8 ms·

Worth noting that California's net neutrality law[0] probably stymied most efforts by ISPs to start prioritizing traffic nationwide. [0]https://en.wikipedia.or

Worth noting that California's net neutrality law[0] probably stymied most efforts by ISPs to start prioritizing traffic nationwide. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_Protection_and_Net_Neutrality_Act_of_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P...

l33t7332273 3y ago
I thought the internet was purely a federal law domain. It looks like this law was challenged on those grounds, but the challenge lasted until after Biden was elected and the suit dropped.
- bojo 3y ago
  I think the point is that California, a sizable and notable state, implemented a law that affects everyone regardless of federal law.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Also see emission standards.
    - connicpu 3y ago
      Exactly. Even if their laws only technically apply within California, no car maker is going to build a car that cannot be legally sold in the single largest market in the US. It gets even more difficult with the internet as there are few internet providers who don't have at least some kind of connection to California and therefore fall under its jurisdiction, and ensuring you only apply prioritization to packets that don't involve California is extremely tough.
      - mywittyname 3y ago
        These emissions regulations don't cover just California, but most of New England, the Pacific, and the mid-Atlantic states as well. I think New York has a way to "fast track" new emissions laws from California, so that the states are kept in sync. "California cars" were a thing in the early days when emissions were difficult to comply with. Even modern cars come with a "50-state compliant emissions" line item on the window sticker. If California ratcheted up emissions standards too high, there's the possibility that such segregation could emerge again, particularly when it comes to trucks. There are already several trim levels of trucks that are specific to Texas, because the market there is so big. I could see a truck coming with a sticker that says, "RAM TRX can not be registered or sold in CA, WI, NY, [...] due to emissions restrictions."
  - foota 3y ago
    Parent is saying that California may not have the legal authority to regulate the internet in that way, since some powers are given only to the federal government.
    - connicpu 3y ago
      Whether they do or do not have the authority isn't something that can be answered by anything but speculation until it's been tested in court, and I don't think any of the ISPs had enough to gain through packet prioritization that it was worth the risk of going to court.
      - wddkcs 3y ago
        Funny if the benefit was that negligible when it seems like they fought for it so hard originally.
        connicpu 3y ago
        Lobbying can be extremely cheap when compared to actually fighting a court battle
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        The broadband industry actually fought, and lost, a court battle on this, too.
      - kstrauser 3y ago
        It's been tested and upheld in court. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_Protection_and_Net_Neutrality_Act_of_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P...: "Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in January 2022 that California's net neutrality law may continue to be enforced and cannot be overridden by the FCC as, current as of the decision, Internet services were classified as information services."
        3y ago
- ImJamal 3y ago
  Why would you think it was a federal law domain? The federal government is technically only allowed to do what is granted in the Constitution. The 10th amendment says anything else is left to the states. Last I checked nothing in the constitution mentioned the internet. Not that the federal government lets that stand in their way.
  - tracedddd 3y ago
    I don’t know the specifics of federal authority when it comes to internet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it fell under interstate commerce, which is how they justify federal drug laws.
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      I can live in California and visit a site in California and my traffic might not leave the state. That is pretty much irrelevant now that Wickard v. Filburn is a thing though.
  - Facemelters 3y ago
    The internet pretty squarely falls under the Commerce Clause
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      I can live in California and visit a site in California and my traffic might not leave the state. That is pretty much irrelevant now that Wickard v. Filburn is a thing though.
    - hn_acker 3y ago
      Internet communications which exit/enter the state do, but there's still the issue of communications which stay within the state. The states have Congress-given authority to regulate intrastate (not interstate) internet communications. Moreover, by reclassifying broadband from Title II to Title I, the FCC gave up the part of its authority that allowed it to preempt state net neutrality laws. I wrote more on this technicality in a different comment [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37946794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37946794
- kstrauser 3y ago
  The FCC declared that it didn't have authority to regulate net neutrality. When they did, California declared that if it's not in-scope for the FCC, then there's no federal-state conflict in California regulating it themselves.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I thought the internet was purely a federal law domain It is not, there are plenty of state laws that have applied to the internet. On the specific issue of net neutrality, the FCC in 2019 lost in the D.C. Circuit in its attempt to assert that state law regulations for neutrality were preempted, specifically because the repeal rested on them reclassifying in a way which means they don’t have the power to preempt state regulations. > It looks like this law was challenged on those grounds It was (EDIT: well, not on the broad “internet is a federal law domain” grounds, but the narrower “net neutrality regulations by the states were preempted by the terms of the FCC neutrality repeal” grounds), by multiple parties, and those challenges failed. > but the challenge lasted until after Biden was elected and the suit dropped. No, while the DoJ dropped its case then, the case making the same arguments by the broadband industry continued until the industry participants dropped it after the Ninth Circuit ruled (similar to what the D.C. Circuit had previously), that by reclassifying broadband under Title I in its net neutrality repeal, the FCC had removed its ability to restrict state regulations, which would only exist if it were regulated under Title II.
SllX 3y ago
What I’ve never understood is the argument that what California does regulating ISPs could actually affect the service plans in 49 other States. Think about it: these are service plans offered through cables that already exist, and that cross defined borders right? But what all an ISP has to do to offer different service plans in California, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona is to merely offer different terms to different people based off the State they reside in. That’s just paperwork (and you know, delivering on the agreed upon service for the agreed upon price), not automobiles. So I don’t really buy the argument that because California did a thing, ISPs couldn’t do all the supposed bad evil stuff they were going to immediately do once the FCC failed to “save the internet” anywhere else (although maybe other States also did the thing California did).
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Users in California may download from a service in New York. Users in New York may download from a service in California. I suspect it would be more expensive than it's worth to have asymmetric infrastructure that would allow them to them to throttle the New Yorker without violating the law for the Californian. All that network management would require teams of engineers and specialized hardware, all for something that may change on a whim and be obsoleted. What if New York copies California law? Bam. That investment instantly evaporated.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    >50% of US GDP is in states that are almost certainly going to prevent traffic throttling: https://www.naruc.org/nrri/nrri-activities/net-neutrality-tracker/ https://www.naruc.org/nrri/nrri-activities/net-neutrality-tr... It's probably not worth it to add in a whole bunch of BS just to try to make a bit more money in maybe Fl and Tx. Especially given the fact that it's not as straightforward as it seems - and legal consequences could easily outweigh any benefits. On top of that, I'd be surprised if ISPs tried to throttle traffic even in Fl and Tx and people in those states didn't pressure their government to ban it as well. Net neutrality is wildly popular with the public.
    - 3y ago
dragonwriter 3y ago
The lawsuits over the FCC repeal, the California law, proposed laws in other states, and the Presidential election and the expectation that the FCC would revisit the issue and readopt neutrality regulations (and that any major conduct violating the neutrality principles made that both more likely and would be specifically targeted in the new regulations) all contributed to restraint.

l33t7332273 3y ago

I thought the internet was purely a federal law domain. It looks like this law was challenged on those grounds, but the challenge lasted until after Biden was elected and the suit dropped.

bojo 3y ago
I think the point is that California, a sizable and notable state, implemented a law that affects everyone regardless of federal law.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Also see emission standards.
  - connicpu 3y ago
    Exactly. Even if their laws only technically apply within California, no car maker is going to build a car that cannot be legally sold in the single largest market in the US. It gets even more difficult with the internet as there are few internet providers who don't have at least some kind of connection to California and therefore fall under its jurisdiction, and ensuring you only apply prioritization to packets that don't involve California is extremely tough.
    - mywittyname 3y ago
      These emissions regulations don't cover just California, but most of New England, the Pacific, and the mid-Atlantic states as well. I think New York has a way to "fast track" new emissions laws from California, so that the states are kept in sync. "California cars" were a thing in the early days when emissions were difficult to comply with. Even modern cars come with a "50-state compliant emissions" line item on the window sticker. If California ratcheted up emissions standards too high, there's the possibility that such segregation could emerge again, particularly when it comes to trucks. There are already several trim levels of trucks that are specific to Texas, because the market there is so big. I could see a truck coming with a sticker that says, "RAM TRX can not be registered or sold in CA, WI, NY, [...] due to emissions restrictions."
- foota 3y ago
  Parent is saying that California may not have the legal authority to regulate the internet in that way, since some powers are given only to the federal government.
  - connicpu 3y ago
    Whether they do or do not have the authority isn't something that can be answered by anything but speculation until it's been tested in court, and I don't think any of the ISPs had enough to gain through packet prioritization that it was worth the risk of going to court.
    - wddkcs 3y ago
      Funny if the benefit was that negligible when it seems like they fought for it so hard originally.
      - connicpu 3y ago
        Lobbying can be extremely cheap when compared to actually fighting a court battle
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        The broadband industry actually fought, and lost, a court battle on this, too.
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      It's been tested and upheld in court. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_Protection_and_Net_Neutrality_Act_of_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P...: "Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in January 2022 that California's net neutrality law may continue to be enforced and cannot be overridden by the FCC as, current as of the decision, Internet services were classified as information services."
      - 3y ago
ImJamal 3y ago
Why would you think it was a federal law domain? The federal government is technically only allowed to do what is granted in the Constitution. The 10th amendment says anything else is left to the states. Last I checked nothing in the constitution mentioned the internet. Not that the federal government lets that stand in their way.
- tracedddd 3y ago
  I don’t know the specifics of federal authority when it comes to internet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it fell under interstate commerce, which is how they justify federal drug laws.
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    I can live in California and visit a site in California and my traffic might not leave the state. That is pretty much irrelevant now that Wickard v. Filburn is a thing though.
- Facemelters 3y ago
  The internet pretty squarely falls under the Commerce Clause
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    I can live in California and visit a site in California and my traffic might not leave the state. That is pretty much irrelevant now that Wickard v. Filburn is a thing though.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    Internet communications which exit/enter the state do, but there's still the issue of communications which stay within the state. The states have Congress-given authority to regulate intrastate (not interstate) internet communications. Moreover, by reclassifying broadband from Title II to Title I, the FCC gave up the part of its authority that allowed it to preempt state net neutrality laws. I wrote more on this technicality in a different comment [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37946794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37946794
kstrauser 3y ago
The FCC declared that it didn't have authority to regulate net neutrality. When they did, California declared that if it's not in-scope for the FCC, then there's no federal-state conflict in California regulating it themselves.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I thought the internet was purely a federal law domain It is not, there are plenty of state laws that have applied to the internet. On the specific issue of net neutrality, the FCC in 2019 lost in the D.C. Circuit in its attempt to assert that state law regulations for neutrality were preempted, specifically because the repeal rested on them reclassifying in a way which means they don’t have the power to preempt state regulations. > It looks like this law was challenged on those grounds It was (EDIT: well, not on the broad “internet is a federal law domain” grounds, but the narrower “net neutrality regulations by the states were preempted by the terms of the FCC neutrality repeal” grounds), by multiple parties, and those challenges failed. > but the challenge lasted until after Biden was elected and the suit dropped. No, while the DoJ dropped its case then, the case making the same arguments by the broadband industry continued until the industry participants dropped it after the Ninth Circuit ruled (similar to what the D.C. Circuit had previously), that by reclassifying broadband under Title I in its net neutrality repeal, the FCC had removed its ability to restrict state regulations, which would only exist if it were regulated under Title II.

SllX 3y ago

What I’ve never understood is the argument that what California does regulating ISPs could actually affect the service plans in 49 other States. Think about it: these are service plans offered through cables that already exist, and that cross defined borders right? But what all an ISP has to do to offer different service plans in California, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona is to merely offer different terms to different people based off the State they reside in. That’s just paperwork (and you know, delivering on the agreed upon service for the agreed upon price), not automobiles. So I don’t really buy the argument that because California did a thing, ISPs couldn’t do all the supposed bad evil stuff they were going to immediately do once the FCC failed to “save the internet” anywhere else (although maybe other States also did the thing California did).

kstrauser 3y ago
Users in California may download from a service in New York. Users in New York may download from a service in California. I suspect it would be more expensive than it's worth to have asymmetric infrastructure that would allow them to them to throttle the New Yorker without violating the law for the Californian. All that network management would require teams of engineers and specialized hardware, all for something that may change on a whim and be obsoleted. What if New York copies California law? Bam. That investment instantly evaporated.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  >50% of US GDP is in states that are almost certainly going to prevent traffic throttling: https://www.naruc.org/nrri/nrri-activities/net-neutrality-tracker/ https://www.naruc.org/nrri/nrri-activities/net-neutrality-tr... It's probably not worth it to add in a whole bunch of BS just to try to make a bit more money in maybe Fl and Tx. Especially given the fact that it's not as straightforward as it seems - and legal consequences could easily outweigh any benefits. On top of that, I'd be surprised if ISPs tried to throttle traffic even in Fl and Tx and people in those states didn't pressure their government to ban it as well. Net neutrality is wildly popular with the public.
  - 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

The lawsuits over the FCC repeal, the California law, proposed laws in other states, and the Presidential election and the expectation that the FCC would revisit the issue and readopt neutrality regulations (and that any major conduct violating the neutrality principles made that both more likely and would be specifically targeted in the new regulations) all contributed to restraint.