AT&T Successfully Derails California's Tough New Net Neutrality Law

from the AT&T-wins-again dept

This truly is, as they say, why we can’t have nice things.

In the wake of the FCC’s ham-fisted net neutrality repeal, more than half the states in the country are now exploring their own, state-level net neutrality protections. California’s proposal, Senator Scott Weiner’s SB 822, was seen as particularly promising in that it went even farther on some important issues than the 2015 FCC rules it was intended to replace. The EFF went so far as to call California’s proposal the “gold standard” for state-level net neutrality laws, noting it did a better job policing many of the problem areas where modern anti-competitive behavior occurs, such as zero rating or interconnection.

You probably saw that AT&T just got done spending $86 billion to acquire Time Warner. The company harbors dreams of using its combined dominance over broadband and media content to anti-competitive advantage, something that’s undeniable if you’ve watched AT&T do business for any particular length of time.

Since California’s law would have severely hampered AT&T’s dreams of dominating the streaming video and ad wars to come, the company got right to work derailing California’s legislative push in its usually-underhanded way. The company managed to convince California Assemblyman Miguel Santiago to introduce a series of last-minute secretive Tuesday night amendments that were then voted on without debate during a Wednesday morning hearing:

“The committee, lead by Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, issued amendments to the bill late Tuesday night. Among its recommendations were to permit a controversial internet service provider practice called ?zero rating,? where some websites and apps don?t count against a consumer?s data allotment. Opponents view zero rating as a backdoor way of discriminating against online services that don?t strike free-data deals with broadband and wireless companies.”

In the early days of net neutrality, ISPs like AT&T engaged in more ham-fisted and non-transparent abuse of their broadband monopolies. Like the time AT&T blocked Facetime from working unless users upgraded to more expensive data plans, or the time Comcast throttled all upstream BitTorrent traffic then repeatedly lied about it.

As people got smarter to what ISPs were up to, ISPs began getting more nefariously clever. Like the time ISPs let their peering and interconnection points intentionally congest to kill settlement-free peering and drive up costs for companies like Netflix, slowing down Netflix streams for everyone until the company paid up. Or the way that ISPs now impose arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps, then exclude their own streaming services from them while still penalizing competitors (aka zero rating), something it took years for the last FCC to finally realize was just as anti-competitive.

Fast forward to this week. To convince lawmakers to back off the restrictions on zero rating, AT&T first employed the use of a group dubbed CALinnovates, one of numerous groups AT&T covertly funds to pee in the discourse pool. CALinnovates then circulated an incredibly misleading study among lawmakers falsely claiming that AT&T’s anti-competitive use of usage caps is a huge boon to the state’s minority populations (err, false). AT&T then got state lawmakers to approve of a list of major amendments Tuesday evening that would cripple the most important parts of the bill.

Specifically, AT&T (and likely Comcast and Verizon) convinced Santiago to strip away all rules governing zero rating, all guidance preventing interconnection shenanigans, as well as a rule that would have prevented ISPs from charging other companies “access fees” if they want to reach AT&T customers. Santiago’s office refused any and all contact from reporters (myself included) on Tuesday night, then quickly rushed those amendments through the voting process before they could even be debated. Disgusted by the railroading, Weiner ultimately pulled his bill entirely, arguing that it no longer adequately protected consumers:

“It is no longer a net neutrality bill,? a visibly frustrated Wiener said after the vote. In an unusual move, the committee voted on the bill before Wiener was given a chance to testify. ?I will state for the record … I think it was fundamentally unfair,? he said.

Net neutrality activism groups like Fight for the Future were notably less subtle in their own statements:

“The level of corruption we just witnessed literally makes me sick to my stomach,? said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights group with more than 350,000 members in California. “These California democrats will go down in history as among the worst corporate shills that have ever held elected office.Californians should rise up and demand that at their Assembly members represent them. The actions of this committee today are an attack not just on net neutrality, but on our democracy.”

If you’ve watched AT&T do business, the fact that it was able to scuttle this bill in such a “progressive” state shouldn’t be surprising. AT&T’s political power over many state legislatures is often downright comical, to the point where AT&T lawyers are quite literally the ones writing terrible state law. That’s particularly true in states like Tennessee, though in ignoring the undeniable will of the public on this subject, California has proven itself no better.

All told it has been a great year and a greater few weeks if your name is AT&T. Net neutrality formally died on June 11, the company’s latest megamerger was approved thanks to a comically narrow understanding of the markets by a Federal Judge, and it managed to scuttle state-level net neutrality in California, purportedly a stronghold for net neutrality activism. This on the heels of successful efforts to neuter FCC oversight of historically unpopular and anti-competitive incumbent ISPs. What could possibly go wrong?

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: at&t

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “AT&T Successfully Derails California's Tough New Net Neutrality Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
103 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

ha ha ha ha!

The D’s got betrayed by one of their own! The real shock will be if the voters get rid of him next cycle…

Yea the parties are REAL different aren’t they? I just can’t feel sorry for you guys in the least, it’s almost like you all deserve it for believing their lies so much despite contrary evidence!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: ha ha ha ha!

“Partisan politics will get you nowhere, “

That is the only game you got, constantly lying or misrepresenting things. I am not for any party, I am against all parties because they cause this exact problem right here, you falsely claiming that I am playing partisan politics when I am just in fact pointing out the obvious.

“you still deserve to be get affected by the same consequences while you sit on the sidelines acting all smug.”

Ha ha… so you DO believe in the fact that every nation gets the government it deserves? Besides if anyone is smug here it is definitely you, clueless as you are.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: ha ha ha ha!

“That is the only game you got, constantly lying or misrepresenting things”

Whereas yours appears to be acting like and idiot while pretending he’s actually better than everybody else. Sorry, the stupidity is clear for all to see.

“I am not for any party”

I never said that you were, only that you were supporting partisan politics. I’m sorry if your intellect isn’t sufficient to grasp why.

“Ha ha… so you DO believe in the fact that every nation gets the government it deserves?”

No, I’m saying that you playing the same stupid game gets you the same results, even if you try to pretend that you’re not playing it. The people who aren’t playing, but still get undermined by you twits, do not deserve the results – but you most assuredly do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 ha ha ha ha!

“Whereas yours appears to be acting like and idiot while pretending he’s actually better than everybody else. Sorry, the stupidity is clear for all to see.”

Would you like some cheese with that whine? Why do you even care if I or anyone else for that matter looks, sounds, or believes themselves to be better than you? This is a total victim mentality and it will only keep you held back. Get rid of the notion that anyone is better than you or that you are better than anyone in all areas! If someone does think they are better than you, tell me how you are going to be able to “reason” with them on it? I face that problem with you clowns all damn day long. Accusing me of a better than thou attitude while sporting a sizable one of your own!

The only difference between me and you is not who is superior or not, but who is sporting a victim mentality or not!

“No, I’m saying that you playing the same stupid game gets you the same results, even if you try to pretend that you’re not playing it.”

I pretend nothing, everything I say is towards a goal. Here they are for transparency.

#1. The fact that “feels” are more important than truth or facts here… leading to posts just like yours bitching about how things are being said rather than the truth of them.
#2. The hypocrisy is thick as soup around here as well… When Trump fucks up… its all doom, gloom, and high shrilled outrage, but when Obama did many of the same things… well where was the outrage then?
#3. The constant reminder that you all work against yourselves constantly by advocating the destruction of your own liberty to seek refuge in the protection of an all powerful government that can set any regulation, and murder anyone, while simultaneously bitching about getting what you asked for!

Political Parties are every bit as crap as Racism. We have figured out that we need to fight racism, but you have not figured out that you need to FIGHT political parties, groups, or as the French put it… fraternity!

Stop grouping yourselves up and shitting on other groups and then whining when they shit back! You only become a hypocrite for it!

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 ha ha ha ha!

“Why do you even care if I or anyone else for that matter looks, sounds, or believes themselves to be better than you?”

Because it’s funny to see someone pretending to be so superior while being utterly wrong at the same time.

I seem to have hit a nerve given that this short comment has made to write paragraphs in response, but I’m just laughing at the fool, as usual.

“posts just like yours bitching about how things are being said rather than the truth of them”

There is never any substance to address. Again, I’m not bithcing, I’m mocking.

“When Trump fucks up… its all doom, gloom, and high shrilled outrage, but when Obama did many of the same things… well where was the outrage then?”

There is a search history, and it will reveal many negative articles about Obama. But, at least he appeared sane and competent while doing the bad things.

“The constant reminder that you all work against yourselves constantly by advocating the destruction of your own liberty to seek refuge in the protection of an all powerful government that can set any regulation”

You’re making random shit up in your head again. But, yet again, you offer no solution except to remove the thin layer of protection that exists.

“Stop grouping yourselves up”

Grouping who up? I’m not even an American, you drooling moron. I have no part of this fight except to mock your utter stupidity and self-delusion.

Although it should be noted that all of the countries who have avoided the things you complain about also have political parties.

“as the French put it”

including the French.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 ha ha ha ha!

“Because it’s funny to see someone pretending to be so superior while being utterly wrong at the same time.”

Its all in your little pea brain is all I am trying to tell you. You are so hyper focused on your own inadequacies that you try to steer the conversation in a play to shift focus on me having a superiority complex.

I just have a being right often complex and you cry babies can only whine about it. It does not make me superior… just less gullible than you.

Well, I can’t stop you from dreaming up wild BS though… good luck with all that!

Chip says:

Re: Re: Re:4 ha ha ha ha!

Stupid!

You are all So “stupid”!

Stupid!

You are not Smart. Smart like “Me”. I am Smart, and you “can” Tell that I am “smart” BECAUSE I talk About ho “Smart” I am, and how Stupid You “are”, which is how “smart” people Talk!@

So you ADMIT that EVERY nation ETS the paint Chips it Deserves!

STupid! Stupid! Why are you all such Stupid “sycophantic” Idiots!

Why can’t you be “Smart” and embrace my Obvious “Smartness”!

Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: ha ha ha ha! -- "PaulT" proves himself INSIDE the box.

Partisan politics will get you nowhere, even as you pretend to be above it.

If you were above it, you wouldn’t be visibly for a "party system": that’s just guaranteeing the turf is divided up with no choice not having equal drawback so that We The People can’t win.

If you’re not actually trying to do something about it, you still deserve to be get affected by the same consequences while you sit on the sidelines acting all smug.

YOU are a British serf. Why are you HERE every day trying to affect US politics, instead of the rules you actually live under?


By the way, "PaulT", with your 14,581 comments now, if each one took only 3 minutes including to read, means that you’ve spent literally around 8 full months of your life commenting here! That’s 2 full years of eight hour days! — Don’t you think that time could be better spent than on this tiny little ignored site? — But perhaps you are rewarded, actually paid to comment here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: ha ha ha ha! -- "PaulT" proves himself INSIDE the box.

Yup. While I was writing that, "PaulT" explicitly states that he’s just wasting time here!

I’m not even an American, you drooling moron. I have no part of this fight except to mock your utter stupidity and self-delusion.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 ha ha ha ha!

PaulT we already know you are here to troll, I only respond to you because others might be able to learn a lesson from it.

I have never seen any indication that PaulT is here to troll. He tends to add insightful, thoughtful commentary.

You, on the other hand, tend to throw poorly informed bombs, based on high school-level understanding of economics and politics. And then run like crazy the second someone calls you on it. Like a troll.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 ha ha ha ha!

“Like a troll.”

Poor Mike, feeling bad because your little groupies can’t form intelligent responses? All they do is call me names and run their mouths.

If they shit talk you say nothing, if other not on your side talks shit you get involved.

You are nothing but a hypocrite, it’s pretty sad Mike. I had hope for you when you changed your mind on the Redskins issue but apparently you are only capable of so much critical thought.

Maybe next year eh? till then just keep batting for the team you say you are not no.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: ha ha ha ha!

“If you were above it, you wouldn’t be visibly for a “party system””

Again, I’m not even American you dimwit, so I’m not “for” anything. It’s just notable that the rest of the civilised world has political parties, and they don’t have your problems. But, if you get all smug because one “team” lost something, then you’re playing partisan politics.

“YOU are a British serf.”

…who seems to enjoy better service and rights than Americans do a lot of the time. But, people like you are here constantly demanding that more of them be taken away from you.

“Why are you HERE every day trying to affect US politics, instead of the rules you actually live under?”

Because a) American politics affect the globe whether we like it or not, b) this site covers a lot more than US politics and c) I am rather involved in Spanish politics as well, but get involve more in depth in other forums where I can make a difference. With US politics, I only have the option of commenting from afar while I watch you make these mistakes.

“By the way, “PaulT”, with your 14,581 comments now”

I wonder how many more your tiny obsessed mind has crapped out. Alas, you’re not honest enough to provide us with a method of tracking them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 ha ha ha ha!

“Again, I’m not even American you dimwit, so I’m not “for” anything.”

PaulT, you are clearly left in context of the American political system and clearly would be a Democrat if you were here as you pretty much spout the same nonsense they do. Sure what is considered left/right thisparty/thatparty is different per nation, but for expedience on our side we are going to label you as close to what we think fits you. You are doing the same thing, so shut your hypocritical self-righteous pie-hole about it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 ha ha ha ha!

“you are clearly left in context of the American political system and clearly would be a Democrat if you were here”

In global terms, the Democrats are a centre-right party, not too far off from the British Conservative party, who I tend to despise. Hell, the party picked Clinton over Sanders, largely because he supported moderate left-wing ideals that wouldn’t raise an eyebrow in most other countries. I would certainly not be a supporter of theirs, except if you frame it in some kind of moronic binary situation between them and Trump.

So, even in attacking your imagined version of me, you fail. Think of how badly you’d fail if you addressed the real one!

Wendy Cockcroft (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 ha ha ha ha!

What PaulT says. All the frantic hollering about “the left” reminds me of the story of the boy who cried wolf.

People who call you “leftist” are generally trying to shut you up or shame you into supporting an alt-right position.

The Democrats are no more left wing as a party than I am as a person. They’re neocon-flavoured centre-right.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: ha ha ha ha!

The question is… how are you so stupid to actually think they really are that different? True they both say many different things, but when the rubber meets the road both pretty much result to the same thing… being paid off and NOT giving the loser citizens seeking salvation from a dirty politician what they worshiped them for.

When you have gained at least some measure of wisdom you will finally understand what I say, but until then… my words will be lost on you!

In many ways you can call me stupid, because I am clearly ignoring a few cardinal rules by coming here… namely casting pearls of wisdom before swine, swine will always turn on you for it. I fully expect to pay my pound of flesh for this eventually if they find who I am because they are really just that petty and stupid, but I do hope that at least 1 person will gain wisdom and finally understand. Looks like that will not be you today!

David says:

Re: Re:

I hope Californians are taking note and this specific D doesn’t make it back to the job next elections.

Corrupt politicians are the zero-day vulnerabilities of representative democracies. If the prize is right, burning them may be worth it. It’s not like the next crook isn’t already being curated for office.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

great, another loser that knows nothing.

We are not a democracy of any kind, not even a representative one.

Case in point… Hillary still had the majority vote and still lost to Trump because “not a representative democracy”. There are loads of checks in place in the American “Constitutional Republic” to totally fucking destroy a vote for something by popular vote.

A governor or president, just 1 single fucking person can veto a law their legislatures put in, requiring a “super majority” in most cases to overcome.
A court, often just 1 single fucking person or a small few can overturn a law legislatures put in and signed by government or voted on by popular vote like Cali Prop 8.
Your vote for your elected representative is not democratic either… why in the fuck to you think we have to constantly hear about gerrymandering so people can stack the election in their favor because… NOT A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY!

America is not only NON democracy, we have tons of rules and laws in place to PREVENT IT!

This is why you clowns are stupid, you literally don’t even understand what you are talking about! You just parrot & regurgitate “buzzwords” that you think you know in a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect!

jamie (profile) says:

Let’s make Miguel famous. I’d love every mention of ATT, connectivity in California, and Comcast billing to prominently feature his smiling face. Replace the Death Star with Monopoly Miguel.

I wonder how hard it would be to print novelty checks with his face on them that people could pay their bills with. That’s a two-fer – they hate processing paper checks.

David says:

Re: Uh, why should it not be bribery?

Of course it is bribery. The whole U.S. political system is running on bribery, and it’s one of the few political systems in the world where it’s perfectly legal rather than some “nudge nudge wink wink” attitude.

I think in some TV interview some moderator said something like this to Obama: “I am not complaining that it appears you broke any laws, Mr President, I am complaining that it appears you didn’t need to.”

That’s a similar puzzlement as I have over the completely legal completely corrupt U.S. political system.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Uh, why should it not be bribery?

A better idea, campaign funds can only come from the candidates pockets, or from donations from people in the area they intend to represent. If funding comes from the taxpayers, it will become a source of income from political wannabes, as they will be working on the next campaign between elections, and so need the government to support them.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Uh, why should it not be bribery?

A better idea, campaign funds can only come from the candidates pockets, or from donations from people in the area they intend to represent. If funding comes from the taxpayers, it will become a source of income from political wannabes, as they will be working on the next campaign between elections, and so need the government to support them.

That means that rich people will be the only candidates and thus only rich people will get represented. Rich people usually did not become rich by accident, so they will seek to recover their campaign expenses by corruption.

In Germany, political parties receive campaign compensation according to the percentage of votes they make (there is a cutoff percentage an order of magnitude below the minimum percentage required to actually get parliamentary representation: this isn’t first-to-finish). That means that the winning politicians usually don’t have a strong incentive to recover costs because they tend to be already solidly accounted for, and it isn’t a winning proposition for parties that represent so few people that they never had a chance to make it into parliament.

There are also stronger laws about public servants or parties accepting money from third parties.

Money still plays an important role but we aren’t talking about the same kind of breathtaking systemic corruption as the U.S. has embraced as a valid part of the political process.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Uh, why should it not be bribery?

“That means that rich people will be the only candidates and thus only rich people will get represented.”

Or their stooges…

You can’t get money out of politics no matter what you do. They have the time to trick the ignorant voters into believing nearly anything.

Instead just make the process transparent as possible with nothing other than jail for anyone hiding anything. The will solve the problems that can possibly be solved.

Anonymous Coward says:

You assert and put up links that don't prove your assertions.

As usual, looking into "Comcast throttled all upstream BitTorrent traffic then repeatedly lied about it", finds that was done because you pirates were the heaviest users on the fairly limited networks of 2008, and that the throttling was indeed "reasonable" network management. — Key point is you pirates didn’t "win", the throttling went on with slightly different rationale:

Still, Comcast will continue to throttle heavy users, who actually use the bandwidth that was promised to them in their contracts. It is to be expected that Comcast and other ISPs will have to step away from the all-you-can-eat plans they have been offering for years, now that people actually start to use bandwidth they signed up for.

https://torrentfreak.com/comcast-bittorrent-net-neutrality-080327/

No network is rated for continuous full use by every device, let alone with number of devices increasing.

Now, I don’t expect you to stop asserting that ISPs do have unlimited bandwidth and are simply cheating customers. — You’ve been asserting that for at least ten years! — The fun here is your never-ending Little Lies.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: You assert and put up links that don't prove your assertions.

Huh, the smug delusional crowd are out in force today.

“Still, Comcast will continue to throttle heavy users, who actually use the bandwidth that was promised to them in their contracts”

So, whereas before they would throttle people who used torrents heavily (not inherently infringing with many legal uses, but let’s roll with this), now they’re going after people who use their networks for perfectly legal means? – and you think this is actually a better situation? That instead of people who you presume just infringe content from these same corporations, they’ll just now be going after people who legally download and stream in ways that weren’t available a decade ago? Wow.

“Now, I don’t expect you to stop asserting that ISPs do have unlimited bandwidth”

I don’t expect him to start, but reading comprehension has never been your forte.

“No network is rated for continuous full use by every device:”

Nobody’s ever said it is – only that there’s ways to manage it that don’t include throttling competitors or fining people who use your “unlimited” service too much.

“You’ve been asserting that for at least ten years!”

Citation needed. I’ve seen him state that the ISPs need to invest in infrastructure and stop trying to profit from heavy users by using them as an excuse for the increasing woeful speeds you have access to compared to other countries. That proper management and investment would make caps and the like unnecessary (for the record, I currently have a 300 meg fibre connection with no bandwidth cap for less than some Americans seem to pay for a restricted slow DSL connection). But, as usual, never what you have made up.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: You assert and put up links that don't prove your assertions.

and that the throttling was indeed "reasonable" network management.

Fixed throttling is never reasonable network management, as it throttles a connection regardless of the actual network congestion. Dynamic management of network use on the other hand is acceptable when it is needed because of congestion, so long as note is taken of where it becomes frequent, and more capacity is planned for and installed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: You assert and put up links that don't prove your assertions.

Dynamic management of network use on the other hand is acceptable when it is needed because of congestion

…as long as it’s neutral. They can limit everyone to 80% of their paid speed, if oversubscription means that’s as much bandwidth as they can provide at this instant. BitTorrent shouldn’t be singled out. (Nor should VoIP—if you can’t even provide 100 kbit/s there’s too much oversubscription.)

ShadowNinja (profile) says:

ALinnovates then circulated an incredibly misleading study among lawmakers falsely claiming that AT&T’s anti-competitive use of usage caps is a huge boon to the state’s minority populations (err, false)

Why would anyone ever fall for a claim this freaking stupid? Seriously.

Usage caps don’t discriminate based on race.

Also the image that racial minorities are all heavily concentrated in one area like big cities is flat out wrong, and has been so for decades. Plus even if it weren’t, urban areas are the ones getting better connections, it’s rural areas that are suffering the most (which overwhelmingly have more white populations).

And even if data caps did actually help expand ISP coverage (it doesn’t) it would benefit people of all races, not just minority populations. Unless you want to claim everyone in the nation is a part of the minority population because no one race & ethnicity combination is a majority.

Anonymous Coward says:

what ya gonna do ? Revolt ? Ha Ha Ha

Bunch a pantie whiners .
What do think would happen in your gun free anti freedom love in sunshine state ?
That the state would look after you ?
So much for that shit show .
You sold your balls so long ago down the river, So just shut the fuck up and whine like the little bitches you are.
Get your 2nd amendment rights back and grow some spine .
Or just stay asleep in your little fantasy world where one one listens to you anymore .

Gary (profile) says:

Re: what ya gonna do ? Troll?

Off topic, just here to cry about the liberal conspiracy taking your guns away? Time to move to a tropical island, set up your perfect Libertarian state and tell the rest of us how it works out.
We’re waiting, what’s stopping you?

Sorry, I forgot you can’t even make your own website – moving out of your basement is obviously too hard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Interesting that in a thread about AT&T killing NN in CA, we appear to have two ACs tag-teaming an effort to erode faith in the democratic system as a whole, as well as the regular supporters and detractors.

Also interesting that the ACs doing that in THIS thread make their goals blatantly obvious to the regular readers here.

Something else I find interesting is that even though Mike’s from CA, a large portion of the readership here is international, and is interested in this because of its effects on the world at large.

Kind of crazy that state legislation in CA can affect how US companies do things nationally, which in turn affects how international organizations decide to set policy.

This is the real power that California exerts on the world. It not only affects the Internet, but also the automotive industry, movies and music, to name a few more areas.

So to see the system that in general works really well subverted like this… it should be more worrying than the external actors who jump in and say “see! the whole way you run things is a joke!”

davehat (profile) says:

> In a bipartisan 8-0 vote, the state Assembly Communications and Conveyance Committee forced amendments into SB822, stripping the Wiener bill of provisions that would have given the state the strongest prohibitions against discriminatory treatment of internet traffic in the country.

I’m sorry but isn’t “This what democracy looks like”, by voting? With 8 to 0 outcome, the legislators made clear their intent, and they achieved 100% Consensus of both the Republican and Democrat committee members (which never happens).

ECA (profile) says:

FIRE THE BASTARD(S)

I wonder how much this cost AT&T..
Its amazing that for all the Corps paying off politics, that WE CANT FIND THE MONEY and show they are corrupt..

Is there a Difference between Repub’s and Demo’s

The site just posted how they are trying to Run over Constitutional rules for a Minor..
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180618/15503440059/court-says-probation-violations-teen-dont-justify-on-demand-warrantless-searches-his-electronics.shtml

Are things as bad in other countries or are WE the trial location for all this BS??

Thad (user link) says:

Re: Re: FIRE THE BASTARD(S)

Scott Wiener is a Democrat; he wrote the NN bill, and he’s been outspoken in criticizing the amendments that have gutted it.

Seven Democrats (Miguel Santiago, Sabrina Cervantes, Eduardo Garcia, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Evan Low, Sharon Quirk-Silva, and Freddie Rodriguez), plus one Republican (Brian Maienschein), are responsible for gutting the bill. By all means, vote them out of office.

But it’s not really accurate to say both parties are the same on NN. While a majority of ordinary Americans support NN, regardless of political affiliation, it’s clear that in Washington, it’s become a partisan issue, with Democrats on the pro-NN side and Republicans on the anti-NN side.

The California Senate passed the NN bill. A committee on the State Assembly amended it to the point of toothlessness. Most people on that committee are Democrats, but that’s not the same thing as saying they’re representative of Democrats in general.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Wow.

Anonymous Coward It’s hard to imagine you’re real, considering how much you hate a state of 40 million residents. You’re kinda like a like a caricature villain from an 80s action movie that Willhelm Screams after Arnold Schwarzenegger throws him off a cliff-side skyscraper.

Wait, you’re Lex Luthor!

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Democrats

Party democrats are still corporatists (by necessity in the current political climate). This has been established time and again that the cost of campaigning is such that it’s impossible to get elected without numerous obligations to monied interests.

That’s to say Democrats are much like Republicans, only slightly less conservative and throws a bone to the civil-rights groups once in a while.

We know this, but it’s not going to change without either a violent revolution or a plausible threat of one. We can’t even get rid of the Electoral College (which has proven in 2016 that it entirely fails to do what it promised), so the chances of getting rid of first-past-the-post elections is infinitesimal.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Democrats

This is as bad as persons raising a hand and Stating..
“WE CHRISTIANS…”
And I have to ask them, WHICH Christians?? there are over 40 groups of you, and you dont look like a Quaker to me..

Love how they word WHAT there groups stand for…but they NEVER do.. reps and demo’s are really getting annoying.
Liberal??
Conservative??

I used to know what those 2 words meant..WE USED to know how those 2 types of groups would act.. NOW days, Im scared to even ASK..

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 In my case I was referring to democrats who get elected.

Yes, people who vote for Democrat candidates are widely varied and each has his or her own reasons why.

But when it comes to the candidates who get elected, I’m pretty sure that the campaigns for every position requires a substantial war-chest, which forces them to become indebted to monied patrons.

If you disagree, feel free to cite counterexamples (there are a few when we’re talking committee members in small towns, but often then candidates are unaffiliated or identify with third parties.)

So yes, I dare say Democrats are corporatist by necessity, even when their constituents are not.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Yeah, it’s bad enough that it’s trivial to buy politicians, but even crazier is how cheap so many of them are to buy.

You’d think integrity and honesty would require at least a high five, if not six figure ‘donation’/bribe to throw under the bus, yet as politicians like him show for some people all it takes is what amounts to loose change.

Myriam Pierre says:

Response to this

I Do not live in CA.I love here in NY.I feel like most people feel now.It is a shame that politicians know that this is what they have resorted to and such cowards will not admit it.Also this is the blast thing anyone wants to hear but like it or not that religion is right,the
Jehovah’s Witnesses.This is to be expected in these times we live in.Corruption and the love of money they receive from corporations and these evil humans who bribe them does and w I’ll continue to occur until the Apocalypse gets here.Many people these days have no more faith in government and with what just happened it really adds to that sentiment.

John says:

Independence

This will only change when people vote in enough independent politicians where they hold the balance of power. But those independents are also the types who promise never to do a deal. i.e. they vote on this bill as it stands and not in exchange for another bill getting through. A list of all bills and how they votes would then be publicly available At least we can then hold them to account at the next election. There would be no excuses of, “Oh I let that bill pass so I could get this very important bill through”.

There is a little bit of this in Australia’s senate though it seems to have faded a year after these senators were elected.

The other thing that would be nice is a politician should be not be able to vote in parliament or in a committee on any matter the would benefit that politicians corporate donors. A look through rule would apply to donors to ensure sham interest groups funded by companies would also be caught. Failure to comply would result in a fine 100 times the donation received the politician. Second failure would be jail time and dismissal from parliament.

Neither are going to happen as there are too many interest groups. There are too many voters with their heads in the send who believe the campaign ads and not the actions of their politicians no matter which party.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Santiago's post amendment comments

Let’s save everyone the trouble of reading the dribble of the Dismiss, Deny, Obfuscate Memo.

Summary of the summary of the summary.

I needed a proposed bill that would never result in a legal challenge from AT&T. This hollow farce is totally AT&T approved. See how good me make lawz!

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Santiago's post amendment comments

So basically he’s arguing that proper lawmaking should focus not on what is good for those he is supposed to represent and serve, but merely on what is considered acceptable by large companies who might sue the state, giving them for all intents and purposes veto power over any proposed laws.

A sellout and spineless, quite the combo there.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
More arrow