Internet Provider Groups Sue Vermont Over Net Neutrality Law (reuters.com) 101
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Five industry groups representing major internet providers and cable companies filed suit on Thursday seeking to block a Vermont law barring companies that do not abide by net neutrality rules from receiving state contracts. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Vermont by groups representing major providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. It followed a lawsuit by four of the groups earlier this month challenging a much broader California law mandating providers abide by net neutrality rules.
The trade associations are also challenging an executive order on the issue signed by Vermont Governor Phil Scott. The Vermont lawsuit was filed by the American Cable Association; CTIA -- The Wireless Association; NCTA -- The Internet & Television Association; USTelecom -- The Broadband Association and the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association. The lawsuit argues that states cannot regulate "indirectly through their spending, procurement, or other commercial powers what they are forbidden from regulating directly."
The trade associations are also challenging an executive order on the issue signed by Vermont Governor Phil Scott. The Vermont lawsuit was filed by the American Cable Association; CTIA -- The Wireless Association; NCTA -- The Internet & Television Association; USTelecom -- The Broadband Association and the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association. The lawsuit argues that states cannot regulate "indirectly through their spending, procurement, or other commercial powers what they are forbidden from regulating directly."
Sue who? (Score:2)
Both ajit and you are entirely wrong. (Score:1)
The laws were 100% legal. The ISPs were moved to a different class because it was claimed the ISPs were data services, not media companies. However almost every ISP is a media company now, so they should be run back into the same classification.
Re: Sue who? (Score:3)
Re:Sue who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is that "screwing the pooch"? Because if the Federal government can't, then the states can.
He's trying to have it both ways, but he's not going to get it both ways.
Game over.
Re: (Score:2)
He's trying to have it both ways, but he's not going to get it both ways.
Sure he can! As a lap dog, it seems like he'd be well within his rights to screw another one.
Re: (Score:2)
You, having never read the constitution (and just astroturfing with your canned talking points), miss that the 10th amendment delegates constitutional authorities, not regulatory authorities to the states. In short, you're an ignorant, lying shill.
You could represent your opinion better and lend an even greater air of credence by not being so abusive and dismissive.
Pai and the FCC had no authority under 47 CFR to declare that data is voice.
The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC does have the authority to decide if the internet is an information service or a telecommunications service. https://techcrunch.com/2017/05... [techcrunch.com] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
IMHO a demonstration of House and Senate abrogating their responsibilities for crafting law, forcing Supreme Court do the work of Congress. On the other hand the current congress would be glad to declare broadband as a private service not requiring government regulation nor should any be permitted.
Re: (Score:1)
Well the problem is. After you vandalize and destroy "The Mans" property. How are you going to contact uber to get a ride back to your expensive apartment full of electronics that wont work.
Re: (Score:2)
Or how about remove the fucking local monopolies they have and allow small players to enter the market in the first place instead of bitching that the current provider has shitty service that's expensive. I swear I'm surrounded by the smartest dumb motherfuckers in the world on this site.
Actually they do (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously though, don't use violence. It doesn't work. The right wing are better at it. Best case scenario you get your teeth kicke
Re: (Score:2)
the ruling class has for centuries tried to goad the working class into violence so they can use it as an excuse to crack down
The goading was successful in 1789 and 1917. Things didn't go well for the ruling class.
They didn't go well for the working class either (Score:3)
Yeah, the ruling class sometimes lets things get out of hand and it bites them, but it bites _everyone_. It's the whole "too big to fail" effect. They've set themselves up as a linchpin in the economy. You can't just whack them out willy-nilly. It's got to be done with care, precision and abov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better answer, don't call before you dig. Give them the death of 1000 (fibre) cuts.
Meanwhile, vote yes for municipal fiber.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is whether government can hurt people who disagree with it, which is to say, those in power.
As all are equal under the law, no.
Now whether they do, or should, have the power to directly pass laws about NN, is a different subject.
Chicago got into trouble planning on denying Chick fil-a licenses to open restaurants, and that was even worse because there was no way government conceivably had the power to punish people over religious or free speech issue
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Why is this word salad upvoted?
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck are you talking about? "completely uncontroversial business regulations" is not the hill to die on over government overreach when direct murder and theft by agents of the state is common, and all of our communications are intercepted by power-hungry spies. Oh, and those same ISPs are bending over backwards to cooperate with them.
STATES' RIGHTS (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it funny how important States' Rights are to Republicans when they agree with the result, but they invoke the Commerce Clause whenever they don't like it?
Re: (Score:2)
No, Democrats are much more uniformly for a strong Federal government and less leeway for the states. Only the Republicans keep flipping back and forth as they find convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
The positions of the parties were vastly different 150 years ago. The only things they really retained were the names. Republicans have moved further and further to the right, and an a direct consequence, so have the Democrats, merely by accepting the people who feel the Republicans have left them.
Re: (Score:1)
I recall reading about a subset of Democrats flipping out over states' rights, or at least one states' right, in the 1850s and early 1860s.
Those were Southern Whites. The very same people that are overwhelmingly Republican today.
Re: (Score:1)
I recall reading about a subset of Democrats flipping out over states' rights, or at least one states' right, in the 1850s and early 1860s.
Those were Southern Whites. The very same people that are overwhelmingly Republican today.
I didn't know Republicans had 160-year-olds in their party. Your one-liners are stale. The racist white Southerners were ok with LBJ, Carter, and BJ but that doesn't fit nicely in your zinger. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know Republicans had 160-year-olds in their party.
You obviously haven't been to any GOP meetups.
The racist white Southerners were ok with LBJ, Carter, and BJ
Who is "BJ"?
Re: STATES' RIGHTS (Score:5, Interesting)
We don't actually know what a Democratic administration would do about state attempts at Net Neutrality, because the two have never overlapped. This is likely because a Democrat-appointed FCC chair never would have rammed the reversal through in the first place.
Medical cannabis, yes, a Democratic administration declined to crack down on it, and there is little doubt this is because the move would have been wildly unpopular. So far, no Republican administration has wanted to attack this one either, presumably for the same reason.
Immigration is a Federal issue, hands down. States don't hand out citizenship. However since the states are going BOTH directions relative to Federal policy (some are racial profiling, others are setting up sanctuaries), cracking down on this would either have to take on both sides (and piss off some allies no matter what side is doing it), or attack only one side which would open the issue to clear partisanship.
Second amendment rights: no, this isn't a states' rights thing. The two sides have vastly different interpretations of what the 2A means, and both are relatively consistent with their stated positions. Even Republicans don't think the 2A is absolute. You can't own a tank with a working cannon on it, although you can own a tank. You aren't allowed to make explosives without a license. You can't transfer a fully automatic weapon without going through a lot of paperwork and clearances -- which is a policy initiated by Reagan.
Calexit isn't any more than a bunch of talk, and last I checked, we were still allowed to talk.
You're one for five there.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't own a tank with a working cannon on it, although you can own a tank. You aren't allowed to make explosives without a license. You can't transfer a fully automatic weapon without going through a lot of paperwork and clearances -- which is a policy initiated by Reagan.
Pay the fee and pass the background check (i.e. register your cannon shells!). I have a friend that shoots off civil war era cannons every fourth of July and it is freaking awesome to watch. He also is under intense scrutiny from the ATF and other federal agencies because of this and probably the 1,500 odd guns he owns (yup he is a collector).
Re: (Score:2)
Not a TANK cannon though. You can buy a tank, but the cannon on it must be rendered inoperable first.
Re: (Score:2)
Poster is talking about Sanctuary Cities and states most likely. 2nd A is pretty clear, the interpretations by both sides are wrong. But the poster is right that states can and do make their own laws which do violate the constitution, even DC did. The posters point about net neutrality is that it was considered a federal matter until states like California changed that. The poster could have mentioned environmental regs too if they wanted. The fed gov became vastly overpowered after WW2, we as a people need
Citation needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck the Rep and fuck the Dems, fuck the Fed and fuck the states, hey all your corporations screwed over by the end of net neutrality, you know the 99%, all your private proprietary data is going to be minded, if any of those 6 companies set up a subsidiary that competes with you the parent company will digitally destroy your traffic and make you pay ten times as much for the pleasure, competitors could pay to kill you traffic, your rates will go up and up and up, well do you want a cheap reliable utility o
No, it's not funny (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations aren't Republicans. And odds are they "donated" heavily to both sides.
Contracts (Score:1)
Pretty sure states can set whatever terms they want for the contract. And "Not respecting the privacy of citizens" isn't a protected class yet.
Kinda sucks when you get a contract you don't like and can't do anything about doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because NOBODY who doesn't suck dicks for ISPs is against net neutrality. The other ACs wonky explanation is unnecessary. Trump didn't win, Clinton lost. And that's pretty much par for the course for the GOP's victory. Nobody likes anything they do, the Dems are just fucking morons about politics. They keep trying to play nice with the GOP, which only turns off their base and lets the GOP tout how they "whupped those damned liberuls." Nobody likes them or any of their policies, they just hate a h
Punish enemies and reward friends is what powah's4 (Score:2, Troll)
The lawsuit argues that states cannot regulate "indirectly through their spending, procurement, or other commercial powers what they are forbidden from regulating directly.
Nor do you want them to. This is constructing new powers not given them from other powers.
Imagine a government restricting contracts from a company whose CEO said he liked Hillary for President.
Re: (Score:2)
That ship sailed decades ago at the federal level.
Re: (Score:3)
The only legal restrictions the states have are not to violate the bill of rights or try to overrule federal law (as opposed to act in the absence of it).
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a good time for (Score:3)
states to reconsider what ISP/telecom providers they allow exclusive rights to.
No law, no regulation, just toss them ot of the state.
I'm sure someone else would love to have exclusive rights.
Base our economy on oil revenues, ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sure, states can indirectly regulate (Score:2)
they do it all the time... regulate pricing policy by accepting low bids, for instance. it all depends on what is, is. and they certainly can pass new regulations whenever they want. ask any contractor who didn't keep up with the state or local codes.