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.

Comments

An actual law

[Kohath]

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.

Re:An actual law

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

And that prohibition is unconstitutional and will be proven so.

Westward, Ho!

[PopeRatzo]

Once again, it's up to California to show the rest of the country how it's done.

Re:Westward, Ho!

[Anonymous Coward]

A good job for this, yes.

But in almost all other ways, California wants to be the next Illinois or Venezuela.

Illinois is probably the proper comparison. 10 years and California will be over-loaded with debt and bills they can't pay just like Illinois today.

I think you have California confused with Kansas.

California wants to make sure it's not the next Kansas.

Among other things, California has a balanced budget. Ask your Kansas friends how that Republican tax cut worked out for them.

Re:Westward, Ho!

[farble1670]

But in almost all other ways, California wants to be the next Illinois or Venezuela.

Yes, all these jobs, sunshine, beaches, and breast augmentation is really terrible. I recommend everyone stay far, far away.

Re:Westward, Ho!

[PopeRatzo]

As all the Telecoms will stop setting up business there.

That's right, the telecoms will stop doing business with the largest economy in the United States. One out of eight Americans lives in California. You think the telecoms are just going to give up that market?

If anything, they will adjust their policies across the country to stay in compliance with California.

You're welcome.

Re:Westward, Ho!

[jeff4747]

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Full...

Scroll down to page 22 to get past all the political statements and warm fuzzies. $144B in income and rollover from last budget year, minus $138B in expenses does not yield a negative number.

Re:Westward, Ho!

[rahvin112]

Be quiet you, all blue areas of the countries run huge deficits every good conservative knows that and any information to the contrary is just fake news like any other facts they don't like.

California is 1/4 of the US economy, they have broad ability to affect the entire US, as seen with their automobile pollution rules. Used properly this will have deep effects all the way down the internet, even to companies without operations in California because their traffic may cross California. On top of that most of the major telecoms/cable companies have a presence in California and will be required to abide this law. And the FCC can't do squat about it because they took internet services off class 2 regulation baring them from regulating any of this including state laws.

I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I don't understand

[StormReaver]

The Constitution is quite clear that any power not claimed by the federal government defaults to the states.

The Constitution is quite clear that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

One of the big problems we have is that the Federal Government interprets the Constitution as you have just described, rather than abiding by what it actually says.

Re:I don't understand

[Green Mountain Bot]

Laws must come from Congress, yes. But they are enforced by the executive (of which the FCC is a part). Laws frequently leave the details to the experts in the executive. In this case, Congress passed two laws (the second being a revision of the first) that give the FCC broad powers to regulate interstate and international communications networks. You can argue that Congress would be better served to give more concrete parameters, but the fact that they didn't in no way means that the FCC doesn't have authority.

Re:I don't understand

[rahvin112]

Congress delegated to the FCC broad authority to regulate Title II communications in the 1950's, at the time this was basically telephone service because the public had come to believe this was an essential life saving service which it obviously was. But Congress also delegated to the FCC the ability to decide what constituted Title II service offerings because they understood they couldn't vote on every little new thing that came out.

During the Clinton administration the FCC voted to provide light regulations protections for "data services" as part of the 1996 deregulation of data services as the internet came into being. GW Bush's FCC went a step further in the early 00's and voted to remove all Title II protections. During the remaining years of the Bush administration and comments from leaders in the telecom sector (particularly the head of ATT) it because apparent that the new no-regulation stance gave these companies the legal ability to essentially blackmail services operating via the internet by threatening to slow down their service if they didn't pay the telecom provider a fee. This would be the death of an open internet with the Telecoms and Cable companies deciding the winners and loosers in the market. In particular it would give them the ability to "tax" into oblivion any service that competed against their own offerings. Comcast immediately took advantage of this to try to blackmail Netflix.

This birthed the net-neutrality movement and during the first years of the Obama administration they tried to implement policies to stop this blackmail with light handed regulations while not declaring the service Title II again. The FCC was then immediately sued by all the telecoms as they are almost every time they do anything and lost in court, with the final court ruling saying that without a designation that data services were Title II that congress had never given the FCC authority to regulate these services. So as a regulatory action in the final years of the Obama administration they voted to redesignate Data services as Title II and implemented the lightest regulation they could, giving them authority to review and revoke agreements like those between Netflix and Comcast where Comcast was using last mile access to toll competing services. They required a minimal amount of reporting by companies with more than 100K subscribers and took the position of not acting unless a complaint was received.

Trump upon entry immediately undid the Title II designation but then as the last sentence in the order tried to claim that this new regulation blocks state level regulation in direct contradiction to the previous court ruling. Were the FCC to try to challenge the California law they would immediately lose based on that ruling because the FCC has no authority unless it's Title II.

One of the purposes of federal regulation is to offer a level playing field across the US, when you eliminate all regulation you give the states authority to regulate it themselves. This is what the Trump administration is finding out, by trying to undo the Title II designation they opened up the pathway for States to regulate it themselves. The same has happened with EPA's attempts to undo minimum CAFE and pollution requirements put in place during the Obama administration, regulations that were heavily supported by numerous states. The result has been a dozen states passing their own and conflicting requirements creating a regulatory patchwork that makes it harder for car manufacturers.

But this is what happens when you put inexperienced nitwits or idealouges in place at these government agencies. You destroy the regulatory framework that protected these business from state level regulation. That's not a win, the problem is the right's come to believe that simply eliminating the regulation is a better idea that providing a legitimate process and negotiation with the stakeholders (businesses, state and local governments and activists) on sensible regulations that the entire country can live with that protect the business and the people.

Re:Nice

[ShanghaiBill]

Finally California does something right in it's government

California politics has become significantly less dysfunctional since we switched to non-partisan primaries. The new system favors moderate candidates open to compromise, over partisanship and pandering to special interests.

Re:How, exactly...

[forkfail]

Campaign contributions usually work fairly well.

Re:So everybody has to subsidize...

[KerPow]

The ISPs will not be able to discriminate based on content. They can still discriminate based on customer usage. If my neighbor is downloading full blast 24/7 I don't care if it is Netflix, Linux distributions, Steam games, or just a horrendous number of regular web pages; data is data. The ISP can still just slow down the user that is eating up the bandwidth. What they cannot do is throttle based on the source. Otherwise, you get a world where all the bandwidth goes to the streams from the cable company website that just happens to be the ISPs parent company, but limited bandwidth for everyone else because they are competitors.

ATTN:California 53rd Assembly District voters

[cahuenga]

~ Never forget: Miguel Santiago is bought and paid for.

Who decides what harms consumers?

[misnohmer]

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.

Re:So everybody has to subsidize...

[Anubis IV]

No, nothing in the summary suggested anything of that sort. Nothing is stopping ISPs from charging heavy users for their heavy use, just as they can now. But once the user pays for their service, the ISP is obligated to provide the service. They don't get to double-dip by claiming that the payment they already accepted was insufficient and that the sender needs to pony up the difference if they want that data to arrive in a timely fashion. That's called extortion. If FedEx and Amazon agree to a contract and you then order something from Amazon, FedEx doesn't get to hustle you for money in order to deliver the package on time. They got paid to do the job and now they need to do it.

Moreover, contrary to your suggestion, this actually ensures that we DON'T end up subsidizing others. Without safeguards like these, the fees that ISPs like Comcast were trying to charge services like Netflix will inevitably be passed on to users by those services, at which point users on well-behaved ISPs (i.e. ones that don't charge these fees) will end up subsidizing the people stuck with misbehaving ISPs. Either that, or Netflix will have to add something like a Comcast Surcharge for its users who are stuck with misbehaving ISPs.

Someone ends up paying either way, but if these fees represent increased costs of business incurred by these ISPs, then the only proper thing to do is to increase the amount that they charge their customers (and accept the PR hit for having high prices), rather than illicitly trying to hide the costs by demanding that third-parties pay them for a job they had already accepted payment to do.

Great.. but will it blend?

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Re:How, exactly...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

How can you tell the difference between 'good' "zero-rating" and 'bad' "zero-rating"?

Look at T-mobile's zero rating. Anyone can meet their zero-rating rules with out paying them cash. All you had to do was meet some fairly easy* technical requirements and respond to their commands to downgrade video. That's good zero-rating.

* Easy if you're building a video streaming company. Probably not easy enough if you're one guy serving videos off your home server. Although if you're that kind of person, maybe you want to tackle those as a fun project.

I'd say that making it open to all players based solely on technical, not business, requirements is a valid way to play it. With some watching to make sure teh technical requirements aren't business requirements in disguise (e.g. must use CodecX, available only from us for a license fee of Y)