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.
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?
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.
I'm not the original AC, but yes. Republicans removed already-toothless regulation that had literally done nothing to curb throttling and other non-neutral ISP behaviors. People fighting so hard for what was there seem to forget that it only came into existence in 2016 -- and literally nothing improved with its passage.
Should they have replaced it with something that has teeth? Yes. But as long as it's a political game, there's going to be bullshit amendments inserted by both parties because neither of them give a crap about regular people, nor do any of them understand what ISPs do to begin with. Just take a look at the Facebook privacy hearing; one would think that they could grasp the idea of privacy, but nope.
Both parties are terrible for regular people. Democrats just get a little more help from the media, that's all.
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'm sure they'll find a way to blame Republicans despite their 2/3 majority.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
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/
While most EVERYONE wants net neutrality, there are many, mostly on the right, that don't want the government involved in regulating the Internet because they are concerned about the unintended consequences of this. This is legitimate position and while you may not agree with it, it is misguided to pretend this view does not exist and to chalk it off as corruption.
At times I wonder if comments like the parent's are just a paid troll trying to weaken democracy in America. Democrats may not be perfect but there are differences. Saying there are not does not absolve you of responsibility of the consequences of not choosing.
I wish I i could be a paid troll. I'm really good at it, and I do enjoy it. To get paid for it to boot was just be sweet.
But back to what you said. I don't know what is funnier, The fact that you actually tried to type that and expect people to believe it, or the fact that you might believe it yourself. The first is actually funny as in ha ha, the former is actually funny as in funny sad.
Both republicans and democrats tell you what you want to hear so you won't get off the wagon.
For instance why does that crazy loon Maxine Water keep screeching "impeach impeach" for? Knowing damn well there is no way in hell they will impeach Trump. It's what her voters want to hear, so she can get re-elected and keep on sucking on that tax payer tit.
Same reason Lord Trump keeps bleating on about a wall that never will be built, or locking her up knowing it will never happen? It's because that is what his supporters want to hear.
It's all about money and power. The Clinton's where charging money for political favors. They just got greedy and it got out. The only reason the democrats didn't abandon the hildibeast is she still has a ass load of political supporters. That is the only reason she isn't sitting in a jail cell right now.
Money that is the true master in Washington. Think of this, how many poor politicians are there?
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
ShanghaiBill pointed out:
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.
Yep.
The committee's chairman CAN unilaterally add amendments to the bill, but the committee as a whole must vote to approve the amendments before the bill is sent to the floor for a vote by the whole membership of the Assembly. If it passes there, it must then go to the state Senate, where it will also be subject to amendment - including amendments to delete the language the Assembly committee chair added. If the Senate then passes it as amended, it would go to a conference committee, which could further amend it, before it's returned to both houses for a final, up-or-down vote, with no further amendments.
At any point in the process, it could simply be spiked. The Assembly committee, for instance, could vote not to recommend it to the full Assembly. The Assembly as a whole could vote it down. The Senate could vote it down, when and if it gets there. And, finally, the conference committee's compromise could be rejected by one or both houses.
And, of course, the governor could veto it, which would require a supermajority of both houses of the Lege to overcome.
Knowing California politics as I do, I'm confident that Santiago's amendments are meant as poison pills. He's fully aware that neither the Assembly as a whole, nor the Senate will pass the bill if it still contains his telecom industry-fellating provisions. I'm sure he's counting on that fact to ensure the bill either never makes it out of his committee, or that it dies on the floor of one or the other house, thereby killing off a California-wide legal mandate for net neutrality.
It's as transparently cynical a ploy as I've seen in legislative politics. And it may just work.
The thing is, California has this thing called the initiative process that would allow a voter-initiated measure to be placed on the ballot to enshrine net neutrality in the state constitution, instead of the State Code (where it would be subject to amendment by a future Legislature). And that could easily happen in reaction to this maneuver.
It's make for an interesting (and entertaining) public fistfight between Silicon Valley and the telecom industry. They both have more money than God, and you can be sure they'd spend hundreds of millions each on political advertising for and against.
The main thing, though, is that ShanghaiBill is absolutely correct, and the headline (which is straight from the SFGate website and the San Francisco Chronicle-Examiner) is profoundly misleading.
You know: clickbait meets yellow journalism ...
Check out my novel.