California Bans Paid Zero Rating and proposes the toughest net neutrality law in US

[AlTech]

California is introducing their own bill to re-introduce net neutrality like laws and they're banning Paid Zero Rating. Zero Rating is when your internet traffic to and from a website or service does not count towards your usage plan.

 

It is the most comprehensive and toughest bill of it's kind in the US.

 

Quote

A proposed net neutrality law in California would replace the repealed federal regulations, going beyond the federal rules by banning payments for data cap exemptions. If passed, the bill would ban AT&T's Sponsored Data, Verizon's "FreeBee" data, and any similar programs imposed by home or mobile Internet providers.

The bill would also try to prevent interconnection payment disputes that harm Internet service quality—such as those between Netflix and major ISPs in 2013 and 2014.

The legislation "is the first state-level bill that would comprehensively secure all of the net neutrality protections that Americans currently enjoy," according to Stanford law professor Barbara van Schewick. (The Federal Communications Commission repeal hasn't taken effect yet.)

 

Quote

The bill takes a stronger stance against data cap exemptions (or "zero-rating") than the FCC rules did. Exempting specific applications or classes of applications from data caps in exchange for payment would not be allowed.

"An Internet service provider may zero-rate Internet traffic in application-agnostic ways, without violating [the proposed law], provided that no consideration, monetary or otherwise, is provided by any third party in exchange for the provider’s decision to zero-rate or to not zero-rate traffic," the bill says. In order for the zero-rating to be "application-agnostic," it must not "differentiat[e] on the basis of source, destination, Internet content, application, service, or device, or class of Internet content, application, service, or device."

That would prevent ISPs from charging online services for the right to deliver data without counting against customers' data caps. The bill would also protect customers from having to pay more for certain kinds of content by banning "application-specific differential pricing." The bill defines this banned activity as "charging different prices for Internet traffic to customers on the basis of Internet content, application, service, or device, or class of Internet content, application, service, or device."

 

I think Zero Rating of any kind is wrong. If ISPs want to make customers pay for using data, they shouldn't exempt any company from that list. It should be fair and everybody should be on the same playing field.

 

Nevertheless, this is a good bill and while it may not be the end all be all bill, it is definitely headed to the right direction.

 

Source:https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/att-and-verizon-data-cap-exemptions-would-be-banned-by-california-bill/

[Taf the Ghost]

I'm happy to see some States actually responding, though I still have to ask where CA or WA was on this during the early 2010s? The home state of Netflix, Google and Facebook only suddenly got interested in "Net Neutrality". 

 

Though what I'm really looking forward to is the court fight, because however it turns it, it's going to be hilarious. 

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

The bill would also try to prevent interconnection payment disputes that harm Internet service quality—such as those between Netflix and major ISPs in 2013 and 2014.

Finally, one of the actual things that could actually fix things directly.

[GoldenLag]

one thing these ISPs can earn quite a bit of money on is paying a short period of free data usage. This has been implemented elsewhere and is a nice solution for streaming movies and such on the go.

 

Edit: just dont go around making "free" connections to certain things, because its not just wrong when it comes to competing in the free market

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

Ok, let's see the Federal government do something. We just need 1 more Senate vote.

[GoldenLag]

Just now, xentropa said:

Purple state?  Not that I like it or anything, but California is about as deep blue as you can get in the USA.

not if you look at the voting results but the state first past the post results does say they are quite blue yes. mosts states in the US are quite purple. I am mostly just using the term "purple" due to the fact that both sides of the people agree quite strongly on this. 

[Okjoek]

For once I agree with California.

[Ryujin2003]

Maybe California's laws on this stuff, as well as on line privacy, can be adopted by other states? Not sure why California seems to be faster at updating itself over other states...

[Methos]

10 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Not sure why California seems to be faster at updating itself over other states...

Everything is an emergency do to the mass triggering that happens about anything.

[Soonercoop]

2 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I'm happy to see some States actually responding, though I still have to ask where CA or WA was on this during the early 2010s? The home state of Netflix, Google and Facebook only suddenly got interested in "Net Neutrality". 

 

Though what I'm really looking forward to is the court fight, because however it turns it, it's going to be hilarious. 

Honestly for some states this will probably work out much better than the previous federal regulation because I would bet California is much more likely to actually enforce the regulations than the FCC even under Tom Wheeler. Nice to see something good come out of the whole thing.

[Eduard the weeb]

why cannot Georgia do this UHH 

 

before anyone answers I now about half the state is Conservative and half liberal and the Conservatives redrew the distracts so left wing places votes didn't mean as much so its harder for them to wing congress seats and governor.

 

but still this is really cool and good for anyone in Cali hope that the FCC gets beat in court and/or Georgia gets NN again 

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, Soonercoop21 said:

Honestly for some states this will probablt work out much better than the previous federal regulation because I would bet California is much more likely to actually enforce the regulations than the FCC even under Tom Wheeler. Nice to see something good come out of the whole thing.

I doubt most are familiar with how a lot of Federal regulations are allowed to happen. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

 

It's a bit of a long read, but Wickard is the case most responsible for the explosion in both the size of the Federal Government and the reduction in power within the States. If CA & WA win at SCOTUS on "Net Neutrality", it's going to be a massive reduction in the statutory authority of the US Federal Government. With a likely replacement coming for Kennedy this year and RBG likely to have retired before this case gets to SCOTUS, you could have a much more favorable to States vs Federal Rights court to decide on the matter.

 

As I said, whatever the outcome, it's going to be hilarious. If it takes NN taking out Wickard, hey, whatever works, but I'll be laughing about Progressives wiping out the New Deal because of an overly emotional response to a bunch of technical issue that they refused to deal with properly for the entirety of the Obama Administration. 

[PhantomJaguarr]

Surprised my state moved that quickly to be honest. ?

[Tieox]

Great news this, flipping great news.  

 

 

[Maihym]

Finally California does something good ?

[Mooshi]

I recently switched to Comcast because CenturyLink was garbage. To my shock, Comcast has a data cap that never existed when I had them years ago.

 

I want more states putting their foot down that this level of BS from ISPs needs to stop. When Comcast is the good ISP around, you know we have a ways to go still.

[XenosTech]

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

I think Zero Rating of any kind is wrong. If ISPs want to make customers pay for using data, they shouldn't exempt any company from that list. It should be fair and everybody should be on the same playing field.

Depends... Where I am on of the carries has free data on whatsapp, facebook and twitter just you can't view images or videos on facebook and twitter in free mode.

[DrMacintosh]

The Great State of California

[BuckGup]

Probably because it causes cancer in California 

[GDRRiley]

7 hours ago, WhiteJaguar77 said:

Surprised my state moved that quickly to be honest. ?

they did say when it got repealed that when the got back in sessnion in january they would do something.

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

The Great State of California

lol. I prefer the F You Federal Gov State.

[Cole5]

Good

[ravenshrike]

Good, now we have a large sample size with which to play on this issue. Now we monitor pre and post law internet speeds and routing to see whether the internet interprets net neutrality as damage and starts to route traffic with destinations other than California on paths that don't cross California routers.

[TetraSky]

Now to wait for the news that the big ISPs are suing California's government for this bill...

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, TetraSky said:

Now to wait for the news that the big ISPs are suing California's government for this bill...

We got the money.  

[Donut417]

8 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Now to wait for the news that the big ISPs are suing California's government for this bill...

You got a good point. The internet falls under Federal Authority because A) the US Army invented it. B) It passes across state lines making it interstate commerce. 

 

 

I have a feeling a Federal Judge will strike down this law and many others dealing with Net Neutrality. As they may claim the states dont have the authority. Though if they dont, this could spell trouble for ISP's. As states can make it a regulatory nightmare. Think about it, what if Comcast had to follow different regulations in each state. It would be the biggest pain in the ass.