
AT&T Successfully Derails California's Tough New Net Neutrality Law - jc_811
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180620/12174040079/att-successfully-derails-californias-tough-new-net-neutrality-law.shtml
======
drawkbox
When companies like AT&T are big enough to override very publicly supported
law, we need to get back to breaking them up.

83% support equal access to content with net neutrality. [1]

AT&T == Anti-trust time.

[1] [http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-
states/overwhelming...](http://www.publicconsultation.org/united-
states/overwhelming-bipartisan-majority-opposes-repealing-net-neutrality/)

~~~
craftyguy
Yea, except it's not a permanent solution to the problem. Ma Bell was
shattered into pieces, but those pieces have reformed and are, arguably, more
powerful now due to bonehead SCOTUS rulings like Citizens United.

~~~
drawkbox
Yeah anti-trust doesn't have to completely kill the company off. In fact it
isn't always beneficial to do that.

Take Microsoft anti-trust/DOJ speed bumps in the 90s due to Windows, because
they were slowed down slightly it allowed Google, Apple, Amazon and others to
crop up to compete. I'd argue we got something out of the Microsoft monopoly
(desktop + internet prevalence), something out of the first AT&T monopoly
(telephone lines, software, Bell Labs, C++, modern applications) and more.
When they are slowed down the competition also brings benefits in Apple +
Google for mobile for instance and Google + Amazon for cloud computing.
Microsoft became a competitor again and it works better for consumers and
developers now.

It is definitely time to put some speed bumps on AT&T unless they want to
actually increase network capabilities rather than slow them down. ISPs need
to be innovative and expanding networks otherwise more competition should be
added. A truly competitive ISP would not be so anti net neutrality, they would
win with product improvements.

Monopolies or big fish can be beneficial, until they start limiting other
competitive threats through use of their power/size rather than better
products and consumer benefits. When they use their size to bring benefits
they bide their time and deserve the top slot and privileged market position.
When they get lazy/anti-innovative and they use their size to hold back
others, then it is time to hold them back a bit to increase competition.

~~~
blackflame7000
Is that really the roll of government? To put speedbumps on success, no matter
how much, still seems inhibitive to progress. I’ll play devils advocate: what
if instead of spending all that money on antitrust litigation that plagues our
judicial system, Microsoft invested in hiring, R&D, and continues to maintain
their #1 spot. Would that have stopped google and their search engine gold
mine, or apples iPhone gold mine. No not at all. And capitalism would have
still prevailed with less wasted effort on litigation than had the government
not interfered. I believe the only time the government should involve itself
in commercial is when safety is a concern

~~~
workinthehead
Nope. You (and most libertarian/capitalist cheerleaders, to be fair) whooshed
on a classic scenario: Microsoft has no reason to innovate when they're a
monopoly. It gets worse. Startup X (you like startups, right?) has a brilliant
idea that they bring to market, only for Microsoft to buy them out and kill
the idea. Startup Y has a brilliant idea, but they get smarter, they don't
sell, and then Microsoft copies their tech and outcompetes them with their war
chest. Then they kill the technology. Startup Z has a brilliant idea, but they
get even smarter and never bother bringing it to market because Microsoft will
just kill it.

Go capitalism.

~~~
phlakaton
Startup W has a cool product, but Microsoft threatens to raise the price of
Windows on any company that pre-installs it. The technology dies in obscurity.

So it goes.

~~~
blackflame7001
this scenario has literally never happened. I wish I could downvote this
stupid comment because it's moronic.

~~~
xenomachina
Microsoft wanted to kill of upstart Netscape so they changed the Windows NT
license and pricing. NT Workstation became limited by the license to a very
small number of clients, regardless of what server software you wanted to run
on it.

For more than a handful of clients you were required to purchase a much more
expensive server edition which was basically the same, but included IIS,
Microsoft's web server. In other words, to legally use Netscape's (or anyone
else's) web server on Windows NT, you still had to buy Microsoft's web server.

See also:
[http://www.landley.net/history/mirror/ms/differences_nt.html](http://www.landley.net/history/mirror/ms/differences_nt.html)

------
rndmize
Disappointing but unsurprising. There's little to be done at the moment aside
from contacting your assemblyman/state senator and making yourself heard.

I would expect, generally, that if a company is going to spend tens of
billions on an acquisition, a few tens of millions on marketing material,
"citizen groups", "studies", third-party editorials, etc. would be par for the
course; it's pure bad business to do otherwise.

But it's possible that with enough actual calls/contacts from constituents
that some progress gets made and reps can be pointed in the right direction.
Hell, this being California, perhaps something similar will make it onto the
state ballot at some point.

~~~
onetimemanytime
>> _I would expect, generally, that if a company is going to spend tens of
billions on an acquisition, a few tens of millions on marketing material,
"citizen groups", "studies", third-party editorials, etc. would be par for the
course; it's pure bad business to do otherwise._

OK, but Google, AMZN, APPL and MSFT (the other side of the equation) can buy
AT&T with their pocket change. Obviously outspend them by a huge margin in any
campaign. So either AT&T is wayyyy more motivated or they have an edge in this
debate. Investments in x area? Jobs?

~~~
ac29
> OK, but Google, AMZN, APPL and MSFT (the other side of the equation) can buy
> AT&T with their pocket change.

AT&T has a market cap of ~$200B. Hardly pocket change.

~~~
onetimemanytime
No, not pocket change. It was an expression. Bezos, alone, might need a loan
to buy them :) [https://people.com/human-interest/jeff-bezos-net-
worth-141-b...](https://people.com/human-interest/jeff-bezos-net-
worth-141-billion-worlds-richest-bill-gates/) . Apple has (or had) more at
hand than $200B. But then you have to assume At&t debts and liabilities too.

~~~
brisance
Read the article. It says very clearly that AT&T has got "good" lawyers
performing this schtick for years; some of them "write the laws" i.e.
regulatory capture.

------
protomyth
_The company managed to convince California Assemblyman Miguel Santiago to
introduce a series of last-minute secretive Tuesday night amendments that were
then voted on without debate during a Wednesday morning hearing:_

So, find out all those who voted yes on those amendments and picket their
offices after inviting the press then primary them out of office. Rinse and
repeat until they don't have someone who will introduce legislation for them.

Don't succumb to thoughts of "well, they're good on other stuff" because then
you really won't be effective. Don't try to educate them, just discard them
and make sure the next politician understands what is not allowed.

Focusing on AT&T is a waste of effort because next time it will be Verizon or
someone else.

------
Retric
So, I was thinking of canceling all AT&T services over this. Does anyone know
of good alternatives for cellular service that don't do the same crap?

#BoycottATT

~~~
thebosz
All of the major Cell providers in the US (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint)
do this sort of crap to different degrees.

AT&T and Verizon have the most money so they do it the most.

If you want to use something a little less ... tainted, you can look into
MVNOs. They buy bulk service from the major carriers and sell it to you at a
reduced cost (with usually fewer "benefits").

Be sure to look to who actually owns the MVNO though. I know, for example,
that AT&T owns Cricket and T-Mobile owns MetroPCS.

~~~
wtracy
Credo Mobile is a MVNO that has made pro-net neutrality statements in the
past:

[http://www.credomobile.com](http://www.credomobile.com)

I've never done business with them, so I can't say anything else about them.

Another option might be Google Fi.

[https://fi.google.com/about/](https://fi.google.com/about/)

I've heard good things, but be aware that they charge by the gigabyte for
data. Also, the list of compatible phones is pretty short.

~~~
craftyguy
I really wanted to give Credo a try, but:

> Fight Trump and get unlimited data on the nation’s largest and most
> dependable 4G LTE network[0]

I hate donald and everything he 'stands' for, but don't lower yourself to his
level just to sell your service.

One other bit, it's really not clear anywhere on their site if you can bring
your own device to use with their service... They really want you to buy one
of their devices. That's too bad.

0\.
[http://www.credomobile.com/Plans/Info](http://www.credomobile.com/Plans/Info)

~~~
wtracy
I could have sworn that Credo supports BYOD, but now I see sources saying that
it doesn't.

Credo's whole sales pitch is that they're connected to liberal causes, and
they donate money to those causes. Of course they're going to take jabs at
Trump.

While searching for Credo's BYOD policy, I found this article:
[http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/epeoplesview.net/2013/12/...](http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/epeoplesview.net/2013/12/why-
progressives-shouldnt-fall-for.html)

If what that article says is true, I have to withdraw my recommendation of
Credo.

------
herf
Amazing that Net Neutrality can be bought for only $60,000. Wikipedia says:
"State Assemblyman Miguel Santiago received over $60,000 from telecom
lobbyists, with AT&T being the top telecom contributor, over the course of his
assembly career."

~~~
madhadron
Amazon bought a multimillion dollar tax reduction from the city of Seattle for
$25k of propaganda. The market for influence is very inefficient.

~~~
hueving
Are you referring to the tax increase (per employee tax) that they prevented
or another special concession they received?

~~~
madhadron
I'm referring to the per-employee head tax.

~~~
hueving
It's not a tax reduction then. It's a bluff call on a tax designed
specifically to hit them (and Starbucks).

~~~
madhadron
Calling the bluff would be Amazon moving all operations out of Seattle. This
is purchasing influence at a great discount.

------
bogomipz
I am wondering if "citizens broadband" and 5G might finally offer a viable
alternative that will relegate these cancerous companies like AT&T to the
trash heap.

For those who aren't familiar with this spectrum and it's opportunities. See:

[https://www.mouser.com/applications/cbrs_is_the_next_big_thi...](https://www.mouser.com/applications/cbrs_is_the_next_big_thing_in_wireless/)

and

[https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/08/29/new-kind-
spectr...](https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/08/29/new-kind-spectrum-new-
opportunities)

~~~
ac29
CBRS is interesting, but there isnt a ton of spectrum available (80-150Mhz,
depending on how you count it). Its also of sufficiently high frequency
(3.55-3.70 GHz), that building penetration should be close to zero. Some
interesting applications might come from it, but it shouldn't vastly change
the game compared to what can be done with 2.4 & 5GHz unlicensed frequencies
now.

~~~
bogomipz
CBRS wouldn't be the entire solution. You would use CBRS as the backhaul
between WIFI and Fiber:

internet <-> fiber <-> CBRS <-> WIFI <-> home

------
JustSomeNobody
> The company managed to convince California Assemblyman Miguel Santiago to
> introduce a series of last-minute secretive Tuesday night amendments that
> were then voted on without debate during a Wednesday morning hearing...

How is this legal? Why is this legal?

~~~
DannyBee
Which part?

Remember that all of these articles have spin. The spin so far i've seen on
this is pretty stupid[1].

One thing it doesn't note: The amendments were approved 8-0, so all the
republicans and democrats on the committee were in favor.

But of course, that gets spun as massive conspiratorial collusion by the folks
who think it was wrong, and bipartisan cooperation by those who think it was
right.

edit: It turns out they were not approved 8-0, despite a number of news
stories claiming otherwise. They were approved 8-2[2]

[1] Someone tried to paint the picture that AT&T was a major campaign
contributor to him, but they really aren't:
[https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-
details?eid=23421278](https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-
details?eid=23421278)

[2] [https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-
in-...](https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-
california-just-eviscerated-the-best-net-neutrality-bill-in-the-
country-1e90defb5086)

et al

vs

[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822&version=20170SB82295AMD)

~~~
devindotcom
The amendments weren't approved 8-0, are extremely hostile to the bill as
voted on by others, were introduced in a very unusual way and were not
negotiated - they just cut out like half of the law including some pretty
critical parts.

[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xht...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822)

Normally (I think) the committee would just refuse to pass the bill and
propose amendments that would make it passable, and there would be
negotiations. Instead they introduced huge changes the night before the vote
and passed a massively modified version of the bill that does not at all
reflect the intentions of its authors.

~~~
DannyBee
You are correct, i edited the post. It was 8-2

All the news stories that claim 8-0 are wrong, including

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-
net-...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-net-
neutrality-bill-eviscerated-13011048.php)

[https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-
in-...](https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-
california-just-eviscerated-the-best-net-neutrality-bill-in-the-
country-1e90defb5086)

[https://www.wired.com/story/california-net-neutrality-
bill-w...](https://www.wired.com/story/california-net-neutrality-bill-was-
hijacked-lawmaker-says/)

~~~
rsingel
The chairman called two votes. The first one came at the opening of the
hearing BEFORE any testimony to accept the chairman's amendments. That passed
with the help of Republicans and was a rude slap to the entire point of a
hearing (voting BEFORE testimony?).

The second vote (8-2) was to pass the bill as amended out of committee. The
chairman did not allow Wiener to pull the bill. Several Dems who voted for the
final vote say that they did so so the bill would survive, not because they
approved of the amendments.

~~~
masonic

      That passed with the help of Republicans
    

No, it _didn 't_. It didn't even _need_ a single Republican vote. It's
recorded right on the public _leginfo_ site.

~~~
pas
Could you copy and explain the relevant part from the leginfo site please? I
don't really know what to look for.

~~~
masonic
Just pull up a given Bill and click on the Votes tab.

------
jon_richards
Would it be possible to get the original text of the bill and introduce it as
a prop?

~~~
dragonwriter
Yes.

Text as introduced is here:
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822)

All the intermediate versions are there, too, you might actually want to start
with the most recent version prior to the hostile amendments rather than the
original text.

~~~
pteredactyl
Thank you. To me this is what really matters. Anyone can slap the title 'net
neutrality' on anything. People see 'net neutrality' and get up about it
without knowing what's being decided upon.

I read it a little bit and it's saying the State ( of California ) should have
the authority to police the internet of that which it deems necessary:

> SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) This bill is adopted pursuant to the police power inherent in the State of
California to protect and promote the safety, life, public health, public
convenience, general prosperity, and well-being of society, and the welfare of
the state’s population and economy, that are increasingly dependent on an open
and neutral Internet.

(b) Almost every sector of California’s economy, democracy, and society is
dependent on the open and neutral Internet that supports vital functions
regulated under the police power of the state, including, but not limited to,
each of the following:

(1) Police and emergency services.

(2) Health and safety services and infrastructure.

(3) Utility services and infrastructure.

(4) Transportation infrastructure and services, and the expansion of zero- and
low-emission transportation options.

(5) Government services, voting, and democratic decisionmaking processes.

(6) Education.

(7) Business and economic activity.

(8) Environmental monitoring and protection, and achievement of state
environmental goals.

(9) Land use regulation.

I read that and question... hmmm... I wonder what the State ( of California's
) definition on all those items are....

------
doggydogs94
Blame AT&T all you want, but the CA assembly passed the law with AT&T’s
goodies included. The obvious fix is at the ballot box.

------
tzs
Based on the Ars story and others, it sounds like the net effect (no pun
intended) of the amendments is to make the bill pretty much equivalent to the
Open Internet Order of 2015. No blocking, no throttling, no paid
prioritization.

~~~
rsingel
That's incorrect. The amendments strip out other protections from the 2015
Open Internet Order.

1) A ban on circumventing net neutrality at the point of interconnection. The
FCC order said it would do this using Secs 201 and 202 (Title II) of the
Telecommunications Act. This stopped the Comcast/Verizon throttling and
shakedown of Netflix and Cogent.

2) The amendments stripped out the ban on access fees, the practice of
charging websites simply so that they load for users. This was banned in 2010
and 2015 as special kind of blocking. Verizon sued over this in 2012.

3) The amendments pull out any oversight of zero-rating, where the 2015 rule
allowed the FCC to use the general conduct standard to review ALL zero-rating
programs. In 2017, an FCC report said that AT&T and Verizon's self-dealing
zero-rating programs violated net neutrality. That's what SB 822 did before
the amendments.

That's only the big ones. SB 822 is now far weaker than the 2015 order thanks
to Santiago.

------
shmerl
This is really corrupt, simply disgusting.

------
hlieberman
Shameful.

