
Net neutrality bill in CA - MrGando
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB822
======
brlewis
I know enough Internet history to recognize that ca.gov is a United States
URL. However, I'd still like to request that HN headlines disambiguate
California and Canada.

Edit: As of this writing the title is "Net neutrality bill in CA". I hope the
title gets changed soon enough to make my comment make no sense to most of the
people who read it.

~~~
JohnTHaller
As this is a US-centric site, the abbreviation CA means California. Always
has. Knowing that .gov is US only isn't necessary to disambiguate.

~~~
jackvalentine
I've seen this attitude twice this week now, and it's unnecessarily hostile
towards the 695 million English speaking internet users outside of the USA. Is
it really that much of an imposition to change CA to California?

------
dragonwriter
There are a number of different efforts in the CA legislature on this issue;
SB 822, linked above, amounts to a statement of intent to adopt legislation
with certain features, but doesn't actually do anything (it could be intended
as an outline which will be amended to do what it suggests legislation should
do, though.)

A more concrete net neutrality bill is SB 460, which both defines and requires
neutrality _and_ separately requires state agencies to only contract for
internet services from providers who commit, under penalty of perjury, to not
violate neutrality.

[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB460)

------
rdtsc
It's good to see this. Most of the time "states rights" ends up being used for
something discriminatory "we reserve the right to tell women what to do with
their bodies" or at best something that's just annoying "why do these laws
have to be different, just to be different". In this case it is an example,
that at least to me, justifies having that ability.

~~~
stcredzero
_Most of the time "states rights" ends up being used for something
discriminatory_

[Citation Needed]

~~~
rdtsc
Personal impression mostly.

------
badrequest
I really hope this trend takes off, but ideally I'd like to see both the
states and the federal government enforce net neutrality, regardless of which
party controls either entity.

------
zpallin
Somewhat related, Montana may have beat most states to the punch so to speak,
but theirs was actually just an executive order (which can be reversed).

Washington, too, has already got a start on this, but unlike Washington,
California looks to have acheived a rather small bill. This is a landmark for
California, which is notorious for large bills.

Here is an article about Washington's bill:
[https://www.geekwire.com/2017/full-text-heres-washington-
sta...](https://www.geekwire.com/2017/full-text-heres-washington-states-
legally-contentious-net-neutrality-bill-looks-like-close/)

~~~
dragonwriter
> California looks to have acheived a rather small bill.

The bill does nothing, so it's actually quite big for what it does. The CA
bill currently under consideration that actually does something about
neutrality rather than making a statement of intent (SB 460) is much bigger.

~~~
zpallin
Right, that was my suspicion hence my uncertain language about it.

Related to that is my praise of California. It's more mockery than anything.
Our state does not know how to write concise legislation. ;)

~~~
jtmcmc
Weiner's legislation is pretty concise. Check out one of his latest housing
bills for instance -
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827)

~~~
zpallin
Incidentally, this is exactly the bill that
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dragonwriter](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dragonwriter)
and I were talking about.

Once again, dragonwriter's comment is that this bill "does nothing", and I
joked about it being concise, because that is rare in California politics.

Sorry I had to explain this to you since you seemed to have missed it, but I
couldn't leave you in the dark.

Edit: Apparently I have it wrong, this is not the same bill. Multiple tabs
open :/

~~~
dragonwriter
No, GP is pointing to a housing bill that preempts local zoning restrictions
in certain cases, not the “stating future intent to adopt legislation and use
existing regulatory powers” net neutrality bill.

~~~
zpallin
Ah thanks.

------
thehardsphere
Serious question: Is having state-level net neutrality laws actually good
policy?

~~~
phlakaton
Another serious question: is having state-level net neutrality laws even
Constitutional?

The FCC's repeal of net neutrality contains a preëmption clause preventing
state and local governments from imposing their own inconsistent restrictions
(1), and it will be using its authority under the Commerce Clause of the
Constitution to defend it (2). I understand their claim to be that it's
impracticable to distinguish between interstate and intrastate network
traffic, and that states would only have authority to constrain the latter.
(3)

I'm not sure how my dear state of California is working around that, or if
this action is just kicking off a ball that will be headed directly to the
courts.

(1) FCC 17-166,
[https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201...](https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0105/FCC-17-166A1.pdf)
, para. 195.

(2) Ibid, para. 197–204. (FCC's authority under the Commerce Clause is
established in the Communications Act of 1934, updated under the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. These and existing case law are cited as legal
justification.)

(3) Ibid, para. 200.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The FCC's repeal of net neutrality contains a preëmption clause preventing
> state and local governments from imposing their own inconsistent
> restrictions (1), and it will be using its authority under the Commerce
> Clause of the Constitution to defend it (2). I understand their claim to be
> that it's impracticable to distinguish between interstate and intrastate
> network traffic, and that states would only have authority to constrain the
> latter. (3)

Traffic isn't being regulated, packages of services offered to customers in
pure intrastate commerce, however, are.

> I'm not sure how my dear state of California is working around that, or if
> this action is just kicking off a ball that will be headed directly to the
> courts.

The bill with actual content (SB 460) includes both a direct neutrality
mandate (which will be challenged on the ground you suggest), and a
prohibition on state agencies contracting for internet services from providers
that don't make a binding (that is, “criminal to violate” commitment to adhere
to neutrality in their offerings in the state.)

Of course, both the FCCs own order (already being challenged) and the laws in
response (like every previous policy action on neutrality) are inevitably
headed to the courts. That's not in question.

~~~
stcredzero
_Traffic isn 't being regulated, packages of services offered to customers in
pure intrastate commerce, however, are._

Being the home to so many internet based companies, California is in a
position to make such a law which will have a significant effect -- _perhaps_.
How is intra-state defined? On paper, Apple Inc. is incorporated where? Is it
really Cupertino? If so, then couldn't they redirect certain traffic to a
subsidiary one state over? How would California fight against companies trying
to get around their law using routing tables?

~~~
dragonwriter
The law effects the service an ISP sells to a consumer. Routing tables and
where Apple is located (physically or legally) have nothing to do with it.

------
danjoc
Maybe they wouldn't need net neutrality laws telling monopolies how to operate
if they didn't outlaw Municipal ISPs?

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-
alr...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-
limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/)

If monopoly cable providers are the problem, who allowed them to become
monopolies? Isn't that the real problem?

------
earksiinni
A good start, though this isn't a bill legislating net neutrality. Rather,
it's a bill legislating the possibility of legislating/regulating net
neutrality.

~~~
dragonwriter
It's not really a start, since the substantive bill (SB 460) was introduced
_before_ SB 822.

------
doggydogs94
Just remember that if one state is allowed to nullify the federal regulation
on net neutrality, another state could probably nullify federal environmental
regulations (or any other federal regulation).

~~~
briffle
There is no federal regulation on net neutrality. They REMOVED the regulation
a few months ago. You can't nullify nothing.

