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.
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?
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/
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/
You are absolutely right. The party of slavery is much worse than the Grand Old Party. The Repubs just want to make the rich richer (while making a buck doing it). The democrats want to make you into a slave (while also making themselves rich). Throw them BOTH out. Get a working Libertarian party option and go back to constitution meaning something.
...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.