California Net Neutrality Law To Remain Intact After Appeals Court Says It Won't Reconsider Earlier Decision (theverge.com) 36
A federal appeals court has denied a request for a rehearing on its January decision that upholds California's net neutrality law. From a report: The 2018 law, widely considered the strongest in the US, was signed into law a year after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) repealed the Open Internet Order. That order had established stringent net neutrality rules that prohibited internet service providers from throttling or blocking legal websites and apps, and banned ISPs from prioritizing paid content. California's law, which finally took effect last year, also prohibits throttling and speed lanes. Wireless trade associations including the NCTA, the CTIA, and ISPs including Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T sued to block California's law from taking effect, saying the FCC decision should preempt the state law. But that challenge was rejected by a district court judge.
The Ninth Circuit voted 3-0 in January to uphold the lower court ruling, saying the FCC "no longer has the authority" to regulate broadband internet services because the agency reclassified them as "information services, instead of telecommunications services. The FCC therefore cannot preempt the state action." FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel praised the decision on Twitter, reiterating her position that she wants to see net neutrality become "the law on the land" again. The FCC can't currently reinstate net neutrality at the federal level however since the panel lacks a majority and the two Democrats and two Republicans remain deadlocked on the issue. President Biden's FCC nominee Gigi Sohn is still awaiting a confirmation vote in the Senate.
The Ninth Circuit voted 3-0 in January to uphold the lower court ruling, saying the FCC "no longer has the authority" to regulate broadband internet services because the agency reclassified them as "information services, instead of telecommunications services. The FCC therefore cannot preempt the state action." FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel praised the decision on Twitter, reiterating her position that she wants to see net neutrality become "the law on the land" again. The FCC can't currently reinstate net neutrality at the federal level however since the panel lacks a majority and the two Democrats and two Republicans remain deadlocked on the issue. President Biden's FCC nominee Gigi Sohn is still awaiting a confirmation vote in the Senate.
The shell game catching up to them? (Score:5, Insightful)
The telcos and cable companies have been throwing around a shell game for decades. "We're not X, we're Y!". Regulations get made on type Y, and they become "We're not Y, we're Z!".
They've gone through a bunch of definitions. "Information Services", "Internet Services", "telecommunications services". USTA's ruling in 2004, Comcast's rulings in 2010, Verizon's rulings in 2015, each time trying to wiggle around definitions by saying they're not quite what the wording of the legislation requires. Similarly with variations of "That's not a federal issue, it's a local issue", followed by "We can't let that be a local issue, it leaves us with a patchwork of regulation."
Seems like this finally caught up with them. Good.
It cuts both ways (Score:3)
Re:It cuts both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
does this mean net neutrality is now a local issue?
It looks that way. Companies like Comcast and Spectrum operate in many states, so a patchwork of state regulations will be a problem for them. They may have no choice but to standardize on the most restrictive state, which is currently California. By resisting uniform federal regulations, they brought the problem on themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how California rolls (Score:5, Insightful)
For better or worse, California leads on national policy by sheer economic force.
When the feds in Congress become too entrenched in lobbying on tough issues, CA does their own "right thing" and uses their clout as a huge economic force to get everyone else to follow suit.
The only way to break CA's progressive/liberal lead is for the legislative branch (Congress) to stop being derailed at every step by politics and dirty money. Instead of trying to fix that underlying problem, however, people are desperately trying to roll things back by risking democracy itself. They're electing presidents that "get things done" but really just want to be kings (Trump), or try to stack the Supreme Court with like-minded conservatives and hope they rule like the clerics court in Iran.
(Or we split the state into NoCal and SoCal - and hope Congress gets its act together and starts reasonably and moderately legislating again?)
Re:It cuts both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, does this mean net neutrality is now a local issue?
Exactly. When the Federal government keeps kicking a hot can around, eventually States take it upon themselves to do something. Once that happens, it makes it that much more difficult to ever get it back into the Federal level. Each State starts crafting their way of doing something, the citizens become accustomed to that way of doing it, thus members of Congress are less likely to rock the boat by making some sort of compromise that upsets what the state has already worked hard to get.
This is exactly the same thing abortion. Federal government had plenty of time to put some sort of Federal law in place and kept kicking the can. Now it's near impossible to ever have a Federal right to abortion and thus it's all a patchwork of State laws. There's just no compromise between say Texas and California (as an example). Neither state wants to give up the position that they've worked hard to establish State wise. So Federal action just always stalls out.
The fact that this issue has bobbed back and forth for so long at the Federal level really indicates that we're pretty close to never having a single net neutrality for all of the United States and that basically depending on which State you live it will dictate the kind of access you have on the Internet. So RIP my Internet here in Tennessee. The Senate has scheduled the hearing for the FCC pick for December 1. Right after midterms and Thanksgiving. There's a whole reason to that. If Democrats bleed out in midterms, Republicans in the Senate will put this FCC pick up as a chip. There's plenty of procedures that the committee can use to stall out the hearing until the new, if any, members of the Senate take their seats if Democrats decide to not play along and make some concessions. If Republicans pick up a single seat, they can absolutely kill the nomination, kick the can, and we'll not have a Federal resolution on the whole Title II thing until after the 2024 election.
By that point California will have gotten balls deep with their net neutrality that Federal action will basically never happen and Net Neutrality will forever be a State's issue. As California will not want to give up their position on the matter for some "Compromise" that was debated at the Federal level.
But yeah, you're on the right track. We're getting awfully close to Internet access becoming something like insurance. It all depends on which State's laws we're following. It being a positive or negative, well that's a whole other discussion. But ISPs have made this mess as much as the Federal regulators have made it. They keep trying to weasel around the legal terms and eventually all that playing with fire is going to absolutely burn them. And in my opinion, they've been playing legal juggling game for so long, I hope they are fried to crisp. They have wasted a fuckton of judicial resources at this point and their lawyers should be disbarred for this game they've perpetually played.
Re: It cuts both ways (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Show me in the constitution where that power is enumerated
I have no idea what "that" in that sentence is referring to.
Think long and hard about the 18th and 21st amendment as to why it was not some stupid federal law
The Eighteenth Amendment emerged from the organized efforts of the temperance movement and Anti-Saloon League, which attributed to alcohol virtually all of society’s ills and led campaigns at the local, state, and national levels to combat its manufacture, sale, distribution, and consumption. They literally said that they "needed no challenge, no effort of recourse, to this social ill." Thus, they went straight for amendment so that it woul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There's no evidence that the federal government would have ever passed a law making abortion legal across the land.
There's also nothing new stopping them from doing it now, either. If the feds pass a law about it, then the states' laws about it which conflict are going to be shot down in federal courts. Only the same thing is stopping them, the religious reich.
Re: (Score:1)
It's always been a local issue, regardless of how much the Feds ignore the 10th Amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, do educate us on why a business that routes your information back and forth through, potentially, all 50 states and several other countries would be exempt from federal regulations.
Well it's a perfect example of interstate commerce. I mean that's literally what the telecommunications act of 1996 pointed out. That the FCC was kinda on the hook for the whole dictating regulations and had Congress' blessing to use the commerce power to back it up. The FCC however has absolutely punted on the matter and indicated they'll have no dog in this race. The courts indicate that, that is a clear indication that all of this can devolve to the States now.
But you're absolutely correct. This fit
Re: (Score:2)
"Interstate commerce", the two most abused words in the Constitution. Interstate commerce, which the feds think gives them power over your personal vegetable garden and your duck-less duck pond. And, if you're not mistaken, power to regulate and control all news and media organizations.
Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The FCC indicated that they were not going to regulate ISPs. They've indicated the Federal level has no dog in this race. So lacking Federal, States are free to enact as they see fit. That's literally the 10th Amendment. How telecommunications companies thought that there was some sort of preemption is "an interesting" read of "reclassification to not warrant regulation." I guess in their minds they thought that the Federal lack of regulation should preempt any kind of regulation? But that's not how that works. The Federal government washes their hands of it, it opens it up to all 50 states doing whatever the hell they want. To me, a company that operates on a National level, all 50 states doing whatever they feel like sounds like a worse outcome than just having the one place to put all your bribes, er, campaign donations.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC indicated that they were not going to regulate ISPs.
The FCC has tried, and tried, and tried again to regulate them. Go back to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for what was to be the start of this. The armies of lawyers at the companies have managed to out-maneuver the FCC each time.
It became a shell game of lawsuits, "We aren't that, we are something different". USTA v. FCC in 2004, Comcast v. FCC, FCC Open Internet Order, Verizon v. FCC, the Open Internet Order, USTA v FCC again in 2016, the "Restoring Internet Freedom" ruling, the Save The Internet Act, and on and on. They'd say they're actually providing a different service so they're exempt, they'd claim the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate it because it's a local issue, they'd say local regulation is unfair because they need nationwide rules. They have had 26 years of excuse after excuse about why they're immune from regulation, and most of the time judges accepted it.
This California ruling is the first one that looks like it will finally stick.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
US corporations are now claiming 'too big to regulate'! Tel-cos are very deranged if they think that's going to work in any court of the land. The US judicial system has been saying for years, this is a political responsibility, not a judicial one. Now, laws are being written, it is good to see the US courts practicing what they preach.
The next step, of course, will be the tel-cos writing the rules they want the federal government to enforce: I'm sure it will include the usual forbidding-the-states-to
I prefer Arstechnica's take on this headline (Score:2)
Also I find it funny how many people here will throw a posts talking about how California is a dystopian hellscape when they're giving us stuff like this. Nev
Re: (Score:2)
All men? No, just violent criminals can be good. All other men are toxic and must lose their jobs and become homeless. Unless they share your opinion then they're ok.
Net neutrality should be an ammendment. (Score:2)
They should make net neutrality a constitutional amendment. It seems to me it should be a fundamental right like anything else in Bill of rights.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be helpful if we could define what it meant, first.
https://www.wired.com/story/gu... [wired.com]
Re: Net neutrality should be an ammendment. (Score:2)
I appreciate the need to get wording correct, but it might be helpful to start with what it isn't. A lot of things are widely agreed to be not net neutrality friendly.
O ho (Score:2)
Yes!
Wait, no!
Wait. Are we talking about forcing companies to carry informatiin equally, or telling people it's wrong to force companies to carry information equally,?
I need to know whose info is being gored before deciding what to think!
Re: O ho (Score:2)
Ask republicans they are the conflicted fools on this topic. They used to be against net neutrality until they saw it can be used against them. Same thing with racism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the 70s and 80s, ex-Dixiecrats (Southern Republicans) twisted the party against affirmative action, saying that companies should have the freedom to choose the workers they wish to hire.
In the 2000s, companies and universities themselves voluntarily started wanting to hire minorities, Republicans got pissed off and said that companies should not be allowed to hire whomever they want.
So they claim "freedom" when they want to be racist or benefit from racism.
And "racism!" when there is so-called reverse ra
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like some pepper with all of that salt? Sounds like somebody needs a Prozac.
Re: (Score:2)
The ones operating the pipes are to carry information equally or you end up with customers not having a choice about what websites they visit.
The websites themselves have to be able to decide which information they carry or you end up with slashdot having to have articles about topics that are not tech.
Settlement Free? (Score:2)
The FCC reg was going to kill settlement-free peering and bankrupt many growth-phase startups.
Does the CA bill exempt them or is San Jose going to lose innumerable exchange tenants?
Net neutrality sounds good (Score:2)
Glad we got around to this (Score:2)
I'm so glad to hear California has solved all our real problems, like high housing prices, homelessness, fire danger, traffic congestion, racial strife, crime, and what to do with an enormous budget surplus. We must have if our legislators have time to "solve" a non-problems like ISPs blocking non-paying sites or hypothetically offering quality-of-service price tiering, problems which have never ever actually happened in real life.