California's Net Neutrality Law Moves Forward A new California law that would enshrine net neutrality on the state level just took one more step toward passage. SB 460, one of two such bills winding their way through the state legislature, was passed 21-12 by the state Senate, and will now head to the State Assembly, where Democrats have a 53-25 majority over Republicans. Net neutrality has been absurdly framed as a "partisan" issue in DC, despite the fact that the concept, and rules to protect it, have broad bipartisan support among consumers all too familiar with the bad behavior by the likes of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.

California's bill would prohibit ISPs from "blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices," except in instances of "reasonable network management." California's proposed bill is just one of several state efforts in the wake of the FCC's decision to ignore consumers and repeal the popular rules. While states from Washington to California are proposing new state laws protecting net neutrality, other states like Montana and New York have modified the state procurement process to ban ISPs that routinely violate net neutrality from securing state contracts. These efforts are moving forward despite an FCC effort to ban states from protecting consumers. The FCC's misleadingly-named "Restoring Internet Freedom" contains provisions, directly lobbied for by Verizon and Comcast, pre-empting states from trying to protect consumers. Ironic, given that these same folks often defend awful protectionist state laws as a matter of "states rights." California's net neutrality law has so far had better luck than a similar effort to protect broadband consumers' privacy rights, which was scuttled after Google worked in concert with large ISPs like Verizon and Comcast to falsely suggest the proposed law would California's net neutrality law has so far had better luck than a similar effort to protect broadband consumers' privacy rights, which was scuttled after Google worked in concert with large ISPs like Verizon and Comcast to falsely suggest the proposed law would encourage extremists and somehow inundate consumers with unwanted popups







News Jump California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 7 comments



battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 10 recommendations battleop Member If this is how it's worded it's an epic failure.... "California's bill would prohibit ISPs from "blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices," except in instances of "reasonable network management.""



Blocking vs. Slowing. Only the NN Boogie Man thinks that ISPs will BLOCK content. This would do nothing to stop fast lanes or any kind of prioritization as long as it's not blocked.

Anon64c57

@rr.com 4 recommendations Anon64c57 Anon For the Lazy 1776. It shall be unlawful for an Internet service provider that provides broadband Internet access service to engage in any of the following activities:



(a) Blocking lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management practices.

(b) Impairing or degrading lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a nonharmful device, subject to reasonable network management practices.

(c) Engaging in paid prioritization, or providing preferential treatment of some Internet traffic to any Internet customer.

(d) Unreasonably interfering with, or unreasonably disadvantaging, either a customerâs ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of the customerâs choice, or an edge providerâs ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to a customer.

(e) Engaging in deceptive or misleading marketing practices that misrepresent the treatment of Internet traffic or content to its customers.

(f) Advertising, offering for sale, or selling broadband Internet access service without prominently disclosing with specificity all aspects of the service advertised, offered for sale, or sold.