Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Bill To Restore Net Neutrality in California; the Trump Administration is Already Trying To Block It (nbcnews.com) 165
California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Sunday a bill to restore net neutrality protections that President Donald Trump's Federal Communications Commission killed late last year. From a report: The new law prohibits internet service providers, or ISPs, from blocking or slowing access to legal online content, demanding special fees from websites to prioritize their traffic or charging customers for special exemptions to caps on their data use. Brown signed the measure without comment, setting up almost certain showdowns with both ISPs and the FCC, which barred states from setting their own rules in its repeal last December of protections instituted during the administration of President Barack Obama. The U.S. Justice Department quickly filed a federal action in U.S. District Court in Sacramento to block the new law Sunday night. In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said: "Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce -- the federal government does. Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy." Brown also signed A.B. 1999, which makes it easier for local governments to build community broadband and offer competitive high-speed fiber.
Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:3)
Re:Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bit of a dangerous tack to take.. the obvious rebuttal is that the internet is international and the feds have no right to regulate it either.. I mean I know the US is horribly egocentric and doesn't like thinking of other countries as having rights or sovereignty.. but they do and it's a possible argument that Calif could bring up to counter the internet being "interstate"
Re: (Score:3)
the other way to look at it is the relationship between isp and customer is local and in-state, as is the connection between them, not inter-state; and not all traffic is 'commerce'.. so the (current) fcc can fuck off. also the limits fcc try to set are ones that should be in legislation, passed by house and senate and signed by a president, not arbitrary 'policy' or 'fcc rules' set by three partisan dickhead puppets.
if an isp wishes to do business IN california, they get to play by california rules. and n
Re: Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the crowd that spent a decade arguing the guns free school zone act was clearly regulating interstate commerce ...
I have never in my life seen a single person make that argument. In fact, that law uses the exact same justification as the 21-year-old drinking age: Want federal funds? Follow federal guidelines. In the case of the drinking age, it was transportation funds. In the case of gun free school zones, it's education funds. There are other examples, of course, but the drinking age is the most famous.
Re: Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the US can't regulate 'the internet' then on what basis can California?
Fact is, net neutrality isn't regulating 'the internet', it regulates ISPs that do business in the US... Your international argument is non-sensical, do you really believe the IS can't regulate within it's own borders how domestic ISP handle domestic traffic to domestic customers?
Re: (Score:1)
I dropped your specification of domestic traffic, because... who ever said we were only talking about domestic traffic?
Re: (Score:2)
the Fed also regulates anything having to do with international traffick/customs/commerce
No they don't. They have to make treaties with other nations to agree on how these things will work. That is very, very different from being able to directly regulate it.
it's just a stupid point
Yes, and claiming that a subscriber agreement between a California resident and a California ISP is interstate is 100% exactly as stupid.
Federal regulations does not somehow magically turn into an argument for non-US based regulation of US companies simply because some of their network traffic goes outside of the US.
"State regulations does not somehow magically turn into an argument for non-California based regulation of California companies simply because some of their network traffic goes outside of California."
Pr
Re: Isn't this largely road-worthy? (Score:2)
Only roads that cross state boundaries are 'interstate', obviously. The vast majority of all roads in America originate and terminate within the same state, never venturing into snother state.
Re:Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Feds will lose. The law is structured so that it doesn't do anything regarding "interstate commerce", and other states are lining up to follow California's lead.
The Feds will lose the same way they're losing on legal marijuana.
Re:Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure whats happening atm on legal weed, but a lot of the success came from the Obama Administration ordering the DEA to not to interfere with States that want to do their own thing.
Heres the big irony about all this;- The GOP likes to talk big game about "State rights", but apparently that only applies to states that dont piss off the GOPs party donors.
Really, its "Party donor rights over you" that are advocated for not state rights.
Re: (Score:2)
'State rights' as in 'race-to-the-bottom tax policies'. If they have a GOP governor/state govt. then 'states rights', otherwise they grit their teeth and preempt at a federal level as much they can. Not that I think other political parties are any different in that sense, TBH.
Re:Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not sure whats happening atm on legal weed, but a lot of the success came from the Obama Administration ordering the DEA to not to interfere with States that want to do their own thing.
No, no it did not. Obama's DEA made more busts of legal dispensaries [rollingstone.com], not less.
Re: Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure but the democrats are open about being federalists. It's the republicans that claim to be ideologically committed to state rights
Re: Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok to expand on this. Personally I think there's a pox on both the houses. The republicans voted in a borderline lunatic who claimed he'd "drain the swamp" then filled his entire cabinet with lobbyists and Wall Street crooks and has spent his entire time gazing in the mirror and throwing tantrums because being a public servant is not the same as being a CEO. The dems hadthe *perfect* candidate in Bernie and then fucking sabotaged him and put the washington superwonk Hillary in on the assumption the Press would never accept a guy like Bernie , ignoring the sizeable resentment amongst the public towards her (some of it, ridiculous admittedly but still it was there). So a pox on their houses.
However when it comes to state rights , the Democrats are at least honest. Both are authoritarian centeralizing powers , but the Dems don't pretend not to be about federal rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
So by your logic it wouldn't be right to tell the states that they can't have anti-slavery laws? If it is so terrible that "the Feds are saying you have to let the trannies in the girl's locker room" then it must also be bad for the Feds to say that slavery is a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The Feds will lose.
I wouldn't be so sure.
Wickard v. Filburn [wikipedia.org], and the following Gonzales v.. Raich [wikipedia.org], showed that even private activity can be regulated as "interstate commerce", and even though United States v. Lopez [wikipedia.org] seemed to limit the power, it specifically mentioned that the federal government is allowed to regulate the "channels" and the "instrumentalities" of interstate commerce, which they will argue that ISPs and the Internet in general falls under.
Also don't forget that it will be heard by a stacked (and not in your fav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A mere technicality, soon to be corrected by a rider attached to the next "must pass" omnibus legislation.
(Isn't it how things are done in the US?)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree the federal government could lose this, but they can win also. Usually whoever has the deepest pockets wins. The state of California is big, but not federal government plus ISPs big. It will be an interesting battle.
Totally wrong on marijuana. The federal government has chosen not to act. If they wanted to, they could show up at stores in Washington, Colorado, etc and take the weed and put people in jail. Their actions suggest this is not a fish they wish to fry at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government chose not to act on marijuana for two reasons: 1) it was a losing issue for them, like gay rights and gay marriage and, 2) big investors realized that legal pot was going to make them money. There are hedge funds in the California/Colorado pot industry, and more big institutional guys entering every day.
Net neutrality is also a loser for them. People may like the party in power or not, but don't nobody like t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
However, despite all the threats of a crackdown, they have stopped enforcing it. No, make no mistake, the Feds have lost the battle on legal marijuana. They're not going to do shit.
Re: Isn't this largely symbolic? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Fed's have the right to regulate, but chose not to do so. The FCC has repeatedly stated the Internet is outside their jurisdiction and Congress refused to pass any laws rescinding that. Bush drew up an executive order eliminating Federal controls. Don't blame California for exploiting this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Walled communities, new business could have really escaped NN rules on what a network was and designed innovative new networks.
With more NN rules it will be back to paper insulated wireline network. The exisiting gov approved and regulated NN networks.
States still get regulatory power (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the Feds are right and that they have the right to regulate the Internet under various interstate commerce laws.
Not necessarily. Depends on exactly how they structured the regulation. And just because something does involved interstate commerce doesn't mean States don't get to make rules about it. That clause in the constitution is merely there to prevent States from imposing undue burdens on other States - not on private companies. It's not clear that California is imposing any such burden on another state. No burden = no case for federal interest in the topic. States have all sorts of regulations on private c
Feds already filed suit (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department late on Sunday filed suit after California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation to restore open internet protections known as net neutrality in the state after the Trump administration repealed the rules in December 2017."
Re: (Score:3)
Muddy waters (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, they are not regulating interstate commerce. They are only regulating how ISPs get to do business in california. The ISPs can do as they like in other states.
Second, and more importantly, the FCC has no power to regulate the internet - they specifically refuted that. So they have no standing to bring suit. Can't have it both ways, Agitator Pai.
Re:Muddy waters (Score:5, Interesting)
Assume that Trump manages to corrupt the supreme court to to be his private Republican rubber stamp. How does that affect the situation when this lands in front of the supremes, as it surely will.
You're not being nearly pessimistic enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect Pence would be worse. If only the constitution and electoral college would allow a do-over, then we might stand a chance of correcting the damage in less than decades.
Re: (Score:1)
Notably absent: overt racism again Muslims and Latin Americans, outright lying to the public and covering for it by undermining all trust in any channels which might expose those lies, d
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Impeach NOW.
You mean, after the midterms. Also impeach Kavanaugh.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The entitled prick lied in a much clearer fashion: he claimed that his drinking was legal while he was in high school. Unfortunately, it's easy to find how old he would have been when the state of Maryland increased the drinking age from 18 to 21 [he was 17 at the time].
But he isn't toast yet. He will be confirmed. The only questio
IMHO not at election time (Score:1)
IMHO, they're more likely to blame Democrats for the failure to appoint him, than to force it through and let it become an election issue.
After his Alex Jones' like performance, I think they won't want to attach their own election campaigns to that train wreck.
Apparently Republicans have suggested a list of people for the FBI to investigate that doesn't include Kavanaugh (source CNN). Which is what you'd expect, he would be lying to the FBI and they'd lay a charge on him, or he'd tell the truth to them, whi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Whoa, underage drinking. Noone cared with Clinton "I did not inhale" and George W.'s cocaine, or Obama's pot AND cocaine. It'd take daily deliriant usage for Americans to be likely to care.
Source. [telegraph.co.uk]
Re:Kavanaugh is toast (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the alcohol fueled serial rapist part that's the problem for Kavanaugh....
Ah, so it is an imaginary problem.
Re:Kavanaugh is toast (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It'd take daily deliriant usage for Americans to be likely to care.
What they need to care about is a judge who doesn't care about the truth. He barely answered any questions, and when he did answer, he lied.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I don't think Kavanagh lied about his legal drinking.I admittedly didn't see the whole hearing but the clips that I saw he never actually said that he was of legal age just the the drinking age was 18 (I have no idea if this is true or not) and that many seniors would have been 18 therefore of legal drinking age. I don't remember seeing him actually state that he was 18 at the time and of legal drinking age. Much like the rest of his testimony he managed to skirt around the issue enough to not tech
Re: (Score:2)
He claimed it was legal for the seniors to drink. The context of that statement is that he was a senior.
In fact, it would have been legal for very, very few seniors -- only those who had been held back a year.
The clear lie is that the legal drinking age was 18 during his senior year. It wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Go fuck yourself, Joe [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could agree with you.
But consider that the Feds can regulate what you grow in your own garden for your own consumption.
For a long time, the Supreme Court justices have shown a singular inability to read the Constitution, since they believe that the word "affects" appears in the Interstate Commerce clause.
The more powerful argument is that the FCC has already taken the view that they don't have the right to regulate the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
... consider that the Feds can regulate what you grow in your own garden for your own consumption. ...
Because Congress passed a law, signed by the president, which authorizes federal agencies to regulate it. Federal agencies cannot regulate outside of the mandate given by Congress via passed laws. There is no law authorizing the FCC to regulate states' regulations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your cow fart regulation is messing with my pro-cow fart deregulation! You must lose your rights! While at the same time, my coal regulations are legit and I want you to stop your pollution blowing into my state!
FCC took away it's own power but wants to impose more power than it ever had to take away other's powers. That is an extra layer of corruption!
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, they are not regulating interstate commerce. They are only regulating how ISPs get to do business in california. The ISPs can do as they like in other states.
I would be inclined to agree with you, but that isn't the world built by those who would support this, which is why the whole thing is idiotic.
Normally the right is lauding "50 states experimenting" and the left a huge, Washington-based command and control (and the interstate commerce clause in this case, where any remotely conceivable effect on it gives the federal government authority.)
Now they are on the opposite sides. It is called "situational ethics", where an ethical principle is important only unti
Re: (Score:2)
Easy way to get around it (Score:1)
Re: Easy way to get around it (Score:2)
It's called MPLS and that's how they've provided corporate networks for years.
Re: (Score:1)
Like AOL and Compuserve all over again. Consumers preferred the Internet, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I should take a poll on Facebook to see if you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure if the data is carried over to the Internet it'd be counted as 'internet traffic'. However, you're right that they could zero-rate their own services and say that those services are sent over an intranet, rather than the internet, depending on the specific wording of these laws. If the wording is "ISPs that offer data services that do not count towards data caps" then no, if "zero-rated Internet data" then maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not quite that simple. I believe this falls under the Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption: [findlaw.com] (Article 6 of the US Constitution)
Emphasis mine:
The Supremacy Clause is a clause within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which dictates that federal law is the "supreme law of the land." This means that judges in every state must follow the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the federal government in matters which are directly or indirectly within the government's control. Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict.
Now, this is the fun part. The very next sentence reads:
But in the absence of federal law, or when a state law would provide more protections for consumers, employees, and other residents than what is available under existing federal law, state law holds.
If this turns into a boxing match between Governor Moonbeam and The President [urbandaddy.com], I suspect Moonbeam might win.
Re: (Score:2)
Force of habit, I capitalized President. Combined with the link, had I left it un-capitalized it would have been a subtle but poor joke. Damn. I intended to deride them both equally.
Re: (Score:2)
The supremacy clause is still limited to the powers granted by the constitution. Interstate commerce to the feds yes... in-state no.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to start popping the popcorn (Score:2)
Between the EU, China and the FCC, there hasn't been more threats to the Internet in, well ever, Islamic countries included, but they're always been problematic regarding the Internet.
If the UN had any actual power, or any method of enforcement, Pai(d) would be in court with some 'splainin to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it's almost like the Arab Spring made leaders the world over running scared. Add in rumors of social media manipulation campaigns and they can almost hear the Sword of Damocles straining the fiber.
America's internet is a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one of the slowest in the world - Britain has faster and I swear they still use cans and string - and one of the most expensive, whilst also being one of the most restrictive.
Comcast gets away with shutting down rivals by cutting their cables. Does anyone think you'd get away with that in Europe?
Verizon ignores an agreement on unlimited traffic in an emergency, placing lives at risk. I don't care about excuses and I don't care if they don't like Monday's. Deliberately placing state and federal workers in danger is what the beltway sniper did.
California isn't even making a dent in this, California is only drawing a line and saying things can't get worse in a few rather restricted ways. If California was serious, it would build a municipal Internet and damn the corporate sector. What's the Fed going to do, invade?
Re: (Score:3)
It's one of the slowest in the world - Britain has faster and I swear they still use cans and string - and one of the most expensive, whilst also being one of the most restrictive.
Whilst you've got a very good point about how backwards and expensive telecoms are in the US, the UK is actually quite good. Here I can get a SIM only contract with 1.5GB of data (plus some calls and texts, but who uses that any more) for only £6. Unlimited BT Fibre to my home starts at £25 (for a mere 50 mbps).
In fact I'm going to the US this month for a few days and I'll need my phone for navigation (I'm driving) and I've found that it's cheaper for me to buy a £10 T
Re: (Score:2)
If California was serious, it would build a municipal Internet and damn the corporate sector. What's the Fed going to do, invade?
Actually enforce immigration laws? (ba dum ching)
There are a lot of things the Feds can do to pressure a state. You guys love 'em when it's a state you don't like ...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I live in the BOONIES by any standard. 90 miles to the closest city of more than 10K people. And I have 300Mbit internet for $60/mo from cable, but could also get 100Mbit from two different wireless providers for ~50/mo, or somewhere around 25mbit DSL (not sure of price). Plus all of the major carriers with 4g LTE.
No, I live in the Boonies. I have zero terrestrial internet options, since we don't even have phone lines. And I live only about eight miles off of CA HWY 1. My only option is satellite, 20Mbps down on a good day, 1 second of latency. At my last address, which was also in the boonies, I could also get access from a local WISP. 7Mbps down, 1Mbps up, $99/mo, and 125+ms latency.
You don't even know what the boondocks are, son.
doesn't matter... (Score:1)
Remember how the internet didn't exist until Obama put on the Wizarding hat, went to hogwarts, defeated the dread snake wizard, and made the world safe for porn downloads?
Nothing changed.
Most of us have been around long enough to remember what the internet was like before and after... it was the same.
This is of primary interest to the likes of Netflix, Google, and some other big corporations that want to force the backbone providers to give them cheaper communications rates.
The fun thing with that is how hy
Re: (Score:2)
Google does a lot of things they probably shouldn't, but I can't say I've seen any difference between the types of traffic sent by and received by my Google servers to the Internet or elsewhere. So in that regard, yes, they are honouring Net Neutrality.
Where are they not doing so?
Re: (Score:1)
they outright deny service arbitrarily... imagine if Cox or ATT filtered content on their service the same way youtube or google search etc does... or facebook...
The point is that they deny and allow certain content which the traditional communications companies are obligated to not do. And yet google and facebook seek the same legal protection that the classic communications companies get... aka safe harbor.
Again, the net neutrality thing was bankrolled by Google and Netflix to trick stupid people into for
Re: (Score:2)
Hosting content (or not) has nothing to do with NN, as I think you know.
I can't speak to what it's like with or without NN, as where I live we have neutrality and carriers can't prioritise traffic. Obviously, some of my traffic comes from the US, so I'd imagine it will look like the US is a bit slower than even now if prioritising starts to occur there.
I would imagine it's a little too early to be sure it was a scam or a failure, or whatever - you'd need a few years for it to really take effect. If it reall
Re: (Score:1)
As to hosting content not being the same thing... they cite themselves in court as communications companies. So, their own lawyers are contradicting you.
Mic drop.
CALEXIT (Score:2)
Seriously, cut the bullcrap and split from the US.
Re: (Score:2)
They would if it weren't for all the tariffs Trump would slap on them. If California leaving would hurt the rest of the Union, then it's not going to be made painless/beneficial for them, or else it'd encourage other states to secede. Just like any oligarchy/bureaucracy, the first priority is to maintain itself.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact quite the opposite CA could muscle the US quite easily with CA's 3 largest ports handling as much container trade as the next 8 American ports combined. and 3 of the 4 largest US companies would no longer be US companies.
They didn't think it through. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember all those arguments the FCC made for giving up regulatory power over the internet so they could remove rules they didn't like?
Well, this is what you asked for... no federal regulation. They just didn't think through the part where that left the door open for states to enact their own regulations.
Suck it, Ajit.
State's Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
"State's rights" aren't about states rights (Score:2, Insightful)
How come Republicans are have such a hard-on for states rights when states do something evil like voter suppression but change their minds when they do something good like cannabis legalization or net neutrality?
Because "States rights" when the GOP uses it almost never has anything to actually do with States rights. It's a bullshit political argument used for unjustifiable positions (slavery, racism, voter suppression, etc) use when they don't have a real leg to stand on in an argument. It's an admission that they are philosophically bankrupt on the topic and are trying to distract from this fact by loudly touting a (usually) dubious technicality.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans only preach, they do not actually stand for any of it when their Fascist beliefs come into play. Money is god. period. Hypocrisy is only this thing they can use to attack the opposition with; money(god) trumps all. pun intended.
Like the comic books, the heroes must take the difficult self-constrained path while the villains mock them; it should be cliche when they frequently struggle with "great responsibility." I guess it's not pushed strongly enough because the morality portrayed is not being
He's not wrong... (Score:3)
In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said: "Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce -- the federal government does. Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy."
He's not wrong, the supremacy clause [wikipedia.org]
is a thing...
wrong; they are manipulating lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
This FALSE LOGIC gets pushed for any business large enough to exist outside a state. If you want to sell CARS in CA you follow their laws; it is not their problem if your business has troubles with that and bitches... unless the nation becomes too fascist and the bitching turns into bigger government...
Net Neutrality is all about THE LAST MILE. You can't get more local than that!
These are not interstate tariffs; this is a connection service; like the local power, phone, trash, or delivery companies!
Yes, ALL their propaganda applies to any multi-state business. They won't touch things they like; such as Texas lowering the quality of school textbooks nationwide...
Re: (Score:2)
in state (Score:2)
if a store sells items from out of state it is not interstate commerce, only the store purchasing the items is. States can certainly regulate the retail sale of those items within the state. This is no different. The Feds could claim control over mobile and sat services but not last mile. Even purchasing from an out of state retailer is now considered in-state if the retailer has any presence in that state.
Those that think SCOTUS will just rule against it are wrong. SCOTUS rulings create precedent. Any such
One cannot... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is telling. (Score:1)
If the ISPs were not planning to abuse the lack of neutrality, they would have no motivation to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Once we pass Peak Hyperbole, then civilization really WILL collapse!!!111oneeleven
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The deliberate absence of a federal law indicates this area is reserved to federal acts and cannot be infringed upon by states.
Bullshit. There is no legal basis for this assertion
In this particular arena, the federal government has expressed a clear interest in reserving this space by repealing net neutrality,
More bullshit. Not only is there no legal basis for this assertion, the FCC's own reasoning (ie they don't have jurisdiction to regulate ISPs) is to the contrary.
so the lack of a federal law does not mean this space is available for CA to enter and legislate.
Total bullshit. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Federal supremacy clause says CA loses this one in a whimper.
Complete, unadulterated bullshit. There is no federal law which is in conflict with the California law, so the suprem