
Bad news for AT&T and Comcast: Calif. Senate panel OKs net neutrality bill - presspot
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/nations-toughest-net-neutrality-bill-passes-california-senate-committee/
======
jonathanyc
This 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.

~~~
r00fus
So T-Mobile's binge-on would be acceptable?

~~~
DrScump
Did the (2015-17) net neutrality regulations even apply to mobile providers?

------
mehrdadn
> 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
I 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/billVersionsCompare...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822)

~~~
mehrdadn
Whoa I didn't know about that functionality, thank you!

------
gremlinsinc
I 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?

------
forapurpose
To 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
I buy transit from the ISP to my apartment. This is entirely within a local
government zone, let alone the state.

~~~
gnicholas
There'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)

------
e40
As CA Comcast customer, I was really hoping for this. Of course, Republicans
can't be mad at this, right? State's rights, and all.

~~~
jamesgeck0
I was under the impression that the 2015 net neutrality policies more or less
had bipartisan support. What changed in the interim?

~~~
nerfhammer
Republicans 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

      reliable Republican megadonors
    

_All_ of the telecommunications giants contributed more to Democrats than
Republicans in the 2016 election cycle.

~~~
e40
There 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).

