Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Courts United States Your Rights Online

Entire Broadband Industry Sues California To Stop Net Neutrality Law (arstechnica.com) 293

Posted by msmash from the extreme-lengths dept.
Four lobby groups representing the broadband industry today sued California to stop the state's new net neutrality law. From a report: The lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of California by mobile industry lobby CTIA; cable industry lobby NCTA; telco lobby USTelecom; and the American Cable Association, which represents small and mid-size cable companies. Together, these four lobby groups represent all the biggest mobile and home Internet providers in the US and hundreds of smaller ISPs . Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile US, Sprint, Cox, Frontier, and CenturyLink are among the groups' members. "This case presents a classic example of unconstitutional state regulation," the complaint said. The California net neutrality law "was purposefully intended to countermand and undermine federal law by imposing on [broadband] the very same regulations that the Federal Communications Commission expressly repealed in its 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order." ISPs say the California law impermissibly regulates interstate commerce. "[I]t is impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders," the lobby groups' complaint said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Entire Broadband Industry Sues California To Stop Net Neutrality Law More

Entire Broadband Industry Sues California To Stop Net Neutrality Law

Comments Filter:

  • ha! that got their attention (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @12:51PM (#57418650)

    "hmm, it seems that california won't just take what was tell them to. maybe we didn't think this coup thru well enough. shit, what do we do now? this is getting more attention and we want to BURY this, not call MORE attention to it"

    yeah, good luck putting the genie back in the bottle. you angered some people and miscalculated how much you can get away with.

    now, if there is a most hated industry, the telecom is surely one of them.

    the fact that they are all 'angry' is a GOOD THING. when we piss off bad guys, they throw hissy fits, but its good to keep them in check. they need to be bitchslapped every now and then.

    ajit can EABOD. most punchable person in recent history (so they say).

    • Re:ha! that got their attention (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @01:01PM (#57418722)

      I actually hope California holds it grown and wins, then other states will all start their own Net-neutrality laws, each one slightly different. Enough for them to say. You know it would be much easier if we had a single rule to follow across all the state lines. Aka Net-neutrality.

      Currently I really don't know if I am getting for what I paid for from my ISP. Sure running speed tests says I am good. But are they just keeping the pipe open on the speed tests, but slowing other sites which I may need to do real work with?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 )

        I actually hope California holds it grown and wins, then other states will all start their own Net-neutrality laws, each one slightly different. Enough for them to say. You know it would be much easier if we had a single rule to follow across all the state lines. Aka Net-neutrality.

        Alas, the Federal Preemption Clause of the Constitution tends toward CA being in the wrong.

        That said, arguably the Feds don't actually have a law regulating the industry, so CA doing so in CA is perfectly legal.

        Which means, it

        • Bro, it's super clear.

          Were going to pass a law that we have no law about this and use that law to get rid of laws that regulate what we didn't make laws about.

        • Nope. Nope. Nope. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @02:25PM (#57419470)
          The Federal preemption clause applies only to LAWS and the FCC regulations are not laws. So preemption works only in limited cases like public safety or national security. Both are hard to argue.

          Don't believe me? Well, ask the Sixth Circuit: https://www.bna.com/sixth-circ... [bna.com]

        • The interesting question is: "Since the FCC said it doesn't have the authority to regulate broadband (Pai's rejection of Title II) can it prevent other government entities from doing so?"

          I would bet that they can't prevent states from making laws because they have essentially abandoned all authority over ISPs.

    • You know they'll win, right? And not because of corruption. That's what got net neutrality repealed in the first place, but they're completely correct in their assertion that California doesn't have the authority to do this.

      • California doesn't have the authority to do this.

        The authority to license businesses in California?

      • Re: ha! that got their attention (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @02:11PM (#57419354)

        California absolutely has the the right to do this within their own borders. The federal government foreclosed their ability to regulate this when they took away the title II regulation.

        Remember when the Obama FCC tried to implement net neutrality rules while keeping data services outside title II designation? Well the court ruling that struck down those rules found the FCC has no authority to regulate unless they declare the service a Title II service. So when the new Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation they removed all regulatory authority from themselves, so the little statement the FCC put in the rule that foreclosed all state action is actually as unenforceable as the the original net neutrality rules because the FCC doesn't have authority to regulate without a Title II deceleration.

        This is what that original court ruling laid out in minute detail. Congress granted the FCC authority to regulate, but ONLY when it's a title II service. Everyone warned the new FCC that when they removed the title II designation that they were in fact opening up to state level regulation. I have no doubt in my mind that California is going to win this and it's all cause the Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation.

    • I still think internet regulation is a federal issue and the courts are likely to think so to. The courts are pretty stacked with pro-corporation judges anyway. Guys like Gorsuch & Kavanaugh are going to side with the ISPs. Meanwhile our Senate and Electoral college means that California's voting power is heavily diluted (somebody in Montana has 46 times more voting power than a California voter). This is by design.

      Baring a sea change in American politics I think NN is dead. It's not an issue that

  • California must be doing something right ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @12:54PM (#57418668) Homepage

    in the field of consumer protection if they have succeeded in all those who provide a service to act against them. It is quite simple: they think that they will be able to make more money but cutting deals all over the place; but the legislators understand that this would favour the powerful/rich over the smaller operators (web sites/services) and make innovation (startups) harder.

  • History on one's side (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @12:55PM (#57418678) Journal

    Huh. Normally the right finds value in the several states experimenting with solutions, and the left high value in the interstate commerce clause to give supremacy to federal regulation, up to and including the "dormant commerce clause" rule, where if Congress considers then declines to regulate something, that implies said nothingness is the federal regulation to be imposed on the states, foreclosing any state level regulation contravening that which Congress chose not to regulate.

    It's almost as if each side is touting as important a political philosophy that helps them in this case, but the opposite in most other cases, and they are all power hungry hacks.

    Nah.

    • It's almost as if each side is touting as important a political philosophy that helps them in this case, but the opposite in most other cases, and they are all power hungry hacks.

      Nah.

      It's almost as if each side is touting as important a political philosophy that helps them in this case because they're adults who are capable of understanding that while adult problems are nuanced and multi-sided, political philosophies tend not to be, and that sometimes sticking to a party line doesn't make sense when it helps the children they're in charge of, even when those children are too dumb to understand that and would rather sit in the corner calling them "power hungry hacks".

    • States rights started out as a euphemism for continued segregation - these days it's always used as an excuse for "laws I don't like".

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @12:56PM (#57418684)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:let that be a lesson. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sir_Eptishous ( 873977 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @01:16PM (#57418868)

      it lays the groundwork to circumvent and resist their monopoly control without crossing the interstate commerce clause at the federal level.

      You nailed it right there.
      Scumbags like Pai the rest of his ilk will use everything at their disposal to stop this. They want media consolidation at any cost. They see a future where we the connectivity and the content are controlled by a few players, and everyone else is gone. It is almost there now.

  • Now all the rest of the states need to follow suit, but with different net neutrality laws for each state.

  • Makes me regret (Score:3)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @01:04PM (#57418748)

    not going to law school and passing the bar in California, because regardless of how long and hard fought this will be, the lawyers will make obscene amounts of money from both sides.

  • "[I]t is impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders,"

    All your stupid consumer habit trackers successfully do it and know what size underwear I buy and where I buy it.

  • People like; companies hate. We have a winner! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by torkus ( 1133985 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @01:07PM (#57418782)

    In the age of righteous indignation, you don't actually hear any people clamoring for the the removal of net neutrality. In fact, plenty of people want it back but the government doesn't listen (shocker).

    The fact that no *actual human beings* (which excludes politicians ofc) are opposed to the law in cali should tell you something. Add in how much corporations hate it and you have a winner here. Keep in mind these are the same corporations that did things like charge for SMS messages which used to be a free and rarely-used messaging subsystem built into cell phones. It literally cost them nothing and one day they decided to charge people enormous amounts of money (measured in $/MB) for basic data that didn't even take up bandwidth streams in their service.

    Or companies trying to impose data caps on broadband because they'd rather 'invest' their profits in dividends than upgrading their network to support their customers.

    Or...the list goes on.

    If telecom hates it and people like it, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a good law.

  • The last mile is in state. (Score:3)

    by John.Banister ( 1291556 ) * on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @01:11PM (#57418804) Homepage
    It isn't that hard for isp's to distinguish the last mile, or they couldn't throttle your service when they want more money.

    • The technical issue is that the bill requires no throttling of consumers in California, no matter where their data is traveling from. The last mile isn't hard, but if the site the user requests is hosted overseas, the ISP needs every switch it owns in the request & response chains to realise that that this is traffic is not legally allowed to be treated any different from any other traffic destined for California. So, either the packets need to be marked to indicate this, or an isolated net neutral (CA-

  • ..."Will someone please think of state's rights!!!"

  • and we know how well that worked for them. besides, the FCC deregulated the Internet, so they don't have jurisdiction over it any more. this is now the silo of the Federal Trade Commission if they care to blow their budget chasing the rabbit.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • This seems at odds with the idea of states rights to make laws MORE restrictive that those of the Federal Government. That's always been the way of things in the past.

    We're currently at odds with things like marijuana laws, the states making them LESS restrictive and the Federal Government going crazy over that idea, but we've never had them lose their minds over making MORE restrictive laws by state. So, why is this different?

    If we figure out why this is different, the same can be applied to California's

  • Disingenuous argument (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @01:41PM (#57419092)

    "[I]t is impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders,"

    The path of network traffic ought to be irrelevent. If you setup as a broadband provider Inside the state of California, then
    the transaction involving the purchase of Broadband service is between You and your customer who lives inside the state of California. The
    purchase of broadband services is an intrastate transaction, because you have to substantially exist within California to own or lease all the
    outside plant in California required to connect your customers.

    Because this is an intrastate transaction: the state of California has the right to regulate the quality of the goods you are selling;
    regardless of any 3rd party interstate transactions required for you to supply the goods.

    For example: The state can prohibit selling a product containing common additive X.
    This applies to all sellers with a presence in California selling goods to customers in California.
    As a Retailer or Service Provider it doesn't matter whether you buy the good from a local source or a wholesaler in-state
    --- you may be able to obtain the good through interstate commerce but be Disallowed from reselling the product in your local store:
    the interstate commerce transaction was separate, And the intrastate transaction must comply with the law.

    The Intrastate transaction is a company owning or leasing the right to physical In-the-Ground Telecoms cabling or Wireless towers
    mounted on the ground in the state of California connecting to a local customer to Offer broadband service (A service that in order
    to deliver may require the provider have purchased a number of Wholesale products for re-sale from different providers In and Out-of-state,
    BUT the Advertising and Sale of Broadband service is still between a company operating in California and a Customer operating in California).

    In the same way that California can charge a tax to UPS for originating the shipment of a package or prohibit UPS from discriminatorily refusing service to
    certain neighborhoods, despite the fact that UPS ships some packages out of state: If the Buyer of the service and UPS both have presence in the state, then there is an intrastate transaction subject to state authority involved.

    It is true that network traffic may leave the state, and California's regulations are likely unable to make "End to End" guarantee across remote out-of-state
    suppliers of no throttling ---
    However, that was never what "Broadband Network Neutrality" promises. Broadband Network Neutrality is about regulation of that last mile:
    that connection between the Consumer and Internet peering: No unequal prioritization based on application or competing business interests to obstruct usage of the last mile network to which the provider has a monopoly, for example: by prioritizing a partner, blocking or throttling access to a competitor, competing service, or unliked application or website, for censorship, to solicit a payment, or artificially make one service have poorer quality from the network.

    California can require that a company in their state build in-state broadband networks that do not throttle traffic while it is in that state and make all reasonable accommodation to ensure they deliver an ultimate product to the local consumer that has a certain quality (fairness)

  • They want Carte Blanche (Score:3)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @01:44PM (#57419114) Journal
    They want Carte Blanche to fuck everyone in the ass due to a totally unregulated industry.
    It's just like any company any one of you was working for that got bought out by some other company; first they say "We like the way everything is working, so rest assured we won't be changing anything". Then 3 months later the pull at least half the employees into a meeting room and fire them while their IT goons lock down their computers. So it'll be with the gods-be-damned broadband industry: "Oh well Net Neutrality is in our best interests, no worries!", then some months in the future they'll screw everyone over, set up their Walled Gardens, paid access levels, and so on.
    THANKS, TRUMP! Dx

  • Oh and by the way: FUCK YOU AJIT PAI (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @01:46PM (#57419128) Journal
    You son of a bitch, why won't you just fucking die?
    • I don't have any mod points today, take this as my +1, Insightful.
      • We need a hacker collective like the Everyone on Elementary to hack into Ajit Pai's life and see if he's got offshore accounts for all the kickback and bribery money he must be getting from the telecom industry.

  • Here is what you should look for. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2018 @01:48PM (#57419156)

    I haven't read the documents yet but from the looks of it the case is pressed purely on legalities of the act they don't like.

    What I really would like to see is if the state can force them to explain what is different about their business under the Act versus prior. In other words, once you clear all the "constitutional" arguments what the plaintiffs clearly want is to make more money and they think that the new law will stop them from doing that.

    From that you can see where they think that money will come from and how it will get to them. The plaintiffs clearly don't want to talk about this but I would be amazed if the state attorneys don't force them. (Objection! Relevance. Overruled.)

  • According to other news articles, there are 22 US states with some laws protecting Net Neutrality.

    California is just one.

  • ... as being against the better interests of its customers. Sounds like an industry that is just crying out for some significant competition, and not the token competition that is touted nowadays.
    • They should be treated as what they are: A regulated common carrier. If they want to control what goes over their networks, then they should be held responsible for everything that goes over their networks, that'll teach em.

  • Lets look at this from a logical perspective, and not the fu Pia and over regulation that.

    A large number of Telecom companies have file a lawsuit to stop what California is calling Net Neutrality. This will go to court, and if it's in the state of California, it will most likely lose. Home court advantage, and a lot of political sway.

    Appeal!! This will surely rise to the state supreme court, which again I believe this will be shot down. Same reasons as before.

    The real question is whether or not the US s

  • Transfer the US Internet back to the NSF. All of it. All fibre, all routers, all switches.

    The vendors don't give a shit about their customers, the laws or their employees. So a sensible, mature, rational society should do without the vendors.

  • Irony (Score:2)

    by kbdd ( 823155 )
    Funny how they sue even though they said they would apply net neutrality rules even without the regulation requiring it because it made good business sense:

    NCTA: “An open internet means that we do not block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity. We firmly stand by that commitment because it is good for our customers and good for our business.”

    https://www.consumerreports.or... [consumerreports.org]

  • Unless the other end of my dsl modem is in Nevada rather than at the end of the block, the entirety of the service I am paying for occurs within the state of California.
  • If all these ISP's just closed up all their offices in California and moved them all inland or to the east coast with a big middle finger to Jerry Brown? They could just say "we don't operate in California, screw your laws"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by msevior ( 145103 )

      If all these ISP's just closed up all their offices in California and moved them all inland or to the east coast with a big middle finger to Jerry Brown? They could just say "we don't operate in California, screw your laws"

      New providers would set up almost immediately. Probably bank-rolled by Google and Apple. California would have the best internet in the USA.

    • Would you? Pretty please with cherry on top?

      Instantly you'd have Google and probably Apple, too, jumping in to fill that void. Not to mention that you'll very quickly have a lot of small ISPs running that will bridge the gap, and let's be honest, even the worst garage-built ISP won't have worse support or connectivity than the useless sponges now in place.

  • ... and, of course, Republicans everywhere are siding with California in their principled stand for State's Rights.

  • Let's be honest here, what do you have in common with the rest of the US anymore? You're paying and paying and in return, all you get is more insanity than you have already in place (and that's gotta mean something considering the politicians you have and the policies that usually come out of them).

    I'd say it's time to find out what's required to leave the Union.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close