Archive

ShareThis Page
California net neutrality bill clears key hurdle | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

California net neutrality bill clears key hurdle

The Associated Press
| Friday, August 31, 2018 8:33 p.m
187408187408451abb81dbf54f56af3c4ddea23faf05
California state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, congratulates Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, after her bill to limit the state’s “felony murder” rule was approved by the Senate on Thursday, Aug. 30, 2018, in Sacramento, Calif. The state Assembly approved Wiener’s net neutrality bill, seeking to revive regulations repealed last year by the Federal Communications Commission that prevented internet companies from exercising more control over what people watch and see on the internet.
187408187408af4744ce447c4e0d9d8442b33458ed0c
California state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, addresses the state Senate on Thursday, Aug. 30, 2018, in Sacramento, Calif. The Assembly approved Wiener’s net neutrality bill seeking to revive regulations repealed last year by the Federal Communications Commission that prevented internet companies from exercising more control over what people watch and see on the internet.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The California Assembly voted Wednesday to enshrine net neutrality in state law, delivering a major victory to advocates looking to require an equal playing field on the internet.

In the latest effort by California lawmakers to drive national policy and rebuff President Donald Trump, lawmakers approved one of the nation’s most aggressive efforts to revive regulations repealed last year by the Federal Communications Commission. The rules prevented internet companies from exercising more control over what people watch and see on the internet.

The 58-17 vote Thursday was surprisingly lopsided after the Assembly was seen as a potential barrier to the bill’s passage. It returns to the Senate, which passed an earlier version and is expected to sign off on changes from the Assembly before the Legislature adjourns on Friday.

“We all know why we’re here. It’s pretty clear,” said Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, a Los Angeles Democrat. “The Trump administration destroyed the internet as we know it.”

The Assembly’s vote followed months of intense lobbying from internet companies, which warned that it would lead to higher costs.

California’s net neutrality debate is being closely watched by advocates around the country, who are looking to the home of Silicon Valley to pass sweeping net neutrality provisions that could drive momentum in other states or create pressure for Congress to enact nationwide protections.

“Net neutrality is not dead. It’s coming back with a vengeance,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, an advocacy group that is pushing to preserve net neutrality.

Internet providers say they’ve publicly committed to upholding the values of net neutrality, but strict rules like California’s would inhibit investment in faster technology. They say it’s unrealistic to expect them to comply with internet rules that vary across the country.

“Consumers expect a single, national approach to keeping our internet open, not the confusing patchwork of conflicting requirements passed today, Jonathan Spalter, president & CEO the broadband industry group USTelecom, said in a statement.

The California legislation “keeps the country strapped into a roller coaster ride of state net neutrality regulations,” he said.

The measure, if signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, is likely to face a legal challenge. The FCC has declared that states cannot pass their own net neutrality rules, though proponents of the California legislation say that only Congress can tie California’s hands.

“President Trump didn’t ruin the internet. President Trump didn’t change the internet,” said Melissa Melendez, a Republican from Lake Elsinore in Southern California. “You’re wading into an area where you have no business being.”

Six Republicans joined nearly all Democrats in supporting the legislation.

Net neutrality advocates worry that, absent rules prohibiting it, internet providers could create fast lanes and slow lanes that favor their own sites and apps or make it harder for consumers to see content from their competitors.

That could limit consumer choice or shut out upstart companies that can’t afford to buy access to the fast lane, critics worry.

Santiago, who steered the bill through the Assembly, faced a flood of angry calls and online memes when a committee he leads briefly watered down the bill earlier this year. The stronger provisions were later restored.

The bill, written by Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, would prohibit internet providers from blocking or slowing data based on its content or from favoring websites or video streams from companies that pay extra.

It also would ban so-called “zero rating,” in which internet providers don’t count certain content against a monthly data cap. It would prohibit, for example, AT&T from exempting videos from CNN or other outlets it owns from a monthly data cap that applies to competitors.

Critics say the ban on zero rating will raise cellphone bills and make it harder for poor people to access streaming video since it would all count against their monthly data allotment. Wiener says zero rating encourages smaller data allotments and makes it harder for people to access diverse online content.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.