Recently, Governor Brown approved a new law restoring net neutrality regulations that were in place before the unprecedentedly unpopular repealing of Obama-era reforms by the FCC. The law prohibits internet providers from slowing down internet traffic on competitor services and speeding it up on subsidiary services. Naturally, the Federal government is not pleased with California's direct contradiction of their repeal of net neutrality, and they have filed a lawsuit against the state. I am glad that California's lawmakers are taking bold steps in order to preserve our internet rights, but I am doubtful that their efforts be fruitful. It is simply unrealistic to believe that a state can maintain its own unique internet regulations, especially under the pressure of both the Federal government and telecommunications companies, which are also undoubtedly preparing lawsuits against California.
The issue at play here is of state's rights vs federal authority, a controversy which has dominated the American political arena since the foundation of our country. As we learned during our Federalism unit, the tricky part is to find the balance between the autonomy of states and the supremacy of the Government. In this scenario, it may be argued that California ought to institute internet regulation statutes as it pleases, and simultaneously, also that the government ought to use its power to ensure that Federal laws are heeded across the 50 states.
Questions
Should California be permitted to exercise its right to maintain its own internet regulations, even if they contradict Federal statutes?
How might different internet regulations in different states affect internet users? Internet companies? Internet providers?
As a huge state's rights advocate, it makes me pretty happy to see California taking a stand for what it sees as right. Though I absolutely believe California should try to exercise its individual control over the internet, I am pessimistic about it happening. It will likely be found unconstitutional under the supremacy clause, and likely the commerce clause as well. In addition, California would be tampering with the policies of private companies who would absolutely retaliate with rate changes and denial of service to California and its residents (assuming the market in California isn't too powerful to fight back...). I think internet providers would absolutely not be willing to deal with 50 separate state policies, so such a development would likely be a train wreck for internet companies. It is hard to say how different internet regulations would affect different users in different states yet because we have no idea what policies would look like. I would assume that if all the states returned to the old precedents under net neutrality, the internet would look like what we know it to be now.
ReplyDeleteI think it is great that California is challenging the Federal governments ruling on Net Neutrality, and I would love to see this California repeal actually work and be successful, but realistically I think it is going to be extremely tough to actually avoid the Federal governments supreme authority. There are multiple problems in this whole scenario, the logistical problems that would arise if this repeal goes through would be immense; how would ISP's implement different "freedom" of internet speeds throughout different states. If the federal government's lawsuit doesn't go through, that would be a giant historic case in favor of States rights v. Fed gov. Looking at the logistical side of interstate internet laws, if this repeal works, there would just be people within the US who have different internet speeds, and are paying different prices.
ReplyDeleteThis is a state vs. federal authority issue, but I believe that California is doing the right thing. California should exercise its rights over its own jurisdiction in order to prevent internet speeds slowing down at the expense of people who don't pay the premium. However, imposing federal laws in order to appease all state laws will be very difficult. There needs to be regulations that either are in support or aren't in support of net neutrality. This will only be in the name of efficiency, though I do think that California is doing everything in its power to protect our internet freedoms.
ReplyDelete^ Jeremy Ho
DeleteBecause there is no law in the constitution that specifically gives Congress the power to regulate the internet and telecommunications then technically states can decide on regulations for themselves. However, in this case the government has created a federal regulation that connects to the commerce clause, and undoubtedly a couple others. This gives the federal regulation precedence over California's state laws. While I applaud Governor Brown's intentions in his actions, I doubt that California will be allowed to keep these and will eventually be forced to conform to the federal regulations. Different internet regulations in each state will be extremely confusing for national internet companies, as they will have different policies for each state. Additionally, some states' regulations may offer an advantage of faster internet or something else over other states. However, at the same time unique internet regulations will best reflect interests of the citizens of the state.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a tricky situation where there is not necessarily a right answer. Yes, I do believe that net neutrality is something that should be in place to insure a right to affordable internet, but also think that it may not be best to leave internet regulation up to the states. ISPs span across the entire nation and to have different regulations in different states may be too much of a strain on them and the differences in states policy may cause issues when it comes to relying information from state to state. Despite this, I think that without any place in the constitution demonstrating that this would be a power of congress, legally, it should be left up to the states to regulate their internet. I hope that California wins this case to uphold the constitution.
ReplyDeleteWhile I personally hope that the DOJ's lawsuit over the California net neutrality law fails, this situation seems somewhat similar to the Gonzales v. Raich case, where the Supreme Court voted in favor of Gonzales, interpreting the Commerce Clause as justifying their decision because marijuana possession dealt with interstate commerce. Similarly, I think that the Internet can be seen as a medium for communication and commerce between states, thus allowing the federal government to have jurisdiction over the Internet. While I don't think that states or the federal government should have complete control of the internet, in this case, I believe that the net neutrality law falls under the commerce clause, giving legislative precedence to the federal government, not the state government.
ReplyDelete