Slashdot Mirror
Entire Broadband Industry Sues California To Stop Net Neutrality Law (arstechnica.com)
Four lobby groups representing the broadband industry today sued California to stop the state's new net neutrality law. From a report: The lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of California by mobile industry lobby CTIA; cable industry lobby NCTA; telco lobby USTelecom; and the American Cable Association, which represents small and mid-size cable companies. Together, these four lobby groups represent all the biggest mobile and home Internet providers in the US and hundreds of smaller ISPs
. Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile US, Sprint, Cox, Frontier, and CenturyLink are among the groups' members. "This case presents a classic example of unconstitutional state regulation," the complaint said. The California net neutrality law "was purposefully intended to countermand and undermine federal law by imposing on [broadband] the very same regulations that the Federal Communications Commission expressly repealed in its 2018 Restoring Internet Freedom Order." ISPs say the California law impermissibly regulates interstate commerce. "[I]t is impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders," the lobby groups' complaint said.
"hmm, it seems that california won't just take what was tell them to. maybe we didn't think this coup thru well enough. shit, what do we do now? this is getting more attention and we want to BURY this, not call MORE attention to it"
yeah, good luck putting the genie back in the bottle. you angered some people and miscalculated how much you can get away with.
now, if there is a most hated industry, the telecom is surely one of them.
the fact that they are all 'angry' is a GOOD THING. when we piss off bad guys, they throw hissy fits, but its good to keep them in check. they need to be bitchslapped every now and then.
ajit can EABOD. most punchable person in recent history (so they say).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
in the field of consumer protection if they have succeeded in all those who provide a service to act against them. It is quite simple: they think that they will be able to make more money but cutting deals all over the place; but the legislators understand that this would favour the powerful/rich over the smaller operators (web sites/services) and make innovation (startups) harder.
Huh. Normally the right finds value in the several states experimenting with solutions, and the left high value in the interstate commerce clause to give supremacy to federal regulation, up to and including the "dormant commerce clause" rule, where if Congress considers then declines to regulate something, that implies said nothingness is the federal regulation to be imposed on the states, foreclosing any state level regulation contravening that which Congress chose not to regulate.
It's almost as if each side is touting as important a political philosophy that helps them in this case, but the opposite in most other cases, and they are all power hungry hacks.
Nah.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
When multinational communications industries with vested monopolies in local state and federal government come together to craft a shit sandwich at the highest levels of regulatory government using a smear campaign of disinformation and botnets posting false public opinion, you'd better take a bite when the order is served.
the federal government, and every single telecom company in the US, is fighting like hell to make sure this dies. Not because it really hurts them on a national level, but because it lays the groundwork to circumvent and resist their monopoly control without crossing the interstate commerce clause at the federal level.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I actually hope California holds it grown and wins, then other states will all start their own Net-neutrality laws, each one slightly different. Enough for them to say. You know it would be much easier if we had a single rule to follow across all the state lines. Aka Net-neutrality.
Currently I really don't know if I am getting for what I paid for from my ISP. Sure running speed tests says I am good. But are they just keeping the pipe open on the speed tests, but slowing other sites which I may need to do real work with?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
not going to law school and passing the bar in California, because regardless of how long and hard fought this will be, the lawyers will make obscene amounts of money from both sides.
In the age of righteous indignation, you don't actually hear any people clamoring for the the removal of net neutrality. In fact, plenty of people want it back but the government doesn't listen (shocker).
The fact that no *actual human beings* (which excludes politicians ofc) are opposed to the law in cali should tell you something. Add in how much corporations hate it and you have a winner here. Keep in mind these are the same corporations that did things like charge for SMS messages which used to be a free and rarely-used messaging subsystem built into cell phones. It literally cost them nothing and one day they decided to charge people enormous amounts of money (measured in $/MB) for basic data that didn't even take up bandwidth streams in their service.
Or companies trying to impose data caps on broadband because they'd rather 'invest' their profits in dividends than upgrading their network to support their customers.
Or...the list goes on.
If telecom hates it and people like it, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a good law.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
One of the highest offices in the country deserves the highest scrutiny. Especially one where the office holder is appointed for life.
Someone in such a position deserves to be held to a higher standard. That standard should be immutable, regardless of party of the President who nominated them.
It isn't that hard for isp's to distinguish the last mile, or they couldn't throttle your service when they want more money.
A job interview isn't a trial. And a trial is preceded by a limitless thorough investigation, so when there is one it will have much more time than a week and a a greater scope than a narrow list of approved conversations for activity.
So what if California seizes Network infrastructure through eminent domain, makes a Statewide Intranet. Returning legal domain and regulation to the state instead of the federal government. Then they can simply refused to do business with any of the isps until the isps cater to them. There's too much business done over the internet in California. And those who hold stock in is peace also tend to hold stock in business is supported by the internet. The companies will cave because profit drives you just need to starve them for profits it's long enough to make it in their financial interest to behave ethically. Please us or lose billions. Give the customers what they want or go out of business .that's fair
It's not really about what he did 36 years ago, however horrid that might be, it's about how he acted and how he lied during his under oath testimony. He has neither the temperament nor the honesty for the position. He can deny the direct allegations, but he flat out lied about his typical behavior of the time, as well as on many other already verified points, and this isn't the first time he's lied under oath either.
After all the telecoms success of today was made possible by grants from the from the public, by all honest accounting the public own these isps that claimed to be private because it's our money that built them.
Alas, the Federal Preemption Clause of the Constitution tends toward CA being in the wrong.
That said, arguably the Feds don't actually have a law regulating the industry, so CA doing so in CA is perfectly legal.
Which means, it all depends on who has the best lawyers, and what the various Judges (presumably including Appellate and Supreme Court (eventually)) think of their arguments.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
California doesn't have the authority to do this.
The authority to license businesses in California?
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
"[I]t is impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders,"
The path of network traffic ought to be irrelevent. If you setup as a broadband provider Inside the state of California, then
the transaction involving the purchase of Broadband service is between You and your customer who lives inside the state of California. The
purchase of broadband services is an intrastate transaction, because you have to substantially exist within California to own or lease all the
outside plant in California required to connect your customers.
Because this is an intrastate transaction: the state of California has the right to regulate the quality of the goods you are selling;
regardless of any 3rd party interstate transactions required for you to supply the goods.
For example: The state can prohibit selling a product containing common additive X.
This applies to all sellers with a presence in California selling goods to customers in California.
As a Retailer or Service Provider it doesn't matter whether you buy the good from a local source or a wholesaler in-state
--- you may be able to obtain the good through interstate commerce but be Disallowed from reselling the product in your local store:
the interstate commerce transaction was separate, And the intrastate transaction must comply with the law.
The Intrastate transaction is a company owning or leasing the right to physical In-the-Ground Telecoms cabling or Wireless towers
mounted on the ground in the state of California connecting to a local customer to Offer broadband service (A service that in order
to deliver may require the provider have purchased a number of Wholesale products for re-sale from different providers In and Out-of-state,
BUT the Advertising and Sale of Broadband service is still between a company operating in California and a Customer operating in California).
In the same way that California can charge a tax to UPS for originating the shipment of a package or prohibit UPS from discriminatorily refusing service to
certain neighborhoods, despite the fact that UPS ships some packages out of state: If the Buyer of the service and UPS both have presence in the state, then there is an intrastate transaction subject to state authority involved.
It is true that network traffic may leave the state, and California's regulations are likely unable to make "End to End" guarantee across remote out-of-state
suppliers of no throttling ---
However, that was never what "Broadband Network Neutrality" promises. Broadband Network Neutrality is about regulation of that last mile:
that connection between the Consumer and Internet peering: No unequal prioritization based on application or competing business interests to obstruct usage of the last mile network to which the provider has a monopoly, for example: by prioritizing a partner, blocking or throttling access to a competitor, competing service, or unliked application or website, for censorship, to solicit a payment, or artificially make one service have poorer quality from the network.
California can require that a company in their state build in-state broadband networks that do not throttle traffic while it is in that state and make all reasonable accommodation to ensure they deliver an ultimate product to the local consumer that has a certain quality (fairness)
They want Carte Blanche to fuck everyone in the ass due to a totally unregulated industry.
It's just like any company any one of you was working for that got bought out by some other company; first they say "We like the way everything is working, so rest assured we won't be changing anything". Then 3 months later the pull at least half the employees into a meeting room and fire them while their IT goons lock down their computers. So it'll be with the gods-be-damned broadband industry: "Oh well Net Neutrality is in our best interests, no worries!", then some months in the future they'll screw everyone over, set up their Walled Gardens, paid access levels, and so on.
THANKS, TRUMP! Dx
You son of a bitch, why won't you just fucking die?
I haven't read the documents yet but from the looks of it the case is pressed purely on legalities of the act they don't like.
What I really would like to see is if the state can force them to explain what is different about their business under the Act versus prior. In other words, once you clear all the "constitutional" arguments what the plaintiffs clearly want is to make more money and they think that the new law will stop them from doing that.
From that you can see where they think that money will come from and how it will get to them. The plaintiffs clearly don't want to talk about this but I would be amazed if the state attorneys don't force them. (Objection! Relevance. Overruled.)
According to other news articles, there are 22 US states with some laws protecting Net Neutrality.
California is just one.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
False dichotomy. Plenty of people have handled similar accusations with calm and dignity.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
As long as that candidate doesnâ(TM)t evasively dodge simple questions and completely blow it in their hearing, they should be okay.
Kavanaughâ(TM)s performance was baffling. The senators on the judiciary committee were ready to be incensed for him. He just needed to be measured, above the fray... judicious, even.
We are not where I expected to be. Partisan conspiracy theories? Leave that to Graham and Grassley.
California absolutely has the the right to do this within their own borders. The federal government foreclosed their ability to regulate this when they took away the title II regulation.
Remember when the Obama FCC tried to implement net neutrality rules while keeping data services outside title II designation? Well the court ruling that struck down those rules found the FCC has no authority to regulate unless they declare the service a Title II service. So when the new Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation they removed all regulatory authority from themselves, so the little statement the FCC put in the rule that foreclosed all state action is actually as unenforceable as the the original net neutrality rules because the FCC doesn't have authority to regulate without a Title II deceleration.
This is what that original court ruling laid out in minute detail. Congress granted the FCC authority to regulate, but ONLY when it's a title II service. Everyone warned the new FCC that when they removed the title II designation that they were in fact opening up to state level regulation. I have no doubt in my mind that California is going to win this and it's all cause the Trump FCC rolled back the Title II designation.
Though I'm not a republican and wouldn't want someone with Kavanaugh's views (don't care about his conduct) on the supreme court, the attention given to the accusations leveled at him was nothing short of remarkable, and the way the press (and shows like the Daily Show) pumped and milked the issue was pretty disgusting.
Only because he was a shitty candidate with a shitty attitude and a shitty background from the start.
This wouldn't have happened with a halfway decent candidate. Take Gorsuch, for example. What came up during his confirmation? Some of the passages in a book he wrote seemed to mirror work by someone else. That's the dirt they came up with on him. That's also why there was none of this sort of giant shitshow during his confirmation. Democrats obstructed, Republicans used the nuclear option, he got confirmed. (And like you, not a republican, and I don't agree with his views. But he wasn't a terrible candidate.)
Kavanaugh is a stinker through and through. A former political operative specializing in smearing opponents, with apparently a very heavy drinking, giant asshole period of his life that he routinely bragged about at that point.
There are plenty of decent candidates that wouldn't have anywhere near this level of scandalous shit-show happening if they were tapped for the position. But who does the tapping? Only the most ignorant and unqualified individual we've ever had on the job. It's a wonder that one of his two choices was actually pretty clean and decent.
he was put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
Well, yeah. He knew his own damn past, and should have known full well what could possibly turn up. (Unless he was as blackout drunk as his drinking buddies have talked about, I guess. Would explain something.) Would I volunteer for that? Fuck no. Given what we know about him now, I'm amazed that he figured it would be fine. If you've got a hard partying, "we're prolific pukers", "100 keg challenge" background, I'd expect you to think twice before stepping into the brightest political spotlight you can find. And if you decide to do it, I'd expect that you'd have a very well practiced response to any questions, and not just scream and throw temper-tantrums, and make obvious lies about what happened.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
The Federal preemption clause applies only to LAWS and the FCC regulations are not laws. So preemption works only in limited cases like public safety or national security. Both are hard to argue.
Don't believe me? Well, ask the Sixth Circuit: https://www.bna.com/sixth-circ...
The interesting question is: "Since the FCC said it doesn't have the authority to regulate broadband (Pai's rejection of Title II) can it prevent other government entities from doing so?"
I would bet that they can't prevent states from making laws because they have essentially abandoned all authority over ISPs.
God is imaginary
False... the only questionable portions of his testimony are those which relate to him understating his high school and college drinking, which is hardly surprising from any dignified adult. On her side though, virtually every witness she put forth to support her claims has refuted her version of events... the woman she claims drove her home following the assault, her supposed lifelong friend, has gone on record as saying she was never at the party and never drove her home and never heard any claims of her having been assaulted at any party.
This is arrant nonsense. When the first automobile emissions standards laws were passed, California was explicitly granted the right to set its own, stricter standards as a response to the terrible pollution in the Los Angeles area. Other states have the right to adopt either the national standards or the California standards.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
he was put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
I think it was a "damned if you lose your temper and start spouting partisan rhetoric" situation.
Don't forget, only two years ago the party in power held up a supreme court nominee for ten months because they wanted to delay the vote until after the elections. Now the very same party that did this, the same senate majority leader, and with mostly the very same judicial committee members, are trying to push this through before elections.
I don't care what side of the political device people fall on, that should be recognized as pure hypocrisy. These politicians are not acting in an impartial manner, they are not doing what is best for their country, and instead are doing what is best for their party and for their election chances. And by that I mean that both parties are guilty - they cry foul when they're not in power but they'll do the same thing again when they get power back.
The only way we're going to get out of this mess is if people start voting for moderates and centrists again instead of partisan ass kissers.
Not to nit-pick but in order to have an actual justice system the presumption of innocence must also go hand in hand with an independent investigation of the allegations in order to see if there is any evidence that proves guilt. The willingness to abandon the norms of jurious prudence in exchange for political advantage cuts both ways in this case IMHO.
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything