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?
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?
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.
There are plenty of other contributors, both direct and indirect. PACs, billionaires, unions, earned media, Russians, grandmas, etc.
So after all that, he got no Republican votes. Even thought the plan was, at it's base, a conservative plan. He was naive.
Yes, the world sucks. But there's great stuff too.
Working towards a better future is my coping mechanism.
I encourage everyone to volunteer somewhere that helps restore your faith in humanity. Finding those people, those groups can be a challenge. (Most do gooders are also tedious to be around.)
I used to volunteer as a tree hugger. Now I'm very politically active. I somehow fell in with great people doing great things. Their friendships and the shared effort is what keeps me going.
Unbelievably, I'm now super optimistic. Yes, the challenges are terrifying, I'm not in denial. But I also believe the opportunities are insurmountable. [ h/t Yogi Bera :) ]
Both sides twist the issue to their advantage. Rights for me, not for thee.
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
States' rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights
[Interstate] 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...
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.
Even if it is provided by corporations from out of state.
The Internet is the very opposite of local, yes. But the last mile connection, the way your packets get to the nearest IXP is local. And that's where the oligopoly and thus the throttling happens.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18111651
In my opinion, the court has significantly erred in redefining interstate commerce to include (1) intrastate-only-commerce; and (2) non-commerce (i.e. locally grown and unsold wheat)
Furthermore - and this is a bit off topic - unalienable natural rights (Equality, Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness) are of higher precedence. I mention this because this is yet another case where the court will be interpreting the boundary between State and Federal rights; and it's very clear that the founders intended for the powers of the federal government to be limited -- certainly not something that the Commerce Clause should be interpreted to supersede.
What penalties and civil fines are appropriate for States or executive branch departments that violate the Constitution; for failure to uphold Oaths to uphold the Constitution?
Is it okay if a State opts to withdraw from the interstate market for wheat? Because without power to meddle with intra-state production, consumption and transactions, it's entirely possible.
See, e.g, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7416
and
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7402
and
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.
My understanding is that federal law gives states the option of either following the EPA rules or the CARB rules.
But we shall see what the courts find.
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.
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.)