California Senate Votes To Restore Net Neutrality (theverge.com)

Wish I could say I was "first" by TomR+teh+Pirate · 2018-05-30 08:51 · Score: 0

But Comcast put my contribution in the slow lane

Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2018-05-30 09:46 · Score: 0, Troll

Omnipresent regulation and laws detailing all aspects of life in the pursuit of the ongoing Perfecting of Mankind will grow to such a ponderous burden that progress in technology will start slowing, approaching the rate under dictatorship or failed state. No one can do anything without securing difficult permission from the overlords.
Good luck with perfecting people. I'm sure there's a regulation somewhere that saying Mankind is worthy of firing, or if you're lucky, merely being sent to a re-education camp, if done in a university, scholastic, or business environment.
Seriously.
No, seriously.
No, really, seriously.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 10:03 · Score: 0

Glad to see everybody misunderstands the net neutrality act. It's actually about less competition (which CA loves), and having the FTC vs FCC regulate it. So how's the Left Coast gonna force the FCC to regulate the internet? Duped fools, all of you.
Re: Wish I could say I was "first" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 10:37 · Score: 0

Yes, everyone but you is the fool. I guess you need to maintain your sanity somehow.
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by Mr307 · 2018-05-30 10:44 · Score: 0

I have no mod points or I would have selected 'Informative'.
So many layers of this and its very hard to see the forest because all the trees are in the way kind of thing too. Each individual retreat from freedoms may only be small or incremental but over time, generally longer times, you end up with nothing wondering 'how did this happen? who do we blame?'.
The single biggest reason I was happy for the repeal of the imposed NN rules was that there was hardly any big pipe infrastructure being constructed since that time because there was little to no incentive to build since you could not charge larger users more than lesser users.
Which amongst other things along the same lines become barriers to entry for small startups, which dovetail into what you were saying, need so many more lawyers involved just to be 'compliant' with the many thousands of new laws.
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by ShanghaiBill · 2018-05-30 11:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Omnipresent regulation and laws detailing all aspects of life
Burdensome regulation is bad. But regulation to prevent abuse of monopoly power is justified. If I had a choice of a dozen ISPs, then the market could sort this out. But I have a "choice" of one.
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by AutodidactLabrat · 2018-05-30 12:12 · Score: 1

As opposed "Let the market (monopolists) decide"
I'll take citizen choice over corporate profits for 1000 chuck!!
Re: Wish I could say I was "first" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 12:34 · Score: 0

You're just plain old wrong.
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by ShanghaiBill · 2018-05-30 12:51 · Score: 1

you could not charge larger users more than lesser users.
This is complete bullcrap. Why would you believe something so stupid and nonsensical? Do you have any idea what NN is?
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by ShanghaiBill · 2018-05-30 12:53 · Score: 1, Troll

Little known fact - Netflix's entire Internet costs would be $100 per month if NN were in force!
NN was in force for years. Did Netflix pay $100 per month during that time? Of course not, because you are full of crap.
Re: Wish I could say I was "first" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 14:00 · Score: 1

I do not think that nn worked that way. ever. you want OC-3? you get it, but you paud for it, and still do. But now Comcast, Verizon etc. can still fuck with the bandwidth and extract more "Quality of Service" $ from you. Oh, we see you have a good amount of VoIP traffic? well, for an extra $1000/mo we can (try to) help "ensure" you never miss another incoming call! etc etc etc. I'm sure at the top of the SLA that comes with an OC-3 there are various metrics that the provider says they will be keeping up, etc. but further, deeper in it will start all the subtle weasel-out clauses for different "grades" of traffic. along with the forced arbitration clause. So good luck with all that.
It was that kind of fuckery that Comcast was trying to do to Netflix, and Netflix finally capitulated. Let's not forget Comcast has its own services it wants to push, especially against Netflix (cable tv, its own streaming services etc).
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by zieroh · 2018-05-30 15:08 · Score: 1

Little known fact - Netflix's entire Internet costs would be $100 per month if NN were in force!
I'm surprised you posted this under your username. Most people who spout obviously false garbage on slashdot are savvy enough to do so as ACs.

Yeah, NN would require that an ISP charge the same rate for a 4 Mbit service or a 100 Mbit service.
That's not only wrong, it's also incredibly stupid. Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're either a troll or an idiot. Likely both.
Oh, the irony.

--
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by zieroh · 2018-05-30 15:10 · Score: 1

you could not charge larger users more than lesser users.
This is complete bullcrap. Why would you believe something so stupid and nonsensical? Do you have any idea what NN is?
I think it's clear the answer to that is a resounding "NO"!

--
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by mike.mondy · 2018-05-30 15:22 · Score: 1

Little known fact - Netflix's entire Internet costs would be $100 per month if NN were in force!
I'm surprised you posted this under your username. Most people who spout obviously false garbage on slashdot are savvy enough to do so as ACs.

Yeah, NN would require that an ISP charge the same rate for a 4 Mbit service or a 100 Mbit service.
That's not only wrong, it's also incredibly stupid. Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You're either a troll or an idiot. Likely both.
Oh, the irony.
What? They don't have sarcasm on your planet?
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by mike.mondy · 2018-05-30 15:24 · Score: 1

Little known fact - Netflix's entire Internet costs would be $100 per month if NN were in force!
Yeah, NN would require that an ISP charge the same rate for a 4 Mbit service or a 100 Mbit service. And, NN also meant that an ISP couldn't buy more upstream bandwidth if their customer base quadrupled.
You're either a troll or an idiot. Likely both.

NN was in force for years. Did Netflix pay $100 per month during that time? Of course not, because you are full of crap.
What? They don't have sarcasm on your planet?
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by cronos1013 · 2018-05-31 01:29 · Score: 1

So having laws that regulate ISPs and force Net Neutrality to be in place isn't a bad thing.
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by JackieBrown · 2018-05-31 01:51 · Score: 1

It's the government saving us from evil corporations.
We don't need to know more than that.
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by Mr307 · 2018-05-31 04:15 · Score: 1

Good grief, trunking/peering costs, not costs to end users. Hence the statement about hardly any infrastructure upgrades since the original NN was imposed. As an example of 1, Google stopped rolling out both its fiber and its wireless programs country wide, aggregate reason given was 'couldn't compete' for various reasons, costs, entrenched monopolies, etc etc.
People get hung upon end users and completely forget the other parts of the NN question.
Jump to the wrong conclusions and lash out like children rather than ask for clarification why dont ya.
Re:Wish I could say I was "first" by zieroh · 2018-06-01 02:15 · Score: 0

What? They don't have sarcasm on your planet?
On my planet, people are generally smart enough to know that textual representations of sarcasm are difficult to deliver effectively. The audience must know something about the speaker's worldview in order to surmise how to interpret the current statement, or some obvious cue has to exist (body language and intonation being absent) in order to understand the sarcastic intent.
But that's just my planet. Maybe you'll do better if you stay in yours.

--
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.

What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 08:53 · Score: 0

I thought congress already voted to repeal the FCC repeal

Re:What am I missing? by jebrick · 2018-05-30 08:57 · Score: 1

The Senate voted to not repeal it. The House has not,
Re:What am I missing? by bobbied · 2018-05-30 09:23 · Score: 3

AND, Trump hasn't signed it...
To reverse the FCC on this is basically the same as making a law. Both houses must pass the bill and the president must sign (or the veto over ridden in the senate)...

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Re:What am I missing? by BlueStrat · 2018-05-30 10:07 · Score: 1, Offtopic

What am I missing?
What you're missing (along with many other partisan "rah-rah-team" types here) is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
SCOTUS, particularly now with Gorsuch on the bench, will slap CA down. Hard. The same thing that's going to happen to "sanctuary cities" and the criminals in office who are criminal accessories both to violations of Federal immigration law, but also accessories to every crime committed by illegal aliens they've allowed to continue breaking the law by remaining illegally.
If AZ can't enforce laws regarding immigration because it's a Federal Department that has sole, exclusive authority, neither can CA do it regarding NN which is also under exclusively Federal authority.
It would be like Louisiana enacting a law banning jet aircraft, cellphones, or AM radio stations. States don't have such authority for good reason which we see playing out here.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:What am I missing? by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-30 10:16 · Score: 1

Maybe Louisiana couldn't ban jet aircraft. They could however charge them a $1,000,000 landing fee at all airports, other than in an emergency :D
Re:What am I missing? by Obfuscant · 2018-05-30 10:24 · Score: 1

They could however charge them a $1,000,000 landing fee at all airports, other than in an emergency :D
That is a lie. Such a fee would be slapped down in federal court (if not just by the FAA) due to the large amount of federal funding used to pay for those airports.
Re:What am I missing? by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-30 10:26 · Score: 1

They can also refuse Federal airport funds or take a cut in funding.
Note that local airports do have restrictions. LaGuardia in NYC has forbidden flights over ~2000 miles -- I think the longest flight out of LGA is to Denver. All West Coast flights have a stopover.
Re:What am I missing? by Obfuscant · 2018-05-30 10:52 · Score: 1

They can also refuse Federal airport funds or take a cut in funding.
You should stop making knee-jerk responses in things you so clearly do not understand.
According to Wikipedia, MSY (New Orleans International Airport) has more than 5.5 million "enplanements" per year. New Orleans (the operator of that airport) is not going to lose its federal control tower, TSA services, or any other federal funding in a stupid attempt at banning jet aircraft from the state. Nor will any of the other cities that run airports. That includes general aviation airports that exist primarily due to federal funding for upgrades and improvements. It's not even a case of being able to refuse new funding, they have already accepted money with the strings attached.
You might as well have claimed that they'd be able to charge $1 million per landing because they could get the sun to come up in the west and the moon to be made of green cheese.
The perimeter rule you so glibly toss off as an example of airport restrictions is with the full approval and supervision of congress (who has mandated changes over time) and was not intended to "ban jet aircraft" but to move traffic to nearby airports that can better serve it. You could have also pointed to noise restrictions and traffic pattern rules as examples of local airport regulations, and those would be as relevant to this discussion as LGAs perimeter rules.
Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 11:12 · Score: 0

Unless this fee was shown to serve a specific purpose, for which the fee was reasonable, it would be unconstitutional.
That has already been tried - in New Orleans, IIRC. The city attempted to place massive taxes on newspaper and ink, in order to shut down the papers that were critical of them. The Supreme Court shot it down as a First Amendment violation, because the taxes were obviously an attempt shut down those newspaper companies.
It's the same thing with high fees on guns, ammo, or abortions.
Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 11:24 · Score: 0

And what you're missing is they haven't violated FCC rules. That still has force of law in California. California is just legislating that anyone who doesn't follow the additional rules they impose can't get a government contract within the state.
Re:What am I missing? by Narcocide · 2018-05-30 12:44 · Score: 1

A large amount of federal funding was used to pay for the network infrastructure, too. By your own logic, Net Neutrality needs to be reinstated because of that alone.
Re:What am I missing? by Obfuscant · 2018-05-30 13:03 · Score: 1

A large amount of federal funding was used to pay for the network infrastructure, too. By your own logic, Net Neutrality needs to be reinstated because of that alone.
Wrong. The strings attached to federal funding of included prevention of such nonsense as $1 million landing fees. There were no strings regarding net neutrality in any federal funding for federal infrastructure, and most of the complaints about NN are over private networks and corporations.
If it WERE an argument to reinstate NN, then it is an argument to do so at the FEDERAL level, not using a patchwork of state and local regulation.
In any case, the DESIGN of the network includes the differentiation of traffic that is apparently prohibited by the CA law. Not only is it the wrong place, it does the wrong thing.
Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 13:23 · Score: 0

And what you're missing is they haven't violated FCC rules. That still has force of law in California. California is just legislating that anyone who doesn't follow the additional rules they impose can't get a government contract within the state.
Sure, let the CA State government go back to fthe '70s with no website hosting for State websites or other internet-based government portals when no internet service providers qualify. I'm certain the voters will happily reelect those responsible, LOL!
Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 15:51 · Score: 0

What you're missing (along with many other partisan "rah-rah-team" types here) is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
What you're missing is how this particular law applies to whose services the stage government can buy. That isn't covered by the Supremacy Clause.

SCOTUS, particularly now with Gorsuch on the bench, will slap CA down. Hard. The same thing that's going to happen to "sanctuary cities" and the criminals in office who are criminal accessories both to violations of Federal immigration law, but also accessories to every crime committed by illegal aliens they've allowed to continue breaking the law by remaining illegally.
So what you're saying is that purely on partisan grounds, members of the Supreme Court will enact punitive measures to exact vengeance upon their enemies as if they weren't sworn to uphold the law and pursue justice, but vicious members of some sort of Mafia out for revenge.

If AZ can't enforce laws regarding immigration because it's a Federal Department that has sole, exclusive authority, neither can CA do it regarding NN which is also under exclusively Federal authority.
Arizona sought to use its police authority. California's only using its fiscal. Arizona would have been 100% legal not to hire contractors who could not certify their employees met residency standards.
That wasn't what they did at all. Instead they tried to form posses to drive all the Hispanics out of state.

It would be like Louisiana enacting a law banning jet aircraft, cellphones, or AM radio stations. States don't have such authority for good reason which we see playing out here.
Actual laws of Lousinana have included bans on interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, divorce, abortion and mandating Catholic prayer in school.
Let's see your record of opposition.
Hmm, wait, complete unquestioned support, in fact you demanded the statue to White Supremacy be preserved. Huh.
No wonder you want to pull a Taney on the Supreme Court.
Strat.
Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 19:32 · Score: 0

What you're missing is how this particular law applies to whose services the stage government can buy. That isn't covered by the Supremacy Clause.
What you're missing is that the reverse is also true; service providers don't have to enter into a contract to provide the CA government any services at all.
Party like it's 1969, Bro!
A digital Gilligan's Island, LOL!
Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 19:58 · Score: 0

Look at the bright side.
When ISPs don't apply for a contract to provide the CA state govt. with internet services,, the CA division of the USPS could then put the entire USPS back in black ink and fund all the USPS pensions with all the new business! :D
Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 23:56 · Score: 0

You need a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a presidential veto.
Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-31 01:55 · Score: 0

What am I missing?
What you're missing (along with many other partisan "rah-rah-team" types here) is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
SCOTUS, particularly now with Gorsuch on the bench, will slap CA down. Hard. The same thing that's going to happen to "sanctuary cities" and the criminals in office who are criminal accessories both to violations of Federal immigration law, but also accessories to every crime committed by illegal aliens they've allowed to continue breaking the law by remaining illegally.
If AZ can't enforce laws regarding immigration because it's a Federal Department that has sole, exclusive authority, neither can CA do it regarding NN which is also under exclusively Federal authority.
It would be like Louisiana enacting a law banning jet aircraft, cellphones, or AM radio stations. States don't have such authority for good reason which we see playing out here.
Strat
You contradict your own argument. A "sanctuary" city/state is one that simply declines to assist the federal government in its actions to enforce federal law. In this case, using the ruling against AZ supports their position...this is a federal law, we ain't paid to enforce it, it belongs to the federal government, and we're not going to expend our funds helping them. (with expending funds means including but not limited to phone calls, holding onto anyone who may not be here legally, etc).
This is different from the case of NN in CA...CA is saying within their boundaries, this is the rules for operating as an ISP. Outside the CA border, the company can do what they like (subject to federal and other states law). With the world's 4th or 5th largest economy, CA has a bully pulpit and they are using it.
Re:What am I missing? by atrex · 2018-05-31 03:34 · Score: 1

The SCOTUS can't do anything, because of the loop hole statement: "In order to receive State Contracts". Any ISP in CA or any other state that has made one of these Net Neutrality bills into law can decide to forgo lucrative state contracts and ignore net neutrality principles. But if they want a state contract then they have to adhere to the rules state law put forth.
Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-31 03:40 · Score: 0

What you're missing is that the reverse is also true; service providers don't have to enter into a contract to provide the CA government any services at all.
Party like it's 1969, Bro!
A digital Gilligan's Island, LOL!
Of course they don't, but that will be giving up the money they could get. And California can simply perform the operations itself, with off the shelf items and their own legal rights.
After all, they have their own pool of IP addresses and domains. They don't need Geocities or Comcast. They can literally lay their own fiber, buy their own servers and stopping them would be giving up on a major economic market.
So sure, any given company might. All of them? Hardly. Even if they tried, it would be an illegal cartel.
Strat
Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-31 03:42 · Score: 0

Turns out the California government is already its own ISP with its own peering arrangements.
Good luck being a private ISP that cuts off a state's websites.
The customers won't even have to riot, you'd be slapped down by everybody else.

Re:Trump Eunuchs by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-30 08:56 · Score: 0

I can't wait till Kamala Harris wins in 2020 and both racists and sexists will weep bitter tears...

CA OR WA all your Net is belong to us by WillAffleckUW · 2018-05-30 09:01 · Score: 1

Get used to it!

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:CA OR WA all your Net is belong to us by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:11 · Score: 0

Get used to it!
That sounds way better than the net belonging to Comcast. Fuck these companies deep into the earth.
Re:CA OR WA all your Net is belong to us by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 12:29 · Score: 0

To be honest, I love Comcast. I used to have Cox in a few states in the southeast. Service was unreliable, prices were high, bullshit fees were put in place (my modem wouldn't connect on a new installation until a serviceman came outit started connecting five minutes before he arrived; he did absolutely nothing but collect money). When I moved to WA, I tried a few other services; CenturyLink couldn't figure out the wiring at my apartment complex and scheduled me for a second service call... a year later. This despite the fact that I own CenturyLink stock (broker's recommendation; I sold after this experience, and stock has been trending down). Finally, I went to Comcast, whom I'd been dreading since I'd heard so much bad news about them on Slashdot. Within an hour I was up and running with my old modem from my days with Cox and without a service visit, and for cheap. Now they give me cell phone service too for zero money besides taxes and fees; data costs a bit, but I've never paid more than $12/month for it with them. I have become a total cheerleader for Comcast. I would drink my morning coffee out of a Comcast mug if they'd give me one.

Re:Trump Eunuchs by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:01 · Score: 1

Keep dreaming. Harris has all the downsides of Clinton plus some extra.

Seems it would hurt the consumer by slapout · 2018-05-30 09:02 · Score: 1

So T-Mobile won't be able to offer Netflix with its service?
AT&T won't be able to offer DirecTV?

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad

Re:Seems it would hurt the consumer by StormReaver · 2018-05-30 09:11 · Score: 1

Sure, they can offer it. But they have to charge its usage against data caps just like they do all other services. That would be a great reason to extend the data caps to something reasonable (say, 1 exabyte a month), or do away with them altogether.
Re:Seems it would hurt the consumer by Sarten-X · 2018-05-30 09:12 · Score: 3, Informative

To put it another way, Netflix will have to compete directly with DirecTV, rather than making exclusivity deals with cell providers. Right now, Netflix (to pick a party at random) gets a chunk of customers (in turn improving its negotiating power and company value) just by having a deal with T-mobile, and they don't have to actually improve service for it. Long-term, consumers still lose, even though it's promoted as being a "free" deal.

--
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Re:Seems it would hurt the consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:16 · Score: 0

Correct. Because whinging snowflakes.
Re:Seems it would hurt the consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:18 · Score: 0

Sure they can. They just can't exclude the content from counting against data caps.
Re:Seems it would hurt the consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:21 · Score: 0

Nothing in the bill preventing them from offering the service. It just prevent "zero-rating" the service against data-caps. This prevent the ISP from playing games with data cap.
Example, in my area Comcast and AT&T are the only wired internet providers. And AT&T speeds are very limited. So Comcast is the only high speed provider. If Comcast lowered their data cap, while "zero-rating" their online video streaming service, it would steer customers toward using only Comcast for video streaming.
Re: Seems it would hurt the consumer by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 10:24 · Score: 0

Nope, you got duped. Netflix will have to compete, but direct tv will get a free pda because it's a "different class of service" handled differently.
Re:Seems it would hurt the consumer by Rick+Schumann · 2018-05-30 11:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

..no, that's not what it's about, it's about T-Mobile and AT&T prioritizing Netflix and DirecTV traffic over all other traffic, or, alternately, slowing all over traffic intentionally in favor of Netflix/DirecTV. It's also about throttling or blocking competitors' traffic as it traverses their networks (i.e. you're a Comcast/Xfinity customer trying to access some site that is hosted by AT&T, and Comcast/Xfinity slows or even blocks access -- or vice-versa). It's also about not allowing ISPs to create the 'Walled Gardens' you've heard mentioned before (i.e. 'tiered service') where you'd have to pay extra to access some areas of the Internet; example: you're a Comcast/Xfinity customer, and you want to watch something on Netflix. You find you can't access it at all unless you pay Comcast/Xfinity extra on your bill every month. That's what Net Neutrality laws are intended to prevent. Essentially, without them, the big ISPs could chop up the Internet. If it was bad enough, they could even break it in significant ways. That's why it's important to stop them from doing that.
Re:Seems it would hurt the consumer by Ramze · 2018-05-30 11:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure how preventing ISPs from omitting services from their data caps or treating services differently otherwise through throttling or QoS methods has anything to do with what you mentioned.
Netflix isn't an ISP, it's a service. T-mobile isn't an ISP, it's a cellular network and is exempt from these rules as it's "different." DirectTV isn't an ISP, it's a satellite TV / psuedo ISP that plays by different rules as well as far as I can tell. This should only affect landline phone, cable, and fiber customers. (ATT Uverse, Comcast, Charter, Google Fiber, etc)
All it should mean is if say... Comcast has a data cap for service tiers, they can't exempt their own programming or Hulu from that cap but include Netflix or others in data for that cap. They also can't throttle Netflix.
Am I missing something?
Re:Seems it would hurt the consumer by Narcocide · 2018-05-30 12:51 · Score: 1

A minor correction: DirecTV just resells other ISP services in a bundle with it's satellite service. They don't own any internet infrastructure of their own. That's why they get to play by different rules. They don't even bundle the same ISP's service in every region... though since they were recently bought by AT&T, I think the result of this whole net neutrality fiasco will probably affect how they continue to restructure the company and their services going forward.
Re:Seems it would hurt the consumer by Narcocide · 2018-05-30 12:55 · Score: 1

Let's get real. Netflix is everyone's enemy here. Nobody is gonna prioritize them over any of their own services, ever. The scenario you outline is perfectly reasonable except for the completely disingenuous placement of Netflix in this scenario as the beneficiary of shady illegal government lobbying.
Re:Seems it would hurt the consumer by Rick+Schumann · 2018-05-31 03:56 · Score: 1

Oh for fucks sake get off your high horse and substitute whatever names you want in there I really DGAF.

Like It or Not by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:03 · Score: 0

This is the PROPER way to do things in this country. Write up a law, the people who voted the representatives in get to vote on the law. We the people tell our critters whether or not we like or not like it; they vote however they want anyway.

A scribble on a cocktail napkin doesn't make a law.

We have procedures that need to be followed. What happens when we try to short-circuit the system? Crap like a 5 member panel get to overturn it depending on the way the wind takes the fart.

Re:Like It or Not by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-30 09:17 · Score: 1

Executive orders only exist because Congress gave the executive a specific power to regulate something. i.e. the EPA was given powers under the Clean Air Act.
Re:Like It or Not by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 14:15 · Score: 0

CA is more like Mexico under Santa Anna.

Re:Trump Eunuchs by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-30 09:06 · Score: 1

Recession will likely hit in 2019-20, if not sooner. Trump will end up unelectable even as a county dog-catcher. Should be entertaining to watch.

OTOH, a consumer advocate like Harris, willing to stick it to the big corps, should go over nicely. Enjoy the ride!

Re: Trump Eunuchs by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:07 · Score: 0

Eunuchs hate women, especially black women. Right, wretched woman? Fn Eunuch.

12 Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:19 · Score: 0

Remember the 12 corrupt POSes that voted no.

Re:12 Idiots by Narcocide · 2018-05-30 12:56 · Score: 1

Useless without their names.

Re:Trump Eunuchs by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:20 · Score: 0

"Harris has all the downsides of Clinton plus some extra."

Someone's been asleep for 25 years.

Re:CA commies love regulations. by k6mfw · 2018-05-30 09:21 · Score: 1

Heh, the "non-commies" want to regulate Facebook, or at least what I saw on CSPAN some Republicans griping about social media giants should at least be broken up into smaller companies.

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Re:Trump Eunuchs by Train0987 · 2018-05-30 09:27 · Score: 1

National polling is meaningless for Congressional races. Most Democrats live in concentrated areas geographically, generally known as the 80/20 Rule; i.e. 80% of registered Democrats live in 20% of the country. If a national poll is split 50-50 on a generic candidate that means Republicans have a sizeable lead in total congressional races.

Re: Africa is for black people. Period by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:29 · Score: 0

What the?

Take one down and pass it around... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:29 · Score: 0

Californias taxes are going up! a lot!
Your free ride is no longer deductable!

Re:Take one down and pass it around... by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-30 09:43 · Score: 1

You mean, California has to pay even more to support deadbeat states that take more from DC than they pay? #calexit2020.
Re:Take one down and pass it around... by The+Good+Reverend · 2018-05-30 10:08 · Score: 1

Yeah, I mean, who wants the world's 5th largest economy, anyway?
Re:Take one down and pass it around... by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-30 10:30 · Score: 1

Electricity: restart San Onofre nuclear power station, use Russian and Chinese tech to build more nuke plants. Mandate solar on all new buildings (actually, already done). Water: doesn't only about 20% of CA's water come from out of state?
Re:Take one down and pass it around... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 10:56 · Score: 0

Well, trumptards like you seem to think that the U.S. would do just fine without the rest of the world. Then why wouldn't California do just fine without the rest of the U.S. ?
FFS the arrogance of the U.S. is astronomical.
Re:Take one down and pass it around... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 10:59 · Score: 0

Good riddance, soyboy!
Which is exactly what the rest of the world would say if the entire U.S. severed all ties with it.
Re:Take one down and pass it around... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 11:15 · Score: 0

continue using aqueducts until they dry out? Seems legit.
Re:Take one down and pass it around... by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-30 12:14 · Score: 1

Or plant more appropriate crops on farms/landscaping around houses.
Re:Take one down and pass it around... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 13:23 · Score: 0

Yes, I am sure that you will be able to return the Switzerland of the Rockies. I am totally sure that you will end the entire history of leaching and stop California from turning into the homeless paradise it is already becoming.
Re:Take one down and pass it around... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-31 17:01 · Score: 0

You mean, California has to pay even more to support deadbeat states that take more from DC than they pay? #calexit2020.
This is a myth that has been debunked numerous times. You are clearly not paying attention.
California invests in other states, via the federal tax system, to bring in water, power, lumber, staple crops eaten by most of it's population. This has lots of economic benefits, such as freeing up farmland to grow expensive luxuries with federally subsidized water, and lowering the cost of the food and basic necessities of life for the residents of California, especially the urban residents.
California also spends money to move military personnel, retirees, and other people on fixed or low incomes to other states (e.g. welfare, social security, medi-care). This in turn frees up housing to bring in people who will spend more on the local economy, and can be taxed at higher rates.
Most politicians in the big cities of California would like to see the military move even more people to other states - they are occupying expensive land and since a lot of the people are deployed they aren't spending much in the local economy. Unfortunately (from their perspective) the Navy has a lot of bases near the sea, which tends to be the most expensive land around.
It also get enormous benefits from federal research spending - more so than any other state, even if the research is done in other places.
So, no California is not supporting deadbeat states, it's making money hand over fist.

Re:Africa is for black people. Period by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 09:32 · Score: 0

"Asia must be for asians, Europe/America for whites"
Hey, asswipe, America belongs to US, the Native peoples that were here millennia before Europeans showed up.

GET THE FUCK OUT, NOW!!

Re:Trump Eunuchs by jwhyche · 2018-05-30 09:41 · Score: 1

If he runs in 2020. I'm still thinking this presidential gig is a bucket list thing for him. Now that he has crossed it off his list, I'm betting he will not run again in 2020.

Not factoring his his ego of course. I watched his speech last night in Nashville. The man loves to hear himself talk.

--
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.

Re:Trump Eunuchs by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-30 09:45 · Score: 1

I'm not actually sure if he expected to win, BTW, or if it was a reality TV stunt gone too far...

Re:Trump Eunuchs by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 10:06 · Score: 0

Kamala ? Shit !!! I remember Kamala!

Kamala habs a kickstarter now. We need a Kamala for president yo

Re:Trump Eunuchs by CrimsonAvenger · 2018-05-30 10:15 · Score: 1

The man loves to hear himself talk.

True. Of course, it's true of all politicians....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Re: Africa is for black people. Period by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 10:18 · Score: 0

"My mom says there's a lot of black people in Africa."

--Eric Cartman

This is why we are a Republic by sycodon · 2018-05-30 10:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, This is exactly what being a Republic is all about.

States can do this. So now what happens is we get to see how this affects the speeds and the revenue. If it is overall positive, then it can be reconsidered at the Federal level. If it turns out to suck, then maybe not.

It's how America was designed to work.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.

Re:This is why we are a Republic by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 11:08 · Score: 0

Don't even need it at federal level... If states are empowered, anybstaye that wants the same benefit can enact its own similar law.
Re:This is why we are a Republic by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 11:09 · Score: 0

Well, except for that entire "interstate commerce" thing. Because, you know, the internet isn't located entirely in California, and not all ISPs that people use are located in California.
Re:This is why we are a Republic by Berkyjay · 2018-05-30 11:41 · Score: 1

Does an ISP like Comcast have the ability to provide different services to different regions or even individual homes? It sure seems so to me since I have standard internet speeds while my neighbor gets their high speed internet. So it should be no problem for them whatsoever to follow the laws of each state in regards to access. Or am I wrong in this line of thought?
Re:This is why we are a Republic by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2018-05-30 11:52 · Score: 2

If you bought X speed, should Comcast be able to degrade your Netflix speed to X - ExtortionAmount unless Netflix pays them a cut of what you pay Netflix?
That's where the lying by big ISPs comes in. The amount Comcast charges you is a lie -- they demand a cut of what you pay Netflix too.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:This is why we are a Republic by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 12:24 · Score: 0

Actually, This is exactly what being a Republic is all about.
Nope. Back to Civics Class with you.

States can do this.
Not according to the FCC order. Or the Constitution.

So now what happens is we get to see how this affects the speeds and the revenue. If it is overall positive, then it can be reconsidered at the Federal level. If it turns out to suck, then maybe not.
Nope. Now we get to see Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, all rush to the FCC and now that they've bought it off, use the power of government to seize our assets and oppress us with their corporate entelechy.
Which will suck, but you're in perpetual denial, so...

It's how America was designed to work.
To the contrary, America was design to work with Federal Supremacy over interstate commerce. This was deliberate and clearly delineated in the Constitution.
Re:This is why we are a Republic by Narcocide · 2018-05-30 12:41 · Score: 1

Comcast has that ability, but they mostly use it to provide different service quality to different types of traffic, or traffic to/from different places. This whole lynching of net neutrality was, for them, primarily in effort to just change the law to make legal what they were already getting away with illegally on a wide-spread basis. That their service quality differs so much between individual regions is possible to be something they control with the same technology, but in the case of Comcast specifically, this is more likely just basic incompetence combined with an insufficient maintenance budget.
Re:This is why we are a Republic by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 20:51 · Score: 0

Tell that to the States that decided Slavery was the best way to go...
Re:This is why we are a Republic by Talderas · 2018-05-31 00:26 · Score: 1

In general, all economic activity, regardless of it is done at an individual level or the economic activity is restricted to within a single state, is economic activity that can be regulated via the Interstate Commerce Clause as the failure to participate in an interstate market is itself an interstate economic decision. That is the conclusion that was reached in the Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:This is why we are a Republic by houghi · 2018-05-31 01:03 · Score: 1

t's how America was designed to work.
Spoken like a true IT person. Only looking at the written requirements and only implement that, no matter how broken it is. And afterwards you can always say "Read the requirements. It is not in there.".

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re: This is why we are a Republic by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-31 02:16 · Score: 0

This is the discredited doctrine of states rights, which has a long history of racism. Moreover it's less efficient to comply with 1 federal law than 50 state laws. The lawmakers and bureaucrats at the state level are morons, at the federal level they have to have elite educations even to be considered. States rights is an outdated concept, reviving it to thumb your nose at Trump will have lasting, toxic effects for years or decades afterwards as states do whatever occurs to them instead of letting the smart people make the hard decisions a progressive society needs.

Re:Trump Eunuchs by jwhyche · 2018-05-30 10:31 · Score: 2

I'm not actually sure if he expected to win, BTW, or if it was a reality TV stunt gone too far... Flag as Inappropriate

With his ego? No doubt in my mind when he came down that escalator in 2015 he expected to win.

--
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.

Re:Africa is for black people. Period by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 10:53 · Score: 0

Blah blah blah blah blah WORDS blah blah blah blah VOMITING ALL OVER THE INTERNETS blah blah blah blah

Unimpressive. Did you get cucked by some big black dude? Did he steal your oneitis girl? Projecting all the failures that are your pitiful life onto people you've never met and never will? LOL, KYS.

Re:Trump Eunuchs by Anonymous Coward · 2018-05-30 11:10 · Score: 0

National polling is meaningless for Congressional races.

True, given gerrymandering which has distorted the picture bigly..

Most Democrats live in concentrated areas geographically, generally known as the 80/20 Rule; i.e. 80% of registered Democrats live in 20% of the country.

Nope. The 80-20 rule is something different. Of course, the fact is, 80% of Republicans also live in 20% of the country. Just check it out. Thanks to burgeoning urbanization, 80% of the country lives in mega-clusters of population.

So basically, you're confusing statistics with reality. A common problem among Trump supporters. Remember, they couldn't even figure out they didn't win a landslide.

If a national poll is split 50-50 on a generic candidate that means Republicans have a sizeable lead in total congressional races.

Nope. A national poll with that kind of spread means that Republicans are desperately lying when they claim to have widespread support and praying that Anthony Kennedy's inevitable ruling on their gerrymandering doesn't hurt them too much.

Really, instead of utterly devastating, they praying for only hugely discomforting.

But many of them are already getting out now.

Re:Africa is for black people. Period by viperidaenz · 2018-05-30 11:32 · Score: 0

If Europe is for Europeans and Asia is for Asians, wouldn't America be for Native Americans, Canada for Inuit, etc? The white people should fuck off back to Europe?

Votes to protect by AHuxley · 2018-05-30 13:18 · Score: 1

existing telco monopolies and their paper insulated wireline.
Time to allow some innovative community broadband and real networking competition.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Re:Trump Eunuchs by fafalone · 2018-05-30 17:32 · Score: 1

Kamala Harris is probably one of the few that could pull off a loss to Trump. I've described the problem before:

The Dems have learned nothing from losing to Trump and will find a way to do it again. Probably by trying to run Kamala Harris for instance. So they lose everyone not cool with 'equality is racism/sexism and white men are evil' and eliminating all due process for sex crimes (particularly on college campuses) to staying home or even going (R), then doubly alienate everyone concerned with civil rights (she's a "tough on crime" prosecutor notorious for shitting all over the 1st Amendment and trying to destroy Section 230 from the Backpage case- truly awash in misconduct; defending the conviction of a man based on a confession inserted into a transcript (and saying it wasn't prosecutorial misconduct to submit it when the prosecutor *knew* it was fraudulent), and fighting tooth and nail against improving prison conditions/reducing overcrowding when those were so bad it got ruled cruel and unusual punishment... I could go on).
Harris and a few of the other front runners are catering to two constituencies: the most conservative, hawkish Democrats, and the radical progressives obsessed with identity politics. A large block of liberals just can't bring themselves to vote for candidates like that, since they, ya know, go against normal liberal values, and will stay at home again as they did with Clinton. Especially after the progressives are done painting everyone in their own party who doesn't like Harris as a racist sexist; her being a minority woman will be the absolute only reason anyone could possibly have a problem with her, therefore anyone opposing her is an alt-right nazi.

So yeah, not a good idea.

Re:Trump Eunuchs by b0s0z0ku · 2018-05-31 04:58 · Score: 1

Harris's record is at best mixed. Her Backpage witch-hunt is a negative, obviously, but she's pro-freedom in other ways:
(1) She's pushing marijuana reform at the Federal level.
(2) As San Francisco DA, she started a treatment program for addicts that helped them avoid prison
(3) As SF DA, she also chose not to go for the death penalty, even in a "heinous" cop-killing case. She stuck to her principles despite everyone calling for a sentence of state-sanctioned murder, and the killer ended up avoiding a death sentence. This is a good thing -- death penalty is abhorrent in all cases and the US should join most of the world in dumping it.
(4) As California attorney general, she chose not to go for life sentences in most "three strikes" cases, even though the law permitted such excessive sentencing.
(5) She's also been on the side of employees and customers vs large corporations and supports public health insurance.

Slashdot Mirror

California Senate Votes To Restore Net Neutrality (theverge.com)

116 comments