[opendtv] Re: California's net neutrality bill is back, and as tough as ever
- From: "Craig Birkmaier" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "brewmastercraig" for DMARC)
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 09:33:29 -0400
On Jul 7, 2018, at 5:21 AM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Now I’m waiting for the real irony to unfold. I’m waiting for our current
phony baloney FCC to rule that California can’t do this, because the FCC’s
rules are supposed to override state laws, IN ORDER TO PROMOTE INTERSTATE
COMMERCE. Like, non-neutral telecoms promote open commerce of any kind.
Not sure who has the standing to take California and other States to court over
these attempts to bypass the FCC authority. Obviously a large number of State
Attorney Generals (about 23) have sued the FCC to restore the Obama era rules.
I suspect that these cases would take precedence before state level rules would
be challenged. But this may all go on in parallel. In California, I would
expect several of the companies that are targeted with the Zero Rating
provisions of their proposed legislation to challenge the legislation.
Clearly these issues will be tied up in the courts for some time, unless
Congress acts to legislate new net neutrality regulations. It is equally clear
that the FCC was correct, when it issued the current rules, that the States
have no authority here, as it is not possible to build “virtual walls” between
states to block wireless signals that cross state borders. This is an
interstate commerce issue, and rightly must be regulated via Federal law.
We need the momentum to continue. Better yet, Trump should pay attention to
this problem, understand that net neutrality has nothing to do with the
fairness doctrine or “fake news,” and finally boot the scoundrels out of
offices they can’t run properly.
But This is exactly where you went wrong Bert. Under the Obama rules the FCC
was beginning to impose regulations on Internet speech. Their initial targets
were the ISPs, a not so veiled attempt to prevent them from competing with the
new Edge Providers oligopoly. But it was clear that they wanted to intrude into
many related businesses - their misguided attempt to tie the unbundling of MVPD
STBs to the Internet was a prime example of how a “Progressive FCC” would use
the Title II authority to regulate Internet speech. And yes, an Internet
“Fairness Doctrine” would be a likely goal for a Progressive FCC.
We saw the first signs of this when Zuckerberg testified to Congress - and even
more overt signals with the new EU privacy regulations. The future of the
Internet will likely involve the use of Artificial Intelligence to control
“hate speech,’ with government approved algorithms...
Facebook just got caught removing a portion of the Declaration of Independence,
claiming it was hate speech...
SAD!
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
