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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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/
Though not precisely correct, I can understand this. It just means limiting the total bandwidth to the server.
The interesting thing about it is that that wording doesn't force fairness. If the limit is per client, clients are treated equally. If the limit is on the total server bandwidth, you could implement an algorithm that gives random clients full bandwidth while giving none to others as necessary to stay under the total server bandwidth limit you've decided on. If you rotate who gets it now and then, the website would be undependable to the clients, not just slow, until the site pays up. Given what they are used to, the general public would blame the problems on the site.
...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.
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.
Just de-prioritized.
it only came into existence in 2016 -- and literally nothing improved with its passage.
Yeah, because before 2016, it existed through an entirely different set of regulations. The entire point of the 2016 set was so that nothing would change despite a court ruling.
I wonder what would happen if there are (presidential) elections and no one turns up to vote.
-- Cheers!
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.
...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?
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.
This.
This is why both the mainstream Republicans and the Democrats are terrified of Trump and what he will do. I don't agree with everything he does, but it's quite clear to me he intends to fulfill everyone of his campaign promises, and he intends to fight dirty to do it.
His EO to end family separation is an example. I have no doubt in my mind it is illegal and if taken to court will be struck down. But who's gonna do that? Do you want to be the guy who takes the US to court to reinstate family separation?
I think people better start taking a closer look at what Trump promised to do in his campaign. I expect there are a few things in there that both opponents and supporters said, "That's really great/terrible but he's not really gonna do that." I think they're going to be surprised again.
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.
Sorry, I don't get your comment. I searched for Ivan and masturbate on Google and found a video on xHamster (i'll spare you the link) but I don't think you mean that.
-- Cheers!
Riiight. Because that's the ONLY thing your taxes do. Because black people are the ONLY people on welfare. Thanks for proving, yet again, as if it ever needed it, that racism == fucking stupidity.
I might be more scared of proof of that statement than the video you're sparing us from.
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."
tsa admitted:
Sorry, I don't get your comment.
It's pretty simple, really. I mistook you for a Russian troll - you know: the ones who've been successfully trying to disrupt elections in every western democracy since 2016 or earlier.
Now that I've looked at your homepage, I realize that you're just politically naive, instead.
So, if you would, allow me to explain my reasoning.
When you make comments like the above, all you accomplish is to encourage people who might or might not vote in the next election cycle to decide against doing so. I don't know what the prevailing psychology is in the Netherlands, but here in the USA, those occasional voters mostly consist of the young and the economically disadvantaged. In November of this year, the USA will hold what are known as "midterm elections," so called because they occur between our 4-year presidential elections. Occasional voters are much more likely to vote in general presidential elections. (Which is to say "the ones in which we actually vote to elect a president, rather than the official presidential candidates." The second of those is called a "primary election," and, even in presidential election years, that kind sees consistenly low voter turnout.) Midterm primaries attract pitifully small numbers of voters - and almost no occasional ones - and even those general elections tend to see relatively sparse voting.
So, the voters who do consistently turn out for midterm elections tend to be committed ideologues, and by far the majority of those are strongly right-wing-oriented (at least they are here in the USA). Those right-wing voters also overwhelmingly tend to be evangelical Christians, who are more often motivated to vote for social-conservative motives (anti-abortionism being the primary one), or xenophobic ones. Thus, they vote for populist demagoges and politicians who exploit their fears and resentments, rather than those who are committed to, for instance, protecting constitutional guarantees, or addressing issues of general importance, such as infrastructure, financial regulation, or energy policy reform (to name only a few). It's the occasional voters who really determine which type of candidate wins, so, when they are discouraged or obstructed from voting, the right-wing candidates tend to prevail.
What makes our system particularly susceptible to ideological, rather than practical election outcomes is that the membership of the entire House of Representatives, an overwhelming percentage of legislators in the individual states, and many state governors are determined by the outcome of midterm elections. Those officeholders excercise control over public policy and lawmaking for at least the next two years.
My final point is that occasional voters tend, by a very large majority, to consider themselves as having discharged their civic duty by voting only in the presidential general election, when, in reality, every election is almost equally important to the way our country is governed. So, the question you posed - which is not at all a new one - is harmful to our political process, because it is so easy to discourage occasional voters from participating in it.
And that fact is not lost on Russian trolls ...
Check out my novel.
Wow, it wasn't meant as an encouragement at all. It's just an interesting thought experiment.
Anyway, thanks for your interesting explanation. We have a different system in the Netherlands: we don't have a president and our Prime Minister is also not directly chosen by the people. Aslo, we only vote for the country's government and for the city councils, both every four years or, in the case of the country, more often if a gouvernment dismantles itself before its period is over. But we have similarities in voting behaviour with the US, although young people tend to vote more and think about their votes more than ten years ago. Our habitual voters (who vote for the same party no matter what they did during the past four years) are indeed the devote Christians CDA and CU but also people who always vote for the leftish 'workers' party PvdA. However, habitual voters seem to be dying out here; both the Christian party CDA and the PvdA have seen devastating losses in the last ten years, due to their behaviour in government.
-- Cheers!