Broadband Industry Sues California Over Net Neutrality Law

AlphaAtlas

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
Today, four lobbying groups that represent most of the US broadband industry sued California over their new net neutrality law. Huge conglomerates like Comcast and AT&T, telecoms like T-Mobile and Verizon, and small local ISPs aren't fond of the new bill, claiming that it is "impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider (“ISP”) offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders." California's lawyers will be busy, as the federal government already launched their own lawsuit against the law.

Like the DOJ, broadband lobby groups argue that state net neutrality laws are preempted by the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of federal net neutrality rules. The FCC and DOJ claim that California's net neutrality law conflicts with the federal government's deregulatory policy for broadband. California argues that the FCC gave up its authority to regulate broadband and therefore cannot preempt states from regulating the industry. Ultimately, the question of whether the FCC's preemption of state laws is valid will be decided in a different lawsuit pending at the US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit. In that suit, state attorneys general and other litigants sued the FCC in order to reverse the repeal of federal net neutrality rules and the preemption of state laws.
 
This was so nice I had to post it twice.

213er6-jpg.jpg
 
If they can't differentiate between the traffic that stays inside California and leaves it the simple solution is just implement the rules across the country as a whole. If the EU can dictate how all companies and websites use cookies then why can't California dictate how they should handle packets.
 
Its not like the ISP knows your up address from registering your modem or anything.

But wait how do the cronies ID a torrent user again?
 
Lakados said:
If they can't differentiate between the traffic that stays inside California and leaves it the simple solution is just implement the rules across the country as a whole. If the EU can dictate how all companies and websites use cookies then why can't California dictate how they should handle packets.
Click to expand...

The thing is you CAN differentiate. They should know where their lines are and where the switches/routers etc are physically located. They just chose not to.
 
claiming that it is "impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider (“ISP”) offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders.
Click to expand...


Riiiiiight, so when youtube blocks a video that says "Not available in your region" it's because they've done the impossible or impractical to do so.
Definition of impractical - 1. Because I don't wanna 2. It might affect my profits 3. My lawyers say it to win a case.


Of course the solution is easier for them... STOP FUCKING THROTTLING ANY TRAFFIC and all is good.
 
kju1 said:
The thing is you CAN differentiate. They should know where their lines are and where the switches/routers etc are physically located. They just chose not to.
Click to expand...
You or I can, but on a large scale it gets tricky how do you guarantee the data doesn't get relayed out of state before coming back in. I mean what if you sent an email from somebody in California to another user in California can you guarantee that the traffic from that doesn't hit any servers outside the state first and what about DNS queries or uploads to Google Drive or One Drive they both have servers hosted in California but can you guarantee that in the routs they take it doesn't hit a relay out of state. It can be done but at that scale it is a painful process that would need to be actively monitored, much easier to implement the rules across the board than implement them in a single state. Besides if California can do it, why can't Texas or Florida next thing you know you have 49 states each insisting their traffic gets treated differently, it is an ugly can of worms.
 
Lakados said:
You or I can, but on a large scale it gets tricky how do you guarantee the data doesn't get relayed out of state before coming back in. I mean what if you sent an email from somebody in California to another user in California can you guarantee that the traffic from that doesn't hit any servers outside the state first and what about DNS queries or uploads to Google Drive or One Drive they both have servers hosted in California but can you guarantee that in the routs they take it doesn't hit a relay out of state. It can be done but at that scale it is a painful process that would need to be actively monitored, much easier to implement the rules across the board than implement them in a single state. Besides if California can do it, why can't Texas or Florida next thing you know you have 49 states each insisting their traffic gets treated differently, it is an ugly can of worms.
Click to expand...

You can establish preferred routes. I didnt say it was EASY, I said it was technically possible. I dont think it would be all that painful to implement either. If both points of a conversation occur in california it shouldnt matter if it gets routed outside of california.
 
Dear FCC and providers who are suing:
LOL.... good luck with that... you're gonna need it in this case.





sfsuphysics said:
Of course the solution is easier for them... STOP FUCKING THROTTLING ANY TRAFFIC and all is good.
Click to expand...

whoa there buddy.. now youre just being all CRAZY!! we cant have business just making sense here man... my god!
 
Lakados said:
You or I can, but on a large scale it gets tricky how do you guarantee the data doesn't get relayed out of state before coming back in. I mean what if you sent an email from somebody in California to another user in California can you guarantee that the traffic from that doesn't hit any servers outside the state first and what about DNS queries or uploads to Google Drive or One Drive they both have servers hosted in California but can you guarantee that in the routs they take it doesn't hit a relay out of state. It can be done but at that scale it is a painful process that would need to be actively monitored, much easier to implement the rules across the board than implement them in a single state. Besides if California can do it, why can't Texas or Florida next thing you know you have 49 states each insisting their traffic gets treated differently, it is an ugly can of worms.
Click to expand...

yeah, well, maybe they should have thought about how difficult this would have been in the first place before they starting working to get rid of what we had in place to begin with.
 
kju1 said:
You can establish preferred routes. I didnt say it was EASY, I said it was technically possible. I dont think it would be all that painful to implement either. If both points of a conversation occur in california it shouldnt matter if it gets routed outside of california.
Click to expand...
but it does matter, what if they implement a different form of traffic shaping out of state even if both ends of the conversation end in California they are in violation of the law. I work in Canada, and our laws with the data I work with forbid any of it to touch a US based server or host and to do this I have to constantly update DNS access lists and modify routes and it is annoying as hell. So I can feel their pain.
 
harbingerofdoom said:
yeah, well, maybe they should have thought about how difficult this would have been in the first place before they starting working to get rid of what we had in place to begin with.
Click to expand...
Agreed, all traffic should be handled equally just some should be QOA'd slightly higher than others.
 
impossible or impracticable for an Internet service provider ("ISP") offering BIAS to distinguish traffic that moves only within California from traffic that crosses state borders."
Click to expand...
That was the point. It's only cost effective to build for the most restrictive in this sense, hence the bill would bleed to other states and kill any fast-lane/priority business strategies they were cooking up.

I'm going to laugh if the bill survives all of the legal challenges because these same lobby groups are the one that wanted to overturn the FCC version. It'd be karma if they ended up with a stricter bill.
 
Reminds me of this time in high school when two bullies got into a fight. Lets hope they both hurt each other severely.

I am grateful that as rotten as our system is, it's can still pit these two against each other inside of them siding together against us little people.
 
I honestly don't care either way as long as still get decent net services from my home here in CA. But that won't stop me from saying my own turds of an opinion.

This is the way I see how this works: You can tell which traffic is coming from and where it is going to very, very easily. What this is actually boiling down to is a matter of keeping individual customers from knowing how much their ISPs actually gather about them and organizations like the MPAA and other "anti piracy" groups all wanting a better way to legally track you down so they can sue you for "damages", because they already know how much information can be obtained on your butt because they have done it multiple times already but they can't use it in a court room because it was obtained in an illegal manner. The FBI, CIA, Homeland ABCereals, they already have this little back room in all the major hubs in all the major cities where they have direct access to everything this country generates. They just want to be able to use the same tools on a state level is all... because at a state level, all traffic is "treated" the same...

In no way is California's "Net neutrality" or any other kind of legislation regarding the internet for the benefit of the individual. It just sets a legal precedent which can and will be used against you. Mostly against child pornographers... California does not like people who commit sexual crimes. We have these wonderful places where we put you for another 5 to whenever years a judge feels like letting you go after you finish your prison sentence. Because you know its a mental condition...

The real beauty of this all is... they are basically suing a massive portion of their own customer base.

I should also note, California has predatory lawyers, which do nothing but sit at home all day and e-file crap from the comfort of their own couches. California knew the kind of shit that was going to go down the second they did this. It was planned out. I mean its not like the state hasn't been fronting billions and billions of taxpayer dollars over the last 20 years to these companies to improve internet access to no avail... People like Steve Wozniak who live in semi-rural places like Los Gatos, where the average home is in the millions, are pissed they can't get decent quality internet at affordable prices. You don't win against that kind of money. A lot of people hate their ISPs here in Cali, which is mainly ATT and Comcast. Verizon won't say crap because of its contracts with the state. Small local ISPs don't exist here, they only buy from ATT and Comcast, or w/e company was contracted to do the work 20 years ago and resell it. For as many people reside in this state, the internet sucks here.

Me, Thankfully I live close enough to some schools, which I think actually receives the gigabit U-Verse internet ATT claims they sell, but does not offer to individual customers in my town, so my connection is stable and low latency, just the data rate is low sometimes during certain hours. All I know is, if you live here and don't like your service, just call up ATT and bitch at them for about 10 min and you can get 50% off your monthly bill...

Its not like the federal gov didn't let the cat out of the bag when they basically made it ok to hold an entire state hostage for the amount of bandwidth they use...

Okay I think I am done with this turd.
 
Whatever the FCC can do to help out the struggling cable/ISP companies, I'm totally behind. It's best for America.
 
They can differentiate it’s just that this will cost them more money to do so.

They are playing dumb.
 
The problem with ISPs is that each one has a monopoly in its area. Why? Because the money they've funneled to the "resource allocators". You know them as legislators and their staffs.

Break the mandated monopolies.
 
Lakados said:
but it does matter, what if they implement a different form of traffic shaping out of state even if both ends of the conversation end in California they are in violation of the law. I work in Canada, and our laws with the data I work with forbid any of it to touch a US based server or host and to do this I have to constantly update DNS access lists and modify routes and it is annoying as hell. So I can feel their pain.
Click to expand...

I am glad it would cause them pain.
 
hey we spent a fortune to get in position behind the people. Now you want us to not F california.....whats next
 
I'm torn here. I like the idea of Net Neutrality. But I hate the uber helicopter parent government of California, so anything that screws them over, I like. What to do, what to do....
 
captainyarr said:
So in order to enforce California's net neutrality law, all providers would have to treat CA internet traffic differently? Huh.
Click to expand...
No, they would have to treat all CA internet traffic exactly the same way.
 
Tiburon1186 said:
I'm torn here. I like the idea of Net Neutrality. But I hate the uber helicopter parent government of California, so anything that screws them over, I like. What to do, what to do....
Click to expand...
Do like any sane person should and Judge the message, not the messenger.
 
If it gives the current FCC the finger, or it makes ISPs balk, blanch or bitch about it, it's probably a good thing.

I normally loathe California government logic, but on this one, I give it a thumbs up.
 
A lot of confusion in this thread.
The question should be asked, why are all these ISP's and the FCC trying so hard to overturn California's net neutrality laws?
Hint: Money
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top