“The internet is the ultimate form of interstate commerce,
which is clearly only within the authority of the F.C.C.,”
said Bret Swanson, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (...)
Hilarious, but not really surprising to read, as a non US-ian.
What you have to understand as a baseline is that AEI is a partisan think-tank, so they're not telling truths or exploring the spectrum of interpretations, they're coming at any given issue with an ideologically driven mantra. And in this case, that mantra is that the commerce clause of the constitution, which states:
The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
means that congress has exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. This actually has a ton of case precedent around it, and speaking as neutrally as possible, the courts have never simply ruled that only the federal government has the power to regulate commerce amongst the states.
> Hilarious, but not really surprising to read, as a non US-ian.
Why is it hilarious? It's hard to argue that net neutrality isn't about commerce, because most of the common talking points in favor of it explicitly refer to commercial activity ("paid lanes", etc.).
While I dislike the implications of this argument for net neutrality, legally, it's actually a pretty solid argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled - many, many, many times - that states have very little power to restrict interstate commerce. These cases all happened around the turn of the last century, so the precedents are pretty well-established. And the ability of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce is an enumerated power, so there's pretty much no way to deny it.
Conversely, the Supreme Court has also expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause so far over the course of the 20th century that it's basically given the federal government the authority to regulate absolutely anything that happens in the states, because anything has the potential to impact interstate commerce.
To give you an idea of how new this idea is: at the time Prohibition [of alcohol] was enacted in 1919, it was a Constitutional amendment enforced via the prohibition of "manufacture, sale, or transportation" rather than posession, because it was believed that the federal government did not have the power to outlaw possession of a substance. Similarly, the original ban on marijuana wasn't even a ban at all - it was a cleverly-worded tax act which made it illegal to possess marijuana that hadn't been taxed, but also made it impossible to prove that you'd paid the tax.
I don't care what side of the issue you're on, let's not sugarcoat what's really going on here... "States" aren't "pushing back". Some people are just grandstanding.
They're introducing legislation, and states like NY and CA certainly have legislatures with clear majorities for net neutrality.
The article also cites CA's car emission standards, which appears to be good precedent both for the legality of such measures, as well as state lawmakers' willingness and ability to enact these laws.
So I have no idea what you might be referring to by "grandstanding".
Can we please stop referring to tittle 2 regulations as Net Neutrality? Net neutrality has been a long standing principle in the governance of the internet that everyone agrees with. This debate isn't weather we should have net neutrality or not it's over what regulatory instruments should or should not be used to ensure it. All of the examples pro tittle 2 advocates being up about Comcast, Verizon and other Isps where resolved in favor of the consumer Under Tittle 1 regulitions f the 1996 Tellecomunications Act. https://youtu.be/8dY-g823g04
> Can we please stop referring to tittle 2 regulations as Net Neutrality
No, because the repeal of the Title II-based Open Internet regulations ends meaningful enforcement of the net neutrality principles.
> Net neutrality has been a long standing principle in the governance of the internet
Well, in the FCC regulation of ISPs, yes.
> that everyone agrees with.
This is manifestly false; if everyone agreed with it, there would be no acts in violation of net neutrality principles except by accident.
> This debate isn't weather we should have net neutrality or not
Yes, it is.
> it's over what regulatory instruments should or should not be used to ensure it.
Which is equivalent with whether we should have it, because it has repeatedly been shown that ISPs will not provide it unless compelled to do so.
> All of the examples pro tittle 2 advocates being up about Comcast, Verizon and other Isps where resolved in favor of the consumer Under Tittle 1 regulitions
The courts struck down the FCC’s ability to use Title I regulations to enforce net neutrality in 2014, which is what prompted the Title II regulations adopted in 2015.
Obama's FCC only employed title II to impose net neutrality because the previous statutory regime under which they imposed it was successfully crushed by Verizon in court. To say that opponents of title II would support some other regime is, frankly, bullshit; they're the reason we ended up here in the first place, and there's solid precedent that Verizon, Comcast, etc., would oppose any future regime that might be proposed. I think it's fair to call all of those possible regulatory schemes, collectively, "net neutrality."
Thank you. It's kind of maddening how many people get "title 2" and "net neutrality" confused.
Title 2 is a massive blob of legislation that, as one of its many provisions, ensured a kind of net neutrality, while still leaving the door open for other types of abuse.
Net neutrality is a concept that transcends law - kind of like how freedom of speech transcends the first amendment.
It is quite possible to, in good faith, be against Title 2 with its flaws while still supporting the concept of net neutrality.
[+] [-] gnud|8 years ago|reply
Hilarious, but not really surprising to read, as a non US-ian.
[+] [-] awinder|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chimeracoder|8 years ago|reply
Why is it hilarious? It's hard to argue that net neutrality isn't about commerce, because most of the common talking points in favor of it explicitly refer to commercial activity ("paid lanes", etc.).
While I dislike the implications of this argument for net neutrality, legally, it's actually a pretty solid argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled - many, many, many times - that states have very little power to restrict interstate commerce. These cases all happened around the turn of the last century, so the precedents are pretty well-established. And the ability of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce is an enumerated power, so there's pretty much no way to deny it.
Conversely, the Supreme Court has also expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause so far over the course of the 20th century that it's basically given the federal government the authority to regulate absolutely anything that happens in the states, because anything has the potential to impact interstate commerce.
To give you an idea of how new this idea is: at the time Prohibition [of alcohol] was enacted in 1919, it was a Constitutional amendment enforced via the prohibition of "manufacture, sale, or transportation" rather than posession, because it was believed that the federal government did not have the power to outlaw possession of a substance. Similarly, the original ban on marijuana wasn't even a ban at all - it was a cleverly-worded tax act which made it illegal to possess marijuana that hadn't been taxed, but also made it impossible to prove that you'd paid the tax.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] coldcode|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danjoc|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] matt4077|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nickysielicki|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lurr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt4077|8 years ago|reply
The article also cites CA's car emission standards, which appears to be good precedent both for the legality of such measures, as well as state lawmakers' willingness and ability to enact these laws.
So I have no idea what you might be referring to by "grandstanding".
[+] [-] patmorgan23|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
No, because the repeal of the Title II-based Open Internet regulations ends meaningful enforcement of the net neutrality principles.
> Net neutrality has been a long standing principle in the governance of the internet
Well, in the FCC regulation of ISPs, yes.
> that everyone agrees with.
This is manifestly false; if everyone agreed with it, there would be no acts in violation of net neutrality principles except by accident.
> This debate isn't weather we should have net neutrality or not
Yes, it is.
> it's over what regulatory instruments should or should not be used to ensure it.
Which is equivalent with whether we should have it, because it has repeatedly been shown that ISPs will not provide it unless compelled to do so.
> All of the examples pro tittle 2 advocates being up about Comcast, Verizon and other Isps where resolved in favor of the consumer Under Tittle 1 regulitions
The courts struck down the FCC’s ability to use Title I regulations to enforce net neutrality in 2014, which is what prompted the Title II regulations adopted in 2015.
[+] [-] apendleton|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Karunamon|8 years ago|reply
Title 2 is a massive blob of legislation that, as one of its many provisions, ensured a kind of net neutrality, while still leaving the door open for other types of abuse.
Net neutrality is a concept that transcends law - kind of like how freedom of speech transcends the first amendment.
It is quite possible to, in good faith, be against Title 2 with its flaws while still supporting the concept of net neutrality.