California's net neutrality proposal becomes law

>y'know the rural californians who are tired of being ruled over by city degenerates
literally me except smaller city instead of rural

doesn't it suck financially supporting a morally and financially bankrupt government all because of mu population density

California is using its rights as a state to enforce net neutrality inside its borders. "States' rights" is something Republicans have fought for since forever, but now when a blue state exercises those rights they cry foul.

nah man, they're gonna try and universally enforce it like with what the eu is doing. in point of fact if left alone, it'll within five years drive away all tech companies and deprive it's citizens of internet service and by extension basic cell service. I'd say let them shoot themselves in the foot if it weren't for the fact that there are so many people in that boat that don't want to be there but don't have the means to jump ship

Aaaand it becomes a shithole a bit more.

They're a state. They're enforcing it inside their borders, as is their right.

NN is inherently good for tech companies you mongoloid. It's bad for ISPs because they can't artificially limit traffic & speed and proceed to charge you to remove said limits. Large ISPs are huge jews anyways, so fuck them.
People who say NN negatively impacts tech companies either
>don't work in tech
>don't know what NN is
or
>are a paid shill for (((ISPs)))
Also, nice digits.

Attached: 1537689745871m.jpg (1024x1000, 96K)

Have you read the law?

>get ready for dropped calls

nah mate, it's the same thing as canada trying to enforce it's broadcast standards on u.s. tv stations whose broadcast range reaches into canada

Tech companies want net neutrality. It's the ISP's who don't

bullshit, deregulation has always benefited the everyman

Will be interesting to compare internet in California to the other 49 states in 10 years time.

But an ISP operating in another state does not "leak" into California. They can choose to operate in California, but if they do they'll have to follow California's laws. But only in California. They can throttle and prioritize all they want for customers in other states.

if by "everyman" you mean the upper-middle class and above, then yes, absolutely.

t.leftist tranny shill from bay area

Ah yes, the Enron crisis benefitted us so much. Don't know what I would have done without rolling blackouts.

You can't even explain what NN is you fucking retard. ISP's won't charge customers, they will charge content providers. Netflix will have to pay for the higher bandwidth usage via higher subscription costs. Fuck you are stupid. Grow up you literal retard

>Tech companies want net neutrality. It's the ISP's who don't

And for good reason: abolishing net neutrality is just ISP's way to grab part of the tech company's huge profits for themselves.

In the late 90's they all thought they would become the richest companies in the world.
They feel cheated.

>ISPs wont charge customers
>they will charge content providers
who do you think is going to front the cost of this you retarded nigger
>basic market practices are unironically this hard for brainlet anti-NN advocates

Attached: 1538351429198_1.jpg (1294x478, 69K)

No. ISPs will charge Netflix for bandwidth used by their customers. Then they will charge the customers too. Think back, has your ISP bill every gone down? Why should we believe it will go down now?

It also means they don't have as much incentive to upgrade speeds for anyone buy paying sites, leading to two tiers of websites, the premium ones thay paid, and the borderline unusable ones that did not.

not him but you have to read his post better

wow commiefornia is fucked!

If I lived there I would get out ASAP

Comcast is the nigger of the corporate world. They're not going to pass their savings on to me. Netflix will do what any company would do and pass their increased costs on to me. How is this supposed to benefit the consumer again?

It's not about lowering costs and it never has been. And you're a dumb fucking nigger if you think ISPs can charge much more than their charging now ($100-350 per month depending on service). Hell they might want to charge more, but the market wont allow it. By charging Netflix et. al. for the bandwidth they're using they prevent costs from rising and don't have to pass on as much cost to consumers. Charging bandwidth hogs is not about lowering the cost it's about preventing costs from rising too high.

>it'll within five years drive away all tech companies

Who do you think lobbied for NN?

oops. not gonna lie I stopped reading after the first retarded sentence.
I'd ask him this though - when Comcast was trying to charge Netflix for bandwidth usage a few years back, why did they not target other tech companies that can be mathematically proven based on usage stats to consume more bandwidth than Netflix? It's pretty obvious that Comcast originally started this as a bully practice, and not having anything to actually do with bandwidth usage.

Billionaires who want to keep their tech monopolies afloat until the inevitable crash.

>Charging bandwidth hogs

It's customers who "hog" bandwidth, not content providers.
Netflix doesn't push video, people at home pull them.

>keep their tech monopolies afloat

....by leveling the playing field.

>the market won't allow it
weird, because the market has allowed large ISPs to form regional monopolies and inflate service charges to their current retarded prices. when you don't have a choice between who provides you a basic utility, there isn't a market.

Attached: 1538256488941.jpg (320x320, 8K)

So if Coca Cola moves their bottling plant to your town and taxes the cities water infrastructure, you shouldn't worry too much about it since it's not Coke consuming the water it's their customers, right?

>t. software developer who understands basic economics
ftfy

Correct.

Why should it matter if citizens drink tap water or Cola made with tap water?

The problem comes when only Netflix and other sites that paid can use the bandwidth added by the upgraded infrastructure. This leaves other sites with slower outdated connections to their users, and makes it harder than it already is to start a viable alternative video streaming site.

He described San Francisco.

Right winger here...good for them. We don't care. Our problem is not Cali using it's state rights, that's great. Our problem is the Cali people suffer under other more pressing matters that Cali refuses to deal with.

it's fucking hilarious all the posts talking about economics, policies, and state's rights ITT don't even know that the main reason why the DOJ is suing is due to the fact that this is an inter-state commerce issue, and regulating inter-state commerce is one of the primary responsibilities of the US government
California is attempting to dictate to the infrastructure and providers, whom are headquartered outside of California, how their business is to be run. This is why the DOJ has stepped in

Attached: bustas_straaaaaaaaaaight_bustas.jpg (625x437, 72K)

Califolk here. This tbdesu. California needs to start giving a shit about its citizens instead of trying to ban every gun under the sun and enforcing "sanctuary cities"

Current regulations mean ISP's can setup a monopoly, and don't face consequences for jawing your internet.

So net neutrality is a regulation meant to zero out the negatives of another regulation.

Too true. If we allowed dangerous amounts of cable on every telephone pole like in the third world, the ISPs would have fierce competition and be forced to lower their prices. Unfortunately, local governments are corrupt and accept money from big ISPs and in return make these laws about who can put stuff on the telephone poles.

This bill was a joke and the fines are nowhere near damaging to any ISP willing to violate

There's got to be something between having just one option and having dangerously much wire on poles.

BASED

On the one hand, I think California is in the wrong for regulating something which is outside its powers to do so since "the Internet" has been considered as an avenue of interstate commerce. On the other hand, I want to NOT have my shit throttled and want to see how California argues this one.

but the whole problem with nn is what cali will undoubtedly repeat by too narrowly defining what an isp is and who can be an isp. of course you have to regulate existing entities when you make it damn near impossible for new entities to be created

WTF I love Cali now

That’s because California is cancer.

Based state of cancer

Nooooo

So the bandaid is back on top of the gaping wound i see.

>implying this is unique in the US

The internet is international. By your logic the federal government has no right to regulate it either.

I didnt vote for this shit. What the fuck why are they always just making new shit without any input from citizens?

By my, and the SCOTUS's, logic, the fed can regulate internet because parts of it occurs within its jurisdiction.

So... How is this different from California regulating parts of the internet that occur within its jurisdiction?

the doctrine of preemption. If the FG preempts a field either explicitly or by implication, states couldn't touch said field. If it's related to interstate commerce, then FG has dibs on it unless the FG allows state participation in regulation. However interstate commerce can have local aspects which the court sometimes allow state governments to touch.

Not a lawyer, but isn't what the federal government did removing a regulation and not introducing one that overrides what states say?

It should. From reading the article and only the article, I want to see how California argues this one, though from what I can recall (pass-the-bar-tier knowledge) things lean heavily in favor of the Federal Government in this case. I want to say CA has a shot, because I'd like to have my shit not throttled.

Violates US Constitution, so not law.

>California does something right
Nice

chink moot delete Jow Forums

We fight for state's rights. To own slaves.

well now you know how the South felt in 1864

Why does this keep coming up? Both democrats and republicans like states rights, they just only like when policies they want can only by implemented statewide.

How much are you being paid to post this?

Bump

It's funny when democrat use republican arguments, and are getting triggered that republicans are now playing by democrat rules of hypocrisy.

What pressing matters?

What pressing matters?
Not exactly new, believe it or now. California has a lot of flaws, but it's done some good shit too.

Not exactly new, believe it or now. California has a lot of flaws, but it's done some good shit too.
Could you try that again, in English this time?

Have you actually left the house in the past 5 years?

Kinda like it's funny how the left wants all data to be treated equally, but not all speech. Also, you moron yankees were the ones that went on the totalitarianism binge back in the 1860s and settled the issue, once and for all regarding states rights.

Attached: fuck you.jpg (1918x1038, 188K)

Not him, but yes, the authoritarian left does suck. Do remember that there exists the libertarian left, as well, like the ACLU.

Are there are still people on this board who unironically believe FCC net neutrality was a good thing? I thought all the Netflix shills left.

>muh paid shills
Google is bigger than the two largest ISPs combined. If anyone is a corporate shill, it's the NN fags.

I'm so fucking glad that the majority of big US companies host servers in Los Angeles and Silicon Valley hahaha.
I wanna shoot myself through the back of the head. California is so fucking stupid these days.
>hurr durr ban plastic straws
>hurr durr there must be at least one woman on any board for a company
>hurr durr net neutrality
Fucking liberal California. What even is the fucking point of net neutrality. I don't understand it. Is it supposed to increase revenue for ISPs so the government can then charge ISPs higher income tax or something?
I smell a money scheme.

How do we know they didn't? It's a standard to charge for bandwidth when you constantly use multiple TB. It's that Netflix are niggers that want cheap internet.

So California decides to exacerbate the ever-increasing regulatory patchwork of interstate commerce with absolutely ZERO thought given to the negative consequences? Color me surprised.

I sometimes wonder how the fuck you faggots expect to attract businesses to your (literal) shitpile of state if you can't keep regulatory frameworks consistent across state lines. I wouldn't be surprised if ISPs start jacking up prices in California just to spite this retarded bill. You fags (and fag enablers) deserve it for ruining Austin.

Attached: joomba.gif (314x240, 3.68M)

Netflix got butthurt that they couldn't shove hundreds of petabytes worth of HD streams the pipes every night without being charged additional fees by ISPs. That's the entire reason why net neutrality is popular. We know this because all the NPCs who shill for net neutrality today never even heard of the term 5 years ago.

What would happen if a state declared that it was going to ban abortion because states rights?

That already happened though.

Figures silicon valley wants a clause.

It's a bit tricky. Technically it could fall under the commerce clause.

kys Jow Forumslack

I've never been on Jow Forums. I never said anything about jews. I never called California 'a bunch of libtard niggers' or whatever Jow Forums would've called them.
California is undeniably liberal now and net neutrality is probably a money scheme.
Go back.

the coasts should secede, everyone would be better off

They rely on inertia and having three of the five major Western American Seaboard Ports.

>It's funny when democrat use republican arguments
Hey guys states' rights is now a partisan thing. Please enlighten us, which side is the cuckold side?

the supreme court will rule it unconstitutional

I said that about Obamacare and then they didn't.