The interesting part of this to me is that if you read the details the FCC published about the order that was signed, <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf</a> it goes into <i>great</i> detail about the court cases about why the FCC has no authority to effectively regulate net neutrality unless the ISP's are classified under Title 2.<p>(This is true, in fact, and the court cases it cites and the DC circuit have been clear on this point for years)<p>The order then reclassifies the ISP's outside of Title II.<p>Outside of the arguments around privacy jurisdiction (which were always dual jurisdiction with the FTC), i don't know what they are thinking.<p>Given that the courts have already decided the FCC has no authority to regulate in this space (outside of Title II), and Ajit himself has said it numerous times, arguing pre-emption seems like a loser. If they don't have the authority to regulate around it, it's hard to see how they will argue they have the right to pre-empt others: all the court rulings involve determinations about the scope of the statutes involved, which in turn is a valuation of what congress intended to regulate/how far pre-emption goes.<p>It'll be interesting to read the complaint to see what leg they are trying to stand on.<p>Besides the existing court cases making super-clear the lack of authority, just the sheer the number of statements and orders from Ajit saying the FCC has no authority here seems like it will be hard for the FCC to overcome.<p>They would have been much better off saying "we have plenty of authority here and we explicitly choose not to exercise it"
I feel like it would be a perfectly American solution to say that utilities only get free access to people's property and city's resources if they are neutral utilities.<p>And for anything else require they pay the property owner or city/county (as appropriate) at market rates per square foot of usage. Basically if you have a "utility" line on my property I can't use that space, so you better actually bye a utility.
I wonder how the business that I conduct with my ISP is "interstate commerce." The wire connecting my house to my ISP begins and ends in my state. As I understand things, it's the speed of data running up and down that wire that net neutrality seeks to protect.
What's odd too is that Washington State passed a net neutrality law and I don't see any FCC response to block it. So why only California?<p><a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzkx83/which-states-have-net-neutrality-washington" rel="nofollow">https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzkx83/which-stat...</a>
Sorry if I get some basic understanding of the law wrong but...<p>Isn't this the same thing as regulating car emissions? Doesn't 822 only apply to providers in the state itself? Wouldn't it be that the telecoms are welcome to engage in another method of end-customer billing in other states?<p>What am I missing?
Intention wise, I am with CA, but we cannot have each state have their own laws when it comes to the internet. We'd have the nightmare of dealing with gazillions of jurisdictions.