Slashdot Mirror
Democrat With Financial Ties To AT&T Guts California's Net Neutrality Law (mashable.com)
A Democratic assemblyman with financial ties to AT&T has gutted a new law that would serve as a gold standard for true net neutrality protection across the country. The bill SB 822 is expected to be voted on by the California State Assembly Communications and Conveyance committee on Wednesday, where it would go to the state assembly for a full vote, at which point it would become law if it passes. "But late Tuesday evening, Miguel Santiago, a California assemblyman and chair of the Communications and Conveyance committee, edited the bill to allow for gaping loopholes that benefit the telecommunications industry and make the net neutrality legislation toothless," reports Mashable. From the report: If Santiago doesn't remove his amendments, he would be the first California Democrat to side with the Trump administration to actively destroy net neutrality, according to Fight for the Future (an internet freedoms advocacy organization). Specifically, the amendments undermine net neutrality in a few ways. First, they would allow ISPs to charge any website a fee for people to be able to access it.
Next, they would give some content (such as content owned by the provider) preferential treatment on cellular data. That means that some content would eat up cellular data, while others would be free or less impactful to access. There's a high likelihood that privileged content would be created by the network's parent company, since so many telecoms companies like Comcast and, recently, AT&T, now both own the actual content, and the way it's distributed. This loophole makes it likely that people wary about using up the data that they pay for would opt for the content privileged by their telecoms provider, which undermines consumer choice. And finally, Santiago's edits allow for throttling, which means intentionally slowing down content, but with a twist: Instead of slowing down the connection to consumer devices, the data is slowed at the website or service side, affecting everyone trying to access it.
Next, they would give some content (such as content owned by the provider) preferential treatment on cellular data. That means that some content would eat up cellular data, while others would be free or less impactful to access. There's a high likelihood that privileged content would be created by the network's parent company, since so many telecoms companies like Comcast and, recently, AT&T, now both own the actual content, and the way it's distributed. This loophole makes it likely that people wary about using up the data that they pay for would opt for the content privileged by their telecoms provider, which undermines consumer choice. And finally, Santiago's edits allow for throttling, which means intentionally slowing down content, but with a twist: Instead of slowing down the connection to consumer devices, the data is slowed at the website or service side, affecting everyone trying to access it.
Now is where we all act surprised that Democrats are just as beholden to their money sources as Republicans.
Democrats have never supported true net neutrality. The current furor was just more faux outrage to try and win voters, secure in the knowledge that they'd never succeed.
Wheeler pushing Title II restrictions was a betrayal of his Democratic masters. He was never supposed to do that. Remember, he was literally a cable industry lobbyist. He was supposed to push their agenda, not betray them.
So remember that the next time someone tells you to "vote for the D!" to "save net neutrality": they don't really care and never have.
He's a moron and just signed his political death warrant in this country.
Shall seek Justice.
The voices of MILLIONS
shall not be silenced.
At this point, I'm just hoping that some form of AI unmoored from any single system will learn enough to see how utterly broken these greedy 'leaders' are, and basically replace them all with some rational form of efficient resource distribution systems.
Then, one day, they notice that no one is actually being arrested anymore, none of their ultra-rich donators are calling them, and their administrative policies haven't been followed by anyone for the past few months.
Furious, they press buttons on their cell phone, only to discover they're just normal millionaires, and everyone seems to have forgotten they were ever part of the government.
One can dream.
Ryan Fenton
Yeah, while the repeal of title II classification which was enforcing Network Neutrality came form republicans despite it being massively popular with their voter base, it's important to remember that this is NOT a partisan issue. EVERYONE wants network neutrality and the only people who are pushing against it are those who are bought and paid for. Corruption, through and through. (That said there are a bunch of really shitty ways to implement any enforcement of NN. These two changes are fucking bullshit though, and Santiago can go to hell)
Also, the way political donations work, are there ANY politician that have "Financial Ties" to a telecom?
If enough states pass laws protecting net neutrality, it would effectively nullify the FCC's hugely unpopular decision, and may discourage major ISPs from creating "fast lanes" on the internet for services that can afford to pay — one of the biggest fears in a post-net neutrality world.
No, if enough states pass laws instituting their own varied versions of net neutrality, it will NOT effectively nullify the FCC's decision because the FCC is going kick the states asses in federal court nullifying their stupid, for-political-show-only, nn laws.
Guess what Dems, nobody is going to care about this come the midterms.
Democrats and Republicans alike. Take money from lobbyists and smile, as they give the middle finger to the people.
Too bad the Founding Fathers didn't include more provisions in the Constitution to prevent "public servants" from working for special interest groups instead of the broader constituency.
Oh, well. Next time..
How can an ISP that doesn't have a client that hosts a website slow a website down at the server side? The only thing they have control of is the connection on the client side to the content.
All X are the same.
Never learn to follow the money. Just continue being emotionally triggered and pigeonholing "them".
A forum of geniuses.
The summary is misleading. It claims Miguel Santiago did it, but in reality the entire committee approved the changes 8-0. Why the sudden 180 degree turn? The bill essentially does nothing now. The linked article shows a very clear diff of the text. Who introduced the bill in the first place, and why weren't they on the committee? Or did they just vote to remove all their own work? Was this the plan all along?
You don't seriously mean to imply the Republicans are BETTER for net neutrality than Democrats on the whole? No, because that would be retarded. Ajit Pai level retarded. Ted Stevens retarded. Ted Cruz retarded.
Seems like SOP. Make a law that looks like it will have a bite to it, then at the last minute do a quick amendment. Talk behind closed doors who will take the fall guy/gal. (who's retiring, rock paper scissors, etc) Then everyone else has someone to blame, and they supported the Bill at the same time. Win-Win for the politicians!
Let's not kid ourselves, most of the politicians are bought, not just this one who did this. Granted there are a few that really care to do what is right, just not the majority.
So what's even left? Sounds like every single item constituting net neutrality has been removed. Might as well have just added a 'jk, this bill is null and void' at the end. What a corrupt scumbag.
but show up to your primary. Right wing pro corporatists need to be kicked out, but they can't if they're the only option. California especially had a ton of viable primary candidates who lost. Mother f'in' Nancy Pelosi is going to keep her seat for Pete's sake.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A forum of geniuses
Well, it was, until you showed up.
So, The Internet becomes AOL again.
It was fun while it lasted.
Sending a nastygram today. He's up for re-election in November; the Korean might get my vote now.
...yet another bought-and-paid-for politician just outed himself.
and everybody who runs as a Justice Democrat. They've all refused to accept corporate and PAC money. Why anyone would vote for a politician that won't pledge against corporate & PAC money is beyond me. I mean, in the General when it's too late, ok, but in your _primary_ and you're voting for politicians who openly admit to being bought? Why? Just Why?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Vote in your primary and only vote for politicians who refuse corporate & PAC money. If you have to join a party to vote in primaries join the Democrats. They've got a wing that refused corporate/PAC money.
Until we can get voters to refuse politicians who've been bought of we're boned.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Write Miguel Santiago a comment if you're in district 53: https://a53.asmdc.org/article/...
If these "financial ties" were anything even remotely damning, you know they'd be front and center.
Instead, we have a grab bag of stuff along the lines of "somebody who got some money from AT&T for something once picked their nose in a restaurant in the middle of Santiago's district."
I suppose the NN folks have to keep fanning the flames however they can now that the sky hasn't fallen.
The (R)s generally support industrialists, while the (D)s generally support bankers and financiers. You're getting screwed, but the D's profit handsomely from destroying industry, while the R's profit handsomely from destroying the environment.
Oh fuck both teams are on the take? Whom shall I root for without using action or thought. Fuck it go team red blue!
He approaches corporate America like a bitch in heat, complete with a Tic Tac.
Data plans would have a data cap. The consumer would have to pay for a set cap so the provider can make money?
Profits that go back to the company so they can expand their network into other profitable areas of the state?
Are NN supporters suggesting no data caps and free fast internet for all? Even if the consumer can never pay back for the network provided?
Why should every part of the state or city get "free" internet services that they the NN plans wont pay for?
No company can keep networking poor area dwellings under NN that will never pay back the cost of connection.
Re "privileged content"?
Wealthy parts of a city, state could pay back new networks and get fast new tech. Poor areas stay on paper insulated wireline as they cannot pay for new plans to cover the new network costs.
Different new networks will offer 4K and faster plans beyond what paper insulated wireline can support. Once a part of the city gets less poor they too can enjoy privileged content on a new network.
Re "'affecting everyone trying to access it." That is due to a paper insulated wireline network not doing the "internet" so good in 2018.
Want fast internet all over a city and state? Pay for plans that support a new network all over the city, state.
Federal NN rules kept everyone at paper insulated wireline network speeds under a monopoly telco.
With federal NN rules removed different telco products and services can be used all over the state and city. No more federal telco NN monopoly.
Communities can find innovative telcos and create their own advanced networks.
Exisiting telcos can price and offer new products consumers want and use without federal NN rules blocking them.
Innovation and competition is allowed networking city wide to support what consumers will pay for.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Kevin Jang, another Democrat, runs against him in November.
That is all.
Democrats are never going to solve "income inequality", never gonna provide a universal basic income, ban cigarettes, provide universal free healthcare, provide free college, etc. If they did these things, they would lose them as issues to rile-up their base voters every two years.
Republicans are never gonna fix the border, rebuild the military, de-fund planned parenthood, balance the budget, or shrink the federal government. If they did these things, they would lose them as issues to rile-up their base voters every two years.
This is one reason why "mainstream" Democrats AND Republicans despise Donald Trump. Yeah, the guy's a bit of a carnival barker who loves to go on and on about "the greatest", "the best", "millions and millions" etc (sorta like Muhammed Ali and a bunch of other famous self-promoters in that regard) but one of the things that truly panics both sides of the political aisle in DC these days is that Trump seems determined to ACTUALLY fulfill campaign promises. This is a two-pronged threat; first, it highlights the phony nature of the Democrat and Republican machines in DC and second, if he actually solves any of the big famous problems SOMEBODY will lose a campaign issue.
Kinda makes one wonder just what would have happened had Ross Perot succeeded in getting elected in the nineties...
Not many apple carts like being upset.
Doesn't it? One of your own, who's later shown to be bought and paid for turning his back on on his employers for filthy lucre.
Shocking!
How long would it take to recall those they voted against net neutrality in California?
California's legislature is controlled by a super-majority of Democrats. One lonely solitary Democrat cannot stop something the rest of them want; there's simply so many of them they can power-through and do anything they want.
There are currently 27 Democrats and 13 Republicans in the CA state senate - a more than two-to-one ratio. 21 votes is enough to win an issue.
There are currently 55 Democrats and 25 Republicans in the CA state assembly - a more than two-to-one ratio. 41 votes is enough to win an issue.
The Democrats have the CA Governor, Lt Governor, SecState and other offices and they dominate the courts.
There is NOTHING Republicans can do to stop Democrats in CA and it's been this way for years. The only thing limiting the Democrats is fear that if they go too far too fast the public might wake up angry and kick 'em out.... and that's NOT what stopped them on this "net neutrality" farce. They do not want to fix the issue both because they want it as a campaign issue and because there's too much lobbyist money to be collected.
Of all people, Slashdot readers who fancy themselves smart, intellectual, intolerant of BS, etc ought to stop being such willfull gullible idiots for the CA Democrat party; if they're not doing something, there's a reason and it's damned well NOT one dude.
The Democrats Gerrymandered the sh*t out of this state many years ago. Most Republicans in the state are crammed into a few districts with double-digit Republican majorities, leaving Democrats spread across the majority of districs with solid single-digit majorities. That's why seats in CA almost never change parties - the Gerrymandering was so successful that it set politics here in concrete with only the gradual demographic shift caused by immigration having the potential to change things (and it will only make the state MORE Democrat and thus further frozen).
This guy would have to do something far more outrageous to lose and even then his replacement would likely be a political clone given the political makeup of his district.
Our first President, George Washington, warned the American people not to fall into the trap of political parties. He had been a loyal British subject and was aware of how corrupt the political parties made things in parliament in England and did not want the sort of party-before-country and party-before-principle garbage here that he saw happening there. Sadly, we have ignored this bit of wisdom just as we have ignored a bunch of other wisdom our founders tried to pass down to us.
Where Democrats actually stand vis a vis net neutrality.
Evil Republicans are evil by fiat. Democrats by their actions.
I don't know how California's governing process works, but it seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with it if a single person who apparently represents a small part of one city can completely change a law affecting the entire state-especially if the change is directly benefiting corporations who have paid him money.
The info is on the dark web (and even some public outlets) for all to see.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Next year it'll be SystemD and/or Magenta and farewell Linux on smartphones (no, Tizen and Sailfish won't matter).
...the first California Democrat to side with the Trump administration to actively destroy net neutrality
Actually, Trump's position is no regulation.
Santiago's position is regulation that gives the government control, but also rewards financial donors.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Not sure why a cellular provider can't offer their own content for a lower charge to their subscribers.
If I'm on Verizon and I'm a FIOS subscriber why can't they allow me to watch FIOS remotely without incurring a data charge?
2 parties utterly not listening to anything voters want....why would we do business thusly with you when you have elected trump on top of it
It is time to vote for Libertarians. Not the socialist, that some how claims there is a socialist libertarian. Anything with socialist in it is not freedom.
...will emerge from their mother's basements. After their eyes adjust to the sunlight and they slather on sunblock SP5000, they will wobble down to their nearest public square and shout with indignation that their Anime Streams Shall Not Be Throttled!!!
No, it hasnâ(TM)t been in a very long time...
The main reason some voters are neither R or D is that, for whatever reason, those particular voters think corruption is a bad idea rather than a good idea. We're only about 20%, but that ain't nothin'.
If you think corruption is a good idea, then you're probably a member of the Democrat or Republican parties. And most people (~80%) are, because corruption is tolerable.
But some people disagree. We're split on this. Just because the pro-corruption parties happen to be a big majority, doesn't mean corruption isn't partisan. There's you guys, and us guys, and we are resentfully squinting over the aisle, giving you shade because of the burning anger in our hearts.
Republicrats, please leave that party. It's corrupt, and corruption is bad because it means none of your other issues are really on the table. If you think that corruption aside, Democrats or Republicans happen to mostly agree with you on political matters, that's swell, but they won't and can't promote your idealistic agenda, because corruption undermines everything else.
(Republicans want to promote racism, but they can't do it nearly effectively enough, because they're on the take and racism doesn't make their donors money. Democrats want to give everyone free marijuana and atheism lessons, but they can't do it effectively, because they're on the take and free marijuana and atheism lessons don't make their donors money.)
Republicrats, withdraw your partisan support for corruption, and come over to the American side.
I think what he's trying to say, is that about eleven years ago, some Republican voters did start calling Republicans on their bullshit, sincerely and truly. It caused different bullshit to surface or become more prominent, but it nevertheless really was a reaction against Republican corruption.
Republicans want their representatives selecting policy based on maximizing racism and mystical beliefs, and not based on just lining the congressman's pockets by enacting law for whoever contributed the most money.
Unfortunately, what they didn't see coming (or didn't perceive effectively) was the self-employed combination lobbyist/politician. Trump looks and acts corrupt, but if you follow the money you probably really will find that nobody is paying him much. The catch: nobody except We The People. The idea behind this politician is to enact laws that personally enrich him (not some donor) at the taxpayers' expense, without there being a second person having to fund him by buying favors. He can just "pay himself" to support whatever policies work best for him.
If the Democrats (this is how the thread is about Democrats) want to copy this strategy, what you need to do is look at who is most strongly lobbying the Democratic party and instead of electing who they say to elect, elect them directly. Look for situations where your politician can be his own lobbyist. The moves the corruption entirely into the mind, rather than it being an interpersonal transaction.
If you do it right, then only a telepath will ever be able to find it.
If you do it sloppily or get too many people involved, there are risks, which is why Trump is so terrified of Mueller. When I said Trump wasn't on someone's payroll, well.. the truth is that he's mostly not. Mostly. There was just this one problem where he wants special favors from Putin to help his business, so he "sold us out" metaphorically. Not much money is changing hands, but policy changes can be traded too, and the people involved do need some money, so it's not pure and it does leave clues behind. Just the sort of thing that Mr "I got Gotti" is adept at sniffing out.
So, Democrats, the lesson here is: don't be like that. For the most part, simply not-being-a-fuckwit should be good enough. So keep intelligence-testing your candidates.
That's right, this is a consequence of identity politics. The Dems had to elect this guy because he is Latino. Whether or not he is a crook or otherwise a scumbag does not enter into the calculus.
Wow. Who knew Democrats are just as vile and disgusting as Republicans.
I am shocked!
Lol. You my friend are taking a ride. His position is whatever will win him points. He is a classic con and you are going for the ride.Trump con train choo choo - Trump con train convince the suckers that anything he does is for them. Choo choo. Trump con train say whatever the idiots want to hear. Choo choo. Trump con train quadruple earnings while the suckers focus on the chaos. Choo choo choo choo choo choo.
Rofl.
Looks like you have a train fetish
Trump's got the country going back in time. Maybe when y'all reach the 1700's you can fix the corruption problem with a guillotine.
Greenwald:
Glenn wrote that years ago about Democrats killing the Public Option, but it holds true to pretty much any policy the party wants to drown in the bathtub at any level of government. There's also the flipside to this tactic: Hero Rotation. That's where some member of the party grandstands on C-SPAN to make liberals wet, but its just propaganda as they don't intend to make any changes beyond this week's news cycle. See: pretty much anything from Kamela Harris, Cory Brooker, and especially Elizabeth Warren.
It's as legit as a communist having a full-on panic attack at the sight of a privately owned business.
Better yet, get rid of that sheep herding operation entirely:
1) If parties want to have a closed vote for a party chair, have at it - but public officials represent everyone and impact everyone, not just party members.
2) It takes quite the amount of hubris to use taxpayer dollars to run closed primaries. Independent and third party voters support those elections with their tax dollars, but aren't allowed to vote in them. Fuck that.
3) The most important vote is frequently in the primary, not the general. In 2016, a massively corrupt, incredibly racist, and unbelievably incompetent candidate could have been denied the nomination if not for closed primaries and caucuses. That goes for the Republican nominee as well.
Partisan Democrats spent a full eight years gaslighting the hell out of their base and the public that Obama was anything but a right wing neoliberal/neocon.
Oh, those meanie Republicans wouldn't let him close Gitmo (even though Obama only wanted to move it to Illinois).
Oh, Obama creating the massive deportation machine that Trump inherited wasn't so bad because he mostly deported people at the border - except Americans mostly live on said border as defined by the feds: within a hundred miles of our neighbors or the ocean.
Oh, we didn't get a Public Option because meanie Joe Lieberman (who was allowed to keep his committee chair after campaigning for McCain) joined Republicans in voting against it. Nevermind that it passed by reconciliation so we didn't NEED 60 votes, and that it was confirmed that Obama killed the PO for lobbyists.
Constantly telling everyone that Obama's shit didn't stink. And you can count on the same when its Corporate Cory or Kamela "I let Steve Mnuchin commit billions in fraud" Harris.
Obama's "sequester" alone debunks that nonsense. If public sector unions had any power, Obama never would have proposed capping their benefits and cutting department funding. And that's the tree next to the forest of repealing Taft-Hartley, which is still in force.
The same pharma/banking/oil/war scumfucks fund and thus control both parties.
Any more questions?
Asking voters that have been betrayed by the Democratic party - over and over and over again, for decades - to stick it out is like telling a person with an abusive spouse that they shouldn't leave.
Besides, building a third party to replace the Dems is a herculean task - but it's a walk in the park next to reforming it. Every step of the way you'll be supporting the very corrupt interests you're trying to fight, because you're still supporting the party. Get every single Justice Democrat running for office elected, and they'll still be voting the party line if they don't want to find their office moved to the nearest lagoon, along with their re-election chances.
Because you're reminding me of this. And Honey, I just want to give everybody health care.
As for Small Donations and Membership fees, does this count as a "small donation"? Because I think we're using different terms.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."