I didn’t state welfare. There are many handouts given to people and groups by state governments who don’t actually need them. Not sure why you immediately gravitated toward welfare. Is that what the liberal thought-bubble teaches you?
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
Both sides do exactly what you say conservatives do. For an easy example of liberals doing it think pot legalization.
I would agree with your typically statement. However in the Net Neutrality situation WA is doing what is typical of the Left, more government as a just in case measure. Net Neutrality was put in place in 2015. It has now been removed. To my knowledge no big corporations have yet to pounce on poor citizens with tiered speed or pay to access websites. Yet true to the Left, WA is implementing a just in case regulation.
Don't get me wrong, if the types of things happen that the worriers are concerned about then government should act.
Comcast throttled Netflix users. To lift the throttling Netflix paid Comcast off. Why should Netflix pay Comcast when Comcast customers are already paying for what they should be getting? Coincidentally Netflix rates increased.
the supremacy clause in the constitution makes this moot, states can't trump federal.
I don't remember, but the FCC has always had limited regulations and has unofficially punished ISPs. Verizon sued the FCC for this overreach and won. The idea behind Net Neutrality is to list ISPs as common carriers, the same laws applied to telephone companies. This allows your phone calls to be uninterrupted no matter who you call.
Comcast is like a restaurant that charges $10 for a meal and an extra $5 because they didn't like the way you chewed your food. As long as I'm under my data limit, I should always get the speed I paid for.
So you think the federal government's use of the commerce clause as grounds for the authority of the NFA and GCA is flawed?
Until you take the totality of the problem and only cherry pick the data, you have an invalid argument. How come so many who call themselves Conservative, make such an ass out of themselves by assuming. Me a Liberal , maybe more liberal then Steve Bannon but a heck of a lot more conservative then Obama. That ass u me word a good thing to remember.
Great, now the state can do whatever they want with our network instead of our ISP's, what an improvement.
More like the state is just telling ISP's that they have to abide by net neutrality. I live in Washington State, and I can tell you that the ISP's aren't so hot as it is. Where I live my only home broadband options are Centurylink DSL and Comcast Xfinity. Most people go with the latter because it is much faster, but of course all these ISP's jack up their costs after the promotional period ends. It's amazingly hard to get Comcast to just let you pay for Internet only, because they love to sell bundles that include cable tv and other services. Eventually they increase the price of your Internet only contract to the point where it is cheaper to get a bundle. Then the next year they increase the price of that bundle and offer you free HBO for three months as a consolation. I'm now back with Comcast after a couple of not so great years with slower access via Centurylink. I can totally see Comcast telling Internet only customers like me that we have to purchase an add-on if we want to have high speed access to Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon video. Thanks to my state government, they won't be able to do that.
You mean transferring the tax cut debt to future generations, and all these years Republicans conned us into thinking that if only they were in power fiscal responsibility would be job one. And all she wants to do is dance... Don Henley
[doublepost=1520377540][/doublepost]
The missed point is, did anyone cancel their Comcast cable when this happened? Gasping on the internet isn't the same thing.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Everyone blamed Netflix for the slowdowns, so Netflix had no choice but to pay the fees. Even if customers blamed Comcast, there isn't a choice to cancel Comcast.
Welcome to the interstate commerce clause. If you are a pig farmer in Iowa, raise your pigs there, slaughter your pigs there, butcher your pigs there, and sell your pigs there you are still subject to USDA regulations thanks to that clause in our constitution as SCOTUS has found that if an activity even has the potential to involve interstate commerce the feds have the right to regulate it - regardless of whether it does in fact ever cross state lines. There's a much stronger case for ICC in telecommunications that in local farming yet this has been strong precedent for ages.
Great, now the state can do whatever they want with our network instead of our ISP's, what an improvement.
Yeah, not really. I assume you know what Net neutrality is and that it specifically exists to stop any one entity trying to control the traffic or infrastructure of the Internet. You do understand that, right?
It's like the state passing a ban on toll roads and then complaining that the state will be the only one who can make toll roads. It's a non sequitur.
People love to use the NetFlix/Comcast example in these online net neutrality debates but it just does not apply. What happened there was about peering agreements and was perfectly legal under the strictest title II interpretations of FCC based net neutrality while it existed. If your argument rests on that example you don't have one.
[doublepost=1520384634][/doublepost]
Not exactly. When people talk about FCC based net neutrality they are talking about the use of Title II to govern the ISPs. That classification gives the FCC ENORMOUS regulatory latitude over the providers.
FTC based net neutrality or any state based scheme would not have that same problem though.
Ehhh... the WA Legislature also overwhelmingly passed a law exempting themselves from the state's Public Records Act, a rather shameful and embarrassing attempt at destroying Legislative transparency and accountability.
The Governor vetoed it even though it had a veto-proof majority.
The AP really hated this law because it blocks investigative journalism, so they hammered it in the news leading to a big public backlash. Then the Legislature did a huge backflip and said that they actually wanted the governor to veto it all along, hahahaha.
Here are other examples:
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-history/
Why would we NOT want the FCC to label ISPs as common carriers? What's the other solution to ensure Net Neutrality?
But we already have many rules that regulate internet and foribdeen us to do something on the internet.
Internet is never Freeland where no laws and regulations governing the internet.
And being soclist is not bad thing.
yet every one of those was resolved under non-Title II regulatory authority as exist(s|ed) before 2015 and after 2017.
A myriad of reasons. Ranging from the heavy hammer of Title II classification giving government virtually complete control over ISPs to the technical issues of no-tolerance net neutrality's limiting effect on innovation. I *want* discrimination in routing. I want my real time audio communications via FaceTime Audio to be given a higher priority than my back blaze system backups. The backup can take a little while longer to run and not have significant impact whereas my conversation will be unable to be understood if choppy and lagged. I want new QoS classifications to be defined and approved faster than a public regulatory agency mired in divisive politics can pull it off. AR streaming and 5G massive IoT capabilities for critical infrastructure shouldn't be held up because Bill from Idaho is concerned about the radiation effect on his cattle and has submitted a public comment for review.
This doesn't even get into the changing topology of the internet and the fact that most people don't understand peering and CDNs or the fact that most predictions made around paying for site by site access (e.g. $5/month extra if you want to access facebook.com) are pure FUD and wouldn't happen for business viability reasons even without any NN regulations.
Most of this fight is industry giants looking out for their interests. Multi-billion dollar ISPs (ATT, Comcast) on one side with multi-billion dollar content providers (Google, Facebook, Amazon) on the other. The content providers have had a better PR offensive convincing most Americans that if they don't get their way we'll all lose.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like a Net Neutrality policy but I do NOT want it to involve Title II classification and I want it to allow for industry to quickly adapt to changing technologies. In my opinion a form of NN that prohibits discrimination of traffic in a same service classification (e.g. favoring ISP owned streaming video over third party streaming services) would be welcome and handle most situations viewed as anti-consumer. I can even understand the argument though that zero-rating can be a consumer benefit depending on how it's applied (although I'm leery of a slippery slope there).
Actually, the Comcast ones weren't entirely resolved and all of them required outside advocacy groups to put pressure on ISPs. Notice how Comcast backpedaled the least compared to the other ISPs because Comcast doesn't have competition like Verizon and AT&T.
There's no proof that Title II would stifle innovation. If anything, most of the data appears to show that innovation has been increasing.
Don't let the ISPs fool you, they're both content providers and service providers. Did you forget Comcast bought NBC and has a streaming service?
My relationship with Facebook stops when I close their app or their site. My relationship doesn't stop with Comcast, unless I cancel my internet, which isn't really a choice. There's no comparison here in terms of power between service providers and content providers.
I would prefer capitalism to take its course without government regulation, but that doesn't work in a duopoly market. What's worse is that ISPs are gaining more power by turning into content providers. That's a slippery slope.
Whatever. Liberals and conservatives are both bat s**t crazy these days. Might as well be the same political party. The only difference is the smell.
Your statement reminds me of the parent that blames both kids when it's their own child causing most of the problems.