CA Gov. Jerry Brown signed a strict net neutrality bill into law and then the DOJ sued him
Welp, everybody knew that was going to happen. And the “that” that happened is the Department of Justice
immediately suing California Governor Jerry (JB) Brown right after he signed a strict net neutrality bill into law.
As many of y’all know, that whole net neutrality, keeping the web open and free, is now, poof gone.
It got poof gone over the summer after the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) voted to get rid of the net neutrality rules that were put
in place in order to make sure that folks could surf the web without
worrying about those blood thirsty great white sharks call internet
providers taking large chunks of money out of folks’ pocket books and wallets just so they could surf the web as freely and easily as they use to before the FCC’s net neutrality rules took effect.
Gov. JB and them said they aren’t letting those blood thirsty sharks bleed folks dry and that surfing the web, in California at least, will be as free as Ladies Night at the club.
There are those who say that California’s law sounds too good to be true because it is.
But like all things that sound too good to be true, California’s Net Neutrality law has some problems.
The problem the law has is a loophole that takes away the “zero rating”
that would have saved folks money by allowing carriers to not include certain content, like streaming movies and videos, as part of the data folks use.
By taking away the “zero rating,” California law places folks in position whereby they will have to buy more disk space to hold the data they have from the other services they use.
This next problem doesn’t seem like a consumer problem, but it is. Companies
won’t have to pay those interconnection fees to have its data placed within the internet providers’ space.
What will happen with this is that internet providers will find a way to make up for that lost income by charging companies more for a service or services the internet providers have been providing for free.
Companies will then make up for what they have to pay internet providers by charging folks more for the company’s services.
Businesses do this all the time. Take banks for instance. Folks are doing more of their business online.
So folks don’t get paper statements as much as they use to. Banks have said, “Ok, if you all want to do your banking business online, then we’ll provide that service to you for free. But when it comes to a paper statement, you all have to pay us a fee.”
You get one thing for free, and then you have to pay for another. That’s how the world of business works.
You can’t run a business if everybody is getting everything for free. Therefore, folks will have to pay for something or they won’t be getting nothing. Having said that, I agree that folks should be able to freely use the internet to search and read information.
These big tech and telecommunication companies already make billions of dollars off of the internet.
Hell, they wouldn’t exist if they weren’t getting money from the services they already provide.
say that California can’t pass a bill into law that regulates the internet because regulating the internet is the government’s business.
Citing the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause, U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions III
told folks in statement that the CNNers quoted, “Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce-the federal government does.”
He’s right. The Commerce Clause does give the federal government the right to regulate business that go from one state and U.S. territories to the other.
On the other hand, there’s the 10th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment gives states the right to make and enforce their own laws, and the Equal Protection Clause means that U.S. citizens and states are treated equally under the law.
Therefore a question the Supreme Court justices will have to answer is does California’s Net Neutrality Law prevent the federal government from regulating how internet providers and carriers do business across state lines and within the U.S. territories?
I think the Supreme Court will rule in favor of California on this one. The argument the feds and ISPs have is that there are too many laws to follow.
In fact, Jonathan Spalter, who is the president of US Telecom said just that. Here’s what Spalter
told the CNN Money folks, “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 the issue once and for all.”
It is bothersome to have to follow all those federal laws, state laws, and local laws. I wonder how us regular folks manage to follow all of those laws every day?
But y’all see, that’s the thing, saying that there are just too many laws to follow is not a good legal argument for why states shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their 10th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights when regulating how business is conducted within their boundaries.