Bucking FCC and Ajit Pai, lawmakers across US have proposed net neutrality laws.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
To kill net neutrality, FCC might have to fight more than half of US states
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Pai is just stubborn/loyal enough to his corporate backers to stand and fight.
A more logical person might rethink their position.
A more logical person might rethink their position.
Upvote
47
(51
/
-4)
And this, my friends, is one of the wonderful things about the United STATES of America.
Upvote
14
(22
/
-8)
Pai is just stubborn/loyal enough to his corporate backers to stand and fight.
A more logical person might rethink their position.
As long as Verizon keeps him rollin' in oversized novelty mugs, he'll keep schillin'
Upvote
67
(69
/
-2)
*waits for ISP's to escalate by introducing data caps to the states that fight for Net Neutrality"
Upvote
35
(36
/
-1)
ColdWetDog
Ars Legatus Legionis
Now don't a goin' getting your hopes up. "States rights" until the Feds decide that political expediency is more important than constitutional purity (i.e. the vast majority of the time).
All the Federal Government needs to do is to attach a bribe^Hfunding source to some remotely associated issue with the proviso that if you don't follow Federal guidelines you don't get the money.
See, for example, Medicaid, education funding, highway funds, Trump's entire infrastructure 'plan' and many other programs. It's been raised to a fine art over the years.
Edit: Can we call him 'Idjit" Pai? Please?
Upvote
31
(36
/
-5)
Question to author, or anyone knowledgeable enough, but is certain states enforcing net neutrality rules enough to essentially lead to net neutrality being kept everywhere in the US? Sorta similar to how California's clean air regulation for cars leads to many in the US to having cars that meet those standards regardless of where they live?
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
Unfortunately, this balkanization of Internet rules only aids ISPs; they can play one state's rules off against anothers to maximize their gains. It impoverishes the nation as a whole.
The Internet should be considered the national railway system or national highway system or electrical system or telephone system of the 21st century. Broad access to high-speed Internet at low cost is grease for the skids of the economy, and nations that skimp on it will lag behind has a result.
The Internet should be considered the national railway system or national highway system or electrical system or telephone system of the 21st century. Broad access to high-speed Internet at low cost is grease for the skids of the economy, and nations that skimp on it will lag behind has a result.
Upvote
50
(55
/
-5)
I have read “states right” being exploited so much throughout history by politicians across the spectrum that the phrase just causes me to roll my eyes.
Upvote
18
(21
/
-3)
Uh, no. The GOP wants "states rights" to prevail whenever and where ever they can be used to suppress gays, women's rights and health care, and oppress brown people. The vast majority on both sides of the aisle who want net neutrality to prevail are taking a second-choice route because it is the only route left open to them at the moment; it would be much simpler and better for everyone if we had a uniform mandate for NN at the Federal level.
Upvote
66
(71
/
-5)
Well, at this point it should be well known that one side only espouses state's rights when it means localized repression of undesirables to spite the feds.
Upvote
21
(25
/
-4)
It's only at 26 because there are others that are constrained from passing legislation right now. Should the issue not be resolved by the end of the year, I expect the Texas legislature will jump onto the bandwagon when they reconvene in early 2019.
The list of states not currently in session are Montana, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Nevada. Montana has, as mentioned, already taken gubernatorial action and will likely address; North Dakota is rural enough to be impacted negatively and I'm guessing will follow their southern neighbor; Minnesota is in a similar boat with sizable populations outside of MSP; in my mind, Nevada is the only wild card, and that's mostly because I'm not familiar enough with them to think one way or another.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-stat ... endar.aspx
edit: just noticed that NM adjourned yesterday. I don't know what that means for the legislation there, but I doubt this would merit a special session (or their equivalent), so it's probably dead until their next session.
The list of states not currently in session are Montana, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Nevada. Montana has, as mentioned, already taken gubernatorial action and will likely address; North Dakota is rural enough to be impacted negatively and I'm guessing will follow their southern neighbor; Minnesota is in a similar boat with sizable populations outside of MSP; in my mind, Nevada is the only wild card, and that's mostly because I'm not familiar enough with them to think one way or another.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-stat ... endar.aspx
edit: just noticed that NM adjourned yesterday. I don't know what that means for the legislation there, but I doubt this would merit a special session (or their equivalent), so it's probably dead until their next session.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
This reminds me of the marijuana prohibition laws. What is it, something like 3/4 of the states allow some form of marijuana consumption yet it's still completely illegal according to the feds.
-d
-d
Upvote
28
(29
/
-1)
Do they expect it to pass though? Proposed legislation doesnt mean actual laws, or even a realistic chance of becoming one. I know at least one state on that list is so far bought and paid by telecoms, itll never be passed by the ruling party.
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
Don't you know? Pai eats babies. But, damn, I didn't know he ate that many!
Upvote
3
(13
/
-10)
I gotta agree with ColdWetDog here: Just make state's funding via digital infrastructure block grants contingent on rolling over to the monopolies, and voila, no pesky NN in those states.
The best part? The states that take the money will be spending on infrastructure that the monopolies will own, while states that don't roll over will have no funding for replacement service!
Ka-ching!
The best part? The states that take the money will be spending on infrastructure that the monopolies will own, while states that don't roll over will have no funding for replacement service!
Ka-ching!
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
A valid point (to you both) assuming the current folks in power can get this approved before the other crop gets (hopefully!) voted in in November.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
While I'm encouraged by and appreciative of the efforts of these states, I worry that tying these protections to procurement policies will ultimately hamstring the connectivity of those governments advocating for their constituents. Even with state-level legislation, I fear the best we can hope for is a system of widely-disparate handling of traffic and content from one location to another.
What we truly need, more than anything else, is Congressional action to formally define a federal legal framework that explicitly ends this game of regulatory "hot potato" of playing cute with definitions and jurisdictions. There's no small possibility that an entirely new regulatory body specifically and explicitly granted the authority to govern US internet service and edge providers in accordance with a defined "bill of rights" of net neutrality principles.
What we truly need, more than anything else, is Congressional action to formally define a federal legal framework that explicitly ends this game of regulatory "hot potato" of playing cute with definitions and jurisdictions. There's no small possibility that an entirely new regulatory body specifically and explicitly granted the authority to govern US internet service and edge providers in accordance with a defined "bill of rights" of net neutrality principles.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Pai is just stubborn/loyal enough to his corporate backers to stand and fight.
A more logical person might rethink their position.
RUN THE MOTHER FRAKER OVER!!!!
Upvote
-9
(4
/
-13)
Good. I hope a complicated patchwork of state laws and regulations creates a huge headache for all the stooges who tried to kill nuetrality.
Have fun adapting your business practices to include exceptions for 50 different states you greedy SOBs.
Have fun adapting your business practices to include exceptions for 50 different states you greedy SOBs.
Upvote
46
(46
/
0)
Best deadpan post ever. I'm afraid you've upped your own game. I'll be expecting equally good ones in the future.
Upvote
-10
(4
/
-14)
More song and dance. It won't matter unless it's federal, feds have the states by their balls.
Upvote
-10
(1
/
-11)
You do recall that dude with the sword won this battle, right?Pai is just stubborn/loyal enough to his corporate backers to stand and fight.
A more logical person might rethink their position.
Upvote
18
(20
/
-2)
And this is one of the reasons Amendment XVII to the US Constitution be revoked. Give states back a little more power. The Senators were originally supposed to represent the States Rights, while The House of Representatives were supposed to represent the people. There is no reason to have 2 groups representing the people, and none representing the states.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... dment-xvii
https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... dment-xvii
Upvote
-9
(1
/
-10)
Love it in theory, but is there enough competition that states choose not to use the big boys?
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
You do recall that dude with the sword won this battle, right?Pai is just stubborn/loyal enough to his corporate backers to stand and fight.
A more logical person might rethink their position.
Movie? I don't recognize it.
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
You do recall that dude with the sword won this battle, right?Pai is just stubborn/loyal enough to his corporate backers to stand and fight.
A more logical person might rethink their position.
Movie? I don't recognize it.
Game of Thrones. That is the back of Jon Snow...
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
- Status