FCC Forces California To Drop Plan For Government Fees On Text Messages (arstechnica.com) 79
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: California telecom regulators have abandoned a plan to impose government fees on text-messaging services, saying that a recent Federal Communications Commission vote has limited its authority over text messaging. The FCC last week voted to classify text-messaging as an information service, rather than a telecommunications service. "Information service" is the same classification the FCC gave to broadband when it repealed net neutrality rules and claimed that states aren't allowed to impose their own net neutrality laws. California's legislature passed a net neutrality law anyway and is defending it in court. But the state's utility regulator chose not to challenge the FCC on regulation of text messaging. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) was scheduled to consider the text-message fee proposal at a meeting next month but pulled the item off the agenda after the FCC action. "Under California law, telecommunications services are subject to the collection of surcharges to support a number of CPUC public programs that subsidize the cost of service for rural Californians and for low-income, disadvantaged communities, and provides special services for the deaf, the hard of hearing, and the disabled," the commission said in a statement Friday.
No need to feel torn (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, their taxes are like a one way ratchet. You can lower them with a simple majority but it takes a super majority to raise them. It's part of tha
Re:No need to feel torn (Score:5, Insightful)
You noticed that the party of states rights & small govt, made it so states can't pass their own Internet Regulations bill. That's rich.
The priority of rights should be:
Individual > Local > State > National
This isn't the national government overriding states' rights. It is the national government protecting individual rights.
Re: (Score:2)
"The priority of rights should be: Individual > Local > State > National"
Sounds good, got any defense for that?
Any assertion that doesn't consider right and wrong is not interesting.
"This isn't the national government overriding states' rights. It is the national government protecting individual rights."
No, it's not, it's the "national government" protecting corporate interests.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that this wasn't necessarily enacted to allow illegals to vote but to actually give people that are not citizens a say in their children's education. Will illegal residents be able to vote? Sure but there are legitimate non-citizens that are not illegally living in San Fransisco that will also benefit from this law. If you are a legal non-citizen (e.g. you have a green card) now you can actually have a say in your child's education by voting for your local school board representative.
As it tu
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry meant to add link to above:
https://thehill.com/homenews/s... [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:1)
You don't need an ID to vote in California. You also don't need any identification to get an "ID" in California, so even if one was required, it is trivial to get one.
Re: (Score:1)
Voters tend to oppose immigration most vehemently where it is rare, and see it as no big deal where it is common.
I guess everybody is hallucinating all the populist parties rising in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess everybody is hallucinating all the populist parties rising in Europe.
Those xenophobic parties are strongest in Eastern Europe: Poland, Czech Rep., Hungary. These are the countries with the least immigration.
A little less brown than Rhode Island, Connecticut (Score:5, Insightful)
> Disclaimer: I live in San Jose, California, one of the brownest cities in America.
Did you mean whitest? According to the census, the entire state of Texas is 39% of *Mexican* descent, then add all of central America on top of that. Providence, Rhode Island has a higher percentage of Hispanics than San Jose does. Bridgeport, Connecticut is more Hispanic than San Jose. If San Jose were in Massachusetts, it would be the second-brownest city in Massachusetts.
> I believe immigration is a good thing
I've never heard anyone disagree with that. The question of the day is whether, when we make laws about immigration (or any other subject), we should follow those laws, or just pretend they don't exist. Republicans pretty consistently say don't make a law if you don't plan on following it. Follow the law, and if the law needs to be changed, change it. Democrats go back and forth on this about four years. In his first term, Obama was for strong enforcement of immigration law. In his second term, it was his official policy to unconstitutionally ignore the law. Hillary voted for a wall on the Mexican border, then later when she was invited on Univision she ridiculed the plan she had supported a couple years earlier. What's your stand on that, should we as a country DECIDE on immigration law, or should each politician do whatever they feel like today, ignoring the law?
Re: (Score:2)
"They shift votes blueward in two ways:"
That wasn't the question, nor was there any question regarding political bias.
When the question is "How do illegal immigrants vote", the answer isn't how American citizens find themselves voting for Democrats 20+ years from now.
Re: (Score:1)
How do illegal immigrants vote?
They shift votes blueward in two ways:
1. They have kids in America. Their kids are native born American citizens, and grow up to vote mostly Democratic.
Just a decade ago, the legal Hispanic vote in California was heavily Republican because of their pro-life position. These days, I don’t know any Republicans out there, and historically Republican districts are going to the Democrats.
Could it be that appealing to the basest of their base and turning the Republican Party into the party of neo-Nazis and racism is a bad way to win the minority vote? The Republicans like to blame illegal immigrants for a lot of things, including their losses, but IMO, th
Re: (Score:2)
you'll have "water refugees" leaving the west and flooding your job market
[Basil Fawlty voice] Brilliant! [/Basil Fawlty voice]
Re: (Score:3)
you'll have "water refugees" leaving the west and flooding your job market, lowering your wages...
California refugees don't lower wages, they raise them. They sell their $2M condo in west LA, and buy a 1035-Exchange mansion in Texas, thus generating dozens of construction jobs and yet more jobs for all the trucks of furniture to fill it up.
I live in San Jose, and if I sold my house and moved back to where i grew up, I could afford to buy the entire trailer park.
Re: (Score:2)
You, Shanghai Bill, live in San Jose now? The other month you kept saying China...
I live in San Jose. I was working in my company's Shanghai office from mid-August to October.
Re: (Score:2)
"They sell their $2M condo in west LA, and buy a 1035-Exchange mansion in Texas, thus generating dozens of construction jobs and yet more jobs for all the trucks of furniture to fill it up."
Ignoring the arrogance of this fiction, there is absolutely nothing about this, true or not, that would suggest the raising of wages.
While you claim to have moved out of the trailer park, the trailer park has clearly not moved out of you.
Those are upper middle class folks (Score:2)
Heck, even the middle class won't be coming with tons of money. Those condos will be worthless when there's no potable water. It'll be like Detroit x1000. Assuming nothing is done about it. California's moving left, so they might actually step up and fix it.
Re: No need to feel torn (Score:1)
Someone has to pay to rake all of those forests and it ain't gonna be me
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
the state needs money to fight the drought.
Obvious solution: If you have a shortage of water, raise the price of water.
Currently, California not only fails to discourage waste, they subsidize it.
Re:No need to feel torn (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, the Democrats have more than a supermajority in both of California's legislative branches. 72.5% in the state senate [wikipedia.org] (29 D,11 R). 75% in the state assembly [wikipedia.org] (60 D, 20 R). And they hold the governorship [wikipedia.org] Yet somehow in your mind, this proposed legislation is the right wing's fault?
The Republicans in Sacramento have zero political power. The Democrats could pass anything they want any time they want, even if every single Republican votes against it. If something doesn't pass, it's because a substantial number of Democrats also opposed it.
BTW, the drought ended in 2017 [ca.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
It's raining right now in Mendo but I'm not throwing a "no more drought" party because given its current water usage patterns, California is in a perpetual state of frequent drought. We can talk about the drought ending when all the aquifers are refilled, and the reservoirs are full, and there's no drought projected. In case you missed it, that will be never.
Re: (Score:1)
For example: as I understand it in Japan, where data charges are reasonable, everyone uses email rather than text messages. This can do everything that texting can do, plus allows for
Re: (Score:2)
Japan uses SNS apps rather than email nowadays. "Line" is big there, similar to how WeChat is big with China. US phone companies definitely would not want people switching to this en-mass because both have the ability to do voice and video over the network, and unlike Skype do not charge for the privilege. International vs domestic is completely meaningless in this context. Fiefdoms would collapse.
The apps are also superior in that they have built in location send features, making finding the person you
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That's your confirmation bias.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, the state with a huge budget surplus. [sfchronicle.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sad (Score:4, Interesting)
FCC hates Honduras! (Score:2)
If Californians can't be taxed for it, how will 10% of the population of Honduras get subsidized phone service?
CPUC should think more creatively (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know how taxes work right? Clearly from your post you don't. You say it is ok to tax {name any random big corporation}. Guess what they are going to do? Raise their rates to cover the increased cost of the tax. Guess who then pays the tax? Are you seeing how this works yet? Can you take a guess at the answer? Yep that's right, it is you & me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot (Score:2)
Now we should see an outburst of effusive praise for Ajit Pai from the always vocal Slashdot crowd, right?