[GW150914]

This guy will just say anything, won’t he? I already knew he wasn’t a constitutional scholar, but this is rich even coming from a shill with as little self respect as Pai.

The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area. For if individual states like California regulate the Internet, this will directly impact citizens in other states.

What?! I can’t even begin to express how infuriating this is, the sheer hypocrisy and wanton dishonesty, from someone who is nominally in the position of protecting Americans’ interests. Forget the interstate commerce clause, forget Republican’s supposed respect for state’s rights, forget giving people a necessary service, let’s use a warped interpretation of the law as a hammer to empower crooked bureaucracy.

[toast0]

> The broader problem is that California's micromanagement poses a risk to the rest of the country. After all, broadband is an interstate service; Internet traffic doesn't recognize state lines. It follows that only the federal government can set regulatory policy in this area. For if individual states like California regulate the Internet, this will directly impact citizens in other states.

This line of argument fails the smell test; California (and other states) regulates phone networks, including long distance calling from within its borders, and the FCC doesn't whine about that.

[da_chicken]

It also fails the smell test because Internet traffic doesn't recognize international lines, yet he's claiming the federal government has regulatory powers over the Internet.

[wstuartcl]

And previously has used the case that they DON'T have regulatory power over the internet to roll back the 2015 FCC changes.

So much for the party that claims they back state rights.

[tlb]

I think the country needs net neutrality. But the specific point he's making here is valid: it'll suck if there are 50 different sets of laws that ISPs have to conform to. From a technical point of view, routers everywhere in the country will have to know to treat traffic going to to California customers differently from Nevada customers.

We could hope to repeat the history of vehicle emissions controls, where CA introduced regulations and auto makers eventually found it cheaper to make one kind of vehicle than two. But the incentives for non-net-neutral policies are so large that if major states have different rules, we'll end up with a huge mess. And regulatory messes tend to favor large incumbents, because they can devote the resources to them. That's why, for example, we have no new banks (which are regulated by states.)

[dsfyu404ed]

This fight is pot vs kettle.

CA doesn't think twice about making laws that contradict federal laws or are in direct violation of the constitution.

Pai is, charitably speaking, in the pocket of industry.

I think CA is within its rights this time around and wins this one fair and square though despite not having an awesome coffee mug.

[happytoexplain]

>CA doesn't think twice about making laws that contradict federal laws

It's been my naive observation that state laws are, in some practical context, "allowed" to contradict federal laws, in the sense that perhaps they are simply given some de facto leeway. Am I totally off base? Does this reduce the hypocrisy?

[dx87]

They are only allowed to contradict state laws to the extent that the federal government may decide it's not worth it to try and enforce the rules in the state, especially states like CA where they state that they won't cooperate with enforcement of laws they don't agree with. Even if the state someone lives in has contradictory laws, you still have to follow the federal laws at any job that cares about that. For example, if you live in a state that has legalized recreational or medical marijuana, you still can't use it if you want to work a federal job or anything that requires a security clearance.

[DoofusOfDeath]

I don't know id you're right or wrong about California's overreach. Can you give a few supporting examples?

[dsfyu404ed]

Well they thumb their nose at the constitution when it comes to the 2A and they thumb their nose at the federal government itself when it comes to weed for starters.

Some of their policies regarding illegal aliens (though this is more of a city by city thing) are arguably in direct contradiction with federal law.

A lot of the rulings the 9th circuit has come up with over the years look like they came out of left field with regard to the constitution and the precedent being set.

I can dig up specific examples if you want.

I'm not passing a value judgement here, just saying that CA likes to interpret the constitution rather freely, for better or worse.

[cardiffspaceman]

Say what you want about the 9th circuit, it is an organ of the Federal Government so it makes a strange example.