Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Justice Department Sues California for Reimposing Strict Net Neutrality Protections
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd love your source for this. Paid lobbying has existed since the beginning of the U.S. What began to happen more in the 1970s was politicians leaving office and getting hired as lobbyists (the revolving door).
Here's a timeline: https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/lobbying_timeline.php
The Atlantic has a good (but biased) article linking a rise to D.C.-based lobbyists in the 70s but there was a lot of paid lobbying before then (but much less than now based on unadjusted dollar amounts): https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...obbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/
We have to remember the cardinal rule of lobbying - it's "bad" when it's an interest you don't agree with.
Last edited:
The FCC hasn't abdicated anything. They set the policy. California has no right's here.
States have no authority to regulate interstate commerce, period.
The internet is very much under the realm of the interstate commerce clause as services and goods are purchased via the internet.
One caveat... California can set rules for California based companies providing services for California residents. The moment that services crosses state lines, California loses any authority to regulate it.
I'll concede your first point that the FCCs power has never been challenged successfully before. Secondly, California law applies in its own state. It doesn't apply outside of California...and therefore is not interstate. State level taxes for companies that operate outside of the state doesn't preclude the state from collecting said taxes as it relates to business being done within the state....I fail to see how California does have a leg to stand on here since it's net neutrality law applies to California and California alone. Therefore it isn't actually interstate commerce. I don't see sufficient proof that this counts as interstate commerce because 1 and only 1 state is involved here.
If Google, Apple and others can work around various countries laws with their various platforms, Telecoms can do the same at the state level. This lawsuit is an attempt by the federal government to infringe on individual states rights when their mandate is on interstate commerce involving more than one state. I could be wrong here in my understanding of the commerce clause or how its been interpreted in the past.
All this to say there is a lot more gray area here than you are acknowledging.
Last edited:
California is in conflict with federal authority on many issues. Our state wants to curb auto emissions more rigorously than the federal standards. To limit oil drilling offshore and fracking along the San Andreas fault. To be more accepting of immigrants and refugees. To preserve net neutrality. And more.
All the above are mostly popular with the state electorate. These positions are for the good of the people. Or at least they are trying to be.
The federal positions, in market contrast, are for the good of the CEOs and shareholders of a few select industries. Auto maker profits. Oil company profits. Internet provider profits. Well, maybe the state’s farmers aren’t benefitting so much. Without immigration there’s no one to harvest 7% of the world’s food supply.
All the above are mostly popular with the state electorate. These positions are for the good of the people. Or at least they are trying to be.
The federal positions, in market contrast, are for the good of the CEOs and shareholders of a few select industries. Auto maker profits. Oil company profits. Internet provider profits. Well, maybe the state’s farmers aren’t benefitting so much. Without immigration there’s no one to harvest 7% of the world’s food supply.
lol. Congress SPECIFICALLY refuses to clarify the Net Neutrality rules which lead to this mess.
The leg they have to stand on is that the FTC (Federal Teade Commission.. those interstate trade regulators) specifically recused itself from making rules about mega telco billing and data cartage rules because electronic instruments and telecommunications are regulated by the FCC. In Pai’s FCC declaration he quite specifically says the FCC does NOT have Congress’s permission by law to regulate Net Neutrality. He doesn’t say they are “reducing rules” the rule says very specifically that the FCC CANNOT regulate.. the idea is to set a precedent that would be immediately challenged if the next President tried to undo it.
So if the Federal government, thru multiple agencies has said they DON’T HAVE a law from Congress to allow them to regulate, then the regulation immediately goes back to states. So there is NO LAW that allows the government to stop California. The FCC literally just renounced its power to regulate a few mints ago.
And he wasn't doing well when he was asked actual questions by their proxy questioner (who was there to avoid the spectacle of old white guys being on video screwing up asking old white guy questions of an assault victim - they didn't want a replay of the Thomas hearings)... so they shut down their proxy questioner after a question or two (to Kavanaugh) and took over, and stopped asking serious questions, which he was having trouble answering, instead switching to an "our guy is great and Democrats are evil" festival.
There's three reasons he's being pushed: one, Trump likes him because he's expressed strong (and unusual) opinions on presidents being nearly immune while in office; two, they're rushing to get someone (highly favorable to their agenda, of course) seated before the impending session starts; and three, they want to get a conservative judge seated before the midterms, which they fear will cause them to lose the ability to do so. The problem with these latter two points is, they held a seat open for over 400 days, in order to prevent President Obama from having any input - saying that they wanted to allow the will of the people to be represented (ignoring that the people made their desires clear when they elected President Obama), and now they're worried that the people will make their desires clear by taking away the Republican majority in congress. They don't have any legit excuse for wanting to hurry to have a nine-member court, after they left a seat open for 400 days, and it's clear that they don't want the seat to represent "the will of the people", if they're trying to rush this through before it (possibly) becomes clear that "the will of the people" doesn't match what the GOP wants.
California doesn’t have to win. We just have muck up the waters and keep this in court until 2020 when, hopefully, it can be readdressed at the federal level.
This was well said, thank you. I've been getting some good comments on MacRumors today. I think I sufficiently blocked most of the serial trouble makers, lol. Yeah, I completely forgot about the immunity thing that is hanging over this whole thing. Things have become so crazy. Part of me thinks he only said that to secure the spot because he knew how to play the president, but then after seeing his outburst, lies about lots of little details, refusal to answer certain questions, and seeming lack of respect for women, I'm starting to think that they're almost the same person.
I don't understand how the removal of BIG government policies constitutes BIG government. The removing of regulations that restrict people/businesses are what anti-big government actions look like. The bizzaro world is seeing the lessening of government interference in people's lives as BIG government.
This is a case where the Gub'ment has got it ass backwards. Typical of our Gub'ment, BTW. They remove regulations that protects the people and imposes laws that makes life difficult for the people. Sorry, Abe, but the government of the people, by the people and for the people has perished from the Earth.
It all benefits the special interest groups. Once again the golden rule proves true...
They are infringing on the state's ability to govern itself, which is what they always complain about being "big government" telling states what they can and can't do.
How do people see the words "net neutrality" and automatically assume it must be a good thing just because the words look so good together? Do your research people! Net neutrality is NOT a good thing for anyone. Just the fact that it's California trying to implement it as law should be more evidence of that.
Last edited:
I'll take "Things the GOP only cares about when Democrats are in power" for $1000, Alex
Want to tell us why rather than just telling us that it is?
Everyone can do the research just as good as I can. I'm not your Google. If people look into it and learn what it actually is and still want it, I can respect that and we can have a civil disagreement. But to have all these big companies and celebrities acting like it's the apocalypse or something (as if the internet before 2015 when net neutrality was put in place was so horrible and world-ending), and then all their gullible fans just follow along, it's amusing and sad at the same time.
Last edited:
With abortion it's even worse since they are violating SCOTUS rulings and the law of the land. Unfortunately the conservatives on the court aren't like those back in 1972. They're put on the court to repeal Roe and Casey and don't care about reasonable arguments made from the pro-choice side. Several states are down to one single abortion provider which definitely places an "undue burden" on the women seeking one.
Even if California's net neutrality law is struck down, it will be reinstated once the GOP no longer controls both the legislative and executive branch. They better be ready for what's coming in January when the next session starts. There will be subpoena after subpoena and all of the corruption and ethics violations of Trump and his administration will have to be answered for.
[doublepost=1538440870][/doublepost]I also don't see how any reasonable individual can side with the major ISPs and people like Ajit Pai who are not honest brokers in this process. I know how polarized politics are at the moment, but Republicans and Libertarians should step back and consider that many of this administration's policies are not in the interest of the average America rather multinational corporations.
Another example was Trump supporting civil asset forfeiture after the Obama administration cracked down on it. I don't see how anyone could think making it legal for law enforcement to confiscate property without due process is right.
There is a difference in the world from today and 1995. Just like the people in 1880 shouldn’t have allowed 6 year olds to work in factories but there were no laws before factories so it obviously worked fine. See the flaw in that reasoning? The internet has become a necessity and because of that is a ultily and should be treated as such. When most internet providers are monopolies do you really want government to not step in? The world and the things in it change. If I could choose what internet provider I could have there probably wouldn’t need to be net neutrality. But the same people trying to stop it are the people who allow the monopolies to exist.
No, CA is trying to trying to control an area of the economy it does not have constitutional standing. CA can set all the guidelines they want on businesses that operate solely in CA but once those companies have commerce outside of CA, CA has to abide by the guidelines set by the Feds. It is not about Dems or Reps it is about the constitution.
[doublepost=1538452050][/doublepost]
You don't have an arguement with me over the government, in many cases, doing more harm than good and that politicians are all about filling their pockets and so I am quite okay with this late Obama administration policy being removed. Many on this site have been doing their best Chicken Little impression. All the worries decried here were not removed by the 2015 imposition of the Net Neutrality policy. They didn't exist. Did you ever wonder why all the heavy traffic users, those that fill the Internet pipe, want Net Neutrality?This is a case where the Gub'ment has got it ass backwards. Typical of our Gub'ment, BTW. They remove regulations that protects the people and imposes laws that makes life difficult for the people. Sorry, Abe, but the government of the people, by the people and for the people has perished from the Earth.
It all benefits the special interest groups. Once again the golden rule proves true...
You're deflecting from answering the question. Telling others to do research to come to the same conclusion as you does not actually support an argument you're lazily making. If you think NT is bad, explain why in YOUR opinion it's bad. Asking others to simply read up on NT and expecting them to come to the same conclusion because they read up on it is just ignorant.
I am happy to jump in with a thought or two for your consideration. NT in 2015 stopped nothing. Everything that people were saying would happen if NT was removed didn't exsist before it was imposed. There was one case I am aware of, somewhat, that was taken care of just fine by the justice department. Some people think that the government shouldn't restrict freedom on a "just-in-case" basis. Some people think government is not perfect and that it is wasteful, corrupt, and looks to build its own nest once created. I am not against government establishing rules to live by when there has been documented mistreatment of the public. But remember, corporations don't come around and break into people's homes and throw them in prison. BIG governments do that. NT is bad in the sense that it was unnecessary.
So why would all these major corporations back NT, like Apple and others? Corporations back "things" that make them more money. People on this forum have been saying how the Rep. are in the pocket of the wealthy corporations while the corporations back NT and the implementation of it by the Dems. Why? Money. Like always. Who wins by NT? The big money backers would have you believe it is John Q. Public. That is their sales pitch. Look behind the curtain and see that these big corps benefit from NT in that these corps fill the Internet pipes with their data at no extra cost. Large consumers don't pay anymore than anyone else. That is a great deal for the big guys. Do you think everyone paying the same price for lunch is fair? Do you think 18 wheelers should pay the same registration fee as a Sentra. Do you think everyone should pay the same amount regardless of how much water you or your family uses? Think about it. These corporations want NT so that users don't pay for what they use but a flat rate so that the big users are subsidized by the small users. Cell service. Some people pay more for unlimited high speed while others who need to be more fiscally restrained buy pay as you go and utilize free WiFi as often as possible while others with a big cost plan don't worry about data usage. They pay more because they use more.
There are a couple of ideas for you to digest. It is unnecessary and it erodes freedom and it subsidizes the big users at the expense of the small user. No corp will ever admit it, but they look to keep costs down and one way to do that is to spread their costs to other users on the Internet.
I hope you can at least see the other side now. Granted, that is not the whole of the issue, but a decent start.