Cable & ISP groups sue to block California's net neutrality protections
Four industry organizations have leveled a joint lawsuit against the state of California, hoping to stop net neutrality rules that could impact how they do business.
The plaintiffs include the American Cable Association, CTIA, NCTA, and USTelecom, Reuters reported on Wednesday. Together the groups represent major corporations such as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon.
The suit calls California's policies, scheduled to begin Jan. 1, a "classic example of unconstitutional state regulation."
California only recently signed the rules into law, but was immediately met with a Justice Department lawsuit charging that internet service providers "cannot realistically comply with one set of standards in this area for California and another for the rest of the nation -- especially when internet communications frequently cross multiple jurisdictions."
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions went a step further, calling the legislation "an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy."
In December the Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 along party lines to undo Obama-era net neutrality protections, despite public opposition and signs that many anti-neutrality comments were faked. The effort to reverse neutrality has been championed by Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, along with large communications businesses.
Should they survive, California's rules will bar practices like "fast lanes," selective throttling, and paid prioritization. Phone carriers will be unable to offer "zero-rated" services, for instance exempting platforms like Apple Music from data caps. Without neutrality however, critics of the FCC reversal argue that the result could be a restricted, even more hegemonic internet.
The plaintiffs include the American Cable Association, CTIA, NCTA, and USTelecom, Reuters reported on Wednesday. Together the groups represent major corporations such as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon.
The suit calls California's policies, scheduled to begin Jan. 1, a "classic example of unconstitutional state regulation."
California only recently signed the rules into law, but was immediately met with a Justice Department lawsuit charging that internet service providers "cannot realistically comply with one set of standards in this area for California and another for the rest of the nation -- especially when internet communications frequently cross multiple jurisdictions."
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions went a step further, calling the legislation "an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy."
In December the Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 along party lines to undo Obama-era net neutrality protections, despite public opposition and signs that many anti-neutrality comments were faked. The effort to reverse neutrality has been championed by Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, along with large communications businesses.
Should they survive, California's rules will bar practices like "fast lanes," selective throttling, and paid prioritization. Phone carriers will be unable to offer "zero-rated" services, for instance exempting platforms like Apple Music from data caps. Without neutrality however, critics of the FCC reversal argue that the result could be a restricted, even more hegemonic internet.
Comments
There will be blood.
It's the second revolution!
We shall be free again.
What the commerce clause says and means has been extensively analyzed. And it isn't Congress that decides what the Constitution says. And what a president can do by edict is also up for some analysis, ultimately by those same individuals.
I do need to read the details of the California law before I can really comment on its merits. Net neutrality is a very complex topic where the law of unintended consequences has ample opportunity to rear its ugly head.
These Cable company's thought they could just keep screwing everyone over, with all these laws they themselves created. Well it bit them in the butt and now the problem for them is so much worse as it should be. It was Government that created these Monopolies that are screwing everyone over. So it has to be Government to try and correct this these issues. If the Federal Government is not willing to do it anymore, great,the states will do it themselves now.
Personally, I'd like Government to get completely out of it, but only so long as there's REAL COMPETITION!!! As in Comcast, TWC, and everyone else is fighting for customers in every town, city, state, throughout the country. I would them be all for Government getting out of the way. Things are as they should be, a free and open market!!!
Of course these company's have been creating laws to stop this from happening for years and the politicians have been letting them get away with it. There would be no dumb CAPs in a free and open market. There would be lower prices, much better customer service, and people not getting screwed over left and right in a free and open market. If you didn't like Comcast, you could just move to TWC.
Who know,.. maybe we'll see some change with this whole 5G system, but it's still wireless, controlled by Cell Phone company's which really aren't any better.
I'm all for throwing New Neutrality out the window, killing it forever, just as soon as we have a Free market Internet service. Basically like we did back when in the dialup modem days.
So state's rights are suddenly important to the Left? How about getting rid of the ACA and let the states get involved (or not... the alternative being a competitive free market) regulating health care?
The ACA comparison is spurious.
Also, people are more flexible and intelligent than simple labels like Left or Right, or they should be!
I want to emphasis that this is not and should not be a partisan issue. Implementing net neutrality laws without careful consideration has the potential to hurt individual users in unforeseen ways. You could end up with a situation where high data users get preferance over low data users, which IMO would not be a desirable outcome.
The internet is not one homogeneous network where everything runs the same. It has been cobbled together over the last two decades by hundreds of companies, consortiums, nonprofit groups, educational institutions and, of course, the Government. It’s a miracle it does what it does so well. Making net neutrality laws without understanding all the nuances of the internet if a fools errand.
It's more common with mobile connections than home internet services in the US.
I understand that the point you are making is that we shouldn't have to come up with laws to make sure the playing field between the consumer and the companies that provide products are level, but we almost always have to.
its a two way street and if it's not the corporations that are taking advantage of the consumer, it's the other way around.