SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the gold-standard-from-the-golden-state dept.
California passes strongest net neutrality law in the country
California's legislature has approved a bill being called the strongest net neutrality law in the US. The bill would ban internet providers from blocking and throttling legal content and prioritizing some sites and services over others. It would apply these restrictions to both home and mobile connections.
That would essentially restore the net neutrality rules enacted federally under former President Barack Obama, which were later repealed by the Federal Communications Commission under the watch and guidance of current chairman Ajit Pai. But this bill actually goes further than those rules with an outright ban on zero-rating — the practice of offering free data, potentially to the advantage of some companies over others — of specific apps. Zero-rating would, however, still be allowed as long as the free data applies to an entire category of apps. So an ISP could offer free data for all video streaming apps, but not just for Netflix. [...] The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the final legislation "a gold standard net neutrality bill."
Now, the bill heads to the governor's desk. California Gov. Jerry Brown hasn't said whether he'll sign the legislation, but it's garnered the support of top state Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Kamala Harris.
Also at Engadget.
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Sunday September 02 2018, @12:32AM (40 children)
Assuming this survives legal muster, which most of it can't being regulation of Interstate Commerce controlled by the FCC, it will only serve to drive more of the tech industry from the incestuous hotbeds of insanity in the San Fran area. It will probably raise end user ISP rates too, which again is good if you hate CA and want to see it suffer and die. All upside.
Just look at the one example called out in the summary, think Netflix will keep paying to maintain co-located infrastructure at all major ISPs if it ceases to gain any advantage from doing it? Watch ISPs lay shittons of new fiber to make up the difference between serving content from inside their own datacenters and pulling data in from some cloud hosting site that was really cheap. Watch reliability go down and rates go up.
Meanwhile none of these "network neutrality" efforts, intentionally, even attempt to address the actual censorship going on. Because these Democrats approve of it.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @12:43AM (26 children)
I sense... jealousy.
Long buried, repressed jealousy, jmorris can't STAND that California is the lone state to stand for freedom. Must really bust your chops.
What a twat.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 02 2018, @01:51AM (25 children)
Net Neutrality ain't freedom, it's just oppression from a different angle. The best solution would be to have real competition happening between multiple players in all markets so that bad actors lose business to good actors. That's a bit of a difficult proposition given current conditions though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @01:59AM (13 children)
A bit of an understatement, given that this pesky physics conspires to put limits. Things like the limited EM frequency spectrum one can use or the speed of light.
Bottom line, one wonders if "real competition" isn't as an utopian construct as the limitless exponential grow.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:07AM
We just need an infinite number of contract-enforcing turtles. That would let us have real competition.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:18AM (9 children)
Wireless ain't broadband. Wireless is shit. Long live copper.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:48AM (1 child)
What about fiber? And not the kind in your colon.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 02 2018, @10:45AM
Don't be telling me what I can put in my colon, you something-or-other-phobe!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MostCynical on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:50AM (2 children)
Australia is tearing up all the copper, and replacing it with (some) fibre.
5G just might end up maiking the crappy hybrid/not-really-fibre-NBN redundant [whistleout.com.au]..
Or maybe not [canstarblue.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:57AM (1 child)
5G might reach 20 Gbps. At really short ranges. Probably some fiber should connect the 5G base stations to the Internet. And can a single station serve an entire neighborhood at that speed or just a single house?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Sunday September 02 2018, @03:39AM
Hard to tell how close to "real world" conditins they used, but this suggests it will be fast fro the neighbourhood, not just one house..
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/25/17046346/qualcomm-simulated-5g-tests-san-francisco-frankfurt-mwc-2018 [theverge.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @03:56AM (2 children)
Neither copper nor optical fibre can carry an unlimited bandwidth.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 02 2018, @10:47AM
They don't need to. Computers can't process unlimited data. They just need to keep up with the demand.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 02 2018, @04:40PM
Relevance? Nothing can, nothing every will be able to carry "unlimited" bandwidth. So - if a 1g fiber isn't good enough, maybe you can run five fibers? And, if you create something new that just blows away fiber, you'll still have a limit - albeit, much higher than fiber.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting on something faster than 2meg ADSL.
(Score: 2) by EETech1 on Monday September 03 2018, @06:48AM
You misspelled fiber!
(Score: 5, Informative) by martyb on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:20AM
It is a bit of a problem these days because of how the major ISPs have split up the territory so they do not have to compete with each other.
Sure, there are some places with multiple high speed data providers, but the majority of folk in the USA have at *best* a single cable or fiber provider, maybe a much slower DSL option, and then there's mobile (major data caps) and satellite (high latency).
There was a time in the late 90's where one had a choice of multiple DSL providers. They competed on the basis of reliability of service, customer service, price, etc.
Then the local telcos were freed from the requirement to make their lines available at fair and reasonable rates to all interested parties and you ended up with what we have now.
Just require local loop unbundling; let the cable or Telco charge for the line, and let different ISPs compete on features and price, and things would be very different.
But, with the current administration and head of the FCC, that is not likely to happen any time soon.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @01:51PM
Competition is possible if the last mile is publicly owned and exclusivity contracts are banned. Then, ISPs would have to compete on quality of service and price.
That still doesn't mean that net neutrality shouldn't exist, though, regardless of how much competition there might be.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 02 2018, @04:42AM (7 children)
If wishes were horses then every man would ride.
The fact is we have nothing like a healthy market for broadband, and we're not likely to any time soon. We can't even use the decidedly not free market approach of exclusive franchise to make it economical for a second provider to move in. That trick only works once.
So failing that, net neutrality is probably the best we can do It offers the most freedom for the most people. It's not like the beneficiaries of the exclusive arrangements were ever given any reason to believe they wouldn't be regulated. They signed up knowing regulation was going to be there.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 02 2018, @11:11AM (6 children)
No, the best would be to legally enforce separation of ownership of infrastructure from providing services and to legally prohibit exclusive or quasi-exclusive deals for access to said infrastructure. There's a good argument to be made for infrastructure to be treated as a utility in that situation but the need to regulate ISPs would pretty much disappear.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @12:51PM
sorry I can't mod you up for this -- and I'm surprised this point isn't getting more emphasis from the community.
I'd *love* to end up with a situation where "last mile" internet is treated as a utility, same as electricity distribution. One could then pick a layer-3-and-up ISP from there same as one can pick an electricity *generation* company (wind, solar, coal, whatever you feel like optimizing for). The last mile "utility" doesn't get to force that latter choice upon you.
What are the chances this will ever come to pass in our good ol' US of A ?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:37PM (1 child)
You know things are bad when even Buzzy is advocating a governmental solution
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 03 2018, @04:19AM
Nah, you're just thinking too narrowly. Every dollar the government gets as profit on that infrastructure creation/upkeep/improvement is a dollar they can't justify taking at gunpoint. See, I recognize the need for extremely limited government involvement in the lives of its citizens but I also recognize the absolute certainty of abuse and mismanagement. This is why I prefer power to collect at a local level rather than a national level. If they fuck you around too much at a local level, you move. Moving from one town to another is not a great hardship even if it is a pain in the ass. If enough people move, they lose their power.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 02 2018, @04:46PM
I hear "dumb pipes" and "utility". And, that's exactly how it should be. Tax money paid for much of the existing infrastructure, and tax money paid for the infrastructure that the bastards didn't bother to build. Tax payers should benefit from it, not the corporations. If there is to be monopoly, then run it just like they run sewer and water, or the electric coops.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday September 02 2018, @05:02PM (1 child)
I would favor that sort of approach, but as strong as the resistance is to net neutrality, the resistance to the last mile as a utility is at least an order of magnitude louder. Hence my comment about wishes and horses.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 03 2018, @04:21AM
Yeah, I'm giving the proper solution not the easy one.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @04:44AM
It's more than "a bit difficult". It's literally impossible given the money behind the bad actors and the fact that there really aren't any good actors to speak of. In an actual free competitive market a good actor would not be able to start up either because the bad actors will make sure they go bankrupt before they can become a threat.
And as such, net neutrality is the only viable solution. And we can see how the bad actors are responding to that at every turn.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday September 02 2018, @10:30AM (1 child)
Real competition.
Damn, that would be nice.
We had four providers in our area. I cut Comcast eight years ago. One was much slower than advertised, they said due to the 'wiring' in our neighborhood even though that wasn't an issue with any other ADSL, the next gave me three modems in seven days that all were defective. Both of those have gone out of business and I can't even recall their names. Anyway ended up with CenturyLink for seven an a half years. Their last billing cycle had an increase that put them within seven dollars of Xfinity at 25mbps compared to 250mbps.
Fuck.
I'm back with Comcast (Xfinity anyway, rebranding again, at least I don't have to say I went back to Cox....).
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 02 2018, @11:28AM
If it's the ultimate goal, why not start working towards it instead of doing duct tape and baling wire fixes? Accepting fucked-up-ed-ness only ensures it's going to continue.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday September 02 2018, @12:50AM (11 children)
Really? "Impose what you want outside, but on territory of the state of California you don't throttle or discriminate on bandwidth price based on origin" is interstate commerce?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 02 2018, @01:54AM (10 children)
Arguably, yes. The Internet by its very nature is interstate, so selling access to it could be considered interstate commerce. I don't personally buy that reasoning but it's definitely going to be used.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:10AM (1 child)
Equally arguable, no: internet may be galaxy-wide, but you are still selling access to it locally. So internet access could be considered a state-local service.
As a self-declared sorta-libertarian, aren't you on the side of states self-determination? Why do you want feds sticking their grubby fingers into state affairs? (GRIN)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:19AM
I don't. I was just enumerating one of the arguments that will be made.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:10AM (7 children)
It wouldn't even be surprising. These are the same courts that brought us the notion that selling/using drugs entirely within a single state is interstate commerce because it could, theoretically, affect interstate commerce.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PapayaSF on Sunday September 02 2018, @03:06AM (6 children)
It's long-established law. In the breath-taking decision Wickard v. Filburn [wikipedia.org] (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer growing wheat to feed his own livestock had an effect on interstate commerce, and thus could be regulated.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday September 02 2018, @03:32AM (3 children)
In that case, the Supreme Court added a word into the Interstate Commerce clause: "affects".
You and I may not be able to find it there, but somehow the Justices were able to. Real judicial activism in action.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 02 2018, @04:24AM (2 children)
"Judicial activism" is inevitable. After all, once the Supreme Court lays down their interpretation, there is no method of appeal. That's the law of the land until the Constitution is amended or another configuration of the Court produces a new interpretation. Or the entire system is crushed.
Which is why the matter of who gets to choose new Supreme Court Justices is such a big deal.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:06PM (1 child)
It's a shame that they can try to overthrow our constitutional form of government and get away with it with no punishment. Too bad Congress and the president can do the same thing.
It's a shame we have a horrendous two party system that encourages people to choose between two evil, corrupt, authoritarian scumbags. I can't imagine how that will result in evil, corrupt, authoritarian Supreme Court Justices.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:17PM
Checks and balances, or evil feedback loop?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:45PM (1 child)
To summarize Wickard v. Filburn. If you cut a fart, it may call on somebody to use air freshener. And should they do that, that air freshener might have been sold across state lines. Thus your fart, is infringing on the federal governments right to regulate interstate commerce. Therefore farts are a crime against the federal government.
There is pretty much no consumer behavior that isn't a crime under Wickard v. Filburn.
It would be interesting to see the FCC try and go down that road in front of SCOTUS. Hell that should be a live streaming event.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:33PM
Not exactly...the fart isn't a crime, it's just something that the federal government claims a right to regulate. So it *could be* a crime if Congress wanted it to be, but until they pass such a law it is not.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:22PM
What's co-location got to do with net neutrality?
The reason for co-location is for speed and for lower bandwidth bills. Sure, it's great for AT&T to be able to say free Netflix for AT&T customers because they've got Netflix caches at the local level...but it's great for Netflix even if AT&T *doesn't* make that offer. First, it reduces latency. It would probably be a lot cheaper for Netflix to move their entire datacenter to friggin' Siberia for the free A/C, but if it causes the service quality to go to shit and subscribers start dropping then it doesn't matter. Secondly, Netflix doesn't give a shit about YOUR bandwidth bill, they care about their own. Nothing about this law says you can't charge per gigabyte, so Netflix still has to pay extra for that inbound traffic if it's crossing different networks. THAT is where co-location saves money. It's got nothing to do with how much traffic you download from Netflix; it's about how much traffic Netflix is uploading to you. And it doesn't matter if they can't discriminate on the type of traffic because Netflix is pretty much only sending out one type of traffic. You act like ISPs now just have to carry traffic from anywhere to anywhere free of charge regardless of what that data is or how much of it there is...and that's just not how any of this works. They still charge connection and usage fees at both ends (and often in between.)