FCC’s attempt to kill net neutrality challenged by new Washington state law
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Except, you know, that the FCC wanted to leave it up to the states and not the Feds.
Sorry CL. You can't have it both ways but it apparently that doesn't stop you from trying.
Upvote
156
(158
/
-2)
I can't wait for the ISPs to be all up in arms because states pass stricter Net Neutrality rules than were just taken off the books.
Upvote
194
(195
/
-1)
It feels like our democracy is broken when more than half of voters and more than half of the states oppose something but yet the federal government does that thing anyway.
Upvote
161
(164
/
-3)
Plus all the expense and headache of having to conform to each states' differing NN regulations rather than just the Federal's.
Upvote
121
(121
/
0)
Oh, that's exactly what will happen, won't it? Sweet sweet justice. Telcos had it coming.
Upvote
104
(104
/
0)
The FCC siad it doesn't want to regulate the internet, but then it also siad only it has the power to regulate the internet.
If the federal gives up a right it belongs to the States.
the companies should have thought of that before making the situation worse
If the federal gives up a right it belongs to the States.
the companies should have thought of that before making the situation worse
Upvote
129
(129
/
0)
Democracy became broken when dollar bills began to outvote the voters.
Upvote
117
(118
/
-1)
Actually, the FCC wants to have their cake and eat it to... they're refusing to regulate the Internet, claiming that Internet service is not "common carrier" (the stupidest thing I've ever heard), but still trying to claim regulatory authority to de-regulate the Internet.
Obviously, this isn't going to work.
As far as I can tell, the Federal government can claim regulatory authority over the Internet, but as long as Internet service is not classified a common carrier service, it doesn't actually fall within the FCC's jurisdiction.
As the article said, ISP's lobbied for the FCC to remove ISPs' Common Carrier status, so this is what they get. Honestly, I think it will take an Act of Congress to properly regulate Internet providers, especially since Pai has proven that regulations, rather than laws, can't be counted on to stay in place long enough to actually have any meaningful effect.
Upvote
89
(89
/
0)
A great step forward. Proud of you WA.
I do see how CenturyLink, or any national company, would not want to deal with multiple state regulations but then they should have fought hard for NN in the first place. They also should have known that NN is what their customers wanted.
I do see how CenturyLink, or any national company, would not want to deal with multiple state regulations but then they should have fought hard for NN in the first place. They also should have known that NN is what their customers wanted.
Upvote
79
(80
/
-1)
Considerably more than half the voters. On BOTH sides.
That is what I don't understand... this is a bi-partisan issue. You would THINK that it would be an easy win for congress and right now congress needs all the wins they can get...
I am sure that it has nothing to do with cable companies funding certain politicians re-election funds and I am sure that it has nothing to do with an ex-Verizon lawyer running the FCC.
Upvote
96
(97
/
-1)
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
There was a study not too long ago that found that policies being voted in match way way more what companies want rather than what the people want. Welcome to true oligarchy...
Upvote
70
(71
/
-1)
Be careful not to confuse "Federal Government" and "Federal Agencies."
The US Government certainly has authority to regulate Internet providers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the FCC has that authority. A Federal agency can only regulate the specific things Congress gives it the power to handle. In the FCC's case, the Federal Communications Act give the FCC power to act on radio communications and with respect to common carriers.
The FCC doesn't have authority, for example, to set food labeling standards or water testing standards. That's because Congress didn't give it that authority.
The same goes for Internet service. As long as Internet service isn't considered a common carrier (by the FCC's own decision), then the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate it.
So this is not a matter of states' rights. This is entirely a matter of the regulatory authority of one specific Federal agency. All the FCC has to do in order to take back the right to regulate the Internet is call it a Common Carrier and thus subject Internet service to the same requirements as telephone service.
Upvote
56
(56
/
0)
So how will the feds respond? Will this be challenged in court or will legislation at the federal level finally be passed? I don't think the ISPs will leave this one alone.
This seems like a win, but hopefully the start of something bigger.
This seems like a win, but hopefully the start of something bigger.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
At the same time, there's already a ton of local/state laws that ISPs have to adhere to, so any claim of additional burden is laughable.
Upvote
32
(34
/
-2)
I also pondered this as the senate struggles to get one more republican vote. The way I see it, it is a two fold problem.
The first is asshat politicians that will attach really bad riders or amendments to a very popular bill. While I've I've seen it both ways, fundamentalist GOPer (aka American Taliban) really loves this type of thing when they want to kill something that may actually help the people of this country. Heaven forbid we have a clean bill on one specific thing that allows representatives to vote representing the will of their people, even those outside the corporate farm.
The second is dealing with a volatile, vindictive, and childish President with a very rabid base. These days, Trump just needs to point his tweet at a party member and his next primary may be in question. This, along with their own special interests (looking at you Corker) tends to kill any hope that in areas like Net Neutrality were are large portion of the country want it, it still fails.
Upvote
20
(27
/
-7)
The FCC is also attempting the "no state NN" rule - so yes the FCC will sue the state of Washington under that rule.
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
Well, the way it's supposed to work is that the US Government makes laws that work best when governed by the US government, and the states govern everything else.
Marriage is actually mixed. It would make no sense to get married in California yet not be considered married in Florida. Would a couple have to get re-married if they moved to another state? That's obviously ridiculous, so the US stepped in and basically said "any state has to respect a marriage made in any other state."
However, there are also Federal rights granted to a married couple. For example, I can claim a spouse on my taxes. If I was in the military, I'd have benefits for my wife that I would not get for a live-in girlfriend. Because of that, the US has a vested interest in governing marriage.
On the other hand, things like driver's licenses and traffic laws are managed by individual states, as are many other things that don't need Federal oversight. The general idea is that a state should manage everything it can effectively manage within its own borders, and the US government should manage stuff that crosses borders.
Since the Internet does cross borders, the Federal government has the right to regulate it... but see my earlier comments on that topic.
Upvote
41
(41
/
0)
Then WA can appeal and keep it going. They are a state and they have the money.
Eventually this may settle once and for all whether the FCC has the authority to regulate ISPs. They said they, then said they don't.
Upvote
34
(35
/
-1)
Not only stricter rules, but by foregoing federal jurisdiction, they've allowed the patchwork set of regulations to occur. It might end up more expensive for them not to just follow the rules everywhere.
I'm cheering on Washington State for a couple of reasons. Net neutrality is always good, but on top of that, 93-5 and 35-14 have to be somewhat bipartisan, even if Washington is mostly blue. Usually we get a count - how many Republicans actually voted for what the majority of their constituents want here?
Edit: answering my own question, straight from exported data off of their website:
The Washington legislature is relatively even. The house has 48 R's and 50 D's, and the Senate has 23 R's and 26 D's. This is probably the first example of a truly bipartisan, very strongly worded, net neutrality bill. Kudos to the WA Legislature. I'd love to see an equally bipartisan result from Oregon.
Upvote
46
(46
/
0)
Boo-Fucking-YA!
Even if it will inevitably be fought in court, it's still another swing of the hammer undermining the authority (or lack thereof) that Pai's FCC is trying to impose on us.
Glad my state is doing the right thing here!
Even if it will inevitably be fought in court, it's still another swing of the hammer undermining the authority (or lack thereof) that Pai's FCC is trying to impose on us.
Glad my state is doing the right thing here!
Upvote
19
(21
/
-2)
Then it goes to the SCOTUS and they've already proven themselves a nest of citizen-fucking oligarchists.
Upvote
-16
(13
/
-29)
Ironically, I'm starting to agree with his position, but not for the reasons he's publicly claimed.
Pai says the FCC shouldn't be in charge of the Internet. While I disagree that the Internet isn't "communications", I agree the FCC should stay out of it - because the current situation has proven that regulations can't be trusted. They can change at any time, and I think that's good for no one - especially the business that have to live or die by those regulations.
What we need is law, not regulation.
The problem is that Congress can't be bothered to make a decision, and the FCC has proven that using regulatory authority is too capricious. We need permanent, decisive action, not rules that can change every time a new Commissioner is appointed.
I'll bet that even the telecoms who lobbied against NN would agree that they want a consistent, predictable legal framework, rather than one that changes before the ink is dry on the previous order.
Upvote
38
(39
/
-1)
Eastern Washington is pretty solidly republican, I'm actually a bit surprised that the vote was by such large margins.
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
Washington State should pass a bill saying all CEOs of telecoms companies have to post a live video of themselves dancing in a jester's outfit at 11:00am PDT every Tuesday.
Then Oregon should pass another requiring the same at 13:35 pm PDT of every Wednesday, and every calendar day where the date can be expressed as the sum of two primes.
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
Wait, can't basically all numbers higher than 3.... oh, I get it.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Upvote
34
(35
/
-1)
The two examples you cite are unitary issues, though. Should states be forced to recognize marriages made in other states? Should states have to recognize the validity of citizenship or presence, if it came through another state? In both cases, the only thing that works is for rules to be mostly uniform. Otherwise, my state could pass a law saying that smug bastards like Pai are illegals, and if they show up here we could deport them to... oh, say Antarctica.
Telecommunications? There's no reason (except that it would be a PITA for the companies) why states need to have the same rules. They already do taxes on the bills differently for different states (or even municipalities). They do it with cars, California has more stringent standards. And mostly they do it by building all cars to meet CA standards. They could do the same with Internet, simply take the most stringent rules and obey them everywhere.
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
A communications entity does not need to be a common carrier to fall within FCC jurisdiction.
Under 47 USC, the FCC is granted authority to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. There is no requirement that a common carrier be involved in those communications.
Remember the whole Title I vs. Title II thing? Title II is the set of rules under which the FCC regulates common carriers. Title I is the set of rules under which the FCC regulates other types of communications entities and services.
The FCC at no point said they could or couldn't regulate broadband providers. They merely shifted those providers from Title I to Title II under Wheeler, and then back to Title I under Pai.
So the FCC's current argument is that because broadband providers are under Title I FCC jurisdiction, they have the authority to regulate them (and the regulations they have imposed basically require broadband providers to do whatever they want as long as they make huge piles of money doing it) and, further, that states can't also regulate them.
That latter part is what the Washington law is designed to test.
Upvote
25
(26
/
-1)
That's the thing. A majority of Republican citizens like NN, too. It's just the Republicans who receive large contributions from the telcos that are against it. And the average state legislator probably isn't part of that crowd.
Upvote
37
(38
/
-1)
The net neutrality repeal is shaping up to be such a Monkey Paw wish. They had a very easy to follow guideline that applied nationwide, and in return for repealing it they're getting:
*Lawsuits out the wazoo (for the FCC anyway, and likely for any company who starts rolling out changes).
*Potentially dozens of state laws to follow to the letter instead of a single universal one.
* The possibility of a national law, which seems likely to pass the moment Democrats have control of Congress again (which could easily be as early as this election or the next).
And most of this is likely to strike before many companies can even profit off it. Amazing.
*Lawsuits out the wazoo (for the FCC anyway, and likely for any company who starts rolling out changes).
*Potentially dozens of state laws to follow to the letter instead of a single universal one.
* The possibility of a national law, which seems likely to pass the moment Democrats have control of Congress again (which could easily be as early as this election or the next).
And most of this is likely to strike before many companies can even profit off it. Amazing.
Upvote
50
(50
/
0)
- Status