This bill honestly seems pretty well put together. I was wary when I read it went beyond the FCC’s regulations wrt zero-rating, but apparently that’s actually allowed as long as the zero-rating is application-agnostic, which sounds good for that quaint old-fashioned free market competition.
I think it's funny: AT&T: Oh you don't need to do this, silly we're already compliant...no please don't...we mean it, we'll be good... --- if it was something they plan on enforcing anyways, why fight it so damn hard?
To my eye Internet services look like interstate commerce and therefore would be the jurisdiction of the federal government. I'd appreciate it if someone with a little expertise could explain how the law works in this regard.
There's a famous Supreme Court case [1] in which a law that regulates how much wheat a farmer may keep for himself was determined to affect interstate commerce, and therefore be within the province of federal law.
Though this case was cited negatively by the Supreme Court many years later, it is still regularly cited in briefs — including by lawyers on both sides of the recent Obamacare cases.
So just because something seems local doesn't mean it couldn't fall within the Commerce Clause powers, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure that the proper definition of "interstate" is when the consumer crosses state lines to reach the retail location.
Is the cellular industry not interstate? An American can buy their phone at a local Verizon store and their phone connects to a local Verizon tower. Also, most Americans' ISPs are headquartered and have facilities, through which their traffic passes, in other states.
Republicans realized that internet giants are now in charge of determining what is true or false in the world but are run by a bunch of teenagers that are probably liberal hippies and cable companies are run by reliable Republican megadonors so lets give cable companies the ability to extort rents from those internet companies and hobble them to eliminate that threat.
There is no doubt both parties are influenced by the money given to them, but maybe Democrats got more money because they needed to be moved farther from their natural position (toward that which the telecoms wanted).
get ready for rate increases. having to comply with 51 sets of laws and regulations is going to cost money - lawyers, technicians, lost revenue, etc. - and those costs will be passed to consumers. and you'll pay those costs regardless of your political affiliation or Republican's emotions.
Until service providers decide to compete for customers by accepting that they won't get a fresh new rent to extract by ramming zero-rating or bundled internet packages down people's throats. Those providers can eliminate the costs you mention and keep profits steady without raising prices for their customers.
LOL, as if any political faction these days is capable of looking beyond the spin an issue settles with and how it interacts with their talking points this week and whether it's a way to get one over on their opponent.
Comments
This bill honestly seems pretty well put together. I was wary when I read it went beyond the FCC’s regulations wrt zero-rating, but apparently that’s actually allowed as long as the zero-rating is application-agnostic, which sounds good for that quaint old-fashioned free market competition.
So T-Mobile's binge-on would be acceptable?
Did the (2015-17) net neutrality regulations even apply to mobile providers?
Anybody know how close to the truth this is? It sounds a bit less likely than I would hope.
I don't have time atm, but you can check yourself! Compare versions of the bill over time using the official CA Legislative Information site: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompare...
Whoa I didn't know about that functionality, thank you!
I think it's funny: AT&T: Oh you don't need to do this, silly we're already compliant...no please don't...we mean it, we'll be good... --- if it was something they plan on enforcing anyways, why fight it so damn hard?
To my eye Internet services look like interstate commerce and therefore would be the jurisdiction of the federal government. I'd appreciate it if someone with a little expertise could explain how the law works in this regard.
I buy transit from the ISP to my apartment. This is entirely within a local government zone, let alone the state.
There's a famous Supreme Court case [1] in which a law that regulates how much wheat a farmer may keep for himself was determined to affect interstate commerce, and therefore be within the province of federal law.
Though this case was cited negatively by the Supreme Court many years later, it is still regularly cited in briefs — including by lawyers on both sides of the recent Obamacare cases.
So just because something seems local doesn't mean it couldn't fall within the Commerce Clause powers, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
I'm not sure that the proper definition of "interstate" is when the consumer crosses state lines to reach the retail location.
Is the cellular industry not interstate? An American can buy their phone at a local Verizon store and their phone connects to a local Verizon tower. Also, most Americans' ISPs are headquartered and have facilities, through which their traffic passes, in other states.
As CA Comcast customer, I was really hoping for this. Of course, Republicans can't be mad at this, right? State's rights, and all.
I was under the impression that the 2015 net neutrality policies more or less had bipartisan support. What changed in the interim?
Republicans realized that internet giants are now in charge of determining what is true or false in the world but are run by a bunch of teenagers that are probably liberal hippies and cable companies are run by reliable Republican megadonors so lets give cable companies the ability to extort rents from those internet companies and hobble them to eliminate that threat.
There is no doubt both parties are influenced by the money given to them, but maybe Democrats got more money because they needed to be moved farther from their natural position (toward that which the telecoms wanted).
Republicans only believe in State's rights when it comes to issues they support.
get ready for rate increases. having to comply with 51 sets of laws and regulations is going to cost money - lawyers, technicians, lost revenue, etc. - and those costs will be passed to consumers. and you'll pay those costs regardless of your political affiliation or Republican's emotions.
Until service providers decide to compete for customers by accepting that they won't get a fresh new rent to extract by ramming zero-rating or bundled internet packages down people's throats. Those providers can eliminate the costs you mention and keep profits steady without raising prices for their customers.
As it should be.
LOL, as if any political faction these days is capable of looking beyond the spin an issue settles with and how it interacts with their talking points this week and whether it's a way to get one over on their opponent.