SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
California gov. signs nation's strictest net neutrality rules into law:
California Governor Jerry Brown today signed net neutrality legislation into law, setting up a legal showdown pitting his state against Internet service providers and the Federal Communications Commission.
The California net neutrality bill, previously approved by the state Assembly and Senate despite protests from AT&T and cable lobbyists, imposes rules similar to those previously enforced by the FCC.
"While the Trump administration does everything in its power to undermine our democracy, we in California will continue to do what's right for our residents," California State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), author of the net neutrality bill, said today.
California's legal authority to impose its own net neutrality rules will be tested in court. The FCC's recent repeal of federal rules said that states aren't allowed to impose net neutrality rules, and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai called California's net neutrality bill "illegal."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday October 01 2018, @11:37AM (9 children)
if you feel I was wrong, detail what you meant by: "Californians can keep their Nanny State."
In the current form, you seem to dismiss that the California state can have a winning idea just because they are a governance entity and not an economy-related one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @02:34PM (7 children)
The thrust of the OP is that California can do its own batshit crazy stuff all it wants, and that it shouldn't be so arrogant as to compare its decisions to the national governance.
It means "Thank goodness California has borders." The rest of us are free from their unproven ideas or fears; in my state, free markets don't cause cancer.
God. Review your thought processes, c0lo—you're not having a conversation with the OP; you're have a conversation with some thing in your brain.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @04:30PM (4 children)
In my state free markets aren't subsidized by the state, nor are free markets given near-exclusive monopolies to geographic areas with competition being ruled out by executive action, nor do free markets have central banking which sets interest rates which affect the money flow supply because that also interferes with the natural supply-demand process, nor would there be tariffs or taxes upon the marketplace. You, the state of being logical... because there isn't anywhere in the world that can truly have a completely free market. Because actual markets must serve interests (corporate, consumer, governmental or all) and not exist as thought experiments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @04:58PM (3 children)
Clearly, Net Neutrality is not a step towards reducing the problems you pointed out.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @09:50PM (2 children)
Gosh, that man you made is so nicely filled with straw!
I never said net neutrality was a step towards reducing those problems. I said that the markets are not free. Thus any appeal that suggests that we need net neturality enforcement becuase "free markets" is fallacious from the beginning.
To the contrary: Because the markets are not free, and should not be free for essential telecom that should not be doled out based on who pays the most, means net neutrality should exist.
Clear enough, now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @09:52PM
Correction... that we do *not* need net neutrality because "free markets" is fallacious, sorry. OTOH I shouldn't have had to explain it in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @11:46PM
Your comment is stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @04:40PM
The crazy one here is you, and the only support you will get is from your cali hatred. Good platform braaaaaah.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @04:54PM
Please, do the right thing. Mode that comment back up.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:40AM
California may have a winning idea now and then, but long experience taught me that very seldom is any CA legislation in the people's interest; rather, it's typically at the behest and for the benefit of some special interest.
But give this one a few years, and see how CA's notions of "Net Neutrality" work out. Meanwhile, please don't export your unproven methods to the rest of us. Very little of what gets passed in the CA state legislature is entirely what it says on the tin.
[reads bill]
"It would also prohibit fixed and mobile Internet service providers from offering or providing services other than broadband Internet access service that are delivered over the same last-mile connection as the broadband Internet access service, if those services have the purpose or effect of evading the above-described prohibitions or negatively affect the performance of broadband Internet access service."
Hmm. This strikes me as a sneaky form of non-compete clause, and quite possibly the real meat of the bill.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.