Washington St. passes law to protect net neutrality

[ottomobeale]

Silly question: Have any of the carriers moved to upcharge for access to specific sites or charge content providers?

[le roi]

Originally Posted by peequi

How does this work logistically? Can Net Neutrality be applied to the entire state via simple clicks of the mouse without infrastructure changes?

Not debating the merits, just curious if this is logistically possible without any major changes.

If they can keep track of how much internet bandwidth a customer has bought, then they can keep track of what state their customers live in.

[le roi]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

The federal regulations explicitly prohibit states from preempting the new change by the FCC

It isn't established that the FCC has such authority.

[workingclasshero]

"net neutrality" is an oxy-moron ....

it does not make anything neutral...all it does is put the government (which is never neutral) in control

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by DRob4JC

Washington sticks it to the FCC, passes its own net neutrality rules

Washington is the first state to pass its own laws governing net neutrality, with federal regulations preventing Internet service providers from blocking or throttling content slated to end in April.

...
On Monday, Inslee signed the law protecting net neutrality rules within the state. The new legislation, which passed with bipartisan support, cements into state law the rules set by the Federal Communications Commission in 2015.

...
"Today we make history: Washington will be the first state in the nation to preserve the open internet," Inslee said during a bill signing ceremony. Washington's law will take effect June 6; however, the FCC's changes to its rules go into effect next month.

I would rather it this way than through the Feds.

The Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause prevails. Any legal challenge will nullify Washington State's law.

[It'sAutomatic]

Here we go with the fascist liberals literally raping the internet. More regulations promising slower service and higher prices like always. I am a real American and not paid Russian operative.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by le roi

It isn't established that the FCC has such authority.

Yes, it has. And, yes, they do. Federal rules/regulations carry the force of federal law. If a federal rule/regulation explicitly preempts state law on an issue--and the rule/regulation is otherwise valid in and of itself--then the supremacy clause takes hold and any state law to the contrary must fail. I know that Washington State plans to stick up for their law in court (and that's fine), but my issue is with the fact that many a leftist news media has left out the legal issues posed by this state law completely.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

Looks like you're out of luck in Texas. Special interests come first in conservative states.

It's called property rights. No one is entitled to force a business to change policy when rights have not been violated. Our country was built on property rights. It's a shame the entitlement generation has forgotten that.

Maybe if ISPs charged by amount of data then all those websites that automatically play their videos without prompting would stop.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by Mircea

The Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause prevails. Any legal challenge will nullify Washington State's law.

Yes the challenge would have to be against the Commerce Clause itself.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by JAMS14

This is excellent news. Let's hope many states follow suit.

And those who don't like it can go live in red states and watch their Internet slow down.

Works for me.

It hasn't slowed down yet and you have no proof it will in the future. Not that you care about the truth.