California Senate defies FCC, approves net neutrality law

Authored by arstechnica.com and submitted by meth0dz
image for California Senate defies FCC, approves net neutrality law

The California State Senate yesterday approved a bill to impose net neutrality restrictions on Internet service providers, challenging the Federal Communications Commission attempt to preempt such rules.

The FCC's repeal of its own net neutrality rules included a provision to preempt state and municipal governments from enforcing similar rules at the local level. But the governors of Montana and New York have signed executive orders to enforce net neutrality, and several states are considering net neutrality legislation. Further Reading FCC will also order states to scrap plans for their own net neutrality laws

The FCC is already being sued by 21 states and the District of Columbia, which are trying to reverse the net neutrality repeal and the preemption of state laws. Attempts to enforce net neutrality rules at the state or local level could end up being challenged in separate lawsuits.

No blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization

California may be the closest to passing such legislation after yesterday's Senate approval of SB-460, a bill proposed by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles).

The bill passed 21-12, with all 21 ayes coming from Democrats. The bill is now being moved to the State Assembly, where Democrats have a 53-25 majority over Republicans. Further Reading Montana to FCC: You can’t stop us from protecting net neutrality

The bill would prohibit home and mobile Internet providers from "Blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices," except in cases of reasonable network management.

Throttling would also be outlawed, along with "paid prioritization, or providing preferential treatment of some Internet traffic to any Internet customer." More generally, the bill prohibits ISPs from interfering with "a customer's ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of the customer's choice, or an edge provider's ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to a customer."

ISPs would be forbidden from using deceptive or misleading marketing practices "that misrepresent the treatment of Internet traffic or content to its customers."

Violations would be punishable under the state's existing consumer protection laws, which allow for injunctions and financial damages. The California bill would also prohibit state agencies from buying Internet service from an ISP "unless that provider certifies, under penalty of perjury, that it will not engage in" the activities banned by the bill.

The Montana and New York executive orders focus exclusively on the purchasing requirements for state agencies instead of imposing requirements directly on ISPs. The California bill is a more direct challenge to the FCC's preemption order because it requires all ISPs to follow net neutrality rules regardless of whether they provide Internet service to state agencies.

bananacatguy on January 31st, 2018 at 02:14 UTC »

Montana did this too, possibly other states. WE WERE FIRST AT SOMETHING GOOD FOR ONCE, YAY

llewkeller on January 30th, 2018 at 20:16 UTC »

I'm not sure it applies in this case, but California has a LOT of influence in what goes on in terms of regulations. For example, California was a leader among states in the regulation of automobile pollution. AFAIK, it was the first state - and certainly the first large state, to outlaw leaded gasoline. For a few years in the 80s, there were "California cars" (with stricter pollution control), and the cars sold in the other states. Being the most populous state, CA has a lot of influence, and the way I read it at the time, the auto industry saw the writing on the wall, and acquiesced to stricter regulations nation-wide. Practically speaking, it was not tenable for the auto industry to keep manufacturing two different smog control systems.

My analogy may be flawed, but I hope a similar effect will be in play for NN.

janethefish on January 30th, 2018 at 17:52 UTC »

This sounds like it actually enforces Net Neutrality. I know at least one other state is refusing to deal with providers who don't do Net Neutrality.