
California governor signs nation’s strictest net neutrality rules into law - alphabettsy
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/california-governor-signs-net-neutrality-rules-into-law/
======
shakna
> FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who led the effort to reverse net neutrality, said in
> a statement on Sunday that “not only is California’s internet regulation law
> illegal, it also hurts consumers.

Was not Pai's argument to repeal the laws in the first place that it was
beyond the FCC's authority?

Is he really trying to play both sides of the same argument?

~~~
tinkerteller
His argument absolutely does not make any sense. This combined with the fact
that AT&T and others have already been paying administration for getting
favorable laws passed, I hope someday this guy gets investigated for bribery.

~~~
nojvek
> “this guy gets investigated for bribery”

This x 1000. Although I’m not sure how effective any investigation is in the
Trump administration.

It seems the whole administration to the top knows of it, believes in it and
treats it as the status quo.

------
rectang
It's not optimal for the states to handle this rather than the feds, but it's
better than having Ajit Pai pick winners.

~~~
wycy
A somewhat delightful potential side effect of having this being handled at
the state level is the confusing and inconsistent array of rules varying state
by state will hopefully make regulatory conformance a nightmare for Comcast et
al.

~~~
smsm42
Why exactly is it delightful? Comcast would be happy to employ another couple
hundreds of lawyers, and guess who gets their internet prices increased to pay
for them? And the most "delightful" part is that since every provider would
have these costs, they'd all be forced to bump the prices, and thus nobody is
going to be losing market share for bumping them.

~~~
wycy
I believe that the primary reason there are so many different public utility
companies (e.g., electric, gas) is because of the patchwork of regulations in
each locality makes it difficult to manage under one company. So it could have
the effect of forcing large ISPs to either split altogether or at least divide
themselves up into subsidiaries (e.g., Comcast New Jersey, Comcast Delaware).

I may be wrong, but I've read this rationale before and it seems to make
sense. Utility companies seem to generally correspond to the public utility
commission that regulates them.

~~~
smsm42
There's no value in having sewers in New Jersey and sewers in Oakland,
California belong to one company. I.e. same holding can own it, maybe, but
there's not much network effect they gain, I think. Nobody from New Jersey
would want to use Oakland sewer, or vice versa.

But with telecom companies, there are advantages to that. People/companies in
New Jersey might want to connect to people in California, and owning the big
network may make it easier for Comcast to provide this service and lower the
costs of it.

------
Rebelgecko
Glad Brown signed this. It might've been more controversial, but I wish the
new rules for zero-rating were also applied against cell companies

------
bitbang
Justice Dept has already filed suit: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-
internet-california/u...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-
california/u-s-sues-after-california-governor-signs-net-neutrality-law-
idUSKCN1MB13E)

~~~
duxup
It's all "states rights" ... to do things we want them to do.

After that ... no states rights.

~~~
dfee
This narrative is bad, as it reflects both a misunderstanding of the
Republican perspective and a misunderstanding of the federal system at work in
the US; each undermining your likely well intentioned concerns about the
overturning of federal NN regulations.

~~~
arcticbull
Indeed, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I'm also of the opinion
Republicans tend to champion states' rights only when they agree with the
expected result. For instance, you'd think states' rights advocates would be
in favor of eliminating the federal marijuana criminalization and leaving that
up to states to decide (as they have already been doing in spite). And yet
Republicans insist this is the sole domain of the federal government. Whereas
when it comes to abortion, it's states' rights all the way down. As for NN?
I've definitely heard the Republicans citing overreach wrt. to NN (although
that might be solely within the FCC?), and yet when states try to regulate,
it's the FCC domain again.

My personal opinion is that this should be the sole jurisdiction of the FCC as
the internet is the very definition of interstate commerce and as such wholly
the domain of the federal government. While it should be up to the FCC, the
leadership is willfully disinterested in doing its job, as much of the Trump
administration is, effectively forcing the hand of the states.

------
solomatov
That's great news. I hope other states, and federal law unifying everything
will follow.

------
arcticbull
Now we just need New York on board and things will be back to business as
usual - just like the CARB rules. Depending on what the courts end up ruling,
of course.

