5, Informative)
Got an authorative source for this?
Would the FCC order itself [fcc.gov] suffice for you? Directly from the same order that repealed Title II classification for ISPs, the FCC itself said (emphasis mine):
We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order.
It was fairly trivial to find, given that they put it in the section entitled "Preemption of Inconsistent State and Local Regulations", with that particular quote coming from page 110, paragraph 191. A few paragraphs later they provide an argument for their legal authority to preempt the states, but that authority will doubtless be challenged in court whenever the FCC sues California or vice versa, given that the California bill flies directly in the face of that preemption. The Montana and New York approaches use a backdoor approach to dealing with the issue that doesn't directly defy the FCC's order, so it's entirely possible that they may be allowed to remain in place even if the California bill gets tossed out. Of course, being that they're based on executive orders, the very next governor of those states could easily repeal the order.
Anyway, going back to (what I assume was) your earlier question:
Wasn't the point of striking NN to cede power that the FCC really doesn't have and allow states to figure out what's best for themselves? Or does that not fit the anti-Trump narrative?
No, not only was it not the point, it was explicitly not the point, and as such it fits just fine with the anti-Trump narrative surrounding net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the FCC have the authority to pre-empt the states?
I thought that power was left to Legislative branch, not Executive.
Re: (Score:2)
If a federal administrative rule is appropriately implemented (i.e. the agency has the authority to issue the rule and jumps through all of the necessary steps required for implementation, such as those required by the APA), the answer is yes.
Here's a brief overview: https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
That clause in the FCC order is nothing more than an affirmation of the interstate commerce clause. The individuals states have no power to regulate interstate commercial activities.
Re: (Score:2)
Last-mile coverage is inherently local, and NN is mostly about the last mile.
Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only problem is the FCC can't preempt state laws without a title II classification.
They've already lost on this several times in court but every successive republican admin tries the same bloody thing to eliminate all regulations by unclassifying internet service but also preempt state rules and every time the court strikes down the attempt to regulate it (preempting state laws is a regulation) when it's unclassified.
Either it's regulated under Title II and the FCC can set whatever rules they want, or it's not and they can't set ANY rules. The court told the FCC this directly when they lost the initial unregulated NN regulations suit during the Obama years (it was before they reclassified as type II to give them the authority to do so just like the court verdict said). They've only got two choices, they don't get to claim it's an unregulated service and then bar state level action.
Ajit is just doing his duty as a good Telecom lawyer by trying to have his cake and eat it too by doing what the law doesn't allow him to do. He can't block state regulations on unclassified services. There's at least 3 court rulings on various attempts to get around this Title II problem and the last case was explicit, you can't regulate it unless it's a Title II service, you declare it's an unregulated data service and you can't then place restrictions on either the providers or the states. The FCC's only authority to regulate telecom is under Title II.
Re: Defied? Wasn't this the point? (Score:2)
Got an authorative source for this?
You mean aside from the summary of the article this discussion is about? How about the actual regulation changed by the FCC? You read it, right - the regulation, not the linked-to article, right? Or did you just decide you knew better and puked out a rebuttal without doing any research at all?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on whether or not you think there is any such thing as intrastate commerce.
If you think intrastate commerce is a real thing that exists, and therefore SCOTUS might be disobeyed (as is happening with marijuana legalization, for example), then they haven't done anything to prevent it, because we didn't yet enact an amendment to the US constitution to give FCC this new power that they're demanding.
But if you think SCOTUS will be
easy to work around (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Federal government can just print cash to meet it's obligations if all else fails. California cannot do this.
However, I think Illinois is closer to the end than California. Illinois is bleeding population due to it's large tax structure and faces an unfunded pension debt that they have no possible way to pay. They also have gridlock in government, where they can make none of the hard decisions needed to forestall the inevitable.
So the question is.... How does a state actually *do* a bankruptcy? Do
Re: (Score:2)
Here ya go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
"The wealthy are fleeing California in record numbers"
OMG. You're right. At this rate, no one will be left in a few years.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Now, I know you said the "weathy". So from 1990-2016 this ( https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] ) shows the per capita income went from 21k to 56k.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah but you've proved his point -- since so many more Californians are wealthy than before, a record number of wealthy Californians are doing all sorts of things including breathing and leaving the state.
Mississipians, meanwhile, have one of the lowest migration rates of any state (source map [businessinsider.com]). This is a resounding popular endorsement of Mississippi government, everyone loves the state so much they refuse to leave! I mean, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with Mississippians being too poor to move an
Re: California is headed for default (Score:2)
Granted, the U.S. government's financial position is vastly worse, but that still doesn't exactly bode well for the Golden State.
Yes, but only the federal gov't can literally print it's way out of debt.
For example, isn't it interesting how many movie productions find it cheaper to move production 1-2 thousand miles away from Hollywood, transporting, housing, and feeding a cast and crew that largely came from Hollywood to make their movie? But no worries, once Gov. Moonbeam delivers the SF-LA bullet train project in on-time and under-budget, things will get better.
Re:California is headed for default (Score:4, Informative)
Heh. Not only is there no deficit, California has a $6,100,000,000 surplus for this year and projected $19,300,000,000 saved surplus. (source [sacbee.com])
California also has the wealthiest people in the USA by far, which I'll grant you technically means more of them "flee" CA than anywhere else, because to leave you have to exist.
Re: California is headed for default (Score:2, Informative)
You are looking at surface numbers for current expenditures only: a grievous accounting error. Look at debt (especially PERS and STRS) : assets and cash flows against projected rate of returns and spending increases, and you'll see California is approaching a $300 billion shortfall.
Those numbers will never be salvaged. Default is inevitable.
Re: (Score:3)
Texas... The home of the 5 billion rainy day fund (well, before last summer's hurricane we had one). We are obviously managing our state's resources rather well, even though we don't have a state income tax and only an 8.25% sales tax.
It may be a hole to you, but we are solvent and able to pay our bills....
Re: (Score:2)
You had a rainy day fund. You had a whole year's worth of rain in that day...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)