Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Saturday September 01 2018, @11:45PM   Printer-friendly
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essentially restore the net neutrality rules enacted federally under former President Barack Obama, which were later repealed by the Federal Communications Commission under the watch and guidance of current chairman Ajit Pai.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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:10AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:10AM (#729388)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by PapayaSF on Sunday September 02 2018, @03:06AM (6 children)

    by PapayaSF (1183) on Sunday September 02 2018, @03:06AM (#729407)

    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)

      by Whoever (4524) on Sunday September 02 2018, @03:32AM (#729410) Journal

      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)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday September 02 2018, @04:24AM (#729418) Journal

        "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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:06PM (#729513)

          After all, once the Supreme Court lays down their interpretation, there is no method of appeal.

          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.

          Which is why the matter of who gets to choose new Supreme Court Justices is such a big deal.

          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: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:45PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:45PM (#729530)

      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

        by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:33PM (#730258) Journal

        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.

        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.