Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government United States

'Gold Standard' State Net Neutrality Bill Approved By California Assembly (arstechnica.com) 126

Posted by BeauHD from the in-the-works dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: California's state Assembly yesterday approved a strict net neutrality bill despite opposition from the telecom industry. California's Senate already approved an earlier version of the bill in May. But some minor changes were made in the Assembly, so the Senate must vote on the bill again today before going into recess. If the Senate approves, California Governor Jerry Brown would have until September 30 to sign the bill into law. The bill would prohibit Internet service providers from blocking or throttling lawful traffic, and from requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers. The bill also imposes limits on data cap exemptions (so-called "zero-rating") and says that ISPs may not attempt to evade net neutrality protections by slowing down traffic at network interconnection points. Yesterday's Assembly vote was 61-18. All 55 Democratic members of the Assembly and six Republicans voted for the bill. All 18 votes against it came from Republicans. "ISPs have tried hard to gut and kill this bill, pouring money and robocalls into California," Electronic Frontier Foundation Policy Analyst Katharine Trendacosta said. "California could pass a gold standard net neutrality bill, providing a template for states going forward. California can prove that ISP money can't defeat real people's voices."

UPDATE: The state Senate approved the bill 23-11. It's now headed to California Gov. Jerry Brown's desk, where he's expected to sign the legislation since it has garnered the support of top state Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Kamala Harris.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Gold Standard' State Net Neutrality Bill Approved By California Assembly More

'Gold Standard' State Net Neutrality Bill Approved By California Assembly

Comments Filter:

  • in other news... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ole_timer ( 4293573 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @04:27PM (#57234022)
    ISPs plan to raise prices across the board to pay for neutrality...

    • Re:in other news... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sjames ( 1099 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @04:31PM (#57234040) Homepage Journal

      You mean out of pure spite. I notice prices didn't fall even an iota when the FCC killed it.

    • Re: in other news... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tanman ( 90298 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @04:32PM (#57234048)

      A non-neutral internet is just like a curved-screen television: it's an invention whose only purpose is to generate money for the creator without providing any actual service or improvement, while providing noticeable cases where it detracts from the original experience.

      • both are just cost shifting...prices always go up...you either pay directly or indirectly to netfix verizon comcast etc...

        • Re: in other news... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Friday August 31, 2018 @05:07PM (#57234206) Journal

          That's absolutely untrue, and in any case is simply acceding all power to some faceless corporation. You are basically saying service providers experience no market forces and can set their prices arbitrarily high. As counterexample, let me introduce you to the Internet in the rest of the developed world. Plenty of countries (but not all) have lower prices and faster speeds than we do here in America. We just let our ISPs directly dictate policy to our government, and engage in other non market based shenanigans.

          ISPs can accept lower profits if they want to stay in the game. We have the power to force them to do that.

          • let me know how that works out...

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by spun ( 1352 )

              Just looking at countries that already have net neutrality laws and cheaper, faster Internet service, we can already tell it works fantastically well. Why would it be any different here?

              • they are not cheaper and faster because of net neutrality...that's a fantasy

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by sjames ( 1099 )

                  But they are cheaper, faster, and net neutral. So it must be possible.

                  • cheaper and faster is possible, it's just not due to neutrality...

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by spun ( 1352 )

                      But it is possible to have cheaper, faster Internet with net neutrality. So how does it happen? You say it can't happen, but it has happened, multiple times, in multiple countries.

                    • i never said you can't - it's just not due to neutrality

                • Actually, they are. Network neutrality, aka telecoms is telecoms whether data or voice, allows engineers to focus on service rather than politics.

                  • and their service is...revenue optimization...aka price rises

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by spun ( 1352 )

                      But it hasn't. You just keep making counter factual assertions. The rest of the developed world has cheaper, faster Internet, with net neutrality. Your pro-free market, anti-regulation theory says that is not possible. So something in your theory must be wrong, because you keep making incorrect conclusions.

                    • i'm not saying that at all - the reason they have cheaper internet has to do with infrastructure and other issues, not neutrality...

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by spun ( 1352 )

                      Look, there are two possibilities. One, we can have cheap Internet with net neutrality jut like the rest of the developed world, or two: we are failures who can't do what other countries can do.But honestly, it sounds like your issue is not with the expense, but with net neutrality regulations themselves. You don't want them, the expense was just the excuse,

                    • more or less - net neutrality by itself does not reduce cost. idiots who pay the inflated costs have more to do with the prices we pay. there's some sunk infrastructure costs, and there's meddling of the local public utility commission, and local government exclusive contracts are also involved. who you vote for locally makes a big difference.

    • Let them. Maybe that will encourage people to seek out ISPs that don't treat their customers like dirt.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Teun ( 17872 )
        As if you Americans have so much choice...
        Remember it's only a few days ago news came the regulator already sees competition when the next connection is half a mile away.
      • why does 10mb cost $80 in Alaska - but $80 a month buys 150 in Virginia on FIOS?

  • This is what you get (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @04:44PM (#57234104)

    ... when you have your lap-dog Pai overturn federal net neutrality rules. 50 different rules. And California taking the lead in writing them.

    Happy now, idiots?

    • That is what most Republicans would prefer. The thinking is that each individual state can better identify what's best for them instead of having the Federal Government decide for them. Not all states will adapt net neutrality policies but those that do will give us a variety of different policies with varying amounts of effectiveness. The good news is that all this makes it more difficult for ISP's to capitalize on internet traffic.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mentil ( 1748130 )

        That explains why California's Republicans voted for the bill. Oh, wait...

      • It makes it easier. Nothing stops ISPs deciding what rules they like and making sure to lower the weights for connections through suitable States.

        Someone allows metered connections? Great! Divert traffic through there.

        Someone allows redirection and Microsoft want to pay extra? Bounce through there, change Google endpoint to Bing.

        All perfectly legal, as the laws don't involve router tables and the changes are made where it's ok to make them.

      • So then why did Pai's NN repeal contain the part banning states from enacting their own rules? And I sure didn't hear any opposition to that provision from the right. Then there's Blackburn introducing her fake NN bill to set a rule for the whole country, which is actually the solution I keep hearing from the right -- that it should be a Congressional action instead of a regulatory action (but only becuase they're in power and expect to be able to pass, if anything does get passed, a bill containing so many

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dhawton ( 691348 )
      Except, the Constitution doesn't permit the federal government making the rules to begin with, let alone the executive branch making what is effectively unilateral legislation. So, yes. Someone in the federal government followed the rules for the first time in decades.
  • at the Federal Level? The Republican party has signaled they view Net Neutrality as an unnecessary and at times dangerous regulation. We can debate whether they're right or not, but their stance cannot be denied. And they're currently in charge of all three branches of Government. There's already been some bills proposed that would preempt the California one with weaker and largely meaningless controls. Baring a change during the Mid Terms those will pass.

    I don't mind seeing CA doing this, I just don't

    • It'll be interesting to see how they react if a lot of states other than California actually pick this up. Before now, their entire argument has hinged on placating naysayers by claiming that they would indeed leave it up to States' rights.

    • I don't mind seeing CA doing this, I just don't think it will matter. Not unless there's a big change in our country's politics...

      Stay tuned. There's a big change coming.

      California represents 1/8th of the US population and the biggest economy in the country. Our laws are more likely to become your laws than the other way around. Let the feds do what they want, we'll still go our own way.

      • Re:Won't this just get overridden (Score:4, Interesting)

        by BlueStrat ( 756137 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @05:21PM (#57234260)

        California represents 1/8th of the US population and the biggest economy in the country. Our laws are more likely to become your laws than the other way around. Let the feds do what they want, we'll still go our own way.

        Nope.

        The Federal Supremacy Clause.

        The modern (since Wickard vs Filburn) interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

        Not going to happen unless you can convince the Feds led by Trump and the courts which are seeing more (R)-nominated Federal Judges seated almost every week. Good luck with that one.

        Strat

        • Re:Won't this just get overridden (Score:5, Interesting)

          by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @05:41PM (#57234356) Journal

          The Federal Supremacy Clause.

          Good luck with that. It hasn't worked so far. Don't like our legal weed? Too bad. Don't like our sanctuary cities? Suck it, you mumbling little elf. Misspelled tweets don't have the force of law here in California. And, we have that little thing called the 10th Amendment on our side. It's funny how right-wing jackoffs are all about states' rights until a state does something that goes against their god-emperor Trump.

          Not going to happen unless you can convince the Feds led by Trump

          Trump is closer to the end of his presidency than he is to the beginning. The backlash is going to be something to behold.

          • Remember all this the next time Democrats control Washington. You will flip your philosophy faster than a steamed White Castle, and shout the joys of federal enforcement and regulation trumping states doing what they want.

            Both you, and who you responded to, fancy yourselves the real deal, but you are botb part of the problem.

            • Both sides flip back and forth on states rights whenever politically convenient. Stop thinking this is a right/left issue, they both like or don't like states rights depending on the issue and which way the wind is blowing.

          • Trump is closer to the end of his presidency than he is to the beginning.

            That's optimism.

        • The Federal Supremacy Clause.

          Generally, the States can write laws that are more strict than the Federal law. They can write laws so that State laws don't apply to the actions of the US Government, but those laws still apply to everybody else just fine. For example, the Forest Service doesn't need to get permission from the State, such as local permitting, to build roads and stuff in their forest. They have their own federal land use laws to regulate that.

          There are severe limits to what the US Government can prevent the States from regu

      • but our government is specifically structured to limit your influence and increase the influence of rural voters. That's why we have a Senate and why we have an Electoral College...

        • Re:I sure hope so (Score:4, Insightful)

          by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @06:17PM (#57234548) Journal

          but our government is specifically structured to limit your influence and increase the influence of rural voters.

          We got rural voters. Urban voters. Black voters, white voters, brown voters and every kind of voter.

          That's why we have a Senate and why we have an Electoral College...

          Speaking of electoral votes, we got more of them than any other state. We have more electoral votes than Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia put together.

          Face it, without California, the United States might as well be Brazil or Mexico. We're the straw that stirs the drink. We're the state that everyone writes songs about. Other states aspire to be us. You hear all kinds of places saying that they're the "new Silicon Valley". You don't hear them say "We're the new West Virginia" or, "We're the new Indiana".

          • Face it, without California, the United States might as well be Brazil or Mexico. We're the straw that stirs the drink. We're the state that everyone writes songs about.

            Well, there is Texas Flood...

            • Well, there is Texas Flood...

              True, there are a lot of songs about Texas, I wrote about them extensively in my music blog during the year I lived there. But they're all written by Texans, and they're not always complimentary of the state. On the other hand, most of the songs about California are from people wishing they were here instead of whatever shithole they happen to be in.

              In fact, now you got me thinking. Here's a song by one of Texas' most famous psychedelic bands. It's their most famous song and

          • Speaking of electoral votes, we got more of them than any other state. We have more electoral votes than Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia put together.

            But because your population is so high, you have a lot more voters per elector than more rural states, so in effect your vote counts for less than someone in one of them. It's high time to reform that, just because urban voters want different things is no reason to make their vote count for less (and boy are the city folk unhappy being forced to live under what the low density states want). It's not right that because you live in a city your vote counts for less. Everyone should have an equal say from LA to

          • We have more electoral votes than Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia put together.

            California has 55 electoral votes. Texas has 38 electoral votes. Oklahoma has 7 electoral votes. Arkansas has 11 electoral votes. Indiana has 11 electoral votes. Kentucky has 8 electoral votes. West Virginia has 5 electoral votes. That's 55 electoral votes to 133. California has less than half of the electoral votes of the states you listed.

    • Ah the party of states rights leans the opposite way when they're in charge at the federal level, who could have guessed!

    • at the Federal Level?

      Unlikely. The FCC overturned NN at the federal level, but the FCC can't override state law without a legal mandate. That would require Congress to pass legislation, which would need 60 votes in the Senate to override a certain filibuster.

      There are currently 51 Republicans in the Senate, and some of them may vote against any federal override, either because they support NN, or on the principle of states-rights.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        >Unlikely. The FCC overturned NN at the federal level, but the FCC can't override state law without a legal mandate. That would require Congress to pass legislation,

        They already did that, dumb ass. You know, when that time they passed legislation creating the FCC to begin with.

  • to paper insulated wireline and new gov regulations to enforce everyone getting the same NN.

  • Several states have passed laws or regulations that have the same effect, but which are pretty much immune to the inevitable lawsuits -- Just ruling that the state will not do business with companies that are non-neutral.

    California could have gone this way. But no. They pass a net neutrality law which is very likely going to lose to legal challenges, after a huge expense in court.

  • I predicted this would happen [slashdot.org] when /. ran a clickbait headline about how the chair of the Assembly telecom committee "killed" the original bill by unilaterally approving telecom-authored amendments to it before it went to the Assembly floor for a vote.

    Obviously, he did nothing of the kind. Instead, all of the bought-and-paid-for telecom industry amendments went bye-bye in the process of the bill making its way through the Assembly, then the Senate, then reconcilliation, just as I said they would.

    That's the

  • The devil is in the details (Score:3)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Friday August 31, 2018 @06:41PM (#57234644)

    Has anyone reporting on this actually read the entire text? I'll bet not.
    Regardless, the ISPs aren't going to bend over an deliver gigabit internet to everyone. They will most likely not upgrade performance or even universally degrade performance. With most places having two or even one ISP, there's no competitive financial incentive to make the service universally better.

  • So, it is also setting making it possible to define "unlawful traffic", and require ISPs to block it in the future. Unlawful traffic like streaming.

  • I seldom have anything good to say about that hyper-liberal state, but here they are correct. If net neutrality goes, expect the telecoms to skim the profit off of every single internet company that exists while doing nothing themselves. The ultimate rent-seekers.

  • Two party state and both parties are scumbags, not much you can do with first past the post when everybody votes for the one of the top two that they like the least and nobody can be bothered to think for themselves and prefers to have newspapers, TV and the internet do their thinking for them.

  • Funny how this net neutrality gives the usual suspects the playing field to monopolize the net in the name of freedom. But it makes sense for California to accommodate an industry that can't move faster out of the failing state.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close