Oct 25, 2017
1,799
This language expressly preserves the states' ability to pass laws that regulate the Telecom industry. It limits the FCC's preemption to a specific example not relevant to NN, and says states can regulate in any other way so long as the regs are neutral.

Asserting a preemption or dormant commerce clause argument in light of that language will be very difficult for the FCC. Conservatives argued against preemption successfully in 2015, in Nixon v. Missouri municipal league. The conservative argument would actually save NN here.

I'm not an expert in this area but it seems to me that the pro-NN side would have a great argument in court.

I'm no expert in the field either, and I'm mostly cribbing from Constitutional Law courses I took 10 years ago.

I think the ability for states to impose net neutrality will come down to this phrase: "requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers." The Trump administration already is making the case that net neutrality laws are not necessary. I disagree with that assertion, but I can still see them litigating this issue if states create their own net neutrality regulations. Otherwise it will be a pretty Pyrrhic victory to repeal net neutrality, only to have enormous states like California and New York put it back into place. The big carriers won't be happy with that. And what the courts do with it may ultimately come down to a political issue, as it would likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
 

Red Cadet 015

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,947
Drafts of the new rules had a clause that states wouldn't be allowed to make their own NN laws. Comcast requested it be added.
From the linked article:
Another complication is that Pai is proposing to strip away the FCC's regulatory authority over broadband providers by removing the Title II classification.

"If the FCC has no power to regulate, it has no power to preempt," Bergmayer said. "Title II is all about legal authority. Trying to disclaim authority to regulate while simultaneously preempting seems somewhat paradoxical."

Even if that rule is in, that doesn't mean it's legal. By choosing not to enforce net neutrality, the FCC is forgoing it's legal authority. Thus the authority would remit to the states, theoretically. A state saying "you're not allowed to sell biased internet plans to end consumers in our state" does not interfere with the FCC's authority at all. The FCC has chosen not to regulate that area, and the state has.

The companies might argue that because the server or something might be in another state, it counts as interstate commerce, but one could counter that this fact has nothing to do with the end product sold to the consumer.
 

Stinkles

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
20,459
Now, how about the state deals with Seattle's garbage "non-exclusive" but really an exclusivity contract with Comcast.

That's a bigger infrastructure problem. I am in Seattle and using Centurylink Fios, but it's rolling out slooooowly - and in neighborhoods with buried power and telecom lines (which is the sensible and attractive way to hide infrastructure from views and weather events), like Windermere, you're gonna be stuck with Comcast forever.
 

Taurus Silver

Big ol' Nerd
Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,816
I for one can appreciate when a Governor works for his constituency. Wish I could say the same about those fucks in Congress.