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.
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.
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!
You're missing out on almost all of the history. Net neutrality was not first introduced in 2014; that wasn't even the start of legal battle over sustaining it.
We had net neutrality by default since the start of the internet, because the early internet was a highly competitive market, piggybacking on top of the phone network that was regulated as a common carrier under Title II, between the two of which no ISP could get away shit like breaking net neutrality.
When broadband happened, the last-mile providers (the phone and cable companies) BECAME the internet service providers, and thus internet service was no longer a competitive market, and internet service per se was not explicitly regulated as a Title II common carrier service, so they could start pulling shady shit like breaking net neutrality.
Then a law was passed saying no, in fact, they cannot pull that shit, and have to keep doing things like they always have been.
That law was later overturned because, as internet service was not classified under Title II, it was deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC to regulate that way.
Later, in 2014, the FCC reclassified internet service under Title II after all -- as it should have been from the beginning -- and thus the law requiring ISPs to keep behaving as they always had, neutrally, was applicable again.
Now Pai's FCC has reversed that classification, invalidating that law, and once again clearing the way for the ISPs to start doing things differently than they always have been.
There has been a long war to keep ISPs from breaking the internet. 2014 saw one battle in that war won on the side of consumers. But the war is still going on, and now we, the consumers, are losing out.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
where do you think that Federal Subscriber Line charge that shows up on your bill goes? Here's a hint, it doesnt go to the federal government. Thats right, its a sanctioned bullshit charge the FCC allowed carriers to put on the bills to pay for, get this, developing ADSL (something that already existed) and to this day its still on your bill.
this is the best part, the intent was that it was a surcharge on each copper line going to your building to pay for infrastructure. So lets say you have a PRI for phone service. Thats 2 pair of copper (sometimes 1 pair if close enough to use a 1pair smartjack on either side). So at best thats 2 Subscriber Line charges right? NOPE! The phone companies charge end users for TWENTY THREE of them, because hey, there are 23 - channels - so thats close enough to a line right???
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.
the guy is Native American, and not in an Elizabeth Warren sort of way. I read that on at least 4 of the 15 websites that announced the arrest earlier.
pretty sure Iran has been saying this for the last 10 years at least and they have nothing to do with hitler.
In just the past few years we learned all the women ISIS made into sex slaves (of all races). I guess because they're women they dont count as being oppressed by his moronic standards.
Wow, grasshopper, no knowledge of history or the Internet!
There is a difference between ICANN's policy of assigning domain names, DNS, and net neutrality. Perhaps some time spent learning (not skimming one Wikipedia article) would make you come across as more informed and therefore deserving of intellectual respect.
But hey, keep trolling by repeating propaganda tweets if it makes you feel good!
The Greeks were a lightly burned olive colour, same as they are today.
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)
There are no races.
Different nations abolished slavery at different times. Britain in 1070, over 400 years before Europeans discovered America.
The question is not whether you do stupid things, it's when you grow up enough to stop. In your case, I'm not holding my breath. Most nations did grow up, with respect to slavery, America much later than Africa, who in turn were much later than northern Europeans.
(Arguably, slavery still exists as a semi-legit institution in America, they never really grew up.)
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)
Actually, the FCC started adopting net neutrality principles in 2005. This was after ISPs tried to block VOIP and video services that competed with the ISP's offerings.
But you're correct, the Internet will function just as it did back then before the FCC put an end to those practices. At least until ISPs start running their own news services and blocking their competitors...
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Of course they have. Most chose to grow up. You, I'm not so sure. That's the difference.
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)
The tribe says otherwise. They deny him ever being a member, ever being affiliated, ever being hired by them.
Elizabeth Warren has at least got genetic markers proving deep ancestry. Note the word "deep". In this context, it means a long, long time ago.
I see no evidence this guy can claim even that.
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)
Net neutrality existed in 1970, as data was regulated the same way as all other televoms even over X.25 and other data-only connections.
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)
*blink* Africa still has slavery. But do go on spreading that narrative how the USA is ebil. Wakanda 4vr, amirite?
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.
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.
Enough with bullshit lie that net neutrality prohibited QoS. It also had exemptions for special services. You can get away with pushing you false propagranda on non technical sites, but here people know you're blatantly lying and will call you on your bullshit.
Not really. The same facial features can be found in almost any one of East European descent, and a lot of those migrated over a hundred years ago.
The reason is simple and has to do with how slowly things change and DNA migration.
https://dna-explained.com/2017...
https://phillipsdnaproject.com...
Here's the physiological result:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blo...
http://realhistoryww.com./worl...
As you can see, the migration path cuts through Mongolia and Siberia, on its way to North America via Beringia. The consequence, unsurprisingly, is that people on that route have some (but not all) characteristics found in North Americans.
You cannot know, from simple observation, whether it's an import via Eastern Europe (a lot, especially Poles, migrated in the late 19th, early 20th centuries, but are still migrating today) or native.
What we can say is the tribe rejects his claim. Until he takes a DNA test, that's all we know.
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)
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/
The tribe says otherwise. They deny him ever being a member, ever being affiliated, ever being hired by them.
Elizabeth Warren has at least got genetic markers proving deep ancestry. Note the word "deep". In this context, it means a long, long time ago.
I see no evidence this guy can claim even that.
His bombs had no way to initiate detonation. So what he built was really 1/64th of a bomb at best. So that makes him a bomber in an Elizabeth Warren sort of way.
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
.
Just because something comes into my state from out of state doesn't mean I can't make it illegal to do business in my state with whatever that is. I cal legally block it at the border and tough luck to you unless congress specifically makes a law that says I have to allow it (like the gun laws). Yes, if the feds make say, marijuana illegal - or the 2nd amendment legal - it's true everywhere. If they don't regulate...it's up to the states.
.
But this wasn't that at all. This was the FCC saying "we can't regulate this as we don't have the authority". Then CA says, OK, so we will - we won't let state contracts go to people who don't follow our rules (if I understand correctly - if they went further, they're probably in trouble as they're not known for ... knowing).
Then FCC says, "oh wait" and calls DOJ. I think there's a lot of room there for interpretation.... States CAN regulate things the feds don't bother to. That IS well settled law.
This could easily be a case of that, unless CA just screwed up writing the law.
I know other states have passed the "we won't give you contracts unless" laws and they're not being fought. That's really all it will take to get net neutrality back. Remember, we all thought Wheeler was going to be in the pocket of the cable cos - just like Pai has turned out to be. I think (and am glad) he surprised us all.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
More evil somewhere else does not excuse your own evil.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Your technical understanding far exceeds your legal understanding. What changes were made to achieve that jitter reduction? Tell me that, and I'll tell you whether it was actually a legal issue covered by net neutrality, rather than something else. Like a provider gaming shit while they pretend they're not eventually going to change. Right now you're just asserting that correlation proves causation.