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.

Comments

Isn't this largely symbolic?

[rsilvergun]

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...

Re:Isn't this largely symbolic?

[Altrag]

That's a bit of a dangerous tack to take.. the obvious rebuttal is that the internet is international and the feds have no right to regulate it either.. I mean I know the US is horribly egocentric and doesn't like thinking of other countries as having rights or sovereignty.. but they do and it's a possible argument that Calif could bring up to counter the internet being "interstate"

Re:Isn't this largely symbolic?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm pretty sure the Feds are right and that they have the right to regulate the Internet under various interstate commerce laws.

The Feds will lose. The law is structured so that it doesn't do anything regarding "interstate commerce", and other states are lining up to follow California's lead.

The Feds will lose the same way they're losing on legal marijuana.

Re:Isn't this largely symbolic?

[sg_oneill]

Not sure whats happening atm on legal weed, but a lot of the success came from the Obama Administration ordering the DEA to not to interfere with States that want to do their own thing.

Heres the big irony about all this;- The GOP likes to talk big game about "State rights", but apparently that only applies to states that dont piss off the GOPs party donors.

Really, its "Party donor rights over you" that are advocated for not state rights.

Re: Isn't this largely symbolic?

[jd]

The Fed's have the right to regulate, but chose not to do so. The FCC has repeatedly stated the Internet is outside their jurisdiction and Congress refused to pass any laws rescinding that. Bush drew up an executive order eliminating Federal controls. Don't blame California for exploiting this.

Re:Isn't this largely symbolic?

[Anonymous Coward]

the other way to look at it is the relationship between isp and customer is local and in-state, as is the connection between them, not inter-state; and not all traffic is 'commerce'.. so the (current) fcc can fuck off. also the limits fcc try to set are ones that should be in legislation, passed by house and senate and signed by a president, not arbitrary 'policy' or 'fcc rules' set by three partisan dickhead puppets.

if an isp wishes to do business IN california, they get to play by california rules. and no isp will give up their customers in the most populous state and the 5th largest economy in the world.

california has other specific regulations companies (and their products and services) follow, even when those companies are not california-based... and even when 'commerce' is involved. fcc has no fucking authority here to tell the states they can't pass net neutrality laws of their own.

the courts will see that, and by the time it hits scotus, trump will be gone, perhaps convicted and playing peek-a-boo with the deformed dick of a guy named butch.. and his appointments to federal posts will be nullified, removed, impeached or otherwise replaced.

Re: Isn't this largely symbolic?

[makerfixer]

Holy crap, he's made the crowd that spent a decade arguing the guns free school zone act was clearly regulating interstate commerce because kids grow up to work in businesses across state lines argue against the commerce clause.... he's truly evil or maybe you don't really believe a tenth of what you are saying or maybe both....

Re: Isn't this largely symbolic?

[sg_oneill]

Sure but the democrats are open about being federalists. It's the republicans that claim to be ideologically committed to state rights

Re: Isn't this largely symbolic?

[sg_oneill]

Ok to expand on this. Personally I think there's a pox on both the houses. The republicans voted in a borderline lunatic who claimed he'd "drain the swamp" then filled his entire cabinet with lobbyists and Wall Street crooks and has spent his entire time gazing in the mirror and throwing tantrums because being a public servant is not the same as being a CEO. The dems hadthe *perfect* candidate in Bernie and then fucking sabotaged him and put the washington superwonk Hillary in on the assumption the Press would never accept a guy like Bernie , ignoring the sizeable resentment amongst the public towards her (some of it, ridiculous admittedly but still it was there). So a pox on their houses.

However when it comes to state rights , the Democrats are at least honest. Both are authoritarian centeralizing powers , but the Dems don't pretend not to be about federal rule.

Re: Isn't this largely symbolic?

[kenh]

If the US can't regulate 'the internet' then on what basis can California?

Fact is, net neutrality isn't regulating 'the internet', it regulates ISPs that do business in the US... Your international argument is non-sensical, do you really believe the IS can't regulate within it's own borders how domestic ISP handle domestic traffic to domestic customers?

Re:Isn't this largely symbolic?

[drinkypoo]

Not sure whats happening atm on legal weed, but a lot of the success came from the Obama Administration ordering the DEA to not to interfere with States that want to do their own thing.

No, no it did not. Obama's DEA made more busts of legal dispensaries, not less.

Feds already filed suit

[bignetbuy]

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."

 

Re:Feds already filed suit

[giggleloop]

Essentially. States' rights is what they want when they don't control federal government (e.g. the right to carry on owning slaves); and federal law is what they want when they do control the federal government (e.g. this).

Muddy waters

[spaceman375]

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.

Re:Muddy waters

[Tough Love]

Assume that Trump manages to corrupt the supreme court to to be his private Republican rubber stamp. How does that affect the situation when this lands in front of the supremes, as it surely will.

Re:Muddy waters

[squiggleslash]

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.

Interstate commerce is a very broad concept, and I forget the case, but at one point was used to justify the Feds determining what could food you could grow in your own back yard, the logic being that your doing so affects how you'd spend money on Interstate goods.

And, you know what, they're right. The concept of states regulating commerce was already shaky when the the constitution was drawn up given the Feds would be in charge of issuing currency, but back then a visit to a market ten miles away was a three day round trip for most participants so it probably sounded like a good ida. The concepts of states regulating the economy became obsolete, and positively silly, with the first interstate railroads.

As far as your second point goes: the Federal government does have power to regulate the (American part of) the Internet. They, and specifically the agency that should, may claim not to, but they do have that power. The fact that they pretend not to wouldn't make California's actions constitutional (I'm told CA has made efforts to ensure it can't count as interstate commerce, but I'll believe that when I see it, I seriously doubt there's a way to do so.)

Reminder: the fact the Federal government has power is not a reason to vote for cretins who whine about "small government" although somehow always manage to make it more draconian, it's a reason to vote for competence. Even if that means voting for a woman who committed the worst crime possible - running her own email server.

America's internet is a joke

[jd]

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?

Re:America's internet is a joke

[mjwx]

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.

Whilst you've got a very good point about how backwards and expensive telecoms are in the US, the UK is actually quite good. Here I can get a SIM only contract with 1.5GB of data (plus some calls and texts, but who uses that any more) for only £6. Unlimited BT Fibre to my home starts at £25 (for a mere 50 mbps).

In fact I'm going to the US this month for a few days and I'll need my phone for navigation (I'm driving) and I've found that it's cheaper for me to buy a £10 Three SIM here in the UK and with that I can get 1 GB of data in the US... Its cheaper for me to use a UK SIM roaming in the US than it is for me to get a local one, that's seriously fucked up.

Re:Kavanaugh is toast

[Jzanu]

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.

They didn't think it through.

[GrumpySteen]

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.

State's Rights?

[Comboman]

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?

"State's rights" aren't about states rights

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Kavanaugh is toast

[Gilgaron]

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.

He's not wrong...

[kenh]

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...

wrong; they are manipulating lawyers

[bussdriver]

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...