[mberning]

One thing I don’t understand is why states do not enact their own net neutrality legislation. As far as I know every state has a public utilities commission of some sort that regulates power, water, etc. Why could this not work for ISPs?

[EpiphanyMachine]

I think the FCC is trying to remove that ability from States now because federal law overrules state law.

> The Attorneys General are hardly alone on this one. As Reuters notes, Mozilla, Vimeo and Etsy also joined forces today to file a legal challenge, while governors in six states have signed executive orders and three states have passed their own net neutrality laws.

[kevin_b_er]

The goal is to forbid net neutrality as a policy of the Republican Party. Net neutrality is seen as "bad for buisness", but in reality is bad for those that pay off the party and Ajit Pai.

[chimeracoder]

> I think the FCC is trying to remove that ability from States now because federal law overrules state law.

Sort of. The relationship between federal and state law is complex, and it's actually disputed whether the attempts to prevent states from enacting their own net neutrality laws are themselves constitutional.

[craftyguy]

> because federal law overrules state law

The FCC does not (and cannot) pass laws.

[monocasa]

The FCC gains it's authority to create regulation from federal law though.

[Calib3r]

Which many argue as unconstitutional.

We've essentially given an unelected group of people a blank check.

[AsyncAwait]

> One thing I don’t understand is why states do not enact their own net neutrality legislation.

I'm not from the States, but my guess is that they want it to be enforceable at the federal level. At state level, the ISP could theoretically lodge a compliant at a federal court and as per the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal law, (no net neutrality), is extremely likely to win over state law.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Cable companies are the bulk of the ISPs in the US and they are subject to local municipal regulation in return for right-of-way access. In more conservative parts of the country this power is/was used to ban channels deemed unfit for community standards, like MTV. These same communities could impose net neutrality on the cable ISPs if they wanted.

[stochastic_monk]

Some places are trying to. America trusted corporations to have public interests in mind for too long.

Additionally, the federal government is attempting to censure states and municipalities which are doing so. When the federal government is in regulatory capture, the will of the people is immaterial.

[pc86]

Is the current situation (lack of net neutrality) simply the lack of a law or is it a law or regulation? If the former, the states can enact their own net neutrality legislation. However, if the latter, the federal law or regulation takes precedence and the states cannot override it.

[nulbyte]

The current situation is a mess. The FCC derives its power to regulate telecommunications from the Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.

However, the FCC believes it is limited to interstate telecommunications—when it suits them. They refused to defend their own price caps on intrastate prison calls because it was not a matter of interstate commerce. However, despite this, they purport the reclassification of ISPs preempts state law with regards to net neutrality. I find the logic behind this mind-boggling.

[kevin_b_er]

It is not mind-boggling because your logic is oriented toward things like law or service to the public. The logic is Greed. Price caps would interfere with price gouging prisoners. Net neutrality would interfere with price gouging both content providers and their own customers stuck in monopolies or duopolies. Both are "follow the money" cases. The Party will always argue in favor of greed and whatever suits the rich and powerful. They will invent whatever motive suits the goal of greed.

[komali2]

Yea, this is the world view I'm starting to work with here.

Before, I'd say, "companies can't do that, it'd be illegal!" Now I think, "would it cost more to do the thing and fight a legal battle over it than the profit possiblity? Do the damaged parties have the means to fight a pitched legal battle? Is there a lobby angle than can be taken to simply change the laws?"

I wish I didn't have to be so cynical.

[edko]

Doing it at the state level would only protect the consumers in that state, but not the producers. As a producer, your content could still be throttled in states where there are no neutrality laws.