Luckily for us the Internet is entirely located in Washington.
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.
Washington Becomes First State to Pass Its Own Net Neutrality Law in Defiance of FCC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
California also had a Republican Governator for some eight years in the not too distant past. Didn’t he solve their problems? I’m no expert on America (though I bet I know more about your country than most Americans would know about any other country), but I bet you can pick and choose stats to prove almost anything.
I’m not sure what this “fiscal condition” measure is but is it in any way related to a typical (median income) person’s wealth, health and happiness?
Last edited:
I thought the FCC made this point explicitly in their ruling/regulation that the states can not enact their own legislation
Cool, let’s blame the previous governor for all of CA’s ills.
Now for our federal government...
Fiscal condition is the fiscal condition of the state. It is the state’s ability to run itself financially. Many other factors go into it as well. I don’t believe we are rating a state’s ability not to be in severe financial trouble by a happiness quotient of the state population, which is an unmeasurable and subjective concept to begin with. Pray tell how would we quantify a state population’s happiness.
[doublepost=1520352478][/doublepost]What I find really interesting is that Democrats want to be seen as the generous ones. That is with everyone else’s money but their own. See this NY Times article written by a self professed Democrat entitled Bleeding Heart Tightwads:
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.
When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.
In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.
Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.
So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.
Pssh ... Everybody knows that the level of success in SimCity is directly correlated with a population that has a high level of Health & Happiness along with lots of Simoleans*.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.primagames.com/games/simcity/strategy/simcity-road-happiness%3frender_mode=google
Here are a few events that make Sims happy:
• Successful Shopping
• Visiting Parks
• Crime Suppression
• Low Taxes
And now for some events which make Sims unhappy:
• No Power
• No Water
• Crime
• Death
• Successful Shopping
• Visiting Parks
• Crime Suppression
• Low Taxes
And now for some events which make Sims unhappy:
• No Power
• No Water
• Crime
• Death
*https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=simolean&=true
One of the four keys to happiness in that article is low taxes. I guess Sims don’t vote Democrat.
You are correct, I was wrong. I hadn't read the regulation wording myself so I wasn't sure if it was explicitly stated in the regulation or if it was based on something Mr. Pai said (but wasn't written). It is written.
They didn't screw us with 4G and that was before we had net neutrality (which is something everyone forgets, we only had net neutrality for 1.5 years).
Yep, they would be in much better fiscal condition if they didn’t subsidize the Red States. Then again if they were a separate country they would have broke, unstable theocratic dictatorships on their borders so perhaps those subsidies are worth the cost.
The top ten states on welfare, All Republican deep Red. Talk about handing out money.
We have had net neutrality since the ARPAnet. What you had for a few months was codified net neutrality, as opposed to voluntary guidelines and best practices. Certain people always overlook this simple fact.
I keep reading this from pro Net Neutrality supporters, but I fail to see where the rampant abuse is among the ISPs. Keyword being rampant. As I understand, Comcast has had their hand slapped before. I’m fully willing to concede on this, but what numerous examples are there to point to?
Liberals and their institutions running to the 9th Circuit Court to overturn rules they don’t like? I’ve never heard of that before. Ever.
Last edited:
Liberals want to follow the standard definition of federal supremacy, i.e., states can pass laws that don't contradict ones that exist at the federal level. FCC abandons the federal law = states can pass their own law.
Conservatives, on the other hand, want to cherry-pick when following federal supremacy is okay and when ignoring federal supremacy is okay. It's okay when it's an issue that aligns with conservative interests and it's not okay when it doesn't. So in the case of the FCC, they're trying to have it both ways at the same time: abandon the law and then try to prevent states from filling the void. It's an attempt at reverse federal supremacy, i.e., "no federal law exists but you can't make a state law either".
Despite not being for net neutrality; I believe any and all laws lead to more regulation and if prefer to have the internet uncontrolled. I am always happy to see states exercising their right to make their own laws and not just sitting idle for the feds to do something. This is the way it’s suppose to be.
[doublepost=1520356196][/doublepost]If anyone was worried about the internet they should be worried about the law that would change section 230 of the internet communication act. That section prevented websites for being liable for what users post on their site. That may soon change. If it does then bye google, Facebook, YouTube, even macrumors forums.
No company has enough money to sustain the money to sustain enough people to monitor all content users post to their site.
[doublepost=1520356196][/doublepost]If anyone was worried about the internet they should be worried about the law that would change section 230 of the internet communication act. That section prevented websites for being liable for what users post on their site. That may soon change. If it does then bye google, Facebook, YouTube, even macrumors forums.
No company has enough money to sustain the money to sustain enough people to monitor all content users post to their site.
Oh good. Another person who doesn’t understand what net neutrality even means, nor how they have benefitted from it every day of their online lives.
I disagree. The only difference is Conservatives want more regulation in the bedroom and Liberals want more regulation in the boardroom. Virtually all "over regulation" is due to corporate abuse of the people in either the work place or in the market place. If men were angels then we wouldn't need laws.
I agree with your first part.
As for Google, FB, Twitter etc being liable for users' content, that's largely a response to their unequal practices and treatment when it comes to censoring and deleting content. I think Twitter is the easiest example. It's filled with trolls and is a cesspool of negative comments: racism, sexism, bigotry, death threats, etc. Yet, certain people have gotten the ban hammer for abusive practices, and others Twitter doesn't even bat an eye at. That implies Twitter condones violent and offensive content from some users (like celebrities, which are Twitter's bread and butter) and not others. Therefore, if that's how they want to play the game, then Twitter should be responsible.
The big three have brought it on themselves as far as I'm concerned.
Still amazed at how many stupid Americans vote for MORE government regulation. Defies all logic. The Internet grew exponentially and flourished PRECISELY because there is/was little or no regulation.
Why the hell would anyone, except Socialist Democrats, want to destroy that? Oh wait, I just answered my own question.
Why the hell would anyone, except Socialist Democrats, want to destroy that? Oh wait, I just answered my own question.
First I was absolutely against the FCC's Net Neutrality regulations and was very happy to see them pulled back. The sole purpose of the FCC regs was to allow the federal government to, at any time in the future, make any regulations they wanted with regard to the internet including censorship.
This bill in Washington state is common sense and I, although not living in Washington, would support this type bill in any state. Read the bill. It is 3.5 pages long. Compared to the FCC FCC 17-166 which is 539 pages long and has many pages of conflicting rules and hands almost unlimited power to government bureaucrats. The problem with the FCC reg was unintended consequences, not that there might be some glimmer of correctness or need.
This bill in Washington state is common sense and I, although not living in Washington, would support this type bill in any state. Read the bill. It is 3.5 pages long. Compared to the FCC FCC 17-166 which is 539 pages long and has many pages of conflicting rules and hands almost unlimited power to government bureaucrats. The problem with the FCC reg was unintended consequences, not that there might be some glimmer of correctness or need.
Fiscal condition is a debatable metric. From what I've read, Democratic states contribute more to the country's GDP, has better healthcare, less teen pregnancies, less suicides, and less overweight people. Republican states tend to be safer, but that appears to be leveling off.
The internet today is way different than what it was 10 - 20 years ago. Also there were limited regulations and the FCC punished ISPs accordingly.
Government regulation doesn't mean it's automatically a bad thing. What's in the regulation is what matters. Do you know why you don't die when you eat food? Government regulation.
You support capitalism right? Well capitalism is dead in a duopoly market. This is why regulation is needed because consumers don't have the power of choice in this false capitalism internet market.
Last edited:
Washington this week became the first state to pass a new law -- House Bill 2282 -- that restores and protects certain net neutrality rules, after the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in favor of repealing net neutrality nationwide late last year. Washington state's new rules were signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee yesterday, and prevent internet service providers from blocking and slowing down content online (via The New York Times).
Many multi-state lawsuits began cropping up following the net neutrality vote in December, but this marks the first time that a state has directly gone against the FCC and enacted its own regulations on how ISPs are regulated within the state. Now, the Washington state law will go into effect starting June 6, 2018, barring ISPs from blocking websites, throttling speeds, or charging its customers more for faster speeds on select sites "in a way that benefits the broadband company and partner websites."
These actions are now technically legal under the repeal of net neutrality by the FCC, made official by its entry into the Federal Register in February and becoming nationwide law itself April 23, 2018. The law signed by Inslee is said to "immediately" put back into place consumer protections provided by net neutrality rules, and was "passed with broad bipartisan support in the state legislature."
Besides Washington state, lawsuits and movements against the FCC have appeared in nearly two dozen states, with bills in each appearing similar to the one signed by Governor Inslee this week. Washington state's law -- and any others that appear in the future -- are expected to end up in court, because part of the FCC's rules passed under the repeal of net neutrality explicitly mentioned that states could not create their own rules.
Various tech companies also joined together in a lawsuit against the FCC filed on Monday, with Etsy, Foursquare, and Kickstarter among the companies banning together to fight the net neutrality repeal. Before the 3-2 vote in December, Apple was vocal against the potential repeal of net neutrality, emphasizing its stance in a letter last August that urged the FCC not to roll back the rules. Apple said this repeal could risk "fundamentally altering the internet as we know it today--to the detriment of consumers, competition, and innovation."
Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: Washington Becomes First State to Pass Its Own Net Neutrality Law in Defiance of FCC
