California Net Neutrality Bill Signed Into Law

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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.

You really ought to read up before replying:

In the United States, net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate,
[1] has been an issue of contention between network users and access providers since the 1990s.[2][3]

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission adopted network neutrality principles "to preserve and promote the vibrant and open character of the Internet as the telecommunications marketplace enters the broadband age."

Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills in Congress containing net neutrality provisions failed. Opponents claimed that these bills would have benefited industry lobbyists instead of consumers.

Large broadband Internet access service providers (ISPs) challenged the FCC's network neutrality principles, and in 2014 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because the FCC classified broadband ISPs as "information services," governed by Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, rather than "common carrier services," governed by Title II, the FCC could not regulate the ISPs so closely.

The FCC responded on February 26, 2015 by reclassifying broadband ISPs as common carriers under Title II. These rules went into effect on June 12, 2015.

In June 2016, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the FCC's new net neutrality rules.

Upon becoming FCC chairman in April 2017 as part of the Trump Administration, Ajit Pai proposed to repeal the neutrality policies.

The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on May 14, 2017, generating over 20 million public comments, and on December 14, 2017, the FCC voted in favor of repealing these policies, 3–2, along party lines.

Twenty-two state Attorneys General then sued the FCC, alleging among other things that the comment process had been corrupted. On June 11, 2018, the FCC repeal of these rules took effect, despite a U.S. Senate vote to uphold the regulation (due to lack of action in the House of Representatives).[4]

And that is just Wikipeadia.... I'm sure there is more detailed infomration at the Electronic Freedom Foundation (www.eff.org...)

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.

A service provider like AT&T isn't a website.

originally posted by: StoutBroux

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.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation has a good article on the state of 'net neutrality':

To date, thirty state legislatures have introduced bills that would require their Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to maintain net neutrality as a matter of law.

Four of those states (Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and now California) have passed laws with strong bipartisan majorities, and more are promising to follow suit in 2019.

Six state governors (Montana, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Vermont, and Rhode Island), led by Governor Bullock of Montana, have issued Executive Orders declaring that the state’s government will not do business with ISPs that violate net neutrality.

www.eff.org...

Frankly, I find the principles rather arcane and the posturing tedious and boring.

How I've come to understand the basics. It is like - liken to truck companies that you can pay to carry your merchandise. You pay the same rate per pound regardless of what the material is. Where it's paper or cow poop - same rate for 100 pounds of gold costs the same as a 100 pounds of poop traveling the same distance.

Then there are States Rights issues involved - which are complex as well - and a common form of attack for Big Captial when they don't like local laws.

Lots and lots of important stuff involved.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Exactly, and sites choosing to "censor"(depending how one thinks about it) people now doesn't have anything to do with NN. As they are now doing it without and would do it with.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

Less GOVERNMENT is always better.

It's not businesses that need restraint, it's government.

Nader? Seriously? That explains a LOT.

Not to mention the fact that it's the People's Republic of California. Who the hell takes that sh*thole seriously anymore?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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.

You really ought to read up before replying:

In the United States, net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate,
[1] has been an issue of contention between network users and access providers since the 1990s.[2][3]

In 2005, the Federal Communications Commission adopted network neutrality principles "to preserve and promote the vibrant and open character of the Internet as the telecommunications marketplace enters the broadband age."

Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills in Congress containing net neutrality provisions failed. Opponents claimed that these bills would have benefited industry lobbyists instead of consumers.

Large broadband Internet access service providers (ISPs) challenged the FCC's network neutrality principles, and in 2014 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because the FCC classified broadband ISPs as "information services," governed by Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, rather than "common carrier services," governed by Title II, the FCC could not regulate the ISPs so closely.

The FCC responded on February 26, 2015 by reclassifying broadband ISPs as common carriers under Title II. These rules went into effect on June 12, 2015.

In June 2016, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the FCC's new net neutrality rules.

Upon becoming FCC chairman in April 2017 as part of the Trump Administration, Ajit Pai proposed to repeal the neutrality policies.

The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on May 14, 2017, generating over 20 million public comments, and on December 14, 2017, the FCC voted in favor of repealing these policies, 3–2, along party lines.

Twenty-two state Attorneys General then sued the FCC, alleging among other things that the comment process had been corrupted. On June 11, 2018, the FCC repeal of these rules took effect, despite a U.S. Senate vote to uphold the regulation (due to lack of action in the House of Representatives).[4]

And that is just Wikipeadia.... I'm sure there is more detailed infomration at the Electronic Freedom Foundation (www.eff.org...)

Then why post from wikipedia if theres better info?

*sniff sniff* Hmmm.

a reply to: MteWamp

To repeat - or ask - so you have no principals. You used the word Always which implies a 'principled stand'.

So your 'always' only appies to "less government is always better".

Then say that.

You said "less is always better".

Say what you mean.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

If you looked you would see I did post from other sources.

My point with wikipedia was that it isn't hard to actually look something up to not make a fool of oneself.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Wardaddy454

If you looked you would see I did post from other sources.

My point with wikipedia was that it isn't hard to actually look something up to not make a fool of oneself.

Its foolish to use Wikipedia as a source, so perhaps not.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Backing net neutrality princples is the only sane thing the democrats have going for them.

On the other hand while the republicans have their head up their arse on this issue, they completely fail to see that crooked hillary would have been the potus if it wasnt for net neutrality principles.