[everdev]

> Like California’s auto emissions laws that forced automakers to adopt the standards for all production, the state’s new net neutrality rules could push broadband providers to apply the same rules to other states.

I think you're right, the motives are very similar.

> Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that California’s net neutrality law was illegal because Congress granted the federal government, through the F.C.C., the sole authority to create rules for broadband internet providers. “States do not regulate interstate commerce — the federal government does,” Mr. Sessions said in a statement.

I thought Republicans were pro-states rights and limited government? How does their position on this jive with their ideology?

[jorblumesea]

Both sides are only "states rights" if it benefits them on any given issue. Dems are against states rights until they get to pass legislation legalizing pot or net neutrality, then suddenly it's not so bad. Similarly, Republicans are all for states rights until some blue state starts passing legislation they disagree with.

Both sides twist the issue to their advantage. Rights for me, not for thee.

[westurner]

Expansion of federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause is an egregious violation of Constitutional law.

Does the federal government have the enumerated right under the Commerce Clause to, for example, ban football for anyone that doesn't have a disability? No!

Was the Commerce Clause sufficient authorization for Federal prohibition of alcohol? No! An Amendment to the Constitution was necessary. And, Federal Alcohol and the unequal necessary State Alcohol prohibitions miserably failed to achieve the intended outcomes.

Where is the limit? How can they claim to support a states' rights, limited government position while expanding jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause? "Substantially affecting" interstate commerce is a very slippery slope.

Furthermore, de-classification from Title II did effectively - as the current administration's FCC very clearly argued (in favor of special interests over those of the majority) - relieve the FCC of authority to regulate ISPs: they claimed that it's FTC's job and now they're claiming it's their job.

Without Title II classification, FCC has no authority to preempt state net neutrality regulation. California and Washington have the right to regulate ISPs within their respective states.

Outrageous!

Limited government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government

States' rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights

[Interstate] Commerce Clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Net neutrality in the United States > Repeal of net neutrality policy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United...

[pas]

The limit is established, and constantly reevaulated by the Supreme Court. For example it was held that gun control cannot be done through the Commerce Clause.

Car emissions and ISPs are different. As ISPs are very much perfect examples of truly local things (they need to reach your devices with EM signals either via cables or air radio), the Federal government might try to argue that the net neutrality regulation of California affects the whole economy substantially, because it allows too much interstate competition due to the lack of bundling/throttling by ISPs.

Similarly, the problem with car emissions might be that requiring thing at the time of sale affects what kind of cars are sold to CA.

Is the Commerce Clause too vague? Yes. Is there a quick and sane way to fix it? I see none. Is it at least applied consistently? Well, sort of. But we shall see.

[Vendan]

ISPs are the very opposite of local, as the only reason I have an ISP is to deliver bits from the rest of the world. Of course, the FCC doesn't seem to understand that...

[westurner]

To summarize the points made in [1]: products can be sold across state lines, internet service sold in one state cannot be sold across state lines.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18111651

In my opinion, the court has significantly erred in redefining interstate commerce to include (1) intrastate-only-commerce; and (2) non-commerce (i.e. locally grown and unsold wheat)

Furthermore - and this is a bit off topic - unalienable natural rights (Equality, Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness) are of higher precedence. I mention this because this is yet another case where the court will be interpreting the boundary between State and Federal rights; and it's very clear that the founders intended for the powers of the federal government to be limited -- certainly not something that the Commerce Clause should be interpreted to supersede.

What penalties and civil fines are appropriate for States or executive branch departments that violate the Constitution; for failure to uphold Oaths to uphold the Constitution?

[pas]

The problem is, someone has to interpret what kind of economy the Founders intended.

Is it okay if a State opts to withdraw from the interstate market for wheat? Because without power to meddle with intra-state production, consumption and transactions, it's entirely possible.

[pas]

I've replied to your other comment, but to reiterate, you subsrcibe to a particular ISP, and especially in case of a cable/wire mediated connection, your choices are by definition all local.

Even if it is provided by corporations from out of state.

The Internet is the very opposite of local, yes. But the last mile connection, the way your packets get to the nearest IXP is local. And that's where the oligopoly and thus the throttling happens.

[wolf550e]

The GOP does not have an ideology. Anything you could name as a position of their ideology they will (and did) betray for either "winning" or at the behest of their corporate masters.

[exabrial]

You left out how both... all political parties cater to special interests but otherwise accurate

[pm90]

> all political parties cater to special interests but otherwise accurate

Your statement is so broad as to be effectively meaningless. Sun rises in the east. So what?

The difference is that the GP is beholden completely to its corporate masters and does not hesitate in engaging in lies, false propaganda and bad faith politics to achieve its goals. All of which are corrupt and very anti-democratic.

[WillPostForFood]

Democrats now get as much money from corporations as Republicans, but no strings attached, eh?

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/sectors.php?cycle=2018

[specialist]

Whataboutism is so tedious.

There are plenty of other contributors, both direct and indirect. PACs, billionaires, unions, earned media, Russians, grandmas, etc.

[WillPostForFood]

On both sides, yes. I'd say the Democrats are more dishonest. GOP claims to be the pro-business party, so no surprise when they act that way. Democrats take the corporate money, pay lip service to the left, and act pro-business as well. Look at Obamacare - we didn't get single payer, we got government subsidies for insurance companies.