Slashdot Mirror
Gov. Jerry Brown Signs Bill To Restore Net Neutrality in California; the Trump Administration is Already Trying To Block It (nbcnews.com)
California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Sunday a bill to restore net neutrality protections that President Donald Trump's Federal Communications Commission killed late last year. From a report: The new law prohibits internet service providers, or ISPs, from blocking or slowing access to legal online content, demanding special fees from websites to prioritize their traffic or charging customers for special exemptions to caps on their data use. Brown signed the measure without comment, setting up almost certain showdowns with both ISPs and the FCC, which barred states from setting their own rules in its repeal last December of protections instituted during the administration of President Barack Obama. The U.S. Justice Department quickly filed a federal action in U.S. District Court in Sacramento to block the new law Sunday night. In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said: "Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce -- the federal government does. Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy." Brown also signed A.B. 1999, which makes it easier for local governments to build community broadband and offer competitive high-speed fiber.
I'm pretty sure the Feds are right and that they have the right to regulate the Internet under various interstate commerce laws. Maybe if it ties it all up long enough for a pro-Net Neutrality president & Congress to get in (which, realistically means Democrats as the Republican party has made their stance very clear). But that's far from certain and if it happens it'll be by razor thin margins...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
https://www.reuters.com/articl...
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department late on Sunday filed suit after California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation to restore open internet protections known as net neutrality in the state after the Trump administration repealed the rules in December 2017."
First of all, they are not regulating interstate commerce. They are only regulating how ISPs get to do business in california. The ISPs can do as they like in other states.
Second, and more importantly, the FCC has no power to regulate the internet - they specifically refuted that. So they have no standing to bring suit. Can't have it both ways, Agitator Pai.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
All roads must fall under "interstate commerce" clauses then since out of state people can use them.
Even if they did, and the clause applied. A careful reading shows that Net Neutrality is the opposite of impediment to commerce.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_activities/policy_papers/commerceclause.html
CA does not want to obey an abusive federal government and nor do most states. We should break up and all go our separate ways. It's not like history doesn't provide examples of trade independent of federal or even state governments. The feds have really stepped onto issues that concern the state and not the other way around here. The feds have usurped power that was never theres to begin with. They have thrusted tax collection obligations onto states for which there are no taxes! They routinely persecute those they don't like- particularly those in the drug trade even in countries beyond the jurisdictional boarder of the United States.
Is data flow even interstate commerce?
Buying from Netflix *is* interstate commerce if Netflix is in another state, but slowing of data it down to you on a service bought locally within the state isn't.
Just because Pai said it was doesn't make it so.
I think Kavanaugh is toast, he lied to Congress (boofing is taking drugs up the ass, not farting. devils triangle is a threesome with a blind drunk/drugged woman not a coin game), his mock outrage wasn't convincing, he needs acting lessons. Whoever told him to show a calendar (full of testable claims), get emotional and blame it all on a political conspiracy.... was an idiot.
He should have been calm, level headed, and judicial like. He blew it.
The long "beer" monologue will follow him forever.
I don't quite know how it will pan out. FBI could investigate his calendar and pick it apart in interviews and testing. I assume Don McGhan will stop them interviewing Kavanaugh to avoid any "lying to the FBI" claims, and stop any deeper investigation into the story Kavanaugh put forward. Do you think anyone will be fooled by that?
I think Republicans want to find a nice way to ditch. Probably lining up the next candidate while the FBI investigation is ongoing, to quietly kill the nomination and the FBI investigation and switch focus to the next candidate.
The telecoms can just partition the bandwidth. Use part for the Internet and the rest for their own private network. They can then do whatever they want on their own private network and just follow the NN rules on the public Internet. This will allow them to offer advanced services and charge companies that want to make their content available on the private network. The private network can carry any traffic that is sensitive the latency or requires a good QoS. The public Internet will carry everything else. Everybody will be happy.
The federal government can set down laws. Local or state governments can add more. How does California adding more laws become illegal? Federal is like Minecraft. State or local are like mods. Right?
Between the EU, China and the FCC, there hasn't been more threats to the Internet in, well ever, Islamic countries included, but they're always been problematic regarding the Internet.
If the UN had any actual power, or any method of enforcement, Pai(d) would be in court with some 'splainin to do.
It's one of the slowest in the world - Britain has faster and I swear they still use cans and string - and one of the most expensive, whilst also being one of the most restrictive.
Comcast gets away with shutting down rivals by cutting their cables. Does anyone think you'd get away with that in Europe?
Verizon ignores an agreement on unlimited traffic in an emergency, placing lives at risk. I don't care about excuses and I don't care if they don't like Monday's. Deliberately placing state and federal workers in danger is what the beltway sniper did.
California isn't even making a dent in this, California is only drawing a line and saying things can't get worse in a few rather restricted ways. If California was serious, it would build a municipal Internet and damn the corporate sector. What's the Fed going to do, invade?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
IMHO, they're more likely to blame Democrats for the failure to appoint him, than to force it through and let it become an election issue.
After his Alex Jones' like performance, I think they won't want to attach their own election campaigns to that train wreck.
Apparently Republicans have suggested a list of people for the FBI to investigate that doesn't include Kavanaugh (source CNN). Which is what you'd expect, he would be lying to the FBI and they'd lay a charge on him, or he'd tell the truth to them, which would confirm the lie to the Senate. There's no win there.
But the flip of that is they'd be 'covering' for Kavanaugh and he is so unsuitable as supreme court judge, he cannot talk factually to the FBI.
Or.... they could blame the Democrats, and do their conspiracy shit, field Hannity to do his mud slinging. Move quickly onto a more suitable candidate.
Nothing to do with Pai and his games. But then again, what exactly is Pai bothered about here? He SAID that ISPs wouldn't throttle their connections if he killed net neutrality laws. So why does he care if a state has a law preventing them throttling the local connection in their state??? Gee, it's almost as if he has some lying issues himself.
We're already all dead from Net Neutrality ending.
Remember how the internet didn't exist until Obama put on the Wizarding hat, went to hogwarts, defeated the dread snake wizard, and made the world safe for porn downloads?
Nothing changed.
Most of us have been around long enough to remember what the internet was like before and after... it was the same.
This is of primary interest to the likes of Netflix, Google, and some other big corporations that want to force the backbone providers to give them cheaper communications rates.
The fun thing with that is how hypocritical it is because Google, facebook, etc do not practice net neutrality themselves.
Here you would say "but they're not communications companies"... Well, that's not what they say in court all the time.
They cite themselves as communications companies all the time. They use a provision in the law that grants "safe harbor" to communications companies which permits them to not get sued if child porn gets posted on their networks or other things.
So actually, they have declared themselves as communications companies.
But do you notice how they don't actually practice net neutrality? Nope.
It is more private law desired by big corrupt corporations that want one set of laws for other people and another set of laws for themselves.
And really, if you want net neutrality anyway, then fine... Just apply it to all "communications companies" as the law would dictate and watch Google etc flip on whether it is a good idea.
This whole issue is full of hypocrites and dupes.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
CALEXIT
Seriously, cut the bullcrap and split from the US.
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
Remember all those arguments the FCC made for giving up regulatory power over the internet so they could remove rules they didn't like?
Well, this is what you asked for... no federal regulation. They just didn't think through the part where that left the door open for states to enact their own regulations.
Suck it, Ajit.
How come Republicans are have such a hard-on for states rights when states do something evil like voter suppression but change their minds when they do something good like cannabis legalization or net neutrality?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Oh yea, doesn't apply here
Jerry doesn't do anything without a motive. I doubt all of the details are out there for public scrutiny. None of California's policies are altruistic at their core, someone is always profiting, and mightily, somewhere.
I'm pretty sure the Feds are right and that they have the right to regulate the Internet under various interstate commerce laws.
Not necessarily. Depends on exactly how they structured the regulation. And just because something does involved interstate commerce doesn't mean States don't get to make rules about it. That clause in the constitution is merely there to prevent States from imposing undue burdens on other States - not on private companies. It's not clear that California is imposing any such burden on another state. No burden = no case for federal interest in the topic. States have all sorts of regulations on private companies that also happen to do business in other States.
How come Republicans are have such a hard-on for states rights when states do something evil like voter suppression but change their minds when they do something good like cannabis legalization or net neutrality?
Because "States rights" when the GOP uses it almost never has anything to actually do with States rights. It's a bullshit political argument used for unjustifiable positions (slavery, racism, voter suppression, etc) use when they don't have a real leg to stand on in an argument. It's an admission that they are philosophically bankrupt on the topic and are trying to distract from this fact by loudly touting a (usually) dubious technicality.
In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said: "Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce -- the federal government does. Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy."
He's not wrong, the supremacy clause
is a thing...
Ken
Interstate trade and reign in outlying rogue States that threaten sane, peaceful trade with the majority of the United States.This applies to Net Neutrality too. Federal law on interstate trade trumps State Law. Sates like California have been increasing taxes and fees on other States throughout the union for decades (CAFE standards, etc).
if a store sells items from out of state it is not interstate commerce, only the store purchasing the items is. States can certainly regulate the retail sale of those items within the state. This is no different. The Feds could claim control over mobile and sat services but not last mile. Even purchasing from an out of state retailer is now considered in-state if the retailer has any presence in that state.
Those that think SCOTUS will just rule against it are wrong. SCOTUS rulings create precedent. Any such ruling would provide a future democratic administration expanded powers. Its a genie you can't put back in the bottle.
Apparently hair furor and his GOP party are strong believers in states rights . . . as long as the states do what the GOP wants
Refuse to regulate something while simultaneously preventing others from doing so. The FCC gave up it's right to regulate...therefore it has no business telling others they can't. The only way to stop others from regulating it is to have actual rules.
Communism on a wire.
The Republicans have been stacking the courts for 8 years now (with the help of right wing Democrats I might add). This might not even make it to the SCOTUS. It's a federal case, so it won't wind through the state courts either.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This FALSE LOGIC gets pushed for any business large enough to exist outside a state. If you want to sell CARS in CA you follow their laws; it is not their problem if your business has troubles with that and bitches... unless the nation becomes too fascist and the bitching turns into bigger government...
Net Neutrality is all about THE LAST MILE. You can't get more local than that!
These are not interstate tariffs; this is a connection service; like the local power, phone, trash, or delivery companies!
Yes, ALL their propaganda applies to any multi-state business. They won't touch things they like; such as Texas lowering the quality of school textbooks nationwide...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
What's the applicable federal law which trumps this state law?
The deliberate absence of a federal law indicates this area is reserved to federal acts and cannot be infringed upon by states. This is of course different from a clear absence of federal actions, where the federal government has expressed no interest. In this particular arena, the federal government has expressed a clear interest in reserving this space by repealing net neutrality, so the lack of a federal law does not mean this space is available for CA to enter and legislate. Federal supremacy clause says CA loses this one in a whimper.
If the ISPs were not planning to abuse the lack of neutrality, they would have no motivation to sue.
The deliberate absence of a federal law indicates this area is reserved to federal acts and cannot be infringed upon by states.
Bullshit. There is no legal basis for this assertion
In this particular arena, the federal government has expressed a clear interest in reserving this space by repealing net neutrality,
More bullshit. Not only is there no legal basis for this assertion, the FCC's own reasoning (ie they don't have jurisdiction to regulate ISPs) is to the contrary.
so the lack of a federal law does not mean this space is available for CA to enter and legislate.
Total bullshit. 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.
Federal supremacy clause says CA loses this one in a whimper.
Complete, unadulterated bullshit. There is no federal law which is in conflict with the California law, so the supremacy clause doesn't come into play.