U.S. Justice Department Sues California for Reimposing Strict Net Neutrality Protections

[mudslag]

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.

I believe there are a number of examples of how NT would have prevented issues that have come up in the past. Examples of Comcast, ATT, Verizon can be found to have shown pay for usage services that NT would have prevented. Comcast had Neflix pay more to end slowdowns. Large companies don't have a great history of regulating themselves in general and given the value of the internet today on practically every aspect of our lives, it's becoming more and more of a utility for the avg person than a extra feature. Just because nothing happened right away after 2015 doesn't mean that ISPs aren't looking for ways to take advantage of the lack of it. As you pointed out, companies are in the business of making money, I agree. What you left out about those companies supporting NT differ then those that don't support it, that being the ISPs vs everyone else. The ISPs are the one that stand to take advantage of the lack of NT, everyone else is on the same playing field. It doesn't matter if it's Apple or Imgur or Joe's pizza shack, they and the consumers both rely on that data going through the pipes of those ISPs. So without NT, Comcast can essentially do what it did before and try to charge Netflix more money in order to keep from slowing down the content to the user. Or Comcast could say, we'll start charging the user tier level services to get more content. Just because they aren't doing it now, does not equate that it's something that can't happen down the road.

As for your examples, you're trying to equate examples that don't equate the same aspects to how the net works. If people order the same food, then yes, they should pay the same. Different foods have different costs, so obviously there is going to be a price variation to different lunches. 18 wheelers are bigger, heavier vehicles then a Sentra, which causes more damage to road conditions over a period of time, which makes sense why a bigger vehicle has a higher reg fee than a smaller car. As for water, everyone should pay the same rate, use more pay more. But again we're talking about a physical utility. I get the ISPs have their share of costs, running fiber isn't cheap then again ISPs also get subsidies which helps easy that cost. From my understanding, and I could be wrong but the cost of data for ISPs is the same regardless if it's video from youtube, netflix or someone pulling up their old geocities page. Which is why your examples don't really fit when trying to compare to data.

So it makes sense that these big corporations, Apple, Google, Netflix, ect are on the side of the consumer as any potential extra charge by the ISP, either to the consumer or the corp affects both. You talk about corps being in it for the money, well ISPs are in the same boatalso in it for the money. It would be ignorant to dismiss the idea of any ISP not looking to take full advantage of not having regulations that would prevent what we the consumer are concerned about.

 

[appleisking]

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?

Lmao constitutional standing. The very existence of the FCC has no constitutional standing therefore none of its regulations have constitutional standing. This is not a congressional act California is going against. You can’t be against big govt and support unelected bureaucrats telling a state it can’t enact a law its own representatives vote for by a democratic process.

 

[Markoth]

It depends on the person. As a voter who has always been middle of the road, I have found plenty to oppose from even the presidents and legislators for whom I voted. I actually find it hard to fathom people who are able to live in lockstep with everything their particular party or favorite candidate espouses.

They do so in a state similar to a brainwashed person. The reality is that most people are like this. As politics gets more partisan and less rational, both the left and the right are progressively getting more left, and more right, to the point that sane rational thinkers are left looking like the odd ones.

 

[vvswarup]

Under the Constitution, Congress has authority to regulate foreign and interstate trade. I'm not sure how California's net neutrality law qualifies as interstate trade.
[doublepost=1538707883][/doublepost]

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?

How does California's net neutrality law say anything about CA businesses operating outside CA?

 

[Skeptical.me]

Welcome to Corporation WWW. Everything the internet was NOT created to be. I'm an Aussie and I really hope this legislation doesn't affect Australia's internet policies. Our Governments do tend to follow along the lines of the US, not always, but at times definitely.