FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues
-
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also worth noting that interstate commerce includes anything affecting other states, not just trade directly with them.
In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:
The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ ...] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ ... ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power
You've missed the entire issue. I'd argue the commerce clause is abused today, but it's a valid power of the congress.
But that's the point, that the commerce claus gives rise to the FCC and gives it the power over the states.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also worth noting that interstate commerce includes anything affecting other states, not just trade directly with them.
In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:
The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ ...] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ ... ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power
You've missed the entire issue. I'd argue the commerce clause is abused today, but it's a valid power of the congress.
But that's the point, that the commerce claus gives rise to the FCC and gives it the power over the states.
Trust me, there is no more right to privacy or free speech at least. I've witnessed this myself, no amount of arguing about technicalities will disprove what they've actually done.
-
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@travisdh1 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Also worth noting that interstate commerce includes anything affecting other states, not just trade directly with them.
In United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co. (1942) the Court upheld federal price regulation of intrastate milk commerce, stating:
The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. [ ...] The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution. [ ... ] It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence, the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power
You've missed the entire issue. I'd argue the commerce clause is abused today, but it's a valid power of the congress.
But that's the point, that the commerce claus gives rise to the FCC and gives it the power over the states.
Trust me, there is no more right to privacy or free speech at least. I've witnessed this myself, no amount of arguing about technicalities will disprove what they've actually done.
What the heck are you talking about? You specifically said that the FCC could not oversee the states. Now you are talking about something unrelated. This has nothing to do with the conversation.
-
Right to privacy is not a right in the US - you are confusing the US with the EU. Freedom of Speech is a federal right, and nothing to do with interstate commerce.
-
@black3dynamite said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@mlnews said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
How is that possible? Does FCC have that type of power to enforce individual states to comply?
Yes.
-
@scottalanmiller said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Right to privacy is not a right in the US - you are confusing the US with the EU. Freedom of Speech is a federal right, and nothing to do with interstate commerce.
It's odd actually the only state with an actual privacy is California.
-
With regards to Muni internet Spectrum (aka time Warner) has been losing market share here in Rochester for the past 2 years. Not Muni service, just private competition with a fiber provider.
-
Might be incredibly naive of me, but is there a world in which they pass this nonsense and nuke net neutrality, then an ISP is started that doesn't follow in step with these terribly unethical practices and a lot of providers see a huge loss of business as a consequence of their own actions?
-
@r3dpand4 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Might be incredibly naive of me, but is there a world in which they pass this nonsense and nuke net neutrality, then an ISP is started that doesn't follow in step with these terribly unethical practices and a lot of providers see a huge loss of business as a consequence of their own actions?
Hahahah... Sure and Kim Jong Un will see the error of his ways and go full Democratic
-
@r3dpand4 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
Might be incredibly naive of me, but is there a world in which they pass this nonsense and nuke net neutrality, then an ISP is started that doesn't follow in step with these terribly unethical practices and a lot of providers see a huge loss of business as a consequence of their own actions?
Could be. But in this world that competitive service would be sued into oblivion by the incumbant ISPs.
-
@dustinb3403 Not sure how that remotely is related...
-
@r3dpand4 those 2 things are far more likely to happen than big ISPs allowing competition.
-
@r3dpand4 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@dustinb3403 Not sure how that remotely is related...
You're expecting buisinesses who've been getting away with everything just do an about face and start playing fair because someone else started off playing fair.
It's unrealistic
-
@coliver I mean I suppose that's possible, but you could say the same thing about anything that's going to upset large scale service providers in any industry. When cable/dish subscriptions started losing out to a la carte packaging from other sources they just had to adapt for instance.
-
@r3dpand4 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver I mean I suppose that's possible, but you could say the same thing about anything that's going to upset large scale service providers in any industry. When cable/dish subscriptions started losing out to a la carte packaging from other sources they just had to adapt for instance.
That's ignoring the entire context of this thread. Yes they just had to adapt. Some of them have taken steps to blocking competitors like Netflix from their network (however briefly) or throttling service so that streaming services would have to pay-to-play with their own content. They don't adapt they are pulled kicking, screaming, and suing.
-
@dustinb3403 No I'm not? Where did I say anything about the current ISP's changing their behaviors? It's entirely realistic that a community driven provider could spring up from all of the uproar and we all just jump ship from the bad providers. I never said anything about existing ISP's all of a sudden acting ethically, not sure where you're getting that from.
-
@coliver I mean that's fine, they can be as nasty as they want about it along the way, but I don't see that winning out in the long run. My point is that services could and maybe likely would spring up based on their terrible behavior like we've seen in other instances. Especially large organizations will try to do anything and everything they can get away with, I understand that. I'm simply stating that especially with subscription based services, you're 100% based on customer satisfaction. If you're not willing to provide something another provider will people will leave in a heartbeat. I've never met someone who is "loyal" to AT&T, Spectrum, etc. if that's making any sense.
-
@rojoloco I mean you could've said the same thing about cell service providers, but look at how many alternatives there are now.
-
@r3dpand4 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver I mean that's fine, they can be as nasty as they want about it along the way, but I don't see that winning out in the long run. My point is that services could and maybe likely would spring up based on their terrible behavior like we've seen in other instances. Especially large organizations will try to do anything and everything they can get away with, I understand that. I'm simply stating that especially with subscription based services, you're 100% based on customer satisfaction. If you're not willing to provide something another provider will people will leave in a heartbeat. I've never met someone who is "loyal" to AT&T, Spectrum, etc. if that's making any sense.
The problem with this is this new company living through the litigation. Unless you have some huge dollars to allow you to make it past the trench run, it's likely you'll just be forced to fold.
-
@r3dpand4 said in FCC Net Neutrality Insanity Continues:
@coliver I mean that's fine, they can be as nasty as they want about it along the way, but I don't see that winning out in the long run. My point is that services could and maybe likely would spring up based on their terrible behavior like we've seen in other instances. Especially large organizations will try to do anything and everything they can get away with, I understand that. I'm simply stating that especially with subscription based services, you're 100% based on customer satisfaction. If you're not willing to provide something another provider will people will leave in a heartbeat. I've never met someone who is "loyal" to AT&T, Spectrum, etc. if that's making any sense.
You have to remember that being right doesn't win law suits in the US. Money does. The incumbant ISPs are sitting on an exuberant amount of money. If this new company has that kind of bank roll good for them but they will be tied up with legal fees and will be unable to do anything infrastructure wise.
