AT&T Successfully Derails California's Tough New Net Neutrality Law | Hacker News Reader

AT&T Successfully Derails California's Tough New Net Neutrality Law

techdirt.com

286 pointsjc_811136 comments

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...

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.

Solutions don’t need to be permanent if they can be repeated. A truly permanent solution would be to add them to the proverbial list of “they’ll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes,” but I’d rather see less permanent, less drastic solutions that still yield the desired results.

They can only be repeated with a competent DOJ/administration. Else, they will be able to stick around much longer and dig in deeper. And if the system allows them to influence the administration, then the solution (or option) is permanently destroyed.

In the absence of a competent system there is no solution, permanent or otherwise. It’s like trying to secure your laptop against someone who has physical possession of it; you can’t, they own it now.

It was a fertile field they found there following the temporary dissolution of Ma. GOP on the left of me, Neo-Liberal Democrats to the right, stuck in the middle with you!

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.

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

There's no incentive for Microsoft to have continued investing in hiring or R&D without competition.

So without Big Government, Steve Jobs would have just called it quits then? Get real! Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete and what drives any successful company to compete. There's always a new model private jet coming out next year.

> Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete

The iphone had to be better than blackberry to succeed. Blackberry set the bar for success in some way. In the absence of Blackberry Steve Jobs would have invented something like Blackberry.

Big government actually destroys competition and creates monopolies. This "break up companies" using anti-trust or whatever is complete nonsense. The very reason why Monsanto, ATT, Comcast are near monopolistic is because of the government regulations. I bet Zuckerberg will help government draft regulations that will kill competition in early stage and help him grow Facebook bigger.

Naive people generally fall for the lets use government to break large corporations because they do not understand the nature of people. There is so much money at stake here that it will always be easier to buy off politicians that will not allow the corporation to break off. (Just the way Obama helped the banks who should have gone bankrupt). The same people however correctly show distrust of government in matters of war, LGBTQ issues and so on. It is just a paradox.

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. It's the wolves in sheep's clothing pretending to be righteous that can ultimately cause the most harm. They prey on good willing empathetic people to get them emotionally distracted by the slight of hand that takes place when Billions are on the line.

John Locke might have said babies are born with a tabula rasa. But I suspect genetics play a deep roll in our brain chemistry dictating, for example, why we might take offense to something others find funny. But we can't forget that natural selection applies to Humans too and therefore most humans will save themselves first. The genetic instincts we possess align us to a more Hobbsian tone, that we are Nasty, brutish and short.

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.

> 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.

Why can't X_2 bring the same idea to market again?

Because Big Corp has many advantages, such as being the owner of Startup X's intellectual property.

So how did Netflix dethrone Comcast if Goliath always wins?

You're stretcing that analogy way to thin. Comcast took the strategy of continuing to push hardware cable boxes on people because it made them twice as much revenue as netflix despite netflix's high gains in Q4 2017. Now that they've successfully eleminated net neutrality, it will be fairly easy to slow down or charge netflix more for peering and if they successfully buy up hulu / fox to integrate their own original productions it will give them full vertical integration.

Naw, 5G will finally end the telecom monopoly on the utility poles. Netflix bet blockbuster by being smarter, Microsoft lost its edge in mobile by being complacent. Monopolies in a non-crony version of capitalism are not bad in their own right.

Naw, 5G will finally end the telecom monopoly on the utility poles. Netflix beat blockbuster by being smarter, Microsoft lost its edge in mobile by being complacent. Monopolies in a non-crony version of capitalism are not bad in their own right.

And how long before 5G hits most of their markets?

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.

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

> this scenario has literally never happened.

It's very similar to what happened with Netscape, except they simply prohibited it rather than increasing price because of it.

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.

To the contrary: it happened to _my_ company, with a minor detail that I omitted: what they objected to was having the software preinstalled _and visible on the desktop._ The end result was the same.

Our company sued Microsoft over it. There was a settlement.

Then how did Netflix dethrone Comcast? Goliath doesn't always win. The person who makes the superior product wins. Apple is almost never first to market with an idea anymore because they simply wait and do it better. New companies with better ideas are constantly upsetting the apple cart. For god sakes take a look at the mighty brick and mortar stores like Macy's, JCPenny, and nostrums once thought invincible. Goliath only wins, in the minds of people like you who think they can't be beaten.

In what sense is AT&T a monopoly anything close to what Ma Bell was in its glory days?

It's not too far off. See the following infographic:

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/att-merger-histo...

The only baby-Bells missing from that merger chart are NYNEX and Bell Atlantic which combined and became Verizon.

That has nothing to do with them being a monopoly. Anti-trust law is not about the geographic spread of a company. What services are they a monopoly in? How are they abusing that monopoly power? What would be different if there were more competitors, or if they weren’t allowed to make those mergers?

Nothing in my comment had anything to do with "geographic spread" neither did I state they were a monopoly. My comment clearly states "it's not too far off."

Anti-trust law concerns the ability of a company to constrain competition. AT&T as the largest satellite provider(DirecTV) the seconds largest Cell Phone provider by customers and wireless spectrum holdings and now also owner of one of the largest media/content companies is very much in a position to "constrain competition. This potential to constrain competition was at the root of their failed $39 billion bid to buy T-Mobile 7 years ago.

The permanent solution is never "one and done".

The solution is keeping on top of these things.

Just like every generation has to figure out growing up for themselves.

Every generation has to rein in abuses, or suffer the consequences.

Good governance is not a set of laws. It's governing.

Admittedly, right now, things are looking a little grim, in the U.S. Then again, half to two-thirds of the eligible population doesn't vote.

there are no permanent solutions don't let perfect become the enemy of the good.

What you are saying is when your hired goon fails to steal your neighbours cows for you, the cops should do it for you. ATT has not bombed Sacramento to achieve this, they have achieved this fair and square the same way farmers have managed to get some water from the greedy politicians over last 5 years or the same way teachers union in California has managed to suck our blood. This language of "break them up" is a violent language of thugs and should not have a place on a civilised forum such as this. (Not to mention as Mr/s. Dang would inform you it is not good idea to start political fights. But he also happens to be selective and likely he will give you an upvote and the warning to me)

> 83% support equal access to content with net neutrality.

Does not matter. That is irrelevant. Most people voted for Hillary but Trump is the president. You have to look at the rules of the game. Are those 83% people willing to change their vote in favour of a pro-net-neutrality politician during elections ? If not then even if that number is 100% it is irrelevant.

You're right, the number is irrelevant. But it shouldn't be, should it.

There is no set of politicians or party to turn to that the people could be confident are morally sound. The unfortunate nature of hunting power is the scum that it attracts.

I would suggest the US crack down on lobbying and take a look at how politicians finance their election campaigns. Money corrupts.

This is it.

All we can do is dissuade and encourage.

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.

>>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?

Google and Apple can afford to pay the costs of a non-neutral web. A non-neutral web closes the market to competitors.

Lobbying power isn't just a factor of market cap. For example, consider how media groups such as the RIAA and MPAA have pushed for ever more intellectual property laws despite being smaller than the groups that would benefit from copyright reform. Similarly with Article 11 and 13 of the proposed EU digital copyright directive.

There's only so much money you can throw at lobbying: beyond a certain point there's diminishing returns, not to mention the criticism (warranted or not) that lobbying tends to atttract. Industries that employ more people or have a strong local presence can also punch above their weight. And of course, much as we might pretend otherwise politicians are capable of holding their own opinions, too.

It's not just AT&T that's opposed to this bill, either. A wide range of cable companies and ISPs are lobbying against it:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/att-and-cable-lo...

> AT&T and the lobby group that represents Comcast, Charter, Cox, and other cable companies have been making their displeasure known to lawmakers in advance of hearings on a bill that could impose the toughest net neutrality law in the nation. The California bill implements the FCC's basic net neutrality rules from 2015, but it also bans paid zero-rating arrangements in which home or mobile Internet providers charge online services for data cap exemptions.

> 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.

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... . Apple has (or had) more at hand than $200B. But then you have to assume At&t debts and liabilities too.

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.

Better to think of ATT as a national telecom. They are extremely close to government.

Remember Bernie Ebbers; I'm pretty sure if Google or whomever seriously considered it, there would be Words in Smokey Back Rooms.

LOL. Get your head out of the tech world ass. You have no idea how big telecoms are. AT&T is right up there with the FAAMG stocks you fangirl over.

Big in what sense? I used one metric, market cap, and AAPL, AMZN, MSFT, GOOG, FB wipe the floor with the 100 year old company. Even in profits At&t is not close to overpowering big tech. So I asked, why then is ATT winning the lobbying battles?

It's likely one could not appreciate the true mass of ATT without actually trying to acquire / control it. Like picking up Thor's hammer, perhaps.

Where are you getting your data? AT&T market cap is over 200B, _before_ Time Warner merger. Plus this data fails to take into account the infrastructure holdings and government contracts they have, which are enormous.

According to Ars Technica's article, it sounds like there's still opportunity to fix the net neutrality bill (or sink it):

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/california-net-n...

> The amendments were passed by the Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee, which is chaired by Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles). The committee approved the amended bill and referred it to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, which could reinstate the original provisions or make other changes.

So I wouldn't give up until the bill is signed and passed.

Techdirt, Wired, and others reported that the sponsor withdrew the bill in response to the committee dismantling it. So it seems like this iteration of the bill is dead.

There is a bit more detailed discussion here, listing the supporters of the amendment, as well as the fact that Miguel Santiago has an upcoming election with an opponent potentially much more inclined to support Net Neutrality.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/8ssskc/californ...

I’m a former founder now running for California State Senate. The CA legislature has really gone out of its way to make sure that people in rural areas have crummy internet service.

For example, AB1665 provided funding to expand service to rural areas, but let big ISPs like AT&T veto any money given to new market entrants.

And then this. Fortunately, new wireless technology like 5G LTE will change the market dynamics for the better, so long as we can get the permits to build the damn towers.

My campaign website: https://www.theodoredziuba.com/

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.

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

if you're in the US, give https://www.twilio.com/wireless a try. You're still using the same carriers under the hood but at the very least you're giving money to their business/enterprise side instead of the shitty customer side.

I tried using Twilio Wireless, but note it is NOT a good replacement for cellular service.

You can't receive texts from other Twilio numbers, which doesn't sound that bad, until you realize that virtually every verification SMS from most services also use Twilio. I wouldn't get 90% of my 2FA SMS codes anymore after trying to use it.

Also, data is super expensive on Twilio Wireless. After one day of just background data (no browsing or streaming) I was charged ~$15 (for the 100MBish of data I used off of Wi-Fi).

There are all kinds of other problems with it too as a cell service.

There are some really good reasons to use Twilio Wireless though, but not for mobile phone service. It's great for IoT hobby projects.

You can't receive texts from other Twilio numbers

That seems like it would be the easiest thing for them to get working out of all the wireless stuff, did you report that issue to them?

Been a bit since I last looked into the problem, but I was mistaken. You can't receive texts from shortcode numbers (though the majority of those use twilio), but that has the same effect - no 2FA codes many places.

I think it's intentional. I use Google Voice as my primary phone number, and there are various services that won't let me use it for 2FA, etc. I opened a support ticket with Discord to ask why, and after many emails back in forth they told me they have a database of what type of phone number every phone number is, and mine is "VoIP" which they claim cannot receive SMSes. (Everyone else, including my bank, has no trouble, of course... because they check by sending the SMS, not asking some outdated database if it's possible to send the SMS.)

What they didn't tell me, but I assume, is that some popular discord servers require phone verification to limit spam... and if anyone could just use a VoIP number as that phone verification, then that wouldn't work. (It still doesn't work, of course, but they think it does.) I, of course, just want to have an account recovery phone number, but they conflate the two uses of the phone number (person identifier, versus arbitrary second factor).

TL;DR, a lot of places are dumb and intentionally prevent you from using any sort of "recyclable" phone number. It helps them keep up the illusion that a phone number uniquely identifies exactly one person. Maybe that's true in South Korea, but it isn't here. So it just screws legitimate users for no reason.

Two things:

You absolutely can receive texts from other Twilio numbers. It's shortcodes you can't receive from (which is definitely a problem).

Your data would be cheaper if you set the billing mode to "individual" (and not "pooled"), which will charge you for blocks of 1GB at a time. Having said that, data will still probably not be cheaper than a normal retail cell plan.

Aside from that, another issue is lack of MMS support. Twilio Wireless is designed for IoT use cases, so general cell phone use isn't something it's optimized for.

(Source/Disclosure: I'm the engineer who built the first version of Twilio Wireless.)

MMS is useless anyway so I see that as a non-issue, if anything it removes useless complexity. Social networks, email and WhatsApp/Telegram replaced MMS long ago, and as a bonus they don’t re-compress your images to make them look even more awful.

I'm on fi and I like it.

Fi is largely predicated on saving you money as long as you're near accessible wifi, right? I have concerns about switching it and using it when I'm away from a connection.

The data fee is all pay-per use, It is $10/gig and max data fee is $60/month.

By max, you mean that once I burn through six gigs, the remainder is free? Or that after six gigs, I'm out of data for the month?

After six gigs it's free. It's great, my average bill is $30 because I'm on WiFi at both work and home.

Same, and even when I travel without wifi the data expenses are pretty marginal. If you download your podcasts, maps, and translation dictionaries before you leave, and you don't have to have youtube or netflix constantly playing when not around wifi, it's pretty ideal.

As the sibling comment from androider says, after 6gigs is free, but after 15gigs you operate at reduced speeds.

Edit: here are the details: https://fi.google.com/about/faq/#plan-and-pricing-extra-high...

https://support.google.com/fi/answer/6246240

If only they didn't break Google Voice if you used it.

I loved the idea of grand central / google voice. IIRC I got my number right after google acquired grand central.

I have stopped giving out my google voice number because I have less confidence in anybody being able to reach me at my GV number ten years from now (vs what is currently my t-mobile number).

Yeah. I haven't given my GV number out in awhile but I still have several ppl who only use that # for me.

People have been worrying that Google would shut down GrandCentral/Voice for years, though, ever since Google acquired it nearly a decade ago. So far those worries haven't been realized. Google Voice has even received major mobile and browser upgrades last year, with regular updates since then: https://www.androidpolice.com/2017/01/23/google-resurrects-v...

Project Fi shares a lot of the same features Google Voice has: https://support.google.com/fi/answer/6159953

So it appears Project Fi doesn't work with Google Voice not because the latter is being abandoned, but because Project Fi is based in part on Google Voice so you can't use both at the same time. Google Fiber home phone service also appears to leverage Google Voice infrastructure: https://www.androidpolice.com/2016/03/29/google-fiber-rolls-...

I would probably suggest porting your Google Voice number to a secondary Google account if you don't want to make your Google Voice number your Project Fi number instead.

I'm on Ting I think the GSM they resell is T-Mobile but I think it's nice to have that abstraction because I would imagine if T-Mobile suddenly tanked or something they would figure out something else on the backend

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.

I recommend tracfone. They are Mexican, so the corruption gets exported.

Also, as light users, the bill went from $40/month/phone to $10/month/phone; starve the beast and whatnot.

As a bonus, they are a big enough evil monopoly to shove the lowly US telcos around, so you can choose between the Verizon, AT&T or T-Mobile network.

Relevant link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_mobile_v...

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

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/

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.

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

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/...

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

You're trading one telecom for another, all of which will be doing this. In the end you'll be wasting your time moving from one carrier to the next, while they sleep just fine at night.

I use Teltik, which resells T-Mobile Business services starting with plans at $20/mo. It has been an amazing experience so far. I used to be on AT&T MVNOs previously (Red Pocket) and while those are fine, the Teltik experience is way better for a very important reason: T-Mobile lets you use your data and voice plan in Canada and Mexico for no extra charge. Customer service has been superb as well.

I canceled all AT&T services last year. Internet comes in via Sonic (which is pro net neutrality), voice is VoIP, and cellular is from T-Mobile.

In my area Sonic uses AT&T pipes and accepts an AT&T requirement that they charge the customer a high monthly fee for the rental of a modem, imposed as a policy even if the customer owns and uses their own modem. Not to mention that they bundle service with extra charges for an unwanted land line. So Sonic isn’t looking so great from here. Were they bought up by someone?

Were they bought up by someone?

No, and the AT&T thing is just for copper.

I did the same thing this week actually. I called because I stopped getting cell service at my house. Then they told me I couldn't connect to WIFI calling because I have a Pixel. Then tried to sell me DirectTV while not resolving my cell service issue.

I switched to ProjectFI. Works great so far because I am basically always on WIFI, I realize this solution wont work for everyone.

Wife is on ProjectFI and I'm on Ting. I may switch over to FI when the Pixel 3 is launched but I'll miss Ting. Ting could teach customer service, it is a pleasure to call them, plus they play the theme to Buckaroo Banzai if there is a queue.

> 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?

Well, at least for not doing it in the same political direction as AT&T, et al., CREDO mobile might be an option.

Ting is very pro Net Neutrality[1]. They are a MVNO riding on the Sprint and T-Mobile networks.

[1] https://ting.com/blog/net-neutrality-repeal-statement/

Ting also has fantastic plans: you pay for what you use; if you use more you pay less per unit; all prices are clearly listed on their website; roaming charges are reasonable; there are no surprises.

Ting also happens to have some of the best customer service of any consumer facing company today. When you call them, you immediately get a human being that is intelligent and (every time I have dealt with them) able to solve your problem.

Yep I usually mention that as well as justinpombrio's comment, I just hate sounding like a shill. I'm simply an extremely satisfied customer from way back at launch.

One more thing: They are very friendly towards oddball devices. I had a Nokia 900 that they happily sent me a SIM card to fit, and helped me with APN settings (the defaults almost worked but needed to be tweaked a bit). They also more recently helped me get an iPad mini set up on the Sprint side. It took some finagling by the support person since they don't officially support that device, but they got me up and going. Their support staff is alway super friendly, I've never met a grumpy one even back when I was beta testing GSM on Windows Phone devices for them and had to call in several times a week.

I recently signed up with Consumer Cellular after being with AT&T for many, many years. So far I'm very happy with them.

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."

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

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

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

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

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

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...

and

https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/08/29/new-kind-spectr...

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.

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

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

> 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?

Managed to convince. Would be interesting to learn how one does it.

Unanimity is a shield. They can all mutually defer their reasoning for supporting the bill to everyone else who voted, and say that their vote against wouldn't have made a difference. Any vote against would have put pressure on all of the others.

AT&T came up with a deal that pleased everyone, and therefore immunized everyone. There were only eight; it's not hard, and politicians are notoriously cheap.

Isn't such deal called a bribe in normal countries?

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

[2] https://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-...

et al

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_...

Think OP is referring to the last-minute amendments.

DannyBee said the amendments were approved 8-0, so presumably that doesn't make them "secretive", nor is it questionable why they are legal: Everyone who is supposed to vote on those amendments did. In favor.

> DannyBee said the amendments were approved 8-0, so presumably that doesn't make them "secretive"

Just because the people who are required to vote on something know about it doesn't mean they are not secret or "secretive." This is the public's business.

> nor is it questionable why they are legal: Everyone who is supposed to vote on those amendments did. In favor.

There are frequently other considerations in whether something is legal than whether the people who needed to vote on it voted for it.

I know, but I'm pretty sure that's what the OP was referring to.

I always question what "last minute" really means in these stories. Usually, when i go and look up the legislative calendar, the committee was scheduled to meet and do mark up of that bill, well in advance. So it usually not "last minute" in that sense, only in the sense that "it happened before the vote".

There have been cases where the committee meeting/etc was scheduled last minute, but that's super-rare (and not allowed in a lot of legislatures, actually).

Here, i believe it was scheduled a week ahead of time, from the data i can find.

These change were, from what I'm gathering, introduced the night before the vote. That's pretty last minute.

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...

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.

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://medium.com/@fightfortheftr/at-t-funded-democrats-in-...

https://www.wired.com/story/california-net-neutrality-bill-w...

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.

  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.

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

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

It also says it was referred to the Privacy and Consumer Protection committee. As the changes kill the 'consumer protection' aspect perhaps they can be unamended in that committee.

  all the republicans and democrats on the committee were in favor

No, all of the Democrats were in favor. 2/3rds of Republicans were opposed.

There was a study a decade ago, they found that something like 80% of all bills signed into law in the United States are never read, debated, or even considered by their proponents.

When a big business says bend over, American politicians ALWAYS bend over, be they Democan, Republicrat, or Liberterrorist.

This is standard operating procedure for the CA legislature clear back to the Willie Brown era, or perhaps even Unruh.

"Uh, is this an 'A' vote or a 'B' vote?"

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

Yes.

Text as introduced is here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

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.

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....

Possible. Unless you’ve got a groundswell of support, it’ll be $1-2M to gather signatures and sky’s the limit on the media campaign to get it enough votes to pass.

Then you have to survive the spoiler factors. Like volunteer petitioners who abscond with the required state-printed collection forms. Or stuff like how big food convinced everyone that redesigning labels for GMO ingredients would significantly drive up the price of food in a massively successful two-day media campaign just before the election (prop 37).

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.

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.

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.

This is really corrupt, simply disgusting.

Shameful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com