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.
This is the difference between Democrat voters and Republican voters. Democrats call their politicians out on this bullshit. We* don't try to rationalize that ATT is really looking out for us and the good guy. We* can admit when one guy on our team is being an asshole.
*We: I'm not a dem, but by god, in comparison to the other option I may as well be.
One assemblyman can not just "edit" the bill without the rest of the committee approving the changes. The committee is majority Democrats. So he is not alone in trying to undermine NN. Perhaps he is the only one willing to do so openly, since "in committee" votes are often secret in California. There is more to this story that what is in TFA.
I don't know which reason would be worse. On one hand, they knowingly voted it through as is in complete disregard for the people they are supposed to serve. On the other hand, they're too stupid to do their job and voted through what they were told.
No now is the time when everyone will claim that socialism is so much better. Without any evidence to back it up.
Thanks, low effort A/C.
None of the wealthy corporate interests that run the US would allow even a debate about a better governmental system in the US, as this article helps illustrate.
Government for the government by the government - AKA "public employee unions" disagree with your assertion as to who runs the country.
An Anonymous Coward lied:
The Democrats Gerrymandered the sh*t out of this state many years ago.
Brzzt. Wrong.
After California's voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 20 in 2010 (which added Congressional redistricting to the responsibilities of the existing California Citizens Redistricting Commission - which was itself created by the citizens initiative process in 2008), the state's Congressional district lines were re-drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, in conformance with the U.S. Constitution's census and redistricting clause.
The Commission was originally created to redraw California's state Senate and Assembly districts - which had been gerrymandered in favor of Republicans under the previous processd, in which the legislature was responsible for redistricting, which naturally resulted in a winner-take-all map, depending on which party held the majority at the time. Prop 11 (which passed by 51% to 49%) handed those duties to the Commission, instead, and wrote that provision into the state constitution.
The California Citizens Redistricting Commission consists of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four members who are either declared non-partisans, or members of minority parties), all of whom are appointed by the sitting governor. The Commission is charged, by constitutional law, with drawing districts according to the following criteria:
1- Population Equality (districts must comply with the U.S. Constitution’s requirement of “one person, one vote”),
2 - Federal Voting Rights Act (districts must ensure an equal opportunity for minorities to elect a candidate of their choice),
3 - Geographic Contiguity (all areas within a district must be connected to each other, except for the special case of islands),
4 - Geographic Integrity (districts must minimize the division of cities, counties, local neighborhoods and communities of interests to the extent possible, without violating previous criteria - "a community of interest" being defined as "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation"),
5 - Geographic Compactness (to the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with previous criteria, districts must not bypass nearby communities for more distant communities),
6 - Nesting (to the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with previous criteria, each Senate district will be composed of two whole Assembly districts, and Board of Equalization districts will be composed of 10 Senate districts).
Prop 20 (another voter intiative, which passed by 61% to 39%) gave the Commission responsibility for congressional redistricting, as well, and imposed the same set of considerations on the districts it would create.
Opponents of Prop 20 - which is to say "the Republican Party" - sued in Federal court to remove congressional redistricting from the Commission, claiming that it was an unconstitutional usurpation of the legislature's powers. However, SCOTUS ruled in a similar case filed in Arizona that a non-partisan state commission created by a citizen initiative was a constitutionally-valid alternative to legislative redistricting, which mooted the challenge. As a result, the Commission redrew California's congressional district maps in accordance with the considerations I listed above, and congressional elections since 2010 (there have been 3 of them thus far, with another coming up in November) have been conducted based on those districts.
So, far from your bullshit claim, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission efforts have resulted in district maps that are FAR less gerrymandered, FAR more geographically compact, and, frankly, FAR more representative of
Check out my novel.