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legislation to restore open internet protections known as net neutrality in the state after the Trump administration repealed the rules in December 2017."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
That's like saying disband Italy! or Restore Prussia! Well before any of that, more important are: Free Chechnya! Free Crimea! Free Siberia!
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?
The entitled prick lied in a much clearer fashion: he claimed that his drinking was legal while he was in high school. Unfortunately, it's easy to find how old he would have been when the state of Maryland increased the drinking age from 18 to 21 [he was 17 at the time].
But he isn't toast yet. He will be confirmed. The only question is whether the Dems will have the balls to impeach him (assuming they get the seats in both houses).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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 called MPLS and that's how they've provided corporate networks for years.
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)
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)
Like AOL and Compuserve all over again. Consumers preferred the Internet, though.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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
Whoa, underage drinking. Noone cared with Clinton "I did not inhale" and George W.'s cocaine, or Obama's pot AND cocaine. It'd take daily deliriant usage for Americans to be likely to care.
Source.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
It's the alcohol fueled serial rapist part that's the problem for Kavanaugh, that and his gambling addictions, and his violation of oaths about telling the truth, and his violations of as a US district judge (the whole text, really) due to hyper partisanship and disregard for the rights of others.
Pretty sure if the data is carried over to the Internet it'd be counted as 'internet traffic'. However, you're right that they could zero-rate their own services and say that those services are sent over an intranet, rather than the internet, depending on the specific wording of these laws. If the wording is "ISPs that offer data services that do not count towards data caps" then no, if "zero-rated Internet data" then maybe.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Once we pass Peak Hyperbole, then civilization really WILL collapse!!!111oneeleven
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Google does a lot of things they probably shouldn't, but I can't say I've seen any difference between the types of traffic sent by and received by my Google servers to the Internet or elsewhere. So in that regard, yes, they are honouring Net Neutrality.
Where are they not doing so?
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.
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.
If he had fessed up about drinking too much in his youth, he'd be fine. It is fibbing about it in official testimony that gets the security clearance guys nervous. You can have done a lot and still get cleared if you're honest about it and it wasn't very recent.
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
It'd take daily deliriant usage for Americans to be likely to care.
What they need to care about is a judge who doesn't care about the truth. He barely answered any questions, and when he did answer, he lied.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Only roads that cross state boundaries are 'interstate', obviously. The vast majority of all roads in America originate and terminate within the same state, never venturing into snother state.
Ken
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.
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.
Actually I don't think Kavanagh lied about his legal drinking.I admittedly didn't see the whole hearing but the clips that I saw he never actually said that he was of legal age just the the drinking age was 18 (I have no idea if this is true or not) and that many seniors would have been 18 therefore of legal drinking age. I don't remember seeing him actually state that he was 18 at the time and of legal drinking age. Much like the rest of his testimony he managed to skirt around the issue enough to not technically lie.
He sounded more like a defense lawyer than a judge.
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
Hosting content (or not) has nothing to do with NN, as I think you know.
I can't speak to what it's like with or without NN, as where I live we have neutrality and carriers can't prioritise traffic. Obviously, some of my traffic comes from the US, so I'd imagine it will look like the US is a bit slower than even now if prioritising starts to occur there.
I would imagine it's a little too early to be sure it was a scam or a failure, or whatever - you'd need a few years for it to really take effect. If it really was nothing at all, then why all the effort to repeal it? Why the big fanfare about how great things are going to be now?
I should take a poll on Facebook to see if you're right.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
He claimed it was legal for the seniors to drink. The context of that statement is that he was a senior.
In fact, it would have been legal for very, very few seniors -- only those who had been held back a year.
The clear lie is that the legal drinking age was 18 during his senior year. It wasn't.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The issue isn't that he drank underage. The issue is that he lied about it, among a number of other things. That is disqualifying conduct in and of itself.
What's the applicable federal law which trumps this state law?
It's the alcohol fueled serial rapist part that's the problem for Kavanaugh....
Ah, so it is an imaginary problem.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.