4 ms·
Bad news for AT&T and Comcast: Calif. Senate panel OKs net neutrality bill
- e40 8y agoAs CA Comcast customer, I was really hoping for this. Of course, Republicans can't be mad at this, right? State's rights, and all.
- kbenson 8y agoLOL, 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.
- pkaye 8y ago> The eight ayes came from Democrats and the three noes came from Republicans.
- barnesto 8y agoget 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.
- elefanten 8y agoUntil 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.
- jeremyt 8y agoAs a republican, I fully support the right of California to torch its internet access, just like it has its infrastructure, tax base, and housing policies. Federalism FTW.
- bhb916 8y agoAnd it's environment, with 8 of 10 most polluted cities.
- jeremyt 8y agoBut they banned plastic bags and only buy organic. What more do you want from them?
- guelo 8y agoIt's weird how conservatives always know a bunch of negative factoids about California. I looked it up, the reason the American Lung Association says 8 out of the 10 most polluted cities are in California is because of the geography of the Sierra Nevadas that traps the smog.
- e40 8y agoYeah, I find that fascinating, too. I was around in the 70s and the smog was truly horrible. We'de still have that if Republicans controlled CA for The last 3 decades.
- greglindahl 8y agoI disliked the bag ban until I realized how awesome the reduction in litter was. You should try it.
- bsder 8y agoAs a Democrat, could you please convince some of your Republican brethren that California is just too crappy and that they need to leave? Especially from Southern California. KTHXBYE.
- jamesgeck0 8y agoI was under the impression that the 2015 net neutrality policies more or less had bipartisan support. What changed in the interim?
- nerfhammer 8y agoRepublicans 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.
- masonic 8y agoreliable Republican megadonors All of the telecommunications giants contributed more to Democrats than Republicans in the 2016 election cycle.
- e40 8y agoThere 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).
- slantedview 8y agoRepublicans only believe in State's rights when it comes to issues they support.
- jonathanyc 8y agoThis 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.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- forapurpose 8y agoTo 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.
- jclulow 8y agoI buy transit from the ISP to my apartment. This is entirely within a local government zone, let alone the state.
- gnicholas 8y agoThere'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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- forapurpose 8y ago> I buy transit from the ISP to my apartment. 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.
- mehrdadn 8y ago> Wiener said he negotiated amendments with the committee that kept "all key provisions of the bill intact." Anybody know how close to the truth this is? It sounds a bit less likely than I would hope.
- l1n 8y agoI 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/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompare...
- mehrdadn 8y agoWhoa I didn't know about that functionality, thank you!
- gremlinsinc 8y agoI 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?