Law in the Internet Society

View   r4  >  r3  ...
AlfonsoJimenez1stPaper 4 - 08 Feb 2009 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"
Revised 1st Paper: I wrote a heavily rhetorical version of this already that was rejected by Professor Moglen. I have clarified some of my thoughts here. My argument was basically that Internet access should be a positive right, and since the federal Constitution is wary of recognizing positive rights that could prove disruptive to the social order, I recommended we try to make provision of the Internet a duty of the states.
Line: 12 to 12
 While it is unclear whether the Telecommunications Act of 1996 may constitute a pervasive federal regulatory scheme, this federal “field pre-emption” would unlikely reach state actions that seek only to provide universal access to the Internet, and not to raise barriers to entry for national phone carriers or adopt regulations inconsistent with the goal of promoting universal service (i.e., the Universal Service Fund). As far as I know, there is no other federal directive that would prohibit a state from announcing that every citizen living in the four corners of its territory have free access to high-speed broadband as a public service. I’m sure (and will appreciate if) Professor Moglen will correct me here.
Added:
>
>
  • This isn't how preemption analysis works. And it isn't just the 1996 Act. The extent of Congressional preemption of communications services depends not on one statute, but on the assessment of the entire scheme. And you haven't explained what "announcing" means. Is this building a competing public service network, or taking the existing networks? Even if there were compensation for a taking, is it your contention that no federal regulatory scheme or invocation of the commerce power exists to prevent the retrospective municipalization of all the investor-owned communications networks in a state? Since free access to broadband implies the replacement of the telcos by free VoIP? services, but the telcos are substantial owners of the relevant carriage ways which are by their nature essential to interstate commerce, don't you have some other federalism questions to answer? I didn't ask a question last time that you could answer by a paragraph of ignoring and a request for me to do your work for you.
 

A state right and initiative

Line: 43 to 62
 -- AlfonsoJimenez - 07 Jan 2009
Added:
>
>
  • The rest of the piece is just, "and I would give everybody ice cream." There's no commitment to actual thinking about the politics. Some effort has been expended, but the piece is unimproved.
 
 
<--/commentPlugin-->
\ No newline at end of file

Revision 4r4 - 08 Feb 2009 - 17:09:44 - EbenMoglen
Revision 3r3 - 13 Jan 2009 - 14:58:51 - AlfonsoJimenez
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM