California, led by Governor Jerry Brown, has recently passed a law that essentially repeals the recent legislation against net neutrality. With seemingly only large telecom corporations happy with the current situation, Governor Jerry Brown wanted to pass California legislation that challenges the decision made in December of 2017 from FCC chairman Ajit Pai. Ajit Pai argues that the net neutrality laws created under the Obama administration in 2015 that protected consumer internet were unnecessary due to the lack of examples of harm to justify regulations on broadband providers. The federal government has recently filed suit against the California law. Jeff Sessions, who is very vocally against the California law, has claimed that Congress granted the federal government the ability to regulate broadband providers through the creation of the FCC. The California law has "frustrated" federal policy by disregarding interstate commerce. On the other hand, California “will not allow a handful of power brokers to dictate sources for information or the speed at which websites load.” Although it may seem clear that California is in direct violation of the FCC's decision, this may be an important case in finally determining whether internet regulation truly is an implied federal government power.
1. Should internet regulation be an implied power or a reserved power and why?
2. If it were to be a reserved power, how would states with vastly different demographics differ in their regulation of the internet?
3. Pretend you are the FCC and create an argument against Governor Jerry Brown's law.
1. Members of the Trump administration believe internet regulation is an implied power, specifically citing the commerce clause in their defense. People such as Jeff Sessions believe that the internet affects interstate commerce and should therefore be controlled by the federal government. The FCC, a federal group, determines matters of internet regulation, and it should not be a reserved power of the states. Personally, I am not convinced by the use of the commerce clause in this argument, and am open to states such as California setting their own policies on internet regulation.
ReplyDelete2. States with different demographics in regards to the political spectrum would also have different levels of internet regulation. More liberal states would most likely support net neutrality, leading to more equitable access to sites and information within these states. In contrast, conservative states would most likely oppose net neutrality, leading to unequal internet usage and access to information within these states.
3. Mr. Brown, Congress made us, the FCC, the sole authority in matters broadband internet service. We are the only ones with power to create regulations for broadband internet providers. This is a federal power that overrules your state powers, so your regulations are invalid.
Clara Kennedy
ReplyDelete1. Personally, I believe that internet regulation should be an implied power because, in today's technological age, it relates directly to free speech and press. Therefore, the necessary and proper clause makes it an implied power as it is necessary to protect people's rights. However, I believe that the federal government should then use this power to protect people's right to free speech and freedom of the press by protecting net neutrality.
2. If it were a reserved power, states with vastly different demographics would have different types of regulations. States with more liberal populations with greater amounts of importance placed on the internet may support more net neutrality legislation. Conversely, states with more conservative populations may support less net neutrality, believing that companies have the right to restrict access as they choose. However, all states very well might end up with very similar regulations due to precedents set in other states and expectations of corporations that span multiple states. Also, with the large role the internet plays in the lives of most people today, it may be widely supported, regardless of political ideology.
3. The FCC has the primary authority to regulate broadband internet service. This power has been designated to the federal government, making state laws subversive to federal laws as stated in the Supremacy Clause. As seen in Arizona v. US, state laws that place harsher limits than the federal government on individuals of some type relating to a power designated to the federal government, the state laws must be repealed. Therefore, since federal legislation has reduced net neutrality, the states are not allowed to increase it via state legislation.
1. I believe that internet regulation should be an implied power as it falls under Congress' control due to the commerce clause. The Internet today is a way for people from all over the world to do things from talking to shopping. These types of activities over the Internet are what make it fall under the Commerce Clause as it directly impacts interstate commerce.
ReplyDelete2. If Internet regulation was to become a reserved power, we would see areas with different demographics having very different access to the Internet. States that are more Democratic would lean towards a system that supports net neutrality which would allow most people to have equal access to the Internet. On the other hand, states that are more Republican may lean towards regulating the access people have to the Internet which would cause an unequal access to the Internet for all citizens. This difference makes it easier for people of some states to access the Internet while other states would make it quite difficult for those same citizens to access the Internet. It would also be difficult for companies to work around this as they would have to create different ways to both provide to all citizens of states that support internet neutrality while blocking access to citizens of states that don't support net neutrality.
3. The FCC was created by Congress who has power over regulating the Internet due to the commerce clause. As the Internet directly impacts interstate commerce this means that the power to regulate the Internet has been given to Congress. Because this power has been given to Congress, this means that states do not have the power to regulate the Internet. Only the FCC has the power to regulate the Internet as Congress has given the FCC to regulate the Internet.
1) I think internet regulation should be an implied power because many political scientists believe that it falls under interstate commerce because the internet goes interstate. As interstate commerce used to apply to telegraph and phone lines, many political scientists believe that the internet is the modern day approach to the telegraph. I think that the federal government should be able to regulate the internet, but I think it should be regarded as a utility service like phone lines and water / gas companies where they cannot restrict customers who pay less. For some reason internet does not count as one of these services and now the FEC has removed net neutrality laws.
ReplyDelete2) I think the republican majority states would have less restrictions on how internet companies control their internet, while democratic states like California would have more restrictions on how internet companies cannot throttle internet and would have more net neutrality laws. Overall, I feel like many states would differ based on how Democratic/Conservative they are.
3) The FCC is a federal power and since the federal power is granted power to regulate interstate commerce and has the supremacy clause, the FCC’s ruling would override your bill.
Joshua Ishimoto
ReplyDelete1. The regulation of the internet, being that is an integral part of both the private and public sector, should be seen as an implied power of the federal government. I agree with what Governor Brown is trying to do, but for the future a federal authority should have the responsibility to ensure an internet that all can use, free of charge and discrimination by streaming. The union could never stand if the rules of for the internet would be different in each state. The flow of information might be hampered so much that both the public and private sector would experience very serious loses. Thus, the federal government should see net neutrality as an implied power under the Commerce Clause.
2. I can imagine that politicians might be inclined to make differing regulations for the internet based on differing political beliefs. However, pragmatism will ultimately lead. In states of large populations there shall be a greater reliance on the internet compared to smaller states. The rules for net neutrality would be strengthened in such areas out of pure need for it. In the end, the economic need for reliable internet access transcends the partisan divide.
3. Governor Brown has unilaterally defied FCC rules pertaining to net neutrality. As well established by the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, all federal policies are above those of the states. The states therefore have no right to impose their own net neutrality rules that defy the authority of the federal government. We can thus find Gov. Brown's actions unconstitutional.
1) I believe that it should be an implied power because it is used by everyone for every aspect of their life. Since it is such an important part of everyday life for everyone within the US I believe that its regulation is so important that it must be an implied power to allow it to be properly regulated.
ReplyDelete2) Due to different demographics it makes sense that different people would have different views on how to deal with the internet. Since the people will all have different cultural values they will no doubt have different ideas about what regulations to implement.
3) If I was the FCC I would argue that due to the Supremacy Clause he would have no jurisdiction to create the law.
Internet regulation should be an implied power since it relates so much to the commerce clause and interstate trade. The Internet is a huge contributor to the American economy, so it would fall under the commerce clause.
ReplyDeleteIf it were to be a reserved power, I think differences in state regulation would depend on lobbyists, and I believe that all demographics except for Internet providers would want net neutrality. However, in such a polarized society, net neutrality could still become a polarized issue where red states fought against it and blue states, like California, protected it.
Under the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause, Governor Brown has no ability to create such a law protecting net neutrality. His decision could impact the economies of nearby states, and based on precedent from cases like Gibbons v Ogden, the federal government has the final say, not the states.
1. I think it should be an implied power because it relates to the commerce clause. Nowadays, the Internet is one of the most common ways to buy and sell goods and transport them to other places. Because of this, I think the federal government should be able to regulate the Internet.
ReplyDelete2. I think states with more Internet usage would differ in regulation from states that did not have as much Internet use or had a smaller population overall. States with more Internet usage would likely have net neutrality because there would be more people lobbying for less Internet regulation. In states with less Internet usage, the Internet might be regulated more because it would not matter as much.
3. As the FCC, we were created to be the sole regulator of the Internet. Also, based on the commerce clause, the federal government should have the sole power to regulate the internet, and state governments should not be allowed to possess this ability.
1. Should internet regulation be an implied power or a reserved power and why?
ReplyDeleteGenerally I support "democratic experiments" within states, and having states experiment to find the best solution. However, in the case of internet regulation, I believe it should be an implied power simply for efficiency and because of the commerce clause.
2. If it were to be a reserved power, how would states with vastly different demographics differ in their regulation of the internet?
I believe that more conservative, or libertarian states might pass bills that deregulate the internet, while states such as California will support net neutrality.
3. Pretend you are the FCC and create an argument against Governor Jerry Brown's law.
Governor Jerry Brown's law is not only unneccessary, as it restricts internet providers from things that they are not even doing, nor would be particularly damaging, it is also unconstitutional according to the commerce clause.
1. Should internet regulation be an implied power or a reserved power and why?
ReplyDeleteThe internet should be a reserved power, because Free Speech should be protected by it.
2. If it were to be a reserved power, how would states with vastly different demographics differ in their regulation of the internet?
The federal government should pass blanket legislation ensuring the internet is protected by the First Amendment. State legislators can easily be bought off and weaken internet regulation
3. Pretend you are the FCC and create an argument against Governor Jerry Brown's law.
why would I do that.
1. I believe that internet regulation should be an implied power rather than a reserved power because the internet is more closely tied to the commerce clause.
ReplyDelete2. If internet regulation were to be a reserved power, then the internet would be much more conservative than it currently is and have a much smaller population base.
3. Our purpose is to regulate the internet, and because of the commerce clause, the federal government should regulate the internet. The states should not have the power to regulate it.