back to article Golden State passes gold-standard net neutrality bill by 58-17

California’s net neutrality bill SB822 has cleared another hurdle on its way to becoming a state law. The bill received a 58-17 majority vote from the state assembly following a heated debate and amendment process. Because some provisions of the bill were changed by the Assembly, it will have to once again be voted on by the …

There were no differences during the period of NN under the Obama Administration. Tell us all again, exactly what problem CA's NN law will solve.

4
54
Bronze badge

Tell us all again, exactly what problem CA's NN law will solve.

===

it will stop POTUS 45 from screwing the pooch for one

35
6
Anonymous Coward

What? Too long after Pai day?

Didnt you have enough money to buy the decision you wanted?

28
1
Silver badge

No differences? Well in that case, why have the ISPs spent millions trying to thwart NN? You wouldn't spend time and money trying to block a law that makes no difference to your business operations would you?

50
2

How about not throttling firefighters during a major emergency?

or not adding tracking cookies to everything you do unecnrypted on the net?

25
3
Silver badge

Every Weiner throttled equally

How about not throttling firefighters during a major emergency?

Verizon didn't throttle any firefighters. Firefighters bought a data SIM with a 25GB cap. When they inevitably hit the cap, they demanded Verizon remove it. So-

(b) It shall be unlawful for a mobile Internet service provider, insofar as the provider is engaged in providing mobile broadband Internet access service, to engage in any of the activities described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of subdivision (a).

(4) Engaging in paid prioritization.

(5) Engaging in zero-rating in exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise, from a third party.

So subject to 3103(a), Verizon couldn't lift the cap, because that would be zero-rating, and couldn't prioritize traffic from that data SIM.

Which is kinda where SCCFD fsck'd up. The service they ordered was a generic data SIM under a government deal. So fell outside of 3103(a) in that most of the government SIMs wouldn't be public safety. The bigger issue is how this legislation might affect the provision of public safety services, if traffic management can't be used to prioritise it.

5
11
Silver badge

"No difference"

The 'repeal' of NN by the FCC was only made official in June, that's hardly enough time for ISPs to change their behavior. Especially when they know people are paying attention and abusing their newfound power right away would be noticed. Better to quietly make plans and wait for people to start paying attention to something else before putting anything into action.

As others said, if it doesn't make any difference why are ISPs so against NN becoming policy? It is pretty clear they intend to eventually do things that NN would bar, otherwise they wouldn't care about NN as a policy any more than they'd care if there was a policy barring them from hiring house cats as CSRs.

10
1
Silver badge

Re: "No difference"

As others said, if it doesn't make any difference why are ISPs so against NN becoming policy? It is pretty clear they intend to eventually do things that NN would bar.

Two reasons I can see. It gives 'Edge' providers a free ride. This is why Google, Netflix, Apple etc lobbied so hard for this version of 'Neutrality'.. Which is of course non-neutral because they get special treatment. Then there's the ability to use QoS/CoS on the Internet to prioritise traffic based on need. So improving the ability to deliver dependable VoIP and live video, or other real-time apps.

That's the trickier one because it's where differentiated services has the potential to lead to differentiated pricing. Technically though, it needs doing, otherwise the Internet remains fundamentally best efforts.

3
7
Silver badge

One more thing

The way the FCC did this repeal will make it almost impossible for them to stop California and other states from enacting their own NN laws. The FCC didn't just say "we repeal the ruling made by the FCC under the previous administration that enacted NN" they also ruled that the FCC has no power to regulate broadband AT ALL.

The FCC repeal order agreed with an argument that AT&T had made that in the Telecom Act of 1996 broadband should be classified as an "unregulated information service". What Pai was trying to do was lay the groundwork to prevent a future democratic FCC from simply putting NN back in place, by ruling that the FCC has no power to have anything to do with broadband.

Having made that argument in a ruling, an argument that the FCC has the power to prevent states from enacting their own NN regulations would be impossible to get past a judge. The only way republicans will have of stopping NN laws in California and other states would be legislation in congress. That's pretty unlikely to happen anytime soon due to the election, and after the election there's a good chance republicans will no longer have control of the house.

With multiple large states on board, requiring ISPs that to obey NN if they want to do business with the state, they'll effectively maintain NN as a nationwide policy. It probably isn't feasible for AT&T for example to obey NN in certain states, but not in others.

0
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

no surprise

no surprise that the socialist liberals dominating the state gummint of Cali-Fornicate-You have ONCE AGAIN passed legislation to CRAM THEIR AGENDAS up our as down our throats, so typical of "the left" to FORCE EVERYONE ELSE like that...

3
78
Silver badge

Re: no surprise

On the other hand, it would prevent ISPs charging extra for the timely transport of capital letters.

69
1
Bronze badge

Re: no surprise

no surprise that the socialist liberals democratically elected officials dominating the state gummint of Cali-Fornicate-Youconservatives have ONCE AGAIN passed legislation to CRAM THEIR AGENDAS up our as down our throats enact the will of the electorate, so typical of "the left" to FORCE EVERYONE ELSE do their jobs correctly like that...

52
3
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: no surprise

socialist liberals

Those words have different and incompatible meanings. Which do you mean?

Or do you mean "socialists and liberals" which seems to be common shorthand for anyone who thinks that anti-fascist means far left.

PS anti-fascist includes the far left, socialists, liberals, center-right and classic conservatives.It may include libertarians but I've not met many real ones

31
1
Silver badge
Windows

Re: no surprise

Ahhh Bobby.

I really think that your best move now will be to try and obtain residence in the 1800 block of Pennsylvania in DC. You could at least then have the company of your equals.

15
2
Silver badge

Re: no surprise

Spanners: "PS anti-fascist includes the far left, socialists, liberals, center-right and classic conservatives.It may include libertarians but I've not met many real ones"

You missed out "anti-fascist includes ..." → "any and every remotely decent, compassionate, thoughtful person who actually has got their shit together as a mature, adult human being"

Let's face it, history is 100% right about this: fascism is for ignorant, squalid-minded, loudmouthed imbeciles. It works in much the same way as one of its beloved components, racism: being a racist is as good as having a tattoo on your forehead, handily spelling it out so no one can be in any doubt: "I am a nasty idiot". Really, it's a pity some fascists wear suits or otherwise conceal themselves in faux respectability: the "Nasty Idiot" tattoo would make them so much easier to avoid.

I guess the online equivalent would be to hack one's browser so that words like "trump" or "bombastic" were auto-replaced with descriptive epithets. Any suggestions ...?

11
2

Re: no surprise

@bombastic bob

no surprise that the socialist liberals dominating the state gummint of Cali-Fornicate-You have ONCE AGAIN passed legislation to CRAM THEIR AGENDAS up our as down our throats, so typical of "the left" to FORCE EVERYONE ELSE like that...

Always good to hear the voice of FREEDOM! ringing Loud and Clear.

8
0

Re: no surprise

<quote>the "Nasty Idiot" tattoo would make them so much easier to avoid.</quote>

So that is why the Basterds carved swastikas on the foreheads of Nazis in the film Inglorious Basterds?

Here is the clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6yquTknWWU

1
0
Silver badge

Re: no surprise

@Fatman:

They were just demonstrating that you can't teach a sneech.

@Eds: Along with the popcorn icon, we also need a Horton, sitting on an egg icon.

1
0
Silver badge

Hey bombastic bob, ever heard of states rights?

I am led to believe that even foaming at the mouth conservatives like yourself claim to believe in states rights. But I guess you only believe in states rights when the federal government has laws you disagree with, but when it has laws you agree with you expect all the states to conform.

You probably don't even care about NN, if Trump tweeted in support of California's NN law and said the republicans in congress should pass the same thing on a national level you'd change your tune and not even see the irony. After all, I imagine you are now a big supporter of tariffs even though a few years ago you would have claimed only "socialist liberals" support tariffs and that as a tax on consumers and impediment to trade they should be avoided at all costs. Because until Trump was nominated, that had been the official trade platform of republicans since WW II.

16
0
Silver badge

Re: no surprise

"Always good to hear the voice of FREEDOM! ringing Loud and Clear."

I get the feeling Bob would like WWIII to happen so he can carry on in his bunker with no need to worry about petty little things like law and order, society or other people.

0
0
Silver badge

California can prove that ISP money can’t defeat real people’s voices

It's a little bit soon to say so. Wait and see.

15
0

California can prove that ISP money can’t defeat real people’s voicesSilicon Valley Money

That's more likely really

10
2

But these clowns can't clean the literal metric ton of human feces from the streets of San Francisco. The liberal mindset shown for the useless pile of sludge it is.

1
29
Silver badge

Social liberalism and economic liberalism are very different things.

14
0
Anonymous Coward

An astute observation.

0
1
Silver badge

New acronym interpretation of FUP

Along with Fair Use Policy, it can also now mean F U Pai.

7
0
Silver badge

Ah, Californian Wieners

(3) Requiring consideration, monetary or otherwise, from an edge provider, including, but not limited to, in exchange for any of the following:

(A) Delivering Internet traffic to, and carrying Internet traffic from, the Internet service provider’s end users.

(e) “Edge provider” means any individual or entity that provides any content, application, or service over the Internet, and any individual or entity that provides a device used for accessing any content, application, or service over the Internet.

Funny that. It's like the lobbying conducted by Google, Netflix etc never happened. So anyone providing Internet services to Californian users can't charge content providers for carriage. More amusingly, transit providers can't charge them either.

Oh.. dear. So assuming this 'gold standard' doesn't get shot down as being blatantly anti-competitive and anti-consumer, it doesn't bode well for California's users. If links to content providers get full, too bad. Edge providers can't be charged for upgrades, so users will have to be. Or California's suddenly full, and new ports will be offered outside the State.

But it's what the content providers wanted.. Don't bill us, bill someone else!

2
8

Re: Ah, Californian Wieners

You make it sound like ISPs and transit providers are operating as charities...

As both a content producer and an Internet user, I pay my ISP and hosting provider for the service I receive, including the bandwidth I consume. They use some of that money to pay their upstream providers who use some of that to pay their transit providers and so on. Everyone is getting paid. If I pay for bandwidth, I expect to be able to use it and, provided I'm not using it for any purpose that compromises network integrity or brings law enforcement to their doors, what I do with that bandwidth should be none of their business. I paid for it. It should be mine to use.

How is it possibly anti-consumer or anti-competitive to guarantee that I can use the bandwidth I'm paying for to consume the services I choose? On the other hand, I would see it as massively anti-competitive for my ISP to push me towards a content provider they have some paid prioritisation deal with by making competing services perform so badly in comparison that I give up on them. It would be like the parking provider in town making me use only one entry and exit lane and park in the crappy spaces on the 5th floor unless I was going to the supermarket in town that had paid them.

From my point of view, this whole thing is about corporate greed from the ISPs, particularly the cable ones. Not content with the fee they charge me for the service I bought, they want to double-dip the content providers. Now, I do see this as anti-consumer. If content providers have to hand over huge chunks of money to ISPs, they will want to get this money back. They will do this by taking it from me, directly or indirectly. Things that were free will suddenly cost money. There will be "premium" access plans to things that were free. Paid sites' prices will go up, they won't buy as much content or they will end up plastered in advertising to recover the charges. All of these things will take away from the Internet experience of consumers, particularly those on restricted incomes.

What happens if transit providers see the ISPs get this and decide they want a slice of the action? Will ISPs who don't engage in prioritisation end up with it by default when Netflix pay their upstream provider but Amazon don't? I'm starting to feel like this is the thin end of a very large wedge. Hey, why shouldn't Cisco have a slice too? Their gear is switching it all.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Ah, Californian Wieners

How is it possibly anti-consumer or anti-competitive to guarantee that I can use the bandwidth I'm paying for to consume the services I choose?

There are no guarantees on the Internet. The Internet is a 'network of networks', so I could guarantee something in an SLA where both endpoints are within my network. This bill extends that principle..

On the other hand, I would see it as massively anti-competitive for my ISP to push me towards a content provider they have some paid prioritisation deal with by making competing services perform so badly in comparison that I give up on them. It would be like the parking provider in town making me use only one entry and exit lane and park in the crappy spaces on the 5th floor unless I was going to the supermarket in town that had paid them.

You're getting it. Although replace 'ISP' with say, Google, or Amazon. They're 'Edge' networks, so can't be charged. So say you're on Comcast. It's performing bady due to the cost of connecting to Google's network.. Perhaps you'd consider trying Google fibre instead? If your ISP is national, then it could probably view California as a loss leader, providing the 'Edge' network free-rider problem doesn't end up going national. But if there's no cost contribution from the 'Edge' networks, the only person ISPs will be able to bill would be users.

OK, so the Alphaborg's backed off being an access provider/ISP it seems, but it could change it's mind. And being both an access and an Edge network would mean any access costs due to Edge provision could generate a handy tax loss. And rather than parking, try postage. It's like Amazon saying they should get free USPS delivery everywhere because you've bought a stamp.

0
0

We Ain't the Champions. We're the Audience

The comments page reminds me of the audiences at professional sports matches. It amazes me that people can get so worked up over a fight to see who gets the larger share of the audiences' money.

7
1

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018