[HN Gopher] California can enforce net neutrality law, judge rul...
___________________________________________________________________
California can enforce net neutrality law, judge rules in loss for
ISPs
Author : buran77
Score : 351 points
Date : 2021-02-24 15:35 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| freedomben wrote:
| Speaking of net neutrality, I was a bit on the fence but overall
| a proponent of it, but it's now been a few years since the
| failure of net neutrality under Ajit Pai. By now we were supposed
| to be living in an internet dystopia.
|
| Has that happened and I missed it? If not, why? Are ISPs just
| afraid of provoking the bear so they're behaving themselves?
| mywittyname wrote:
| > By now we were supposed to be living in an internet dystopia.
|
| To be clear, the implications were always expected to be that
| ISP would start running extortion rackets where they would
| charge fees to competitors or large internet money makers.
| Effectively double-dipping on consumers, so not only do you pay
| the ISP for internet access, but Google, Netflix, et al have to
| pay ISPs for access to you.
|
| This did happen. Netflix was throttled a few years ago and they
| reached a "deal" with Comcast and a few months later, Netflix
| rates were increased.
| Jonnax wrote:
| The quote from the judge in the article:
|
| "It's going to fall on deaf ears. Everyone has been on their
| best behavior since 2018, waiting for whatever happened in the
| DC Circuit [court case over the FCC's repeal of net
| neutrality]. I don't place weight on the argument that
| everything is fine and we don't need to worry."
| meroes wrote:
| Comcast paused all its data caps among other things due to
| Covid https://corporate.comcast.com/covid-19
|
| Maybe Covid restrained other ISP actions we would have
| otherwise seen
| ericbarrett wrote:
| They've restored them now; I got a notice last month. Two
| person household with one TV and one PC and a couple phones,
| no torrenting or anything.
| boring_twenties wrote:
| Wait, you were uncapped until just last month? In my area
| the cap was only removed for 3 months total. They did
| generously raise it from 1TB to 1.2, though.
| coldpie wrote:
| Of course, Comcast's own OTT services are exempt from the
| data cap. What a coincidence :)
| jedberg wrote:
| And a net neutrality violation. Maybe CA customers won't
| be subject to the cap anymore? Or maybe they'll force
| Comcast to include their own traffic in the cap?
| ihumanable wrote:
| It's interesting, the ISPs argument for capping data
| generally gives some nod to congestion / traffic control.
| Covid hit and you would imagine that with distance learning,
| work from home, increased use of streaming services for
| entertainment, etc, that the traffic would only increase.
|
| Comcast (and others) realized the PR nightmare that it would
| cause to keep the caps in this situation, but it seriously
| undermines their congestion argument.
| finnthehuman wrote:
| >By now we were supposed to be living in an internet dystopia.
|
| No, no we weren't. Like any hot political issue, the ramblings
| of enthusiastic dummies should not be the standard by which we
| judge a position.
|
| The most cursory of sober analysis recognizes that business
| models do not change overnight. Even if they wanted to act as
| quickly as possible, established ISPs have tons of inertia.
|
| Extending a slightly charitable take to proponents of net
| neutrality recognizes that ISPs would use their existing
| leverage to take inches here and there, skillfully massaging
| the messaging with expensive PR and marketing teams each step
| of the way. The question is whether the sum of those changes is
| just a business taking advantage of negotiation power, or if it
| sums into too anti-consumer of a business model.
| vaer-k wrote:
| It's not a loss for ISPs. It's a win. This should help them
| reintegrate into a just economy and moral society.
| asymptosis wrote:
| Yes, I was a little confused at why the article framed it as "a
| loss for ISPs". Did ISPs pay Ars Technica to put a spin on it?
| my_usernam3 wrote:
| Well the ISPs are financing the side that fought for the
| injunction and lost, are they not?
| mdeck_ wrote:
| For the non-lawyers: as the article indicates (but doesn't really
| explain), this is a ruling on a request for temporary relief
| (called a "preliminary injunction"). This is not a final
| judgment. It can (and presumably will) also be subject to appeal.
| Nothing remotely final about this. The judge has simply said:
| "CA, you can go ahead and enforce your law for now."
|
| Now, this does also mean the judge would quite likely ULTIMATELY
| rule in CA's favor. But it is not a guarantee. And, as I said,
| then there's appellate and Supreme Court review.
|
| For reference, the 4-element test/standard for a preliminary
| injunction generally accepted in US courts is set out here:
|
| "[G]enerally a plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief
| must satisfy a four-factor test: (1) that he or she is likely to
| succeed on the merits of his claims; (2) that he or she is likely
| to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief; (3) the
| balance of equities between the parties support an injunction;
| and (4) the injunction is in the public interest."
|
| https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/wom...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Now, this does also mean the judge would quite likely
| ULTIMATELY rule in CA's favor
|
| In this specific case it does, as the judge specifically seems
| to have ruled that the ISPs are u likely to succeed on the
| merits, but in general denial of a preliminary injunction does
| not. _Granting_ an injunction requires (loosely) both
| probability of success on the merits _and_ irreparable harm in
| the interim without the injunction, so you can 't automatically
| read a denial as "likely to lose on the merits", though you can
| read one being granted as the opposite more safely (but not
| entirely because the exact rules vary and it's something's more
| of a balancing of those two factors than an strict logical
| "and", where more certainty and severity of harm allows an
| injunction with less probability of success on merits.
| 1_2__4 wrote:
| I really hope people were paying attention to how this has played
| out, politically. The FCC under Trump (and of course Pai) tried
| to go full corporate tyranny, essentially. While the original net
| neutrality regulations were definitely on shaky ground (it's not
| at all clear the FCC has the authority to enforce them),
| repealing them was only the start of Pai's crusade. When states
| tried to go their own way the administration marshaled the DOJ to
| try to stop them, which when you think about it makes almost zero
| sense if indeed your concern is just that the FCC was
| overstepping its authority. In fact at every opportunity the FCC
| (along with the DOJ, in this suit) acted as advocates for the
| broadband industry, basically flipping between "supremacy clause"
| and "states rights" arguments when the situation suited them.
| They weren't even especially subtle about it, Pai openly and
| publicly mocked his critics on the subject in sneering videos he
| posted online.
|
| Even if you think the federal government has no business
| regulating the internet or net neutrality (or even if you think
| they do, but the legislation doesn't allow it yet) you should be
| looking at how the FCC behaved under Trump and Pai's leadership
| with horror and disgust. That is not how our government should be
| operating.
| adamcstephens wrote:
| I'm sure the industry wants Congress to weigh in on this, since
| they've done their part in ensuring the corruption of that
| institution. If the courts end up siding with CA on this, you can
| be sure Congress will be voting on this shortly after.
| mtgx wrote:
| Now watch how the ISPs start whining about there not being
| "unified rules" at the federal level....right after they
| aggressively lobbied to remove the previous federal-level rules.
| tiahura wrote:
| Hmmm. Perhaps someone that practices in the field (or at least
| took Con Law in the last decade) can chime in, but State net
| nutrality laws would seem to be an example of when the dormant
| commerce clause (or was it negative commerce clause?) would
| apply.
| masklinn wrote:
| That inference prohibits discrimination against interstate
| commerce, so e.g. allowing in-state unpasteurized butter but
| forbidding out-of-state would be in breach.
|
| Applying stricter standards than federal, or average, is not
| against the dormant commerce clause, as long as it's applied
| equally to everyone. So California would not be in breach as
| long as they apply net neutrality to:
|
| * all ISPs period
|
| * Californian ISPs only
|
| There's also an argument against "inappropriately burdening"
| interstate commerce, but that argument doesn't really make
| sense against NN: traffic shaping and traffic-specific charges
| require the addition of systems dedicated to those ends. NN
| requires not doing anything.
| tiahura wrote:
| Thanks!
|
| The "inappropriately burdening" cases is what I was thinking
| of. I suppose I would disagree that the theory is
| inapplicable. The law burdens isps by requiring them to alter
| their ordinary business practices in a way that substantially
| affects interstate commerce.
|
| That said, I'm sure the issue was raised and rejected.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| That's now how the dormant commerce clause works.
|
| It doesn't matter that a state law may affect a business'
| ordinary business practices in a way that affects
| interstate commerce. What matters is that the state law
| does so in a way that _discriminates_ against interstate
| commerce (meaning that different rules are applied to out-
| of-state businesses than to in-state businesses).
|
| Thus, if the law applies equally without regard to whether
| the transaction is intrastate or interstate, the dormant
| commerce clause is not implicated.
|
| In this case, the CA net neutrality rules apply to all ISPs
| providing services in CA. It does not require them to apply
| net neutrality rules to non-CA customers. Therefore, the
| dormant commerce clause does not apply.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| Neutral networks are tools of the patriarchy and promote white
| supremacy by allowing the spread of hateful speech. The damage
| wrought to Black bodies by these bigoted bit patterns is
| incalculable. I don't understand how people can advocate that
| ISPs should be forced to route harmful traffic. Its not good
| enough to just not be racist, networks need to be actively anti-
| racist otherwise they might as well be burning a cross in my
| yard.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| I followed the link hoping to read an excoriating putdown from
| celebrity Judge WH Alsup but I see he retired a month ago. Happy
| retirement, friend of tech!
| renewiltord wrote:
| Sonic is the best ISP the world has ever known. I hope everyone
| in California can have them some time soon. They are just a great
| ISP. 1 gig symmetric fiber, no cap.
|
| I will never stop recommending them so long as they remain what
| they are now.
| doggodaddo78 wrote:
| Sonic and DSLExtreme were the ones I used for ages with very
| few issues.
|
| Have Google Fiber now: gigabit all the time, no caps, 100%
| availability so far, $70/mo.
|
| Also, Verio (NTT) had 512kb SDSL for $60/mo. in Davis CA with 8
| ms to Stanford in 1999. Dotcom times, sigh.
| 49yearsold wrote:
| Aren't they using AT&T fiber network though? So what
| differentiates them from AT&T and others - customer service or
| something else?
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| They run their own network and also resell AT&T fiber when
| they don't have their own network.
| [deleted]
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > Mendez reportedly was not swayed by ISPs' claims that a net
| neutrality law isn't necessary because they haven't been blocking
| or throttling Internet traffic.
|
| What? Is that an actual legal argument? "You can't pass a law
| unless people are actively breaking it" doesn't make any sense.
| mdeck_ wrote:
| It is a not-completely-frivolous argument in this procedural
| context, you could say. This is not the final determination in
| the case; it is just a question about whether the law can be
| enforced right now, while the case is pending. If the ISPs
| could show e.g. that there was significant harm to them and no
| harm to CA in temporarily barring enforcement of the law, then
| the judge might be obligated to rule in their favor. It's more
| complicated than this, but this is the general idea anyway.
|
| It's still a BS argument, to be clear, and good that the judge
| rejected it...
| pessimizer wrote:
| The ISPs showing that there was significant harm would
| contradict the claim that they were already following the
| rules without being forced.
| kyrra wrote:
| It's a poor legal argument, but seems like a solid civics
| arguments. Sadly they aren't trying to appeal to the public or
| lawmakers, they are trying to appeal to the judge, so it seems
| like wasted effort.
| masklinn wrote:
| > It's a poor legal argument, but seems like a solid civics
| arguments.
|
| Is it though? Seems the opposite to me: _reactive_ laws (aka
| sensational news items - > law) are generally ill considered
| and badly conceived. Trying to carefully consider how items
| and technologies can be used, and whether those uses are
| things which should be forbidden, seems like it'd generally
| lead to much better law-making, not attached to any sort of
| emotional "fog". This process won't catch every misuse, but
| any misuse it catches is one which'd almost certainly have
| been seen.
|
| It's the same idea as trying to consider how an API could be
| (mis)used before deploying it, and deciding whether you want
| to allow that or specifically check against it.
| anyonecancode wrote:
| I like that analogy. When designing an API I try to avoid
| over-engineering for use cases that might exist in the
| future, but at the same time I do try to make it hard to
| end up with invalid states. You don't need to wait around
| for a user to send invalid data before designing to prevent
| that.
|
| So I guess the question is whether, in this analogy, net
| neutrality is about use cases or about valid states?
| Personally, I see it as more of the latter.
| kyrra wrote:
| Too many laws also hamper innovation. Trying to prevent
| something from happening that hasn't proven to be an issue
| yet can get in the way of things that are actually good but
| potentially get caught on a law that gets used against
| people in unintended ways.
|
| Reactive law can work just as well too, it just needs to
| not be rushed. For example, Section 230 is a reactive law
| that allowed for the creation of the internet we have
| today.
|
| I think your argument could be better made by saying that
| laws that are created quickly without lots of analysis and
| debate are bad. Interested parties on any given law need to
| be able to weigh in to provide insight about how it may
| impact them, and then it's up to lawmakers to find a good
| balance.
|
| The public comment process that executive agencies have for
| rule changes could be nicely applied to our law making
| process as well.
| TrueDuality wrote:
| I'd be much more willing to accept your argument if this
| was reactive.
|
| There is historical precedent of ISPs doing the behavior
| these laws are trying to protect against on large scales.
| They got caught, and because of the title classification
| they were forced to stop.
|
| ISPs continue to have financial incentives to do these
| actively malicious behaviors to their customers so some
| level of protection needs to be in place.
| andjd wrote:
| No, it's not an effective legal argument.
|
| To get an injunction, the claimant (ISPs in this case) would
| need to show a likelihood of success on the merits _and_
| irreparable harm during the pendency of the lawsuit. If the
| ISPs are not violating the law, it's hard to imagine that they
| can show that the law is harming them.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| To the extent the importance of a governmental interest is to
| the validity of a law (basically, any time it is required to
| pass more than rational basis test review because of either the
| rights impinged or the axes on which it discriminates), "the
| behavior it seeks to prevent does not exist" is a component of
| a useful argument (you really want to be able to finish with
| "and is unlikely to exist in the future in the absence of the
| law", as well.)
|
| But in this context here, we aren't really talking about the
| validity of the law but about an injunction while the law is
| being challenged. Where, actually, that argument seems to cut
| against ISPs, since an injunction generally requires a showing
| of irreparable harm to the other party if the injunction is not
| granted; "we aren't doing what the law would prevent and have
| no intention of doing so" is exactly an argument that you have
| no need for an injunction.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| Such an excuse was good enough for Chief Justice Roberts' to
| dismantle VRA Section 5.
|
| >...throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are
| not getting wet.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| To be fair, I can see at least some sense in it. Specifically,
| it seems like almost every law of any complexity has unintended
| consequences. In general, those consequences are negative.
| Having an extra law on the books means one more thing that can
| go wrong. As such, creating a law that has no actual benefit
| (nobody will break) has a fair chance to have a negative impact
| on society.
|
| Conceptually, it's not unlike adding the hardware to a car for
| a feature nobody will use. It's something that can break, for
| no benefit.
|
| All that being said, I do not agree the law would be useless
| because I assume the ISPs will do everything in their power to
| make money at the expense of the well being of everyone else.
| kiba wrote:
| To the extent that is true, it is because congresscritters
| and politicians have no incentive to monitor laws until
| something visibly bad happens.
|
| Also, we have absolutely shoddy education in the humanities.
| Economics, psychology, world history, etc, are 'useless'
| until you're reminded that we have to deal with human beings
| doing what they do.
|
| Anyway, I don't see why ISPs would not break net neutrality
| laws especially if they can nickel and dime people even more.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| Makes no sense at all.
|
| Even further, if you're not doing anything that would break the
| new law then why the need to oppose it?
| carlisle_ wrote:
| Because duplicity is an ethical norm for the entire Legal
| sector.
| fitblipper wrote:
| I tend to default to believing bad faith from the ISPs given
| their monopolistic power in many many places around the US.
| However, I disagree with this argument in a broad sense
| because:
|
| 1. Law enforcement itself has costs.
|
| 2. The US has so many random laws and the power given to the
| president and AG to selectively enforce said laws that it
| translates to "Whoever is in power at the executive level
| gets to attack whoever they want at their convenience".
|
| 3. I see a very clear line between this argument and "If you
| don't have anything to hide, why do you need privacy?"
| argument.
| jmholla wrote:
| The conclusion of your first two points is to get rid of
| laws, not stop making new ones. I have no idea where you're
| going with your third point.
|
| Edit: I hope that didn't come across as aggressive. I am
| genuinely curious about what you were demonstrating with
| your third point.
| InitialBP wrote:
| I think the point of the first two laws isn't just "get
| rid of laws" but rather, only create and keep around laws
| that serve an immediate purpose. Essentially in
| opposition to the make a law because it might solve a
| problem later on.
|
| I agree with enforcing this laws against ISPs now as I
| think internet connectivity and accessibility protections
| are problems that need solved now.
|
| I think their third point is likely just pointing out
| that many of the users of this site are probably opposed
| to the "If you don't have anything to hide then why do
| you need privacy argument", yet are taking what the
| author sees as a similar argument against the ISPs. It
| could be viewed as hypocritical and indicates that there
| needs to be more argument for why someone would want
| these enforced ASAP other than "If you aren't doing
| anything bad now then why do you want to block the law".
| jmholla wrote:
| That is a good point on the first part. What I was trying
| to demonstrate with my point and only recently was able
| to put into words is that not making new laws doesn't
| solve the problem they were worried about. I would also
| say history has shown that unchecked power leads to abuse
| and that only solving problems in time has led to
| terrible outcomes.
|
| Towards your point on their third argument, the arguments
| aren't similar. You don't want to keep only illegal
| things private. You can have a bank account, but I would
| expect you wouldn't want to share your account number
| with just anyone. The argument is disingenuous because
| everyone does have something to hide.
|
| Going to the latter portion of your third point,
| regarding the timeliness of your "bad" behavior, that
| sounds like a terrible way to come up with rules. I
| wouldn't wait for the first murder to decide that maybe
| people killing each other isn't the best way for society
| to function. Of course, I do have hindsight of history to
| aid me in this, but if that is what is required, I would
| point you towards my first point about unchecked power.
| Depending on the specificity your argument requires, I
| think it applies. I think this also applies a little bit
| to your first argument around keeping around only
| immediately purposeful laws.
|
| I think the real solution is to only keep around sensible
| laws and eliminate those that aren't. And I would say in
| this argument, these laws do serve an immediate purpose
| as these telecoms have demonstrated time and time again
| that they are willing to abuse their customers in ways
| that are totally legal.
| freedomben wrote:
| I took the conclusion of his/her first two points to be,
| "think carefully whether cost outweighs benefit when
| making new laws or keeping old laws," not "get rid of all
| the laws! anarchy!"
| jmholla wrote:
| I can understand that. I think, if you think carefully,
| this is 100% necessary. I was talking to the other
| commenter, but telecoms, and really capitalistic
| businesses as a whole, have demonstrated the will
| disregard morality in the name of an extra buck. (They'll
| also disregard laws for the same reason but at least we
| can pretend to do something about it.)
| wl wrote:
| Even assuming they don't plan to engage in the kind of
| conduct that the law was intended to stop, they could still
| be adversely impacted by the law as written. For example,
| consider a peering dispute which leads to the connection
| between two networks becoming overloaded. A resolution where
| one party paid to fix the issue could be interpreted as
| paying for prioritization.
| [deleted]
| triffidhunter wrote:
| Wait, I thought that private companies can censor whoever they
| want? Presumably that means they can also charge people whatever
| they want, and if you don't like it, build your own ISP.
| poundofshrimp wrote:
| There are huge barriers to entry in ISP market, but very few
| for social platforms (assuming you are referencing censorship
| on Twitter, Facebook, etc). The argument to "go build your own
| ISP if you don't like it" isn't really viable.
| tengbretson wrote:
| I've been wondering more and more lately if the fight surrounding
| net neutrality is really going to get us the desired outcome
| given trends in computing as a whole.
|
| The online experience is getting more and more centralized into
| fewer and fewer platforms. Additionally, more and more of the
| tasks we associate with "general purpose" computing devices are
| getting bundled up into locked-down app platforms or even into
| task-specific appliances. With the proliferation of 5G, I suspect
| we will start seeing a lot of these "appliances" come with their
| own, built-in-to-the-payment-model cellular modems. These
| platforms are increasingly hostile to freely running software
| from outside their locked-down ecosystems.
|
| I guess the question I'm trying to ask is: How much will net
| neutrality matter if we're headed towards a world where all of
| the clients connecting to the net cannot freely run whatever
| software the users want?
| LastMuel wrote:
| In a world structured like that, it sounds like there would be
| good business opportunity in developing software and services
| that run on a general computing device.
| ngngngng wrote:
| .
| LastMuel wrote:
| Something like what? I was simply stating that when the
| market closes in on options, competition tends to pop up to
| meet the needs of the customers that don't want to be boxed
| in.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| Yes, but it would not be anywhere near as lucrative as
| selling a prepackaged turnkey "good-enough" solution to the
| masses - where the profits from the vendor lock-in allow you
| to mount a solid marketing campaign to drive sales and
| eventual regulatory-capture, allowing you to act in an anti-
| competitive manner.
|
| We, the geeks, may value open-platforms, but observe that
| it's Google, Apple, Samsung and Amazon that effectively
| control consumer home-automation and smart appliances - and
| they sure as heck aren't interested in making their platforms
| open and interoperable. (I'm speaking as a Nest customer who
| got screwed-over by Google closing Nest's open API - that was
| a blatant anti-competitive move).
| icefo wrote:
| I'm hopeful as the judge seems to understand the ISP strategy:
|
| > Mendez reportedly was not swayed by ISPs' claims that a net
| neutrality law isn't necessary because they haven't been blocking
| or throttling Internet traffic.
|
| > "I have heard that argument and I don't find it persuasive,"
| Mendez said, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "It's going to
| fall on deaf ears. Everyone has been on their best behavior since
| 2018, waiting for whatever happened in the DC Circuit [court case
| over the FCC's repeal of net neutrality]. I don't place weight on
| the argument that everything is fine and we don't need to worry."
| proverbialbunny wrote:
| It's also a lie. AT&T currently has a slow lane. Eg, I have
| fiber gigabit duplex, but for encrypted uploads to unknown
| servers, I get throttled to 10mbps. This restricts VPN traffic
| to many companies, including mine 10 miles away. This also
| restricts bit torrent traffic, and AT&T employs some sort of
| Sandvine like service that sends disconnect messages to users
| downloading from AT&T.
|
| As far as I know AT&T has not created a slow lane for download
| speeds, which is why most people probably do not notice.
| thehappypm wrote:
| Cellular networks, I believe, are allowed to throttle.
| kingnothing wrote:
| This must be regional. I also have AT&T Fiber and have not
| experienced any throttling under any circumstances,
| regardless of VPN usage.
| proverbialbunny wrote:
| Have you tried seeding something on bit torrent? That's a
| pretty easy way to tell.
| throwaway7644 wrote:
| I was wondering if I was the only one having that issue. It's
| a shame no other company in my area offers 1000Mbs duplex
| because when it does work, it's great.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| This argument is akin to saying a law against murder is
| unnecessary because you haven't killed anyone. It is
| unpersuasive in the utmost.
| JulianMorrison wrote:
| Suing to block a law rather undermines the argument "we had no
| plans to break it".
| fastball wrote:
| On the one hand yes, on the other hand laws intended to
| prevent some behavior are usually less efficient than
| participants just not doing that behavior, and add extra
| overhead to the people whom you're worried about doing that
| behavior.
| buran77 wrote:
| It's hard to justify expensive litigation to block a law
| preventing you from something you weren't doing or
| intending to do anyway. The only reason to spend all that
| time, effort, and money is to at the very least make sure
| the door is open for you to do such things in the future.
| Or worse, to keep doing them as we speak.
| bko wrote:
| I think the risk is that there will be more direct
| involvement by the governments in dictating what the ISP
| can and cannot show.
|
| Politician's already criticize big tech for not doing
| enough to censor and remove fake news. I could see this
| laying the ground work for further involvement. Because
| "allow all legitimate content" can turn into disallow
| "illegitimate" content on the ISP level
| fastball wrote:
| Again, not necessarily true.
|
| Frequently, legislation intended to block things doesn't
| just say "this is illegal now - don't do it". It
| frequently includes things like _reporting requirements_
| to ensure that you are not doing these things without the
| government having to constantly keep tabs on you (and
| obviously hefty fines / etc if your reports are found to
| be inaccurate).
|
| These reporting requirements (and other, similar
| requirements that usually accompany such legislation) can
| be an expensive hassle, possibly more expensive than
| "expensive litigation". The case only needs to be
| litigated once, while something like reporting
| requirements continue in perpetuity.
| buran77 wrote:
| Going through the text of the bill [0] the ISP challenge
| I found nothing that implies such burdens on the them. If
| they exist in some other text I am not aware of them.
| Until shown otherwise I can _reasonably_ assume ISPs
| simply fight a law that prevents them now and in the
| future from doing something that is financially
| advantageous to them, despite being disadvantageous to
| the regular consumer.
|
| [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClien
| t.xhtml...
| bko wrote:
| Wouldn't this prevent someone like t-mobile to offer a
| deal in which netflix streaming doesn't count towards
| their data cap before throttling? It limits their ability
| to strike deals like this with content providers. But I
| guess that's the point?
| [deleted]
| Retric wrote:
| Yes, that's exactly the point. A local monopoly's deal
| with Netflix or even just their chose to exclude data
| sidesteps the free market and is thus bad.
|
| If you had the choice of say 500 local ISPs then net
| neutrality isn't an issue.
| happymellon wrote:
| Well yes, because now you either subscribe to Netflix or
| you don't stream video because caps will cut you off.
|
| It's funny how some cable operators also offered the
| benefits of their video service not effecting your data
| usage, while other video services do. That is anti-
| competitive and designed to make you buy their services
| rather than other people's.
|
| It has nothing to do with infrastructure as customers are
| allowed to stream unlimited data, and even if they go to
| a competitor, people generally watch at the same time. So
| your bandwidth is going to get hammered at the same time
| anyway.
| ska wrote:
| > usually less efficient than participants just not doing
| that behavior
|
| This has a terrible track record whenever there is a
| significant financial incentive for participants to do the
| thing.
| unishark wrote:
| That isn't quite what they said though, at least in the
| quoted text. They said they had no plans to block or throttle
| internet traffic. Regulations can have a broad effect
| limiting what businesses can do in a variety of ways beyond
| the narrow effect that is used to justify it. This law also
| includes prioritizing traffic and other things according to
| the article.
| salawat wrote:
| Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to hide under that tree for
| protection in the lightning rich environment of civil rights
| violations as a whole.
|
| I think laws should be challenged in order to force coming to
| terms with second and higher order effects, and as a matter
| of course be measured and revisited for reconsideration over
| time.
|
| That being said, from a heuristic driven, rhetorically
| defensive perspective, I totally get, and second your
| perspective in this case.
|
| The "Thou dost protest too much" bell is strong with this
| one.
| shmerl wrote:
| Exactly. This attack on the law itself demonstrates their
| intent.
| mywittyname wrote:
| If ISPs have no plans to block or throttle internet traffic,
| then they should have no objections to this ruling...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-24 23:01 UTC)