California governor signs nation’s strictest net neutrality rules into law | Hacker News Reader

California governor signs nation’s strictest net neutrality rules into law

arstechnica.com

103 pointsalphabettsy21 comments

> FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, who led the effort to reverse net neutrality, said in a statement on Sunday that “not only is California’s internet regulation law illegal, it also hurts consumers.

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

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

Not necessarily. There could be things that neither FCC nor California government can legally do. I am not sure whether regulating the Internet by introducing NN is among them (given the whole "interstate commerce" thing and how broadly it is treated, you'd need a good lawyer to figure it out) but it's not impossible on the face of it, and it's not both sides of the same argument - in fact, it seems to be the same argument from the start:

The FCC's recent repeal of federal rules said that states aren't allowed to impose net neutrality rules, and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai called California's net neutrality bill "illegal."

So Pai argued from the start that states can not impose NN, and continues to do so. I guess we'll eventually see if he's correct or not, probably as the case eventually gets to SCOTUS (or the Congress clarifies it by legislation, which probably won't happen).

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

> “this guy gets investigated for bribery”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Dept has already filed suit: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-california/u...

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

After that ... no states rights.

Ironic that liberal states such as California and Washington fight the hardest for states rights and are then criticized by conservatives(even in their own states!) for doing so.

They don't fight for states rights, they fight for right of California and Washington to enact legislation that California and Washington wants. They couldn't care less if Virginia or Alabama don't get the legislation they want.

What better way to fight for states rights than to fight for the rights of the states that, you know, you govern?

There's a big difference between "I fight for my right to do what I want" and "I fight for everybody's rights to do what they want, even if I don't like it". Like saying "I should have freedom of speech" and "everybody, even people I hate, should have freedom of speech". Almost nobody objects to the former, but the latter is trickier.

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

Instead of just saying wrong, say why this opinion is wrong. Otherwise you come as smug and looking down or manipulative and trying to steer the conversation.

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

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

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com