6 ms·
> In October, California agreed not to enforce its own state net neutrality law until the appeals court’s decision on the 2017 repeal, and any potential review
by rdtsc 8y ago
> In October, California agreed not to enforce its own state net neutrality law until the appeals court’s decision on the 2017 repeal, and any potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court
That was one positive "states rights" thing I was looking forward to, but they chickened out? It's their state law, why not enforce it.
It's also been some time so it would be good to see how the predictions panned out. Some of those were pretty grim:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/net-neutrality-in-2017-what-you-should-know_us_599debf0e4b06d67e334fa94 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/net-neutrality-in-2017-... [warning: auto-playing video]
> "That means if Bing offers Comcast a hefty penny, you’ll never make another Google search for as long as you live. Yeah, it’s that bad."
I can't say I have seen any changes in the 2 or 3 services I have. It could be because there are competitors in the region and they'd be afraid to rock to boat too much. Maybe in other parts it was much worse.
- sgillen 8y agoPossibly California's legislature wants to avoid fractured governance of the internet in the US if they still have hope in net neutrality nation wide? Possibly if some of those grim predictions start to come true they will take action.
- rdtsc 8y agoI was hoping if they start enforcing it then more states will follow suit. Making laws and then selectively enforcing them when convenient is not a good idea. But you're right, that perhaps not enough time has passed yet and the worse is yet to come.
- ams6110 8y agoThey have fractured many other things with their regulations. Auto emissions, cancer warnings on everything.... I don't think they fear a fractured internet, if they even can understand that.
- torpfactory 8y agoYeah the cancer warnings seem to appear on just about everything but the CARB ratings for cars have probably saved a significant number of lives by dragging the rest of the country along for the ride with cleaner exhaust standards. Nothing to sneeze at.
- Reedx 8y agoI haven't noticed any negatives yet either (to my surprise). Saw some good news though - last year internet speeds increased nearly 40% in the US. https://www.recode.net/2018/12/12/18134899/internet-broafband-faster-ookla https://www.recode.net/2018/12/12/18134899/internet-broafban...
- fjabre 8y agoSo what? Is that fast by some global standard? I dont think the US is any gold standard for inet access. They gave the internet away to evil corp. There has been no good news since then, except maybe for this recent push by Dems. ISPs like verizon and att should be disbanded. Theyve proven to us once and for all they cant be trusted. We need national free highspeed inet.
- godzillabrennus 8y agoNothing is free. It’d be taxpayer funded. I think a public option is great but it’d also be excellent to support smaller local ISP’s by forcing big telcos to sublet the last mile of coax and fiber to competitors.
- post_below 8y agoSome of the big cell companies have already instituted selective rate limiting on their unlimited plans (i.e. bandwidth limits on video streaming). Not that they didn't do it before, but they'd always say sorry and stop for a while when someone noticed. Likely they've already doubled down on demanding payment from companies like Netflix for not throttling them. They aren't going to rush it, they care about PR up to a point... But companies like Verizon and ATT will absolutely frog boil consumers, small businesses and innovators under the current laws... Their histories make that pretty clear.
- pdonis 8y ago> I haven't noticed any negatives yet either (to my surprise). That's because the legal battle isn't over yet. If you were planning to take advantage of no more net neutrality, would you do it while a legal challenge is pending? The last thing you'd want to do is give the opposition evidence in favor of their position.
- elliekelly 8y ago> That was one positive "states rights" thing I was looking forward to, but they chickened out? It's their state law, why not enforce it. While I am 100% on board with what California is trying to accomplish here, I don't think they'd win the court battle. Between the Supremacy Clause, the "dormant" Commerce Clause, and a right-leaning SCOTUS California is much better off finding a compromise.
- oops 8y ago> It's also been some time so it would be good to see how the predictions panned out. Some of those were pretty grim > I can't say I have seen any changes in the 2 or 3 services I have. One thing is for sure: if it hasn’t happened yet, it’s only a matter of time. It will happen gradually until it is the new norm. Same thing that happened with privacy.