Slashdot Mirror
California Delays Net Neutrality Law's Enforcement Until After Court Case (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: California has agreed to delay enforcement of its net neutrality law until after litigation that will determine whether states can implement their own net neutrality rules. California's net neutrality law was slated to take effect on January 1, 2019. But the Trump administration's Department of Justice and broadband industry sued to block the law and were seeking a preliminary injunction that would halt enforcement until litigation is over.
The DOJ and broadband industry had a good chance of winning a preliminary injunction because the Federal Communications Commission had declared that all state net neutrality rules are preempted. As the DOJ argued, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California must presume that the FCC preemption of state laws is valid since that preemption has not been overturned by any court. In a U.S. District Court filing today, California agreed to take no action to enforce the state net neutrality law until after the U.S. Court of Appeals case is decided and all appeals have been exhausted.
The DOJ and broadband industry had a good chance of winning a preliminary injunction because the Federal Communications Commission had declared that all state net neutrality rules are preempted. As the DOJ argued, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California must presume that the FCC preemption of state laws is valid since that preemption has not been overturned by any court. In a U.S. District Court filing today, California agreed to take no action to enforce the state net neutrality law until after the U.S. Court of Appeals case is decided and all appeals have been exhausted.
Uh oh, they're looking into other ways to get what they want.
They might not be able to apply the rules, but there are other things they can do to make the cable companies play ball.
When this is over, the cable companies are going to with they hadn't fought this.
I'm just going to make some popcorn and watch.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Dammit. Ajit the Shitlord won this round... The appeals process could take years.
So in other words, the California law we'd so hoped would help protect us from the scorched-Earth policies of the Republican FCC was just a political gimmick and has no real teeth. By the time "all appeals are exhausted" this will be moot, as the once-free Internet will have by then been changed beyond all recognition, and pricier, tiered service, lobotomized version will have been the new normal for years at that point.
Oh well, freedom was nice, though my memories of it grow ever fainter.
CNN call this guy "an old white male".
He's a Hispanic person. Are they going to apologize?
What if I said "old black man"? That's OK now right?
When this is over, the cable companies are going to with they hadn't fought this.
Is it a good thing for the companies that when this bill takes effect 100% of the internet users in California (except dialup) will have broadband internet, or is it a bad thing? I seem to recall that the existing ISPs have an interest in getting the broadband numbers up, so if Comcast or Verizon can say that 100% of their customers have broadband I think it's a win for them.
Net neutrality was passed in 2014. All this hand wringing aside, the internet will function just as well as it did in 2014. There will still be websites, email, tv shows, movies, music, games, and everything else that existed prior to 2014. Repealing net neutrality does not mean the end of the internet.
To be fair, companies that provide access to internet services should be allowed to monetize and control huge bandwidth users because they are the ones paying to put up the infrastructure.
I would write more but I'm off to buy Comcast stock.
Is it really broadband if the only sites that load at advertised speeds are those of the ISPs' partners?
Have gnu, will travel.
The FCC passed it in 2015 (or 2014) because the FTC lost a court case which said they could no longer enforce NN (and the court said the FCC should make those rules if they needed to be made.) In the interim, ISPs started pulling shady shit pretty fast.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Companies certainly don't mind a captive audience, but typically when the government hands you a government granted monopoly, they set caps on the amount of profit that can be generated as a public utility. I suspect that the cable companies don't want this because they already have a product that most people want (or maybe even need) and some already have a captive audience through exclusivity contracts with various municipalities. The don't get too many additional customers even if they're given a government granted monopoly, and they can't fleece the ones they already have like they've been doing for years now.
Is it really broadband if the only sites that load at advertised speeds are those of the ISPs' partners?
Under California law currently being dealt with in court, it is broadband.
but typically when the government hands you a government granted monopoly,
Which ISP is a "government granted monopoly"? Hint: federal law has made exclusive franchises (which is how government granted monopolies used to be granted) against the law. Forbidden by federal law. And that law was passed more than 20 years ago.
They may be defacto monopolies due to economic factors that limit competition, but government-granted no longer.
some already have a captive audience through exclusivity contracts with various municipalities.
If you can find one, please report it ASAP to the FCC and the FTC and the federal DOJ. That municipality is breaking federal law. And anyone who wants to compete has it spelled out in black and white in that law exactly how to break this exclusivity should it actually exist.
its not really about 'advertized speeds', they can tell you that you get 200Mbps all day long, its still broadband as long as you get 25Mbps
As part of its 2015 Broadband Progress Report, the Federal Communications Commission has voted to change the definition of broadband by raising the minimum download speeds needed from 4Mbps to 25Mbps, and the minimum upload speed from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, which effectively triples the number of US households without broadband access. Currently, 6.3 percent of US households don’t have access to broadband under the previous 4Mpbs/1Mbps threshold, while another 13.1 percent don't have access to broadband under the new 25Mbps downstream threshold.
its still broadband as long as you get 25Mbps
So you think. But the bill text defines "broadband internet access service" as:
(b) "Broadband Internet access service" means a mass-market retail service by wire or radio provided to customers in California that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including, but not limited to, any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. "Broadband Internet access service" also encompasses any service provided to customers in California that provides a functional equivalent of that service or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this title.
Dialup is excluded, and there is no mention of speed at all. In their zeal to look like network heros they failed at a basic definition. That T1 line you have been renting from the telco to get your internet over? Broadband! (For those who don't know, T1 is 1.44 "megs".) 1Meg/150k DSL? Broadband!
FCC: It is outside the scope of the FCC to regulate Net Neutrality, so we're removing those regulations.
CA: Okay, here are some new regulations with respect to Net Neutrality.
FCC: Not so fast! The jurisdiction of the FCC preempts all state net neutrality regulations.
CA: But you just said it's outside your scope?!
FCC: Well, er, uh ... have a lawsuit.
pretty sure Iran has been saying this for the last 10 years at least and they have nothing to do with hitler.
You don't know what you're talking about. There are de-facto monopolies in some places for broadband internet services. Less than 10 years ago, but they still exist. Don't be a fool, obfuscant.
There are de-facto monopolies in some places for broadband internet services. Less than 10 years ago, but they still exist.
You should read all the words. I said there were defacto monopolies but not government granted ones. I'm even saying that there are ones that exist today, not just ten years ago. And I'll even do one better than you -- I'll admit that they exist in a lot of places.
It's just that they aren't government granted monopolies. Government granted monopolies were written away with the stroke of a pen more than 20 years ago. Maybe you are confused by the different between defacto (in fact) and dejure (in law)?
This is long since settled case law. This entire thing is just a protest vote by California. If /.ers want this fixed they're going to have to go to the polls nationally and get it changed. There's an election in less than 2 weeks. Now's a good time to put up or shut up. Put enough of the right kind of politician in office and they can override President Trump's veto.
Or don't, but then stop bitching when government regulations you like go away.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the point was never to get the law through. It's long since been established that the federal government can regulate the Internet under the commerce clause. That isn't controversial. CA knows they're going to lose the court case. They're hoping to get national attention so that the other 49 states will vote pro-NN people in.
I'm in a Red State and I've done the best I can. Voted in my primaries and in my General. If you're reading this in a Red state now's the time to act. Get enough of the right kind of politician (and let's face it, that's the Dems) and they can override Trump's veto.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For now I doubt the cable ISPs are going to change anything which is basically a neutral net. They'll sit on the current status quo until it becomes clear how all the lawsuits about this are going to be resolved. Why would they take the chance of changing things and riling a bunch of people up about it until they know for sure how it all shakes out? That would be kind of stupid.
No staying with federal and state laws protecting existing paper insulated wireline monopoly networks as they are NN ready for all?
Innovative new networks that will have a freedom to connect without having to ask for a gov to define speed and who in a community will be getting connected.
Why go back to federal and state rules setting demands on what a new network can and must do?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
it's the various telecommunications laws, like Title II. This was all hashed out ages ago. Best case scenario the Internet crosses state lines like mad and falls under the commerce clause. Then there's generations of national telecom laws.
There is no explicit law covering Net Neutrality that Pai is required to enforce. There _is_ common carrier, which by all rights should apply, but he can and does argue that it does not apply. The courts never fully ruled on that, and with the current Supreme Court stacked with right wing, pro-corporatists they will almost certain rule on the side of telecom. Companies like Google won't come to your rescue to try to litigate since they're happy to see their competitors be shut out when they can't pay the ISPs fees.
There's only one way to fix this, and that's at the ballot box. That means if you're in a Red state either somehow convincing the GOP to support Net Neutrality (good luck, it's the sort of regulation that their basic platform opposes) or getting Dems in office since the Dems favor exactly this kind of regulation.
It's like I've said before, you can't have a functioning government except when you don't. We either have a well ordered society with rules that protect us all or we don't. You can't have a winner take all system when you're the winner and strong gov't protections when you're not. Protect everybody or nobody gets protection.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The US supreme court called one of the requirements of the ACA a tax, and is legal. So just tax ISPs at a 99% rate of revenue who throttle.
the ISPs never stop fighting this battle. If you slip up even for a second they win and those kind of wins are usually permanent. It's hard to compete with mega corps for lobbying not just because they've got money to buy propaganda and politicians, but because they've got people who's job is to lobby. You've got full time professionals going up against spirited amateurs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Nice try dude.
The definition of terms given as part of this law is only relevant for defining what is covered by this law.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin