LOL, as if any political faction these days is capable of looking beyond the spin an issue settles with and how it interacts with their talking points this week and whether it's a way to get one over on their opponent.
get ready for rate increases. having to comply with 51 sets of laws and regulations is going to cost money - lawyers, technicians, lost revenue, etc. - and those costs will be passed to consumers. and you'll pay those costs regardless of your political affiliation or Republican's emotions.
Until service providers decide to compete for customers by accepting that they won't get a fresh new rent to extract by ramming zero-rating or bundled internet packages down people's throats. Those providers can eliminate the costs you mention and keep profits steady without raising prices for their customers.
As a republican, I fully support the right of California to torch its internet access, just like it has its infrastructure, tax base, and housing policies.
It's weird how conservatives always know a bunch of negative factoids about California. I looked it up, the reason the American Lung Association says 8 out of the 10 most polluted cities are in California is because of the geography of the Sierra Nevadas that traps the smog.
It was the Republicans (specifically, Howard Jarvis) who screwed the California tax base and housing policies by Proposition 13 and Proposition 218. The loss of local tax revenue following 13's passage now ties up 70% of the state revenue to prop up local governments. The 2/3 majority required by Props 13 and 218 to raise any new taxes means that it is impossible to switch away from the current tax system that results in windfalls when the market is up and disaster when the market is down. On the other hand, ballot initiatives don't need a 2/3 majority and pass relatively easily, usually issuing bonds to fund some billionaire's pet project, tying up even more of the state revenue.
The one thing that has saved California is the passage of Proposition 25, which removed the 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget. Until that point, the Republicans held the state government over a barrel, requiring that their pork barrel projects be funded before allowing a budget to pass. Prop 25 and the Democratic supermajority has brought sanity to the small portion of the budget that the legislature can control.
Republicans realized that internet giants are now in charge of determining what is true or false in the world but are run by a bunch of teenagers that are probably liberal hippies and cable companies are run by reliable Republican megadonors so lets give cable companies the ability to extort rents from those internet companies and hobble them to eliminate that threat.
There is no doubt both parties are influenced by the money given to them, but maybe Democrats got more money because they needed to be moved farther from their natural position (toward that which the telecoms wanted).
This bill honestly seems pretty well put together. I was wary when I read it went beyond the FCC’s regulations wrt zero-rating, but apparently that’s actually allowed as long as the zero-rating is application-agnostic, which sounds good for that quaint old-fashioned free market competition.
To my eye Internet services look like interstate commerce and therefore would be the jurisdiction of the federal government. I'd appreciate it if someone with a little expertise could explain how the law works in this regard.
There's a famous Supreme Court case [1] in which a law that regulates how much wheat a farmer may keep for himself was determined to affect interstate commerce, and therefore be within the province of federal law.
Though this case was cited negatively by the Supreme Court many years later, it is still regularly cited in briefs — including by lawyers on both sides of the recent Obamacare cases.
So just because something seems local doesn't mean it couldn't fall within the Commerce Clause powers, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure that the proper definition of "interstate" is when the consumer crosses state lines to reach the retail location.
Is the cellular industry not interstate? An American can buy their phone at a local Verizon store and their phone connects to a local Verizon tower. Also, most Americans' ISPs are headquartered and have facilities, through which their traffic passes, in other states.
I think it's funny: AT&T: Oh you don't need to do this, silly we're already compliant...no please don't...we mean it, we'll be good... --- if it was something they plan on enforcing anyways, why fight it so damn hard?
35 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 86.7 ms ] threadAs it should be.
Federalism FTW.
I was around in the 70s and the smog was truly horrible. We'de still have that if Republicans controlled CA for The last 3 decades.
Especially from Southern California.
KTHXBYE.
But never actually seem to ... you know ... leave.
Hypocrites.
It was the Republicans (specifically, Howard Jarvis) who screwed the California tax base and housing policies by Proposition 13 and Proposition 218. The loss of local tax revenue following 13's passage now ties up 70% of the state revenue to prop up local governments. The 2/3 majority required by Props 13 and 218 to raise any new taxes means that it is impossible to switch away from the current tax system that results in windfalls when the market is up and disaster when the market is down. On the other hand, ballot initiatives don't need a 2/3 majority and pass relatively easily, usually issuing bonds to fund some billionaire's pet project, tying up even more of the state revenue.
The one thing that has saved California is the passage of Proposition 25, which removed the 2/3 majority requirement to pass a budget. Until that point, the Republicans held the state government over a barrel, requiring that their pork barrel projects be funded before allowing a budget to pass. Prop 25 and the Democratic supermajority has brought sanity to the small portion of the budget that the legislature can control.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/01/c...
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/01/c...
Though this case was cited negatively by the Supreme Court many years later, it is still regularly cited in briefs — including by lawyers on both sides of the recent Obamacare cases.
So just because something seems local doesn't mean it couldn't fall within the Commerce Clause powers, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
I'm not sure that the proper definition of "interstate" is when the consumer crosses state lines to reach the retail location.
Is the cellular industry not interstate? An American can buy their phone at a local Verizon store and their phone connects to a local Verizon tower. Also, most Americans' ISPs are headquartered and have facilities, through which their traffic passes, in other states.
Anybody know how close to the truth this is? It sounds a bit less likely than I would hope.