3 ms·

Somewhat related, Montana may have beat most states to the punch so to speak, but theirs was actually just an executive order (which can be reversed). Washingt

Somewhat related, Montana may have beat most states to the punch so to speak, but theirs was actually just an executive order (which can be reversed). Washington, too, has already got a start on this, but unlike Washington, California looks to have acheived a rather small bill. This is a landmark for California, which is notorious for large bills. Here is an article about Washington's bill: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/full-text-heres-washington-states-legally-contentious-net-neutrality-bill-looks-like-close/ https://www.geekwire.com/2017/full-text-heres-washington-sta...

dragonwriter 9y ago
> California looks to have acheived a rather small bill. The bill does nothing, so it's actually quite big for what it does. The CA bill currently under consideration that actually does something about neutrality rather than making a statement of intent (SB 460) is much bigger.
- zpallin 9y ago
  Right, that was my suspicion hence my uncertain language about it. Related to that is my praise of California. It's more mockery than anything. Our state does not know how to write concise legislation. ;)
  - jtmcmc 9y ago
    Weiner's legislation is pretty concise. Check out one of his latest housing bills for instance - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
    - zpallin 9y ago
      Incidentally, this is exactly the bill that https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dragonwriter https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dragonwriter and I were talking about. Once again, dragonwriter's comment is that this bill "does nothing", and I joked about it being concise, because that is rare in California politics. Sorry I had to explain this to you since you seemed to have missed it, but I couldn't leave you in the dark. Edit: Apparently I have it wrong, this is not the same bill. Multiple tabs open :/
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        No, GP is pointing to a housing bill that preempts local zoning restrictions in certain cases, not the “stating future intent to adopt legislation and use existing regulatory powers” net neutrality bill.
        zpallin 9y ago
        Ah thanks.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> California looks to have acheived a rather small bill. The bill does nothing, so it's actually quite big for what it does. The CA bill currently under consideration that actually does something about neutrality rather than making a statement of intent (SB 460) is much bigger.

zpallin 9y ago
Right, that was my suspicion hence my uncertain language about it. Related to that is my praise of California. It's more mockery than anything. Our state does not know how to write concise legislation. ;)
- jtmcmc 9y ago
  Weiner's legislation is pretty concise. Check out one of his latest housing bills for instance - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
  - zpallin 9y ago
    Incidentally, this is exactly the bill that https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dragonwriter https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dragonwriter and I were talking about. Once again, dragonwriter's comment is that this bill "does nothing", and I joked about it being concise, because that is rare in California politics. Sorry I had to explain this to you since you seemed to have missed it, but I couldn't leave you in the dark. Edit: Apparently I have it wrong, this is not the same bill. Multiple tabs open :/
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      No, GP is pointing to a housing bill that preempts local zoning restrictions in certain cases, not the “stating future intent to adopt legislation and use existing regulatory powers” net neutrality bill.
      - zpallin 9y ago
        Ah thanks.