|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
3069 days ago
|
|
|
> The FCC's repeal of net neutrality contains a preëmption clause preventing state and local governments from imposing their own inconsistent restrictions (1), and it will be using its authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to defend it (2). I understand their claim to be that it's impracticable to distinguish between interstate and intrastate network traffic, and that states would only have authority to constrain the latter. (3) Traffic isn't being regulated, packages of services offered to customers in pure intrastate commerce, however, are. > I'm not sure how my dear state of California is working around that, or if this action is just kicking off a ball that will be headed directly to the courts. The bill with actual content (SB 460) includes both a direct neutrality mandate (which will be challenged on the ground you suggest), and a prohibition on state agencies contracting for internet services from providers that don't make a binding (that is, “criminal to violate” commitment to adhere to neutrality in their offerings in the state.) Of course, both the FCCs own order (already being challenged) and the laws in response (like every previous policy action on neutrality) are inevitably headed to the courts. That's not in question. |
|
|
Being the home to so many internet based companies, California is in a position to make such a law which will have a significant effect -- perhaps. How is intra-state defined? On paper, Apple Inc. is incorporated where? Is it really Cupertino? If so, then couldn't they redirect certain traffic to a subsidiary one state over? How would California fight against companies trying to get around their law using routing tables?