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."
Related Stories
Submitted via IRC for chromas
The Trump administration is suing California to quash its new net neutrality law
The Trump administration said Sunday it will sue California in an effort to block what some experts have described as the toughest net neutrality law ever enacted in the United States, setting up a high-stakes legal showdown over the future of the Internet.
California on Sunday became the largest state to adopt its own rules requiring Internet providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to treat all web traffic equally. Golden State legislators took the step of writing their law after the Federal Communications Commission scrapped nationwide protections last year, citing the regulatory burdens they had caused for the telecom industry.
Mere hours after California's proposal became law, however, senior Justice Department officials told The Washington Post they would take the state to court on grounds that the federal government, not state leaders, has the exclusive power to regulate net neutrality. DOJ officials stressed the FCC had been granted such authority from Congress to ensure that all 50 states don't seek to write their own, potentially conflicting, rules governing the web.
Also at Ars Technica, TechDirt, and Politico.
Previously: California Gov. Signs Nation’s Strictest Net Neutrality Rules Into Law
The Federal Communications Commission has scheduled an April 25 vote to restore net neutrality rules similar to the ones introduced during the Obama era and repealed under former President Trump.
"After the prior administration abdicated authority over broadband services, the FCC has been handcuffed from acting to fully secure broadband networks, protect consumer data, and ensure the Internet remains fast, open, and fair," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said today. "A return to the FCC's overwhelmingly popular and court-approved standard of net neutrality will allow the agency to serve once again as a strong consumer advocate of an open Internet."
[...]
In a filing with the FCC, Turner wrote that "ISPs have been incredibly bullish about the future of their businesses precisely because of the network investments they are making" and that the companies rarely, if ever, mention the impact of FCC regulation during calls with investors."We believe that the ISPs' own words to their shareholders, and to industry analysts through channels governed by the SEC, should be afforded significantly more weight than evidence-free tropes, vague threats, dubious aggregate capital expenditure tallies, or nonsensical math jargon foisted on the Commission this docket or elsewhere," Turner wrote.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @09:33AM (15 children)
... 50 separate laboratories of innovation.
Actually, no. That doesn't say "democracy" at all. Rather, that says "Capitalism".
May the best ideas win and thereby be adopted voluntarily of their own accord.
Californians can keep their Nanny State.
(Score: 5, Touché) by c0lo on Monday October 01 2018, @09:37AM (12 children)
Yeah, because a government is in no way a possible source of inventions.
By definition, only companies (or capitalistic economic entities) may invent.
You know it makes sense.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @10:53AM (10 children)
Come on, man. Logical fallacies are boring.
(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.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Monday October 01 2018, @04:29PM
Yeah, because a government is in no way a possible source of inventions.
There's no way the government could invent something like the internet!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Monday October 01 2018, @06:56PM
Not really. The capitalist fucks are exactly why the FCC is claiming this move by CA is illegal. Because it's harder to turn a profit when you've got 50 different sets of rules to obey. But the regulations that work best in New York City aren't necessarily going to be so useful in Perryville Alaska.
There's nothing "democratic" about having someone a thousand miles away making your decisions for you. A thousand individual "laboratories of innovation" could be more democratic than 50, but there is also a minimum workable size to these things so you've got to strike the right balance. Particularly when you've got a layered system like the US -- the states do need to be large enough to fight off the feds occasionally. Although our system has also grown so incestuous that such things aren't happening nearly as often as they should. Although part of the problem may simply be that the feds had too much power to begin with. States aren't used to working together, if they can't do it themselves they just expect the feds to solve it, which takes power out of all of our hands every time they do it...
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday October 01 2018, @11:05PM
You should hope California does keep their nanny state. It funds all those Republican hellholes.
Have a look at this, then tell me I'm wrong. [wallethub.com]
I know you will.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Monday October 01 2018, @11:30AM (1 child)
Guess they can't do everything wrong. :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @12:57PM
Give them a break - they're [townhall.com] trying [townhall.com]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday October 01 2018, @11:55AM (3 children)
So, how long until the FCC vs California court case?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 01 2018, @05:24PM
Starting soon, then appealed at snail's pace until the democrats get to name at least two SCOTUS members.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @08:22PM
That depends. How long does it take to parallel construct a case involving a couple of tarts and a politician in California?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @07:17AM
Not FCC, but: [techdirt.com]
"Within hours of Brown's signing the bill, the Department of Justice announced it would be suing California"
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @02:47PM (2 children)
It is the tightest piece of legislation on telecom I've ever seen. Really quite an achievement, and something that all the parties involved should be proud of. Other states would do well to just ditto the damn thing.
Bells should ring across the land for this effort, and people should be volunteering en mass to run Ajit Pai out of town on a rail.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday October 01 2018, @05:30PM
Not me. Getting a nice ride on a smooth rail ?
I'll volunteer to run him out of a cactus.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday October 02 2018, @02:42AM
I'm fairly amazed that it doesn't appear to have suffered the usual bouts of gut-and-amend...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @03:14PM (4 children)
are fools.
This was a victory for CA, the American people and constitional democracy. Scott is being adversarial to a lot of people who probably don't have an opinion, which is a good way to make enemies. Apparently he thinks the DNC has enough muscle to get away with being a wise ass? I haven't seen that to be the case. By casual observation of license plates on a day to day basis, I'd say there has been a dramatic increase in the number of tea party members over the past few years in my battleground state.
I totally support CA on this issue. I will support this issue in my state. But while I used to be a Democrat, after the last DNC primary I will not vote for the angry beaver party ever again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @03:34PM (3 children)
The right way to handle net neutrality is to dismantle government-protected monopolies on telecommunications.
Not every byte is the same; engineers understand this, but power-grabbing politicians and their useful idiots do not.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @04:35PM (2 children)
There are bytes with less than or more than eight bits? Do tell!
And those regulations on telcom have nothing to do with making sure everybody gets equal access to the telcom system because society demanded equal access to all and not just those who can pay?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @04:52PM
That's why the C standard defines a byte as having CHAR_BIT bits, where CHAR_BIT is at least 8, but could be more; historically, there have been architectures where a byte is not 8 bits (some less; some more).
Indeed, in networking (which is what we're talking about), the literature speaks of octets, not bytes, and it does so for this very reason.
Anyway, for any given allocation of resources, somebody has to pay; there is no such thing as a free lunch.
History has shown quite clearly that voluntary trade is the best way to allocate resources in the long-run; that's because it taps into the process of evolution by variation (e.g., supplier competition) and selection (e.g., consumer choice), and it does so in a way that maximizes not only each of these subprocesses (variation or selection) but also individual freedom.
Taxation is just a vestigial remnant of humanity's much more authoritarian and much more logistically stupid pedigree.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @08:16PM
A big endian and a little endian walk into a bar. The big endian orders a beer. What does the little endian order? A reeb.
Yes, certainly they can be different, even without being different lengths. But I don't think that is what he meant.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Monday October 01 2018, @04:31PM (3 children)
Gotta love those Republican defenders of States Rights!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 01 2018, @04:58PM
Actually I think at least on this issue we are getting rather little of that hypocrisy. Just the one AC spewing nonsense.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 01 2018, @05:52PM
As with most political principles, whether somebody supports "states' rights" usually has everything to do with what they want to do and what the federal government wants to do.
The most extreme example of this I can think of is that in the late 1850's, the southern states were against states' rights because the northern states were often lackadaisical about enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. But by the 1870's, those very same states, and in many cases the very same people, were vigorously asserting states' rights as the reason why the federal government needed to leave them alone to implement Jim Crow laws, and also claiming that was the reason that they had fought against the federal government in the 1860's. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Mason-Dixon Line, the northern states were indeed asserting their states rights when it came to enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act and many other anti-abolitionist laws, but were a few years later a lot less interested in states rights after federal troops were patrolling downtown Atlanta.
This is all an extension of a useful political rule: If you want to understand what's going on, ignore what politicians say, and instead watch what they do.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday October 01 2018, @10:14PM
In a court: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/doj-sues-california-net-neutrality-854298
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves