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

[Commodus]

14 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. 

In the early 2010s, adults ran the FCC.  These states didn't have to worry too much about net neutrality because it was more a question of "when" then "if."

 

Today, the FCC is led by people taking bribes from telecoms.  California and Washington are enacting laws because the current FCC is only interested in serving corporations, not customers.

[Cole5]

1 hour ago, TetraSky said:

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

Cali is the worlds 6th largest economy, Any lawyer Comcast could hire would be outclassed 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

In the early 2010s, adults ran the FCC.  These states didn't have to worry too much about net neutrality because it was more a question of "when" then "if."

 

Today, the FCC is led by people taking bribes from telecoms.  California and Washington are enacting laws because the current FCC is only interested in serving corporations, not customers.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080901084929/https://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

 

Google was pushing NN by 2008. They had the influence in CA to get something passed to affect that change, and, further, Google is generally the largest single company for lobbying each with the Federal Government. They could have gotten something through, though the current issue is stems from a 2014 court case. If it was this important, especially with the majority control of CA by the CA Democratic party that'll bow at the feet of Google's money, they could have passed something at the State level to ensure the viability in CA to start.

 

Which is why this stuff will be hilarious. CA could potentially win in court, which would be absolutely great. (I explained why in a separate post.) 

[Donut417]

9 minutes ago, Cole5 said:

Cali is the worlds 6th largest economy, Any lawyer Comcast could hire would be outclassed 

Doesnt work that way. Interstate commerce is under the Federal Government. California law could be found to violate that authority, requiring the Federal Judge to throw out this law. So even if Comcast doesnt succeed, the Federal Government could sue California and claim they over stepped their authority. 

[Canada EH]

16 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Zero Rating is when your internet traffic to and from a website or service does not count towards your usage plan.

Whats that mean exactly?

Its still using data.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

Whats that mean exactly?

Its still using data.

Doesn't count towards your data cap.

[Canada EH]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Doesn't count towards your data cap.

Interesting, our governments should do the same with cell phones.

Interesting.

[LoganTNZ]

Since net neutrality has been abolished, nothing has changed whatsoever.

 

Its just people being way too cautious now. Why waste your efforts if nothing has happened and nothing will happen a bit into the future.

 

(Also im not surprised its california doing this)

[LoganTNZ]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

In the early 2010s, adults ran the FCC.  These states didn't have to worry too much about net neutrality because it was more a question of "when" then "if."

 

Today, the FCC is led by people taking bribes from telecoms.  California and Washington are enacting laws because the current FCC is only interested in serving corporations, not customers.

Proof?

[Cole5]

37 minutes ago, LoganTNZ said:

Proof?

Have you seen them?

[Commodus]

47 minutes ago, LoganTNZ said:

Proof?

 

Pai is a former General Counsel at Verizon and has been very clearly working on his former employer's behalf.  In fact, he enlisted a current Verizon executive for a roast where he 'joked' about being a Verizon shill, and Verizon actually endorsed it.  If Pai isn't taking bribes under the table, he's clearly getting promises of a job at Verizon once his tenure is over (similar to Meredith Attwell Baker, who 'conveniently' got a position with Comcast soon after approving its NBCUniversal merger).

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Doesnt work that way. Interstate commerce is under the Federal Government. California law could be found to violate that authority, requiring the Federal Judge to throw out this law. So even if Comcast doesnt succeed, the Federal Government could sue California and claim they over stepped their authority. 

The fun part is the composition of SCOTUS in a Commerce Clause case. Quite a lot of what the CA law does actually only effects within CA's borders. The End User portions have a valid argument to being wholly within CA's State Sovereignty. A Google, Facebook & Netflix user living in CA doesn't actually need any traffic to physically leave the State to access most of their abilities.

 

Under the Wickard standard, yes, CA loses on pretty much all counts, but this will be States vs the Federal Government. This brings in a clash between the Commerce Clause and the 9th & 10th Amendments. That's exactly why I said the results are going to be hilarious, regardless of the outcome. Some of the States, in a fit of emotional outburst, will probably push this up to SCOTUS. This brings the actual potential for a large roll back of Federal Government power. (I don't expect that'll happen, but, hey, it could.)

 

Though, unfortunately, I don't think any of the States involved would risk doing damage to the current Commerce Clause jurisprudence, as those State AGs & Governors don't want the national Democrat party to turn against them. Progressive activists would have mass-scale heart attacks if Wickard gets highly undermined. 

 

 

[LoganTNZ]

30 minutes ago, Cole5 said:

Have you seen them?

So opposing views = bribes/collusion? Lol okay

 

7 minutes ago, Commodus said:

 

Pai is a former General Counsel at Verizon and has been very clearly working on his former employer's behalf.  In fact, he enlisted a current Verizon executive for a roast where he 'joked' about being a Verizon shill, and Verizon actually endorsed it.  If Pai isn't taking bribes under the table, he's clearly getting promises of a job at Verizon once his tenure is over (similar to Meredith Attwell Baker, who 'conveniently' got a position with Comcast soon after approving its NBCUniversal merger).

I mean, i get where youre coming from. And i wish that the FCC had people who were actually elected to make such big decisions.

[Cole5]

25 minutes ago, LoganTNZ said:

So opposing views = bribes/collusion? Lol okay

 

I mean, i get where youre coming from. And i wish that the FCC had people who were actually elected to make such big decisions.

Not usually no, It just so happens this time yes, Pai outright said he didn't care what the people wanted. 

[AlTech]

6 hours ago, Canada EH said:

Whats that mean exactly?

Its still using data.

 

Yes, it still uses data but as soon as that data is used it is not deducted from the data allowance of the customer.

[dalekphalm]

On 2018-03-16 at 1:04 AM, LoganTNZ said:

Since net neutrality has been abolished, nothing has changed whatsoever.

 

Its just people being way too cautious now. Why waste your efforts if nothing has happened and nothing will happen a bit into the future.

 

(Also im not surprised its california doing this)

What? You know that the NN repeal hasn’t taken effect yet, right?

 

The repeal doesn’t kick in until April 23rd:

https://www.engadget.com/amp/2018/02/22/net-neutrality-repeal-april-23rd-federal-register/

 

So saying “nothing happened” is quite ridiculous, and proves nothing. Nothing happened yet, because as of right now, the US is still under Net Neutrality rules. 

[mr moose]

The US confuses me, you have people arguing:

 

1. the feds shouldn't be making laws, that's for the states.

2. the states shouldn't be allowed to circumvent fed law

3. Fed law shouldn't trump state law

4. the second amendment is there to stop fed's from ruling over everyone

5. they took our jobs.

 

It's like a clusterfuck of 20th century civil rights and the arse end of capitalism gone too far with a little bit of communist fear thrown in for good measure.  no one can win.

[GDRRiley]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The US confuses me, you have people arguing:

 no one can win.

we as a country are confused and very different based on where you go. 

[mr moose]

27 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

we as a country are confused and very different based on where you go. 

In all fairness I think most countries are similar, It just seems a lot more pronounced over there and the government certainly seems to have more issues either being a government or regulating the country.

[dalekphalm]

31 minutes ago, mr moose said:

In all fairness I think most countries are similar, It just seems a lot more pronounced over there and the government certainly seems to have more issues either being a government or regulating the country.

Well the problem is half the government thinks government shouldn’t be government, which is counter productive to governing. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Well the problem is half the government thinks government shouldn’t be government, which is counter productive to governing. 

Combined with half the population also believing government should govern.