Washington vs Washington (State vs DC)

xoxoxoBruce · 03-06-2018, 10:25 PM

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.

Quote:

Washington became the first state in the country on Monday to pass its own net neutrality law in the wake of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) repeal of the popular Obama-era rules.
Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed a bill Monday afternoon forbidding internet service providers from blocking or throttling web content, or from charging websites for higher delivery speeds. During a ceremony for the bill signing, he called the legislation a "free speech bill."

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

Griff · 03-07-2018, 06:21 AM

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

glatt · 03-07-2018, 07:32 AM

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.

Happy Monkey · 03-07-2018, 10:16 AM

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.

tw · 03-07-2018, 11:37 AM

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.

Undertoad · 03-07-2018, 11:59 AM

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.

Gravdigr · 03-07-2018, 03:11 PM

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

...but Washington state has a Big V.

tw · 03-07-2018, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

... all Internet communication is interstate.
TCP/IP packets have no designation for political borders.

Which implies the Supremes may have to rule.

xoxoxoBruce · 03-07-2018, 10:47 PM

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.

Robledo · 04-04-2018, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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

tw · 04-05-2018, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Which implies the Supremes may have to rule.

They were never same once Diana Ross left.

Never mind.

Gravdigr · 04-05-2018, 02:36 PM

He's right.

Now I feel like I need to spit.

03-07-2018, 06:21 AM	#2
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	States Rights! Oh wait, let's give everyone time to switch sides again. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

03-07-2018, 10:16 AM	#4
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	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. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

03-07-2018, 11:37 AM	#5
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	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. Last edited by tw; 03-07-2018 at 11:45 AM.

03-07-2018, 03:11 PM	#7
Gravdigr The Un-Tuckian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: South Central...KY that is Posts: 39,517	Washington, D.C. has a big d, and a big c... ...but Washington state has a Big V. __________________ These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, EPA, FBI, DEA, CDC, or FDIC. These statements are not intended to diagnose, cause, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. If you feel you have been harmed/offended by, or, disagree with any of the above statements or images, please feel free to fuck right off.

03-07-2018, 10:47 PM	#9
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	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. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

03-07-2018, 07:32 AM	#3
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	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.

03-07-2018, 11:59 AM	#6
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	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.

04-05-2018, 02:36 PM	#12
Gravdigr The Un-Tuckian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: South Central...KY that is Posts: 39,517	He's right. Now I feel like I need to spit. __________________ These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, EPA, FBI, DEA, CDC, or FDIC. These statements are not intended to diagnose, cause, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. If you feel you have been harmed/offended by, or, disagree with any of the above statements or images, please feel free to fuck right off.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode