Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Makes Comeback in California; Lawmakers Agree To Strict Rules (arstechnica.com)
California lawmakers announced a deal Thursday to restore key protections in a widely watched bill to give Californians strong net neutrality protections. From a report: The California net neutrality bill that could impose the toughest rules in the country is being resurrected. The bill was approved in its strongest form by the California Senate, but was then gutted by the State Assembly's communications committee, which approved the bill only after eliminating provisions opposed by AT&T and cable lobbyists. Bill author Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has been negotiating with Communications Committee Chairman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) and other lawmakers since then, and announced the results today. Wiener said the agreement with Santiago and other lawmakers resulted in "legislation implementing the strongest net neutrality protections in the nation." A fact sheet distributed by Wiener's office today said the following: Under this agreement, SB 822 will contain strong net neutrality protections and prohibit blocking websites, speeding up or slowing down websites or whole classes of applications such as video, and charging websites for access to an ISP's subscribers or for fast lanes to those subscribers. ISPs will also be prohibited from circumventing these protections at the point where data enters their networks and from charging access fees to reach ISP customers. SB 822 will also ban ISPs from violating net neutrality by not counting the content and websites they own against subscribers' data caps. This kind of abusive and anti-competitive "zero rating", which leads to lower data caps for everyone, would be prohibited, while "zero-rating" plans that don't harm consumers are not banned.
Did they make an allowance for peering agreements? Technically that would speed up some websites.
This is what legitimate policy-making looks like: draft an actual law, argue for it, put it up to a vote of elected representatives, if it passes, get it signed, then implement it.
Note how this is different than having an unelected board just make up rules that sound good.
Once again, it's up to California to show the rest of the country how it's done.
You are welcome on my lawn.
My Independence day was quite wonderful. I've taken the rest of the week off so that I can have some me time.
This morning I got up and showered and slipped into by compression leotard and Capezio dance slippers. I put on some show tunes, and applied a little eyeliner, and a touch of lipstick. I then camped it up splendidly, prancing and flitting around my condo, releasing my inner fruit. LOL.
I was always something of a twink, even now at 30 years old. I do love playing the role of a flamboyant fag, it helps me get my jollies.
It's weird. I'm gay. I'm happy. I know I'm abnormal. I don't need straight people pretending that I'm "just like everybody else". No way. I'm harmless, but really mentally I'm one sick puppy, and it pisses me off when normal people deny who I really am.
It's up to each individual gay person, but in general we relish being the odd duck and the center of attention and the object of straight whispers.Treat me with respect. But don't pretend that I'm "normal" like you. I don't need your condescending bullshit.
Finally California does something right in it's government, assuming the full regulations are as clear as are stated in the summary. Take those exact words and make it federal law.
... the Netflix binge-ers.
So what if they use 37 percent of all the internet bandwidth? If you want to read your /., you're gonna just have to embrace Internet socialism and pay enough to ensure that the folks using 1000x the bandwidth you are can watch sequentially every episode of Criminal Minds without interruption.
SB 822 will also ban ISPs from violating net neutrality by not counting the content and websites they own against subscribers' data caps. This kind of abusive and anti-competitive "zero rating", which leads to lower data caps for everyone, would be prohibited, while "zero-rating" plans that don't harm consumers are not banned.
How can you tell the difference between 'good' "zero-rating" and 'bad' "zero-rating"?
Ken
How are cable/telecom companies going to possibly argue that the FCC's rule preempts this when the FCC stated rather bluntly in the order repealing net neutrality that they were doing it because they do not believe the FCC has the authority to impose those regulations. The Constitution is quite clear that any power not claimed by the federal government defaults to the states. So if the federal government is abdicating responsibility for regulating telecom and cable companies, it means the states are free to do so.
You would think that after the first debacle with Verizon suing and getting everyone classified as Title II carriers would have taught the industry to be careful what they wish for. Now instead of one consistent rule across the entire country they have to contend with as many as 50 different sets of rules.
All your West is belong to Freedom.
It's only in the Lie-over states that you are treated like Serfs.
Wait .. Serfs had rights.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
My wife and I wanted to spice up our marriage a bit so we decided I should watch her have sex with another man. He's coming over later tonight to fuck her and then he'll finish in my mouth (a fantasy of mine). I'm getting a littler nervous about it though. Any advice?
The previous Slashdot story where the bill was gutted linked to a diff of the bill. This article just makes statements about "strong protections." I really like having access to the source code.
the jobs will just move out of CA WI is open to do any thing to get jobs.
The Feds have jurisdiction. Ergo, this NN is basically bollocks and will get struck down.
Unless of course Dems get an unassailable majority in the mid-terms and reinstate in some form NN.
~ Never forget: Miguel Santiago is bought and paid for.
Currently cable and at&t both cap at 1024gb in Calfiornia. That's NOT enough data to stream 4k! The cap needs to be 4TB MINIMUM.
Zero-rating that doesn't harm consumers is not banned? So as long as it doesn't purposely deliver malware? If consumers are using the site you can assume they are doing it willingly and that they are not willingly harming themselves.
Is it as strong as Trumpy's Tarrif act's?? ...as powerful as the world it self?
as powerful as trumpy himself?
As strong as msmash's Breath?
As powerful as msmash's intelligence?
I doubt it.. CA is messed up, unmanageable, ungovernable, and this is FAKE.
You need to stop thinking about constitutionality or who-is-responsible-for-what. Those considerations are 100% distraction. If you want to make sense of FCC decisions, then you need to look at it in terms of the FCC's current purpose.
The FCC's purpose is to maximize profit for whoever pays Pai. The FCC does not have the power to implement NN because the people who bribe Pai want it to prevent NN. The FCC does have the power to prevent states from implementing NN, because the people who bribe Pai want it to prevent NN. The FCC also has the power and responsibility to suck your dick .. if you pay Pai.
Trump made a big point of 'giving power back to the States', so I guess we'll wait and see if he's going to keep his word (for once!) or try to stomp all over California legislation, again.
Investing in CA will now come with a NN internet tax. So "everyone" can get the NN net in CA.
CA has just made the internet cost more to enforce NN rules for all in CA.
That cost of new networking for everyone will have to be considered.
How can other cities in the US win form this?
Show business the cost of staying connected in CA and having to pay new ISP payments for an average NN approved ISP service.
As a business. After work. New costs for their workers. The internet in CA gets government expensive. Regulation expensive. Permit expensive. A net tax to stay in CA.
In another part of the USA its all about community broadband, innovation and no new NN rules.
Start up your business and connect up the really great innovative internet. No new NN rules to pay your ISP for.
Where CA puts more government and rules, other states will welcome investors from CA with less regulation and great services.
People just want to offer internet without having to get inspected for fast lanes, data caps, a state net neutrality law, having to prove "data caps" to the gov.
All that compliance and regulation is a new cost for one state.
How long before CA begins to suggest in what areas and how an ISP should upgrade?
Accept having to get regulated over speed and then accept new CA gov regulations over network locations.
Poor areas traditionally underserved by an ISP in CA have to get new ISP services that are NN fast? No matter the cost to the ISP and the ability of a poor area to ever pay for new fast internet?
That demographic needs fast NN internet too and the ISP will have to give them fast NN internet in CA.
Once ISP in CA accept gov demand for NN speed the next regulation will be for location and service offered all over CA.
Welcome to a nationalized ISP service in CA, paying extra for new NN connections that will never make a profit all over CA.
Costs go up to support new ISP networks all over CA. An ISP forced to upgrade all its network as a gov demands stay within NN rules as an ISP in CA.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
... I finally have a want for it.
Bach says it all.