FCC Won't Block California Net Neutrality Law, Says States Can 'Experiment' (arstechnica.com) 25
Jon Brodkin reports via Ars Technica: California can keep enforcing its state net neutrality law after the Federal Communications Commission implements its own rules. The FCC could preempt future state laws if they go far beyond the national standard but said that states can "experiment" with different regulations for interconnection payments and zero-rating. The FCC scheduled an April 25 vote on Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel's proposal to restore net neutrality rules similar to the ones introduced during the Obama era and repealed under former President Trump. The FCC yesterday released the text of the pending order, which could still be changed but isn't likely to get any major overhaul.
State-level enforcement of net neutrality rules can benefit consumers, the FCC said. The order said that "state enforcement generally supports our regulatory efforts by dedicating additional resources to monitoring and enforcement, especially at the local level, and thereby ensuring greater compliance with our requirements." [...] In the order scheduled for an April 25 vote, the FCC said the California law "appears largely to mirror or parallel our federal rules. Thus we see no reason at this time to preempt it." That doesn't mean the rules are exactly the same. Instead of banning certain types of zero-rating entirely, the FCC will judge on a case-by-case basis whether any specific zero-rating program harms consumers and conflicts with the goal of preserving an open Internet. The FCC said it will evaluate sponsored-data "programs based on a totality of the circumstances, including potential benefits."
The FCC order cautions that the agency will take a dimmer view of zero-rating in exchange for payment from a third party or zero-rating that favors an affiliated entity. But those categories will still be judged by the FCC on a case-by-case basis, whereas California bans paid data cap exemptions entirely. Despite that difference, the FCC said it is "not persuaded on the record currently before us that the California law is incompatible with the federal rules." The FCC also found that California's approach to interconnection payments is compatible with the pending federal rule. Interconnection was the subject of a major controversy involving Netflix and big ISPs a decade ago. The FCC said it found no evidence that the California law has "unduly burdened or interfered with interstate communications service." When it comes to zero-rating and interconnection, the FCC said there is "room for states to experiment and explore their own approaches within the bounds of our overarching federal framework." The FCC said it will reconsider preemption of California rules if "California state enforcement authorities or state courts seek to interpret or enforce these requirements in a manner inconsistent with how we intend our rules to apply."
State-level enforcement of net neutrality rules can benefit consumers, the FCC said. The order said that "state enforcement generally supports our regulatory efforts by dedicating additional resources to monitoring and enforcement, especially at the local level, and thereby ensuring greater compliance with our requirements." [...] In the order scheduled for an April 25 vote, the FCC said the California law "appears largely to mirror or parallel our federal rules. Thus we see no reason at this time to preempt it." That doesn't mean the rules are exactly the same. Instead of banning certain types of zero-rating entirely, the FCC will judge on a case-by-case basis whether any specific zero-rating program harms consumers and conflicts with the goal of preserving an open Internet. The FCC said it will evaluate sponsored-data "programs based on a totality of the circumstances, including potential benefits."
The FCC order cautions that the agency will take a dimmer view of zero-rating in exchange for payment from a third party or zero-rating that favors an affiliated entity. But those categories will still be judged by the FCC on a case-by-case basis, whereas California bans paid data cap exemptions entirely. Despite that difference, the FCC said it is "not persuaded on the record currently before us that the California law is incompatible with the federal rules." The FCC also found that California's approach to interconnection payments is compatible with the pending federal rule. Interconnection was the subject of a major controversy involving Netflix and big ISPs a decade ago. The FCC said it found no evidence that the California law has "unduly burdened or interfered with interstate communications service." When it comes to zero-rating and interconnection, the FCC said there is "room for states to experiment and explore their own approaches within the bounds of our overarching federal framework." The FCC said it will reconsider preemption of California rules if "California state enforcement authorities or state courts seek to interpret or enforce these requirements in a manner inconsistent with how we intend our rules to apply."
Laughing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Laughing (Score:2)
I know it's against the rules to read the linked article, and I may be banned for reading an article linked by the linked article, [arstechnica.com] but:
It looks like the ISPs failed to get a preliminary injunction in earlier litigation, in which they argued that the FCC rules preempted California's. The ISPs failed to get the injunction because the Federal Courts didn't think they would win. So we shouldn't be surprised that a Dem-chaired FCC is declining to assert its powers to benefit ISPs
And with that (Score:1)
Republicans no longer like states rights
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans (well, some of them) fought for years against states imposing sales taxes on certain Internet transactions. There are areas where constitutional conservatives will argue in favor of the commerce clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes. You'll notice some of them pushing these state-level bans on minors using certain websites where it should be obvious that the interstate commerce clause ought to give Congress supremacy on the matter. They're not always consistent.
Re:And with that (Score:5, Interesting)
Republicans no longer like states rights
Actually, their supporting or opposing states' rights hinges mostly upon whether the state in question is red or blue. Florida wants to regulate porn and social media, Republicans are all for that. California wants to ban ICE vehicles in 2030something? Republicans are all like "What a woke shithole state!"
It's sports team politics all the way down.
Re: (Score:3)
It's sports team politics all the way down.
Team politics, causing problems for the rest of us since 532 CE [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans no longer like states rights
Actually, their supporting or opposing states' rights hinges mostly upon whether the state in question is red or blue. Florida wants to regulate porn and social media, Republicans are all for that. California wants to ban ICE vehicles in 2030something? Republicans are all like "What a woke shithole state!"
It's sports team politics all the way down.
Yeah, maybe it is team politics. Or maybe it’s far too many assuming every citizen and their morals, beliefs, and ethics are 100% defined and controlled by “red or blue”. Republicans can like porn and be gay. Democrats can go to church and recognize God. Some might even hate abortion. Regulating porn is what every American state does, since they all ban child porn and do not allow children into strip clubs. Some have simply acknowledged the painfully obvious loophole regarding online
Re: And with that (Score:3)
Lumping together porn and child porn by pretending one is simply a subset of another, that's very low. You might as well say they are both a subset of entertainment to generalise regulation to all forms of entertainment.
The bit that makes child porn illegal, reprehensible and harmful is not "porn" but "child". Because the children are being harmed and they have no agency. If you're also worried about adult porn where the adults do not consent, there the issue is again not "porn" but "lack of consent".
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans can like porn and be gay
Yes, but they'd have to be fucking stupid to support a government that wants to destroy them and everything that looks even a little like them. Gay people can be stupid too.
"text of the pending order" (Score:1)
Does it say dumb pipe?
No?
Then it's not net neutrality, just some thing written and "opposed" by the ISPs in political theater. They still retain their monopoly and can block "bad people"
Last mile or bust (Score:2)
Just like the olden days. Surely all that "new" cable must be on maintenance by now? Time for choice.
No need for the government to own the lines. I'd prefer a co-op, but a private company separate from the ISP businesses will do.
Legally with teeth, no exceptions written in. Government, in the USA that's u and me, can say that we want that. Any private companies not in ISP or TV/Media want to buy some lines and tower? Income is pretty much guaranteed. We can just watch 'em fight it out business-like. The int
You really mean that? (Score:3)
So New Hampshire could establish less stringent regulations? Or states can establish rules but only if they're more invasive than the FCC rules?
Companies really have to follow the most restrictive net obstruc...er...neutrality regulations (c.f. the "Do you accept cookies?" popups, which aren't strictly necessary in the US but annoy us here because Europe). What she's really saying is "go ahead California, regulate to your hearts content. That way we don't have to deal with pesky federal rulemaking processes."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Do you accept cookies?" popups, which aren't strictly necessary in the US but annoy us here because Europe
They're not necessary in Europe either. It's just that companies don't like to be told not to track people and want to both get around the law by pestering you for your permission and give regulation a bad name by making gullible people hate on the regulators for making these annoyances "necessary". You know, the kind of person who writes things like "restrictive net obstruc...er...neutrality", because yay corporatism.
Re: (Score:3)
When you're the 4th, 5th, or 6th (depending on when you measure) largest economy on the planet, you get a few perks others don't. Just like if you're the 4th, 5th, or 6th richest person on the planet, things are different for you compared to everyone else.
But then, Texas believes it can usurp federal law so why not California?
Re: (Score:1)
At least nobody is going to freeze to death because of this.
Re: (Score:2)
At least nobody is going to freeze to death because of this.
That is CRUEL
Small government, again (Score:3)
Sprint, Verizon, etc don't want to deal with 50 different zero-rating regulations so they'll demand the Supreme Court of the US make such laws illegal. So far, those demands have failed. Then, they'll demand Congress make national regulations, which they'll then water-down by bribing, sorry donating to, friendly senators.
Re: (Score:2)
If they want hundreds or thousands of providers world-wide to each make individual deals with them, they can deal with 50 different regulations.
that's nice of them (Score:2)
But we already have a Tenth Amendment right to make laws in our state.