California Bill Would Restore, Strengthen Net Neutrality Protections (mercurynews.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Mercury News: With the FCC order to repeal net neutrality rules set to take effect next week, a bill that would restore those regulations in California will get its first hearing Tuesday (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). SB 822, written by State Sen. Scott D. Wiener, D-San Francisco, is backed by big names including Tom Wheeler, the Obama-appointed former Federal Communications Commission chairman who wrote the 2015 Open Internet Order. Wheeler is joined by former FCC commissioners Michael Copps and Gloria Tristani in advocating for SB 822, which would in some ways be stronger than the net neutrality rules put in place under President Obama's administration after more than a decade of legal and political wrangling. Those rules required equal treatment of all internet traffic, and prohibited the establishment of internet slow and fast lanes. Wiener's bill would also prohibit "zero rating," in which internet providers exempt certain content, sites and services from data caps. In addition, it would prohibit public agencies in the state from signing contracts with ISPs that violate net neutrality principles, and call for internet service providers to be transparent about their practices and offerings.

Comments

Glad California joining WA and OR

[WillAffleckUW]

Net Neutrality ftw!

Nobody cares about the flyover states, right?

Re:Glad California joining WA and OR

[Anonymous Coward]

Flyover states just believe what they are told to believe by Fox News and political talk radio.

Net Neutrality is un-American, anti-Capitalist, socialistic and something that Obama Liberals losers created. Therefore; they hate it.

Re:Glad California joining WA and OR

[Anonymous Coward]

A red state Republican against bigotry? A diamond in the BULLSHIT.

Re:Glad California joining WA and OR

[JoshuaZ]

Flyover states just believe what they are told to believe by Fox News and political talk radio

There are people who uncritically accept Fox News in pretty much every state. Some states in "Flyover" areas have substantial liberal populations. Colorado and Iowa are both examples.

Re: Glad California joining WA and OR

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry ... it was not substantial enough...

Re:Glad California joining WA and OR

[serviscope_minor]

Nobody cares about the flyover states, right?

They get to care about themselves. NN not going to be a thing at a federal level because of all the states voting R. If they want to have it at a state level it's up to them. The D's tried to vote someone in who wouldn't fuck everything up and didn't succeed. Now they're concentrating on looking after themselves at a state level. If R's want those protections, perhaps they should oh I don't know, vote against people who want tear them down to make way for corporate oligopilys.

So yeah, if the flyover states won't care about themselves why should Californians care about them?

You're welcome

[PopeRatzo]

California: showing the rest of the US how to do it since 1850.

Re:You're welcome

[DCFusor]

Yeah, the way they run CalPers is one hell of an example....They had especially nice relationships with LTCM and Enron. Go CA! More of that...we already can't afford your MIC parasites and the bailouts you're gonna need. Succeed already.

Re:You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

CA was first? Read the headlines more often.

Re:You're welcome

[DCFusor]

And FWIW as an actual conservative (rather than some alt-right wing nut) - I'm all for the kind of net neutrality Wheeler surprised us with. I'm old enough to remember all kinds of fearful comments about Wheeler here and on Ars (and Groklaw) because of his cable lobbyist background.
Seems some people need to remember that politics is the entertainment branch of the military industrial complex - on a good day.

Re:You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

California brings in almost all of the money for the entire country, while people in the other states sit jealous, whining and not pulling their own weight.

You're welcome, BTW.

Re:You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Texas had much closer links to Enron, and still do emulate similar arrangements. Go drill a baby, Republican paedo-sheriff and traitor apologists. May your children drink fracking fluid.

Re:You're welcome

[PopeRatzo]

Isn't California on the verge of going broke and taxing itself to death?

No. California has a big budget surplus.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/j...

Re:You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

And FWIW as an actual conservative (rather than some alt-right wing nut)

Hey, just curious: are you a member of any political party? I've been wondering where all the conservatives are hanging out, since it sure ain't with the Republicans anymore.

Best guess is that most conservatives would feel at home with with the Libertarians or the Democrats (both of those are pretty conservative relative to the Repubs), but I can also see how those parties might have some unappealing aspects too. Maybe there's a new one I haven't heard about yet?

Re:You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Succeed already

Actually, California succeeds in many, many ways. A shining example of technological advancements, creativity, democracy in action, an economic juggernaut.

Oh, or did you mean secede?

Re:You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, that famous "Hollywood accounting".

Fascinating.

Re: You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy in action. That's what you call CalPers. Its a great exchange of democracy, disenfranchising the rural voters.

Re:You're welcome

[CrimsonAvenger]

No. California has a big budget surplus.

Does that include all those pensions they're supposed to be (and would be required to be, if they were a business) setting aside money for?

Re:You're welcome

[Rick Schumann]

Yeah. I don't agree with everything Brown says or does (I voted against the high-speed rail project and am dubious at best about the Delta Tunnels), but I voted for Brown, and overwhelmingly so I don't regret that and will actually be sad to see him go -- and am a bit apprehensious about what happens next.

Re:You're welcome

[Locke2005]

No, that wasn't Jerry Brown; you're thinking of Reagan, he was the California governor that ran up record deficits. Remember, Republicans only accuse the Democrats of things the Republicans themselves are doing!

Re:You're welcome

[Locke2005]

No, you're thinking of the USPS; they're the ones that have a problem with funding their pensions.

Re:You're welcome

[Locke2005]

Governor Moonbeam isn't perfect, but compared to scumbags like Pete Wilson he's a godsend. Schwarzeneggar was one of the few decent "Republican" governors of California, in my opinion. Reagan ran up massive deficits as governor of California just like he did as president of the US.

Re:You're welcome

[hondo77]

Isn't California on the verge of going broke and taxing itself to death?

If it keeps you and your friends from moving here? Yes. Broke. Taxing itself to death. Daily earthquakes/landslides/wildfires. Forced conversion to homosexuality when you visit a beach. You do not want to move there.

Re:You're welcome

[drinkypoo]

Schwarzeneggar was one of the few decent "Republican" governors of California, in my opinion.

He was perfect, because the rest of the Californian government wouldn't go along with any bullshit. I voted for him and I was extremely happy with his low level of effectiveness.

Re: You're welcome

[DNS-and-BIND]

States rights is an outdated racist doctrine. It's wrong to have 50 different state laws when one federal law will do. You've been tricked by Trump into supporting his position that citizens should do it themselves rather than depend on the government. I thought Californians were smarter than that?

Re:You're welcome

[kqs]

I'm old enough to remember all kinds of fearful comments about Wheeler here and on Ars (and Groklaw) because of his cable lobbyist background.

And "Dingo" Wheeler's initial actions proved those fears correct. But then people objected, and (wonder of wonders) Wheeler listened and learned and reversed course. And we got a rational policy.

Compare to Pai's methods. "FCC hears ya. FCC don't care."

Re:You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats only true under the old tax rules that let them deduct state taxes from fed.

California is about to find they're so deep in debt....

Re:You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years back California was paying public employees with IOUs, so they have thier share of funding issues too.

Re:You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

It's temporary because they raised taxes to the highest in the nation. If you count unfunded pension liabilities, California will soon be insolvent. Even if they solve that somehow (public employee unions are the most powerful special interest group in the state), Democrats always manage to increase spending back up over their revenues, like Lucy and Charlie Brown.

Re:You're welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, damn, did you feel that 25.3 yesterday? I lost my family to that one. But all is OK, for I am going to the beach with my new boyfriend today because we spent all of our money on taxes and can't do anything else. I just hope they managed to get that raging ocean fire put out and cleaned up enough of the debris from the landslide for us to put down our shared beach towel. It's a good thing that nobody in California is allowed to have a gun, so at least the looters won't be armed.

Those people in other states don't know how good they have it. They should stay exactly where they are and never visit California.

According to some reports the ISPs

[H3lldr0p]

are shitting themselves in fear and have begun dumping a ton of lobbying money into the capital. They've likely screwed themselves much as they did in court before the FCC dropped their action against them. By arguing out both sides of their mouth and also through their ass, they've put themselves into the unenviable position of dealing with a patchwork of laws instead of a single set of regulations. It's not as if this was an unforeseen outcome. It's quite the opposite given public opinion on the issue.

However, for reasons of nothing but plain insatiable greed the biggest ISPs decided to try anyway.

Re:According to some reports the ISPs

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice bullshit. You made it up of course. I tell you, you fuckers create some of the best fake shit. But the truth is the ISPs would suck California's governors cock as long as they got protection. They would accept any law that solidifies their monopoly. Your false story won't work of course, but it makes a nice place for me to shit on your head fucker.

Re:According to some reports the ISPs

[Anonymous Coward]

"They would accept any law that solidifies their monopoly. "

How does the law solidify their monopoly.

Re:According to some reports the ISPs

[Ichijo]

This patchwork of laws will make it tough for national ISPs to enjoy economies of scale, and easier for small mom&pop ISPs to compete with them.

So what's the downside?

Re:According to some reports the ISPs

[Rick Schumann]

Well, sure. ISPs want the 'service' they provide to be treated like some Boutique Service, not the public utility the Internet has become, so they can charge everyone up the ass for it and expect a 'thank you' from us while we're being anally violated. They know damned well though that those days are numbered and are fighting against the inevitable.

They're way ahead of you California

[rsilvergun]

There's already Federal bills working their way through Congress to preempt yours. Internet is a global thing, at the very least it needs to be regulated nationally.

Re:They're way ahead of you California

[Rockoon]

Bullshit.

This is exactly how the U.S. works, or at least used to. Its not up to the federal government to regulate everything.

Imagine Federal livery regulation instead of State and City regulation of said industries. You know it would have a bad outcome. Everyone does. Yet in the past 50 or so years there has been a big push to federalize everything, including and especially things like health insurance. I bring up health insurance because Californians were a big player in Federalizing it into a monstrosity of bad outcomes, yet still buries State-wide universal healthcare bills. Even the Unions (Nurses Union especially) are hating on the Democrats in California now

Re:They're way ahead of you California

[tomhath]

And it should be regulated by law, not at the whim of a president. Which is why it's playing out the way it is.

Re:They're way ahead of you California

[Anonymous Coward]

States' rights*!!

*except when it's someone else's rights I want to take away

-Conservatives

Re:They're way ahead of you California

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Federal Regulations come about when corporations prove themselves unable to be trusted.

I would prefer the States handle this but the telcoms have already made a lot of noise about suing in Federal court to prevent regulation by the states.

They cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. As long as Trump/Verizon's Toadie is in charge of the FCC, they're useless. Legislative capture. The fox in charge of the henhouse. Should be a treasonable act to set things up so.

Re: They're way ahead of you California

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not up to the federal government to regulate everything.

Actually, turns out it is. The states keep sucking donkey turds, and so the feds have no choice.

Take transportation. Thanks to Uber, Lyft, and other players you can expect to see DOT step in even more.

They already handle most of the safety aspects and almost all of the environmental.

Now granted, the Trump regime would use children to make lubricating oil for their Death Star, but be honest, do you really think he is coherent enough to last?

Re:They're way ahead of you California

[Anonymous Coward]

States' rights*!!

*except when it's someone else's rights I want to take away

-Conservatives

'Constitutional citation' (federalist or states rights)*

*whichever argument justifies what I want

-Everyone

Humble (Ajit) Pie

[cahuenga]

I love the fact that (THOSE GUYS) are now arguing for national regulation.

Re:Humble (Ajit) Pie

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The parties are on opposite sides of the political philosophy so important to them in other contexts.

For that matter, had the Obama rules remained in place, and some state come up with Trump's rules, and tried indignany to roll them out, well, I doubt the dems would be bleating for states' rights, and the republicans for federal domination.

Re:Humble (Ajit) Pie

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is that states can have laws, the fed can have laws, but the states cannot really say we exempt ourselves from federal law.

Though they are trying with pot legalization, those all could be turned over at the whim of the feds. So far they have not, because the public largely favors legalization.

The Bill is in Danger of Being Seriously Weakened

[Puk]

A Senate committee recommended serious cuts to the bill:
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2018/04/california-senate-committee-recommends-cutting-key-net-neutrality-protections

And, of course, the ISPs have been fighting the bill _hard_:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/att-and-cable-lobby-are-terrified-of-a-california-net-neutrality-bill/

If you're in CA and you support effective net neutrality legislation, let your local legislators know you want the original bill.

What a nice guy

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to meet California Bill and shake his hand!

Unless the description is wrong, this is bad

[Trailer Trash]

Those rules required equal treatment of all internet traffic

Please tell me my phone call packets can still get precedence over pornhub traffic.

Re:Unless the description is wrong, this is bad

[frank_adrian314159]

Why should they? How is your conversation more important than someone else's porn? Packets is packets - besides, if your network is experiencing enough congestion to not get voice packets through in a timely manner, you've got more trouble than people streaming porn.

Re:Unless the description is wrong, this is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

How about my remote robot surgery?

Re: Unless the description is wrong, this is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah you get that all the time and you can shut down the WHOLE INTERWEBS Mr special. Fuck you and die. Of MRSA

Re:Unless the description is wrong, this is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the rules do not require equal treatment of all internet traffic. The rules require all traffic of the SAME TYPE get equal treatment. Your SMTP cannot have higher priority than my SMTP. Your video stream can certainly have a higher priority than either your or my SMTP but cannot have a higher priority than my video stream. This is especially important when an ISP provides services like video streaming and SMTP. They have an incentive to prioritize their own if they can. This is why supplying access to content should be separate from supplying the content itself.

No, packets are not just packets. Net Neutrality is not the same thing as QoS. Net Neutrality is about prioritization based on source and destination but not necessarily about type - it is about prioritizing based on brand not type. QoS is about prioritizing based on type which makes plenty of sense and has been in place for MANY years. Your phone conversation, which needs to be 'real time' with low lag, most likely already has higher priority over pornhub.

Can't restore

[tomhath]

Neutrality was never in effect.

Re:Can't restore

[Anonymous Coward]

"Net Neutrality" is a solution to a non-existent problem.

What's wrong with zero rating?

[viperidaenz]

It's worked quite well in NZ before.

Currently we have zero rating available for mobile customers, you can buy a "socialiser" pack for your mobile plan, so Facebook et al. don't count towards your data caps.

Many many years ago I had a cable plan where NZ traffic was counted at 10%, so if you used local services (back in the day where DC++ was popular) and you effectively had 10x your data limit. Most local traffic between ISPs went through free peer exchanges while international traffic was costly for ISP's.

I'm sure there are ISP's that offer other zero rating plans for the likes of TV streaming.

I guess it would be different if an ISP had a monopoly in any area, but wholesale and retail has been split by with government regulation. Any ISP can serve any customer, whether it's via DSL or Fibre. It's only wireless ISP's that run their physical networks.

Re:What's wrong with zero rating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if everyone does it then in order to get to the real internet you have to pay a lot of money.

As a customer you end up paying your contract (with a tiny data cap), plus the "social" bundle for Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, the "entertainment" bundle for Netflix, Hulu and Spotify, the "navigation" bundle for Google Maps, and the "information" bundle for Google Search, Bing and Yahoo.

If you want to use wikipedia, well that comes out of your general data cap. Same if you want to use Hulu or Foursquare or dischord. They have to pay the ISP to be included in the right bundle, see, and you have to pay the ISP for that bundle.

But wait, there's more fun: in a lot of countries, the companies who own the internet access area also media companies. So if I want to watch Sky Sports on-demand then hooray, that's zero-rated! But if I want to watch the BBC sports coverage, that will cost me.

The whole "net neutrality" thing isn't about network performance or peering agreements. There are already plenty of ISP-level mechanisms in place to mitigate having to pull data across continents (lots of content companies offer to supply local caches of their data to national ISPs for just this purpose). Net neutrality is about stopping data network operators from being able to control which specific services people can use (by making their own/their partner's services free/much cheaper than competitors) and to charge twice for the same bandwidth (you and the content company). In the USA it's particularly egregious, because they are actually demanding to be allowed to charge three times: once to the customer, once to the content supplier and once to the government who already paid tens of billions in subsidies to build out networks to make bandwidth available to connect customers and suppliers, which the telecoms monopolies spent on dividends and bonuses instead. That US broadband customers have extremely limited or zero choice of providers just means that the providers can abuse the shit out of them, and there is literally nothing the customer can do short of moving house or doing without the internet.

Re: What's wrong with zero rating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you get unhappy when you go to a nice restaurant and the table next to yours gets free glasses of water with their meal but you have to pay for the coffee and cokes you drink? How about people who order a drink that includes free refills and yours does not? Free refills for all or free refills for none?

Oh no, somebody thinks a restaurant and an ISP operate the same way. Turns out they don't.

Stop misusing analogies. They don't work to win arguments, and when you try, you just discredit yourself.

Re:What's wrong with zero rating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. Troll harder.

No one is this stupid.

Re:What's wrong with zero rating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero-rating doesn't mean "free", it means "included in the price you're already paying". If you want something that isn't included in the price you're already paying, then you should expect to pay for it.

Zero-rating isn't an add-on I can choose or refuse. It's not 'buy this meal and get drinks free'. It's something I have to pay for if I want basic internet access, disguised by the marketing department as 'free' because it's rolled into the basic package.

No one's complaining about having to pay for what they ask for, or for what they want. They're upset at anti-competitive behavior masquerading as 'but it's free!'.

Re:What's wrong with zero rating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero-rating is anti-competitive. That "socialiser" pack doesn't include any upstart social networks or distributed ones; it entrenches the existing players at the cost of innovation, competition, and openness.

I was recently on an airplane where they charged for internet except zero-rating for a small number of IM services. So people who fly a lot are likely to prefer those services. And IM services have network effects, so the people those people want to talk to have to also be using those services to actually be useful, so that means those services are getting even more influence than it appears from this zero-rating.

Re:What's wrong with zero rating?

[nightfire-unique]

I'll field this one.

So, eliminating Net Neutrality was never about maximizing Internet profit from consumers. In fact, consumers would likely benefit (at first), because they're the ones with the power. They're the ones the telcos don't want to piss off.

Internet prices might even fall (in the short-term) as part of an appeasement strategy.

The real money is in charging the established content providers a premium for access to consumers.

Take Spotify, for example. If Net Neutrality is eliminated, Spotify and all of the carriers will most likely collude to offer NZ metering (possibly even free to the consumer) for their service, encouraging many consumers to switch to Spotify. Spotify, of course, then increases their prices by a few dollars, split with the carriers. Consumers are annoyed, but they don't make the connection.

SuperTunesPlus attempts to enter the market, offering great new features at a lower price. However, not only do the carriers not want their money, SuperTunesPlus can't afford to pay the protection fee anyway. Consumers, having to pay bandwidth fees for SuperTunesPlus, decide they're better off with the established player, and SuperTunesPlus suffers greatly. They hold on just long enough for the carriers to slow their traffic, causing persistent buffering issues. The last of their customers leave, and they go bankrupt.

Picking winners and losers in the market - that's what the anti-NN movement is about.

Who cares? Well, in a US without Net Neutrality protections, the next YouTube, Spotify, Google, Uber, or Amazon will likely be invented in China, Canada, France, or Japan. The world is a big place, and while it sucks not being able to serve American customers, it sucks worse trying to build a business when you can't even count on the network to function properly. Over the long-term (say, 20 years), silicon valley will become a power base of large, expensive, established, and inefficient American-only companies, while tech leadership will migrate out to the rest of the world.

There is still time to fix this, though.

Re:What's wrong with zero rating?

[Obfuscant]

Zero-rating isn't an add-on I can choose or refuse. It's not 'buy this meal and get drinks free'.

Which is it -- something you didn't choose or something that comes as part of the package? "Buy a meal and get the water free" is a package, just like zero-rating with some ISP services is. You don't have to use the zero-rating services, so yes, you do get a choice, just like you can say "I don't want the free drink."

No one's complaining about having to pay for what they ask for, or for what they want.

The person I replied to did exactly that regarding BBC sports feeds, and it was because other people get something included in their service. He gets it too but doesn't want it. He wants something else that he has to pay for, and therefore other people should have to pay for Sky. (And by "pay for it", I mean "pay for the data", of course.)

Also, it's called an "analogy" because it isn't an "identity", and there will be differences. No, an ISP is not a restaurant, but both offer services that patrons are expected to pay for and services that come as part of other things. Zero-rating is one of the latter. It happens in all kinds of things. I don't want Comcast email with my Comcast internet, but it's there if I do and I'm not forced to use it. It costs me money, and I have to pay someone else for the service I do use. I would be selfish to demand that Comcast stop offering email just because I don't want it and I have to pay for it elsewhere. When I get an oil change, I also get a coupon for a free car wash. I don't want it, I don't use it, it costs me money, and I have to pay someone else if I want to get it from them. Same thing.

To the AC who claims trolling: it's an opinion I hold that differs from yours. Learn the difference.

Also, learn the difference between shooting down one argument in favor of something and arguing that it's a good thing with no downsides. When you make selfish arguments like this one about something that most people find useful and valuable, they tune you out. You're arguing against their better interests. You need to have an argument that shows it isn't in their interest, and "you need to pay for yours because I have to pay for something different" isn't it.

Re:What's wrong with zero rating?

[viperidaenz]

I never mentioned slowing traffic. I was talking solely about zero rating.

In a market where wholesale and retail are separated, you literally have dozens of ISP's (even in this little country of less than 5 million people)
Zero rating becomes a differentiator for the ISP's, not a tool for Big Media to cut out the little guy. Big Media would need to engage in anti-competitive behaviour with multiple companies, greatly increasing their risk of being caught and prosecuted or publicly outed if they did it through a loophole.

Re:What's wrong with zero rating?

[sjames]

I WISH ISPs were like restaurants. Because then there would be dozens to choose from AND I would have the option to roll my own at home too.

To make your analogy work, there would have to be no more than one or two restaurants available, no grocery stores, and hunting, fishing, and growing a vegetable garden all illegal.

Meanwhile, THE restaurant (or BOTH) offer reasonably priced food, but then there's the table fee, the utensil fee (charged by the bite) the air fee, the door fee, of course a fee for walking on the floor, etc.

Finally, there's a surcharge if they don't like what you do with the energy you gain from eating food.

Re:What's wrong with zero rating?

[nightfire-unique]

But why even take the risk?

People/governments around the world should lay this one out crystal clear: carriers, you will serve our will, or we will delete you, arrest your CEO, and seize your assets for the common good.

It is our land, and they are our airwaves. Not yours. Carriers, you exist at our behest.

There is a shitton of money to be made by serving the telecommunication needs the citizens of a modern nation.

That should be enough. And, if carriers can't act in good faith, there's no reason for us, the people, to allow them right of way, or access to our radio spectrum.

Re:What's wrong with zero rating?

[viperidaenz]

You've missed the point entirely

NZ has a market where an ISP can do what they please. There is little barrier to entry for new ISP's.
If they do things people don't like, their customers will switch. Last time I switched I was without internet access for only 5 minutes while I swapped routers.
I switched because a competitor offered a cheaper, faster service.

The key is no artificial barriers for new ISP's and a clear separation between wholesale and retail.

You bleating on about arresting CEO's, deleting companies and seizing assets makes you appear to be a moron, so I'm not surprised you don't understand.

Perfect !!!

[Tulsa_Time]

The 10th amendment works as designed !!!

Enjoy

[AHuxley]

your state protected paper insulated wireline. That telco monopoly is all ready for NN.

Big goverment

[Anonymous Coward]

I am American and many people are saying they are tired and sick of California big goverment interfering in free market of the internet. I was upset about some of the things that President Trump and his smart Chairman Pai FCC boss did with liberals pushing the big goverment and gun controls now I am throwing my support behind the NRA and Trump 2020 campanes and encourage all my fellow Americans also to do!

So the State can throttle Netflix?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Netflix doesn't pay it's 'donation' to the correct political party/candidate, will it be regulated to the least common denominator of speed on the net?
Any time the government tries to improve a private service, the results are less than expected, usually with unintended consequences.

In 5-10 years...

[mi]

In 5-10 years California will observe, that other places have higher availability of Internet service and wonder why.

Customarily, instead of suspecting their own regulatory burden, they'll accuse the evil KKKorporation$ of seeking "too much" make profit, and start seeking ways to compel them into less profitable things. In exchange for tax-payer subsidy...

The well known cycle of:

• If it moves, tax it
• If it keeps moving, regulate it
• When it stops moving, subsidize it

will be complete...

Re:In 5-10 years...

[sjames]

Nah, they'll just build out municipal broadband that's ten times as fast for half the price.

That's when those same carriers that won't touch the state with a ten foot pole will run crying to Uncle Sam and moan about unfair competition (in a market they refuse to enter).

Re:In 5-10 years...

[mi]

Nah, they'll just build out municipal broadband that's ten times as fast for half the price.

Yeah, because all of the earlier governmental undertaking proved so superior to private enterprises. To wit:

• Public schools, which cost 4 times more today than in the 60ies
• Public roads, which suck by all accounts, particularly in California
• Public transit, which sucks by all all accounts
• And last, but the most germane to the topic, the glorious Municipal WiFi — which sucked so bad, it got abolished by most, who attempted it

Yeah, let's build even more success on that glorious track-record — all the while letting the governments know even more about our online behavior and policing any misbehavior not as ToS-violations, but as civil infractions. What can possibly go wrong?

Re:In 5-10 years...

[sjames]

OTOH, municipal broadband has consistently kicked private offering's asses in spite of having to fight lawsuits and captured state legislatures just to exist.

Public transit works OK for the level of funding it sees. In many cases, semi-privatization is what ails it. Care to point to a fully private service that doesn't suck or cost too much for most people using public transit?

Show me those private roads paved with gold!

Re:In 5-10 years...

[mi]

OTOH, municipal broadband has consistently kicked private offering's asses

Citations needed.

in spite of having to fight lawsuits

Local governments wield undue powers over Internet-service provision. To allow them to compete with private providers is to enable corruption on an even worse scale. There is nothing magical about it — the same group of people setting up the local ISP could do it regardless of whether they are incorporated as a private entity or a town government's department. If they "kick ass" as the latter, that's evidence, that something did not let them do the same as a former. Socialism tends to cause this kind of corruption because it reduces (and eventually eliminates) competition.

Care to point to a fully private service that doesn't suck or cost too much for most people using public transit?

We do not have private public transit, unfortunately. I wish we did, but we don't — not in the US. Tokyo has competing subway lines, but American cities do not — not in the traditional sense. But, if you count Uber and Lyft, then your request is answered. They are cheap and people prefer them so strongly:

One study included surveys of 944 ride-hailing users over four weeks in late 2017 in the Boston area. Nearly six in 10 said they would have used public transportation, walked, biked or skipped the trip if the ride-hailing apps weren’t available.

big-government socialists blame them for the ever dropping popularity of public transit:

“Ride sharing is pulling from and not complementing public transportation”

Now, try WiFi on the government-owned Amtrak for a personal preview of what government-provided Internet-service will be like. Meanwhile, privately-offered LTE consistently works. Oh, yes, it costs more — but you were willing to excuse poor performance by inadequate funding, so, yeah, pay more for the LTE.

So, yes, the point stands — whatever government does, is done poorly. So poorly, people even suggesting, yet another aspect of our lives should be handled by the kind and omniscient government instead of by greedy and selfish KKKapitali$sts, should be strongly suspected of not just stupidity and ignorance, but of criminal conspiracy to defraud the rest of us too.

Re:In 5-10 years...

[Anonymous Coward]

Chattanooga is a decent citation.

WiFi is great for in the house and on the porch, but as an uplink to an ISP, it sucks whether it's public or private. It can be good, but only if you're willing to do more engineering than just plugging the AP in. Unfortunately, no ISP, public or private, seems willing to work with anything more than that.That's why I am talking about broadband rather than WiFi. If you're talking about blanketing an area in wifi so everyone's laptop just works, the problem is the PRIVATE vendors invariably painting a far too rosy picture of the range and under-specifying the number of APs needed to actually provide reliable coverage.

Uber is not even the same market as public transportation. Many people would go (more) broke taking uber to work daily. The last time I needed a cab, coming out of the public mass transit station, my choice was call an Uber, or take one of the regulated cabs already there waiting for me to get in, and costing the same amount.

Amtrack is only semi-public and only exists because private passenger rail services went belly up. So if you want to compare them to the private option, I would have to say it's literally better than nothing.

Re:In 5-10 years...

[sjames]

The AC post is mine. Sorry about that, /. apparently decided to forget I was logged in even as I was typing the reply.