Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

#CounterResistance: Trump’s DOJ sues California over new “net neutrality” rules

#CounterResistance: Trump’s DOJ sues California over new “net neutrality” rules

Attorney General Jeff Sessions: “Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce — the federal government does”

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1021765714498215936

This past June,  my colleague Mary Chastain noted that the internet was still working after the Trump administration ended Obama-era “net neutrality” rules with the FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order.

However, tinkering with working systems until they no longer function is a feature of the California state legislature, so it created its own “net neutrality” rules that were recently signed into law. This action triggered the Trump administration to file a lawsuit to stop the implementation.

Gov. Jerry Brown has restored net neutrality rules in California that were repealed under the Trump administration, setting up a legal battle with the federal government over whether states can prevent companies from blocking access to the internet.

The ambitious new law, which was signed by Brown late Sunday and takes effect Jan. 1, prohibits broadband and wireless companies from blocking, throttling or otherwise hindering access to internet content, and from favoring some websites over others by charging for faster speeds. It prompted a quick and aggressive response from Trump administration officials, who have sued to block the regulations.

“Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce — the federal government does,” Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions said in a statement issued Sunday. “Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy.”

Unsurprisingly, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is backing the federal lawsuit, as he has already declared the move illegal. He is not the only one unhappy with California’s legislative antics.

Other organizations opposed California taking net neutrality into its own hands, including Jonathan Spalter, president and CEO of the U.S. Telecom Association.

“Rather than 50 states stepping in with their own conflicting open internet solutions, we need Congress to step up with a national framework for the whole internet ecosystem and resolve this issue once and for all,” Spalter said in a statement.

Other blue states have instituted similar measures:

Three states — Oregon, Washington and Vermont — passed their own net neutrality bills ahead of California, though none of them were as strict. The California law prevents broadband providers from slowing down or blocking websites, as well as charging higher fees for faster speeds. It also limits some zero-rated data plans.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Get him out, and take his coat.

It is amazing how quickly Democrats forget their recent Supreme Court “wins” – of course that would imply that they are capable of rational thought.

Anyone remember when the State of Arizona decided to try and enforce Federal Immigration Laws on it’s own, since the Feds weren’t doing it? And Obama had decided not to do any enforcement, and the DOJ at the time sued the State of Arizona in Federal Court to shut down their efforts?

As I recall, it went to the Supreme Court in 2012, and to briefly sum up the ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that in areas where Congress had delegated it’s regulatory power to a Federal Agency, then because of the Supremacy Clause, the States had NO power to question or overturn any ruling or policy made by the Federal Agency in question.

This was a big win for the Dem’s – they were able to get the Supreme Court to rule that the Federal Bureaucracy was more powerful than any of the States in their areas of operation.

Funny how suddenly the Dems want to forget all about that precedent.

Let’s see traffic gets off the backbone is now residing on the local network, a law prohibiting the local network from charging more to local people depending on where the traffic comes from is regulating interstate commerce.

I don’t think so.

    The Packetman in reply to RodFC. | October 2, 2018 at 6:35 am

    You’re forgetting Wickard v Filburn.

    Edward in reply to RodFC. | October 2, 2018 at 9:44 am

    If you don’t think so then obviously the DoJ/FCC lawyers haven’t a prayer of even getting their case before the courts, much less winning.

      Tom Servo in reply to Edward. | October 2, 2018 at 10:17 am

      The point is that, in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, when there is a Federal Agency that has been delegated with power, by Congress, to enable it to regulate a certain area of law, then the States have NO constitutional ability to make any laws at all in that area. It doesn’t matter whether they are contra to the existing policies, or whether they try to enforce existing policy, as Arizona tried to enforce Federal Immigration Law.

      States now have NO power to regulate these areas in any way, and ANY law they make in such an area must now be found to be unconstitutional.

    Gunstar1 in reply to RodFC. | October 2, 2018 at 2:02 pm

    You just proved why it is interstate commerce. If you were a local delivery company and send/recieved shipments by a bulk carrier you were paying to pickup/deliver via truck loads, so you can pickup/deliver the individual local packages to those who are paying you for it, how are you not a part of interstate commerce?

    A majority of what you are doing is handling goods that originated in or are being sent to another state.

Sessions is being extorted. That seems certain now.

What in the WORLD?!? Where did they find Attorney General Jeff Sessions at? I thought he was taking a 90 day vacation…

Who is that guy in the picture?

Net Neutrality is shared “responsibility” for broadband products and services.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend