Slashdot Mirror
California Senate Votes To Restore Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The California Senate voted on Wednesday to approve a bill that would reinstate the net neutrality regulations repealed by the Federal Communications Commission in December. The bill, S.B. 822, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), was introduced in March and passed through three committees, all along party-lines. The bill was approved 23-12 and will now head to the state Assembly. The bill would reinstate rules similar to those in the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order. It forbids ISPs from throttling or blocking online content and requires them to treat all internet traffic equally. But the bill also takes the original rules further by specifically banning providers from participating in some types of "zero-rating" programs, in which certain favored content doesn't contribute to monthly data caps. If the bill goes on to pass in the Assembly, providers will no longer be able to obtain government contracts in the state of California without obeying the regulations.
The Senate voted to not repeal it. The House has not,
Get used to it!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Keep dreaming. Harris has all the downsides of Clinton plus some extra.
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
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
You mean, California has to pay even more to support deadbeat states that take more from DC than they pay? #calexit2020.
I'm not actually sure if he expected to win, BTW, or if it was a reality TV stunt gone too far...
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.
Yeah, I mean, who wants the world's 5th largest economy, anyway?
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"
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
As opposed "Let the market (monopolists) decide"
I'll take citizen choice over corporate profits for 1000 chuck!!
Or plant more appropriate crops on farms/landscaping around houses.
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.
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?
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.
Useless without their names.
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.
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"
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).
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
So having laws that regulate ISPs and force Net Neutrality to be in place isn't a bad thing.
It's the government saving us from evil corporations.
We don't need to know more than that.
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.
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.
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.