Update: California Senate Approves Net Neutrality Rules
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Update: California Senate Approves Net Neutrality Rules

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    7,708

    Update: California Senate Approves Net Neutrality Rules

    https://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...utrality-rules

    Note this is a pending issue on Net Neutrality for California residents and as of posting the Governor's support or veto will have to come into play..

    The California State Senate Friday (Aug. 31) passed a tough new network neutrality law that essentially restores the FCC's rules, then one-ups them by applying them to interconnections as well as consumer internet access.

    The California Assembly had approved the bill Aug. 30. The new law applies no-blocking, throttling or paid prioritization rules for broadband service in the state, and applies those to interconnections as well.

    SB 822, which must still be signed by Governor Jerry Brown, essentially restores for California the federal net neutrality rules the FCC rolled back last fall, though even the old FCC rules in the 2015 Open Internet Order did not apply the rules to interconnections.

    Cable and telco ISPs had opposed the bill, and point out that the FCC's reg rollback asserts that states are preempted from restoring the rules.

    “Broadband providers strongly support net neutrality, but SB 822 undercuts California’s long history as a vibrant catalyst for innovation and technology," said Jonathan Spalter, presidnt of USTelecom. "The internet must be governed by a single, uniform and consistent national policy framework, not state-by-state piecemeal approaches. Governor Brown should use his veto pen on this legislation, and Congress should step in to legislate and provide consumer protections that will resolve this issue once and for all.”

    ““Net neutrality is the free speech fight of our generation, and we’re winning,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, in a statement. “If there’s one thing this victory in California shows it’s that Internet users are still royally pissed off about the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality. They’re still paying attention. And they’re not going to let their elected officials get away with selling out their constituents by siding with big telecom companies.”

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    7,708
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGgDv8L3F6Q

    Now the US DOJ sues over the Net Neutrality rule.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    7,708
    https://www.kcra.com/article/another...y-law/23602524

    Yes now California's net Neutrality law is now being questioned in a lawsuit.

    (KCRA) —
    Associations representing American cable and broadband companies are suing the state of California and Attorney General Xavier Becerra over the state's new net neutrality law.

    Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law Sunday that bars internet service providers from blocking or slowing data based on content. It also prohibits providers from giving special treatment to websites from companies that pay extra.


    Advertisement
    The same day that Brown signed the bill, the U.S. Department of Justice sued. The DOJ argues that the federal government has exclusive authority to regulate the internet.

    | MORE | DOJ lawsuit may delay California's new net neutrality law

    In the suit brought by American cable and broadband companies, the groups claim the state law is unconstitutional.

    The suit claims that the Federal Communications Commission has recognized that it is impossible for broadband and cable providers to recognize which signals cross into California.

    They are asking for an injunction to prevent enforcement of California's net neutrality law.

  4. #4
    I am pretty sure that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 reserved these powers to the
    Federal Government and this will get overturned.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by FreddyE1977 View Post
    I am pretty sure that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 reserved these powers to the
    Federal Government and this will get overturned.
    Hmmm...there was no net neutrality mentioned in the TCA, which was why the Republicans were so against Tom Wheeler's FCC instituting it in the first place. They said at the time that the FCC has no jurisdiction in this area. Now all of a sudden they've reversed themselves and said the government has authority to regulate the internet. I guess it's a matter of which government they're talking about.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by FreddyE1977 View Post
    I am pretty sure that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 reserved these powers to the Federal Government and this will get overturned.
    As does Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Since Telecommunications Acts have existed in one form or another since 1912 (not necessarily using that exact name), Federal law takes precedence over any state or local law in this matter. Over 100 years of legal precedent give the authority to regulate communications to the Federal government, as well as current laws.
    We have to save the Earth! It's the only planet with football and beer.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by KeithE4 View Post
    As does Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
    Yet Republicans have fought against that interpretation of the supremacy clause going back to the civil war. They are the party for state's rights. They want states to decide matters of health care, abortion, and education funding. Which party is in power now?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigA View Post
    Yet Republicans have fought against that interpretation of the supremacy clause going back to the civil war. They are the party for state's rights.
    When it's expedient.

    In any event, unless Trump imposes controls and bans similar to those of the Chinese and Russian governments, VPNs will continue to circumvent ISP bandwidth filtering.
    Plugged into the electric radio

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Kemosabe View Post

    In any event, unless Trump imposes controls and bans similar to those of the Chinese and Russian governments, VPNs will continue to circumvent ISP bandwidth filtering.
    What really needs to happen, and one of the telco presidents said it in the OP, is for Congress to come up with a law for net neutrality. The lack of any real law is what makes this situation possible. But that would take leadership and co-operation in Congress. The concept of "consumer protection" no longer exists.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    7,708
    https://www.multichannel.com/news/re...bill-of-rights

    Now this is at play

    Here is the list Khanna's office e-mailed to B&C/Multichannel News (after first handing it to The New York Times). The bracketed materials are B&C/Multichannel News editorial notations.

    (1) "To have access to and knowledge of all collection and uses of personal data by companies;

    (2) "To opt-in consent to the collection of personal data by any party and to the sharing of personal data with a third party; [The definition of "personal" would be crucial.]

    (3) "Where context appropriate and with a fair process, to obtain, correct, or delete personal data controlled by any company and to have those requests honored by third parties [that is the "erase button" that both Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) advocated for kids' online data for years.

    (4) "To have personal data secured and to be notified in a timely manner when a security breach or unauthorized access of personal data is discovered;

    (5) "To move all personal data from one network to the next;

    (6) "To access and use the internet without internet service providers blocking, throttling, engaging in paid prioritization, or otherwise unfairly favoring content, applications, services, or devices. [effectively restoring the FCC's network neutrality rules].

    (7) "To internet service without the collection of data that is unnecessary for providing the requested service absent opt-in consent;

    (8) "To have access to multiple viable, affordable internet platforms, services, and providers with clear and transparent pricing;

    (9) "Not to be unfairly discriminated against or exploited based on your personal data [no digital red-lining];


    and

    (10) "To have an entity that collects your personal data have reasonable business practices and accountability to protect your privacy."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




     
Our Conferences
Useful Contacts
Community


Contact Us