California Net Neutrality Bill Signed Into Law

Like the 2015 Open Internet Order repealed by the FCC in December,

S.B. 822 extends to the state’s 40 million residents a host of legal protections aimed at reigning in the power of Big Telecom—a handful of companies that sell internet subscriptions to nearly 100 million U.S. broadband customers, many of whom live in neighborhoods with only a single provider option.

Around two dozen states pushed back after the FCC vote, legislatively and with executive action.

Most of the bills are now dead,

but of those that did succeed—Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have each enacted net neutrality legislation—none are as thorough in replicating the Obama-era protections as California’s.

This is a major win for 'common carrier' internet pricing and as well as other consumer protections. However, the Telecon Giants are now attempting to 'preempt' these state decisions (States Right) by going to the Federal Level to get around them.

More over:

The law will now face significant legal challenges, if not from the FCC itself, then the ISPs that have already promised to sue.

“It’s very odd that Ajit Pai and the FCC apparently think that this unelected agency has the power to stop 50 states from acting to protect the internet,” said Wiener, conceding the industry has a right to ask the court to interpret the law. “We will vigorously defend this law,” he added. “And the law is defensible.”

Update October 1: The Justice Department is now suing California over the law, the Washington Post reports.

gizmodo.com...

I'd like to hear what 'small government' types have to say about this attack on a local law to protect local citizens?

To help 'inform' your opinion:

theintercept.com...

It’s an eerie echo of the federal pre-emption that Wall Street banks received and used to great effect during the run-up to the housing bubble.

In 2002, Georgia passed an anti-predatory lending law, and both the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ruled that banks they regulated simply did not have to comply with it.

This created a chilling effect, as states declined to crack down on the rampant fraud in the mortgage industry. And the financial crisis was the result.

Alone among the witnesses, Apple’s Bud Tribble did say that while federal legislation should pre-empt state law, it must also “meet the bar of protecting consumers meaningfully.”

a reply to: FyreByrd

The day corporations get their grubby hands on the world wide web is the day it's over, well done Cali

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
Louis D. Brandeis

a reply to: FyreByrd

I wanted to add, from the Intercept story:

In addition, the continuing cascade of stories about big tech’s intrusions into its users’ lives could damage chances to water down privacy rules.

Just this week, reports revealed that Facebook gives advertisers the phone numbers users provide for two-factor authentication — a security measure to protect individual privacy — for use in targeting.

Facebook announced on Friday that it just identified a security breach affecting 50 million user accounts.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: FyreByrd

The day corporations get their grubby hands on the world wide web is the day it's over, well done Cali

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
Louis D. Brandeis

Wonderful quote, thank you.

a reply to: FyreByrd

S&F

a reply to: FyreByrd

Wow, California is actually doing something right.

Is this some kind of gag show?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

The day corporations get their grubby hands on the world wide web is the day it's over, well done 

Color me stupid friend but that day has already come and gone don't you think ?

a reply to: FyreByrd

I think government interference into any private company is a bad thing, seems to me that most people here were against government telling websites what to do.

But what do I know.


Will be interesting to see how this gets abused.

Does this mean I can access the websites my internet provider is now blocking from the last dose of "freedom" that was dished out?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd

I think government interference into any private company is a bad thing, seems to me that most people here were against government telling websites what to do.

But what do I know.


Will be interesting to see how this gets abused.

Agreed.

When has "I know! Let's get the GOVERNMENT to fix it!" EVER been a good idea? When it comes to Government, there are two immutable universal truths.

1. Less is ALWAYS better that more.
2. The ONLY thing "Government" does better that private industry is War.

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

The day corporations get their grubby hands on the world wide web is the day it's over, well done 

Color me stupid friend but that day has already come and gone don't you think ?

If you think it's over then bow to your masters, but don't mock those who are still fighting for net neutrality

Oh great. The state once again inserting itself as "protection" where absolutely none is needed.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd

I think government interference into any private company is a bad thing, seems to me that most people here were against government telling websites what to do.

But what do I know.


Will be interesting to see how this gets abused.

So, in essence, you are saying, "The citizens' of this country should be subjugated to the whims of Big Business without any recourse?", am I reading you correctly?

California uber alles can muck it up. Corporate interests abound. Hopefully that won't be the case, as other states have enacted a bill. At the moment Ajit Pai just seems to be bloviating.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Aren’t they already when some are banned from sites?

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: FyreByrd

The day corporations get their grubby hands on the world wide web is the day it's over, well done Cali

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
Louis D. Brandeis

Gee, I wonder how we survived the 90s and 00s without NN.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I think a lot of conservatives should be onboard with this since states rights should come first over a meddling big federal government.

originally posted by: jacobe001
a reply to: FyreByrd

I think a lot of conservatives should be onboard with this since states rights should come first over a meddling big federal government.

State Governments can be no different than the Federal Government at times.

How long before Californians are arrested for FB and Twitter posts? Because its happening in the UK and EU.

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd

I think government interference into any private company is a bad thing, seems to me that most people here were against government telling websites what to do.

But what do I know.


Will be interesting to see how this gets abused.

Agreed.

When has "I know! Let's get the GOVERNMENT to fix it!" EVER been a good idea? When it comes to Government, there are two immutable universal truths.

1. Less is ALWAYS better that more.
2. The ONLY thing "Government" does better that private industry is War.

1: The tech giants are not 'fixing' it.
2) By the same logic (Less is Always Better) then less money is better then more - smaller companies are better then bigger....

Public and governmental pressure has "Always" (to borrow from your hyperbolic style) been required to get reasonable restraints on any business.

Read "Unsafe at Any Speed" about the fight for improved safety of motor vehicles.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

Update October 1: The Justice Department is now suing California over the law, the Washington Post reports.

There's just something so wrong with the content of that sentence, lol.



Definition of net neutrality:

the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

I am having mixed thoughts about this. I think it's wonderful when the government steps in and breaks up huge monopolies with deregulation. It creates competition and consumer friendly pricing. Although I think for the most part, businesses should be able to operate without government interference. At the same time, when a business gets SOOO big or wealthy, where they in a sense act like a body of government, have the power similar of a body of government or unfairly regulating consumers use or access of their product, it seems like some real government interaction should be enacted. I was thrilled when PNWB was deregulated.

At the same time, we do have choices of ISPs although they may be limited and inferior. So in that respect, it is a choice to use a particular ISP and that in itself should disqualify government intervention. But we should still regulate bakeries who refuse to bake for certain people???????????

Is it hypocritical? I don't know because I truly don't understand it all.