Washington vs Washington (State vs DC)
 

When the FCC ruled on net neutrality part of their ruling said, we're in charge and the states aren't allowed to pass any laws to circumvent our infinite wisdom.
Well Washington State said poppycock.

I see a shitload of lawyers making a shitload of money for a long time. :eyebrow:

States Rights! Oh wait, let's give everyone time to switch sides again.

You said it. I've been opposed to states rights so many times before when they were flexed by backwards ass states, but this is one I can get behind. :nuts:

It's always been issues-based, on both sides. The pre-Confederate states vehemently opposed states rights to nullify the fugitive slave law (and, of course, overrode states rights when passing it in the first place).

Abolitionists weren't opposed to "states rights", they were opposed to slavery.

Also, "issues based" can be subdivided into "push this issue by state or federal means, whichever works", and "this issue is best handled by state/federal means". And most people use both meanings, on a case-by-case basis.

Same issues exist over marijuana. To obfuscate the issue, many want to argure states rights again. What is only relevant is the issue. Maijuana is as dangerous as heroine? Obviously a lie. Otherwise alcohol is also banned like heroine. We already made those mistakes almost 100 years ago.

We should further enrich Comcast et al because they only now charge so much as to buy NBC, Universal Studios, a cell phone company, all the largest skyscrapers in Philadelphia, and now Fox (meaning they would own two of the four national networks). But we must change laws to make them richer - so they will charge more for services that will otherwise only get less expensive to provide.

That is the issue. State rights should never even be discussed in these issues - and never mentioned even when discussing an issue called slavery.

Lies to destroy net neutrality completely ignore the issue. Comcast et al are only data transporters. They must transport any and all data without any regard for the content of that data.

Content providers should not at any time be controlled by the data transporters - as was well proven and a legal standard even in the earliest days of telephones. That is what destruction of net neutrality is about. Control of the entire system to increase profits - the product be damned.

Same problem is also promoted for Sinclair Broadcasting. They also want to the right to own all stations. Ownership by numerous organizations makes communication rich with perspective. Which is essential to have moderates. Sinclair want to do in this country what Berlusconi did in Italy.

I don't think the states should have any jurisdiction here, since all Internet communication is interstate.

TCP/IP packets have no designation for political borders.

Washington, D.C. has a big d, and a big c...

...but Washington state has a Big V.

:D

Which implies the Supremes may have to rule.

Oh hell yeah, you know this will end up in the Supreme Court, that's a given.
Lot's of lawyers making lots of money, too much is at stake not to.

I actually had no idea about this. More power to the Washington state. And definitely less power to Washington D.C…

They were never same once Diana Ross left.

Never mind.

He's right.

Now I feel like I need to spit.