Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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essentially restore the net neutrality rules enacted federally under former President Barack Obama, which were later repealed by the Federal Communications Commission under the watch and guidance of current chairman Ajit Pai.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This discussion has been archived.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, @02:37PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02 2018, @02:37PM (#729525)

    the best would be to legally enforce separation (emphasis mine) of ownership of infrastructure from providing services and to legally prohibit (emphasis mine) exclusive or quasi-exclusive deals for access to said infrastructure.

    You know things are bad when even Buzzy is advocating a governmental solution

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

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 03 2018, @04:19AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday September 03 2018, @04:19AM (#729746) Homepage Journal

    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.