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.
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.
It is worse than that. This is why I vote independent. While both the democratic and republican pay lip service to having different ideologies, which is bullshit. When it comes down to they both serve the same master, the one with the deepest pockets. Democrat, republican same coin, just different sides.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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.
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/
No, they DON'T serve the same masters. It's just that neither of them serve the voters. E.g., the Democrats are much more in the pocket of the RIAA and the MPAA than are the Republicans.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No, they DON'T serve the same masters
Not masters, master. They server the same master, money.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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.
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.
A single Independent is akin to a single palm tree trying to stop a tidal wave. The wave simply mows down everything in its path. The gesture is noteworthy, but gestures don't fix problems. You'll need a forest of trees to make a difference.
Normally, I would argue with you till I was blue in the face. But you know what? You got to a point, and it's a good one. Most independents know when we don't vote for the big two we are just pissing in the wind. But we keep hoping.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
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.