[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.