Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 21:37 UTC
Legal

Four lobbying groups representing some of the largest telecom companies in the country filed a lawsuit Wednesday opposing California's net neutrality law in an attempt to stop it from going into effect next year.

The four industry groups filing the lawsuit were USTelecom, CTIA, NCTA, and the ACA - groups which represent telecom corporations like AT&T; Verizon Wireless; Charter Communications; and Comcast, and mobile companies like T-Mobile. This is the second lawsuit filed following the passage of California's net neutrality law on Sunday. The first was fired off by the Department of Justice only hours after the bill received its final signature from Governor Jerry Brown.

States' rights totally matter, but only when it comes to oppressing women and buying pointless guns - not when it comes to protecting consumers from the predatory, anti-consumer corporations that line politicians' pockets.

Order by: Score:
v Well, that's stupid
by cjbreisch on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 22:00 UTC
RE: Well, that's stupid
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 22:08 UTC in reply to "Well, that's stupid"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, please, next time before you make yourself look like even more of a moron than you do right now, please take a civics class.


I guess you missed the part where it says "The first was fired off by the Department of Justice only hours after the bill received its final signature from Governor Jerry Brown."

I can expect an apology for your unfounded attack?

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: Well, that's stupid
by MadRat on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 22:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Well, that's stupid"
RE[3]: Well, that's stupid
by imthefrizzlefry on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well, that's stupid"
imthefrizzlefry Member since:
2010-10-28

The FCC has abdicated its authority over Broadband, which means there is no formal regulation for broadband at the federal level. Furthermore, the FCCs powers are not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Which means it is a states rights issue.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Well, that's stupid
by daddio on Thu 4th Oct 2018 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Well, that's stupid"
daddio Member since:
2007-07-14

but only when it comes to oppressing women and buying pointless guns


Color me disappointed. Usually this kind of shallow flamebaiting is below you. And thank goodness.
The quality of the political debate here on OSNews is generally almost as good as the technology discussion.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by FlyingJester
by FlyingJester on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 22:19 UTC
FlyingJester
Member since:
2016-05-11

The argument against this being anti-states'-rights is that ISPs are doing business across state lines (by providing the Internet), and commerce that leaves state lines falls under federal laws, not state laws.

No statements on right or wrong, that's the argument for this not being a states' rights issue.

Reply Score: 3

Sad thing is it might work...
by imthefrizzlefry on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 22:24 UTC
imthefrizzlefry
Member since:
2010-10-28

So, I don't know if the claim that "all internet traffic is interstate commerce" will fly because this limitation is on the final-mile providers within California; however they might be able to get around this by limiting content outside of the state of California.

The part I fear they might actually have a point on, is the interconnection fees portion. Interconnection fees often involve companies in multiple states, and the agreements often stipulate connection points in multiple states. Again, they might be able to say "any interconnection points in California", but that kind of neuters the law. In that case, every major ISP could create a California company that needs to arrange for an interconnection deal with the parent company to connect with the rest of the network outside of California. Of coarse the fees will be passed down to the customers, or subsidize through the government (tax payers.)

I am afraid of what will happen, especially because my state, Washington, is also in the process of finishing a net neutrality law. I am tired of the crazy stunts ISPs have been trying for the past 15 years.

Reply Score: 1

States Rights
by jholton on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 22:26 UTC
jholton
Member since:
2018-10-03

Actually, it’s pertinent: (inverted challenge to FCC) ... that said, the snark on guns is annoying. We have a 2nd Amendment that insures the rest are not abused, Thom. I will concede that consumers MOST need protection from Telco giants, yet CA lawmakers tailored this law precisely for FB & the SV Mafia who abuse us .... sooo ...

Reply Score: 1

RE: States Rights
by imthefrizzlefry on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 22:38 UTC in reply to "States Rights"
imthefrizzlefry Member since:
2010-10-28

I disagree. This law is specifically tailored to prevent repeated abuse of customers by ISPs. ISPs want to zero-rate services so they can charge content creators for priority access. Interconnection deals are made to raise costs for competing services (E.G. Comcast charges Netflix, which competes with Comcast's Hulu (majority owned) and StreamPix (in house) services)

In many ways, Facebook is hurt by this law; take Myanmar for example, where Facebook and Internet are interchangeable terms because mobile phone services come with free unlimited use of Facebook - a practice made illegal by this law. It also potentially hurts companies like Google/YouTube and Netflix, who can afford to pay for market dominance, but because of this law are put on equal footing with smaller competitors.

Edited 2018-10-03 22:40 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by jholton
by jholton on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 22:49 UTC
jholton
Member since:
2018-10-03

Telco Comm is Interstatetraffic, just as are 18-wheelers hauling interstate goods, so ARE subject to Federal oversight under Commerce (Constitutional)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by jholton
by imthefrizzlefry on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 23:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by jholton"
imthefrizzlefry Member since:
2010-10-28

However, this law regulates the deals that final-mile providers can make with people in their homes. If I wanted to setup an SLA for a VPN from California to New York, that would be an interstate commerce deal, but Internet Access is just an agreement between your house/cell and the local PBX; It normally isn't Comcast or Charter that carries the signal between states, and a Tier 2 provider is usually brought in to make those connections. It's more like sales tax on Internet purchases than long haul trucking.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by jholton
by Drumhellar on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 23:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by jholton"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

And phone service is also interstate, but states also regulate it heavily within their own boundaries, too.

And the FCC specifically said in it's order to rescind net neutrality that it did not have the authority to regulate the internet in such a manner.

If the FCC does not have the authority to regulate something, then they do not have the authority to prevent the states from doing so. This is well established under existing case law.

At least, those are the arguments going to be made.

Reply Score: 6

v Comment by jholton
by jholton on Wed 3rd Oct 2018 23:04 UTC
v Net neutrality vs. social media ToS
by l-tamas on Thu 4th Oct 2018 10:05 UTC
feamatar Member since:
2014-02-25

I disagree: because at this point it is questionable if net access is a utility while social media is not.

Reply Score: 3