From a legal standpoint, this makes sense. From a political standpoint, the DOJ shouldn’t bother, because then we could watch even more companies leave California, showing us the way Big Government works
California just passed its net neutrality law. The DOJ is already suing
The Department of Justice said it is filing a lawsuit against the state of California over its new net neutrality protections, hours after Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill into law on Sunday.
The California law would be the strictest net neutrality protections in the country, and could serve as a blueprint for other states. Under the law, internet service providers will not be allowed to block or slow specific types of content or applications, or charge apps or companies fees for faster access to customers.
The Department of Justice says the California law is illegal and that the state is “attempting to subvert the Federal Government’s deregulatory approach” to the internet.
“Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce—the federal government does,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy. The Justice Department should not have to spend valuable time and resources to file this suit today, but we have a duty to defend the prerogatives of the federal government and protect our Constitutional order.”
Say goodbye to any fun freebies that are handed out by your wireless phone and cable companies if California is allowed to keep their plan
Loopholes addressed in California’s new law include a prohibition on “zero rating,” which allows carriers to exempt content from certain companies (like their own streaming services) from counting against a customer’s data usage. The prohibition would not apply if a carrier wanted to exempt an entire category of content, like all streaming services. It also bans interconnection fees, which are charges a company pays when its data enters the internet provider’s network.
The FCC says those rules will hurt consumers.
“The law prohibits many free-data plans, which allow consumers to stream video, music, and the like exempt from any data limits. They have proven enormously popular in the marketplace, especially among lower-income Americans. But notwithstanding the consumer benefits, this state law bans them,” said Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, in a statement.
All those offers from mobile phone providers to stream video and songs from certain companies with no caps would go away in California. This is where the consumer will really feel the pinch, as most Internet providers really do not give you anything free, just discounted prices. It really is a solution in search of a problem, because providers rarely ever do the things that laws like this are trying to stop. When they do, that’s where agencies like the Free Trade Commission step in. Regardless, as more people use their mobile service more and more, they’ll see people in other states get freebies they won’t.
Read: California Implements Net Neutrality Law, DOJ Already Suing »
Democrats on the House and Senate judiciary panels are questioning the scope of an FBI investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, saying a limited inquiry could taint his appointment and open the door for future probes.
On the map, their homes are tiny specks in a vast sea of blue, rarely in the headlines and far removed from the centers of power. But for a few days each year, the leaders of small island nations share a podium with presidents and prime ministers from the world’s most powerful nations, and their message is clear: Global warming is already changing our lives, and it will change yours too.
The Supreme Court must serve without benefit of what Alexander Hamilton called “the sword or the purse.†Its nine justices don’t carry guns; they don’t command an army to enforce their rulings. They also lack any kind of slush fund to buy influence or pay off pests like porn stars.
For the Supreme Court, the stakes go beyond Kavanaugh’s fate. It’s the latest evolution of a nominally non-partisan institution into an instrument of politics. In a nation divided, left and right are coming to view the court less as an interpreter of the law than as an activist imposer of moral and political outcomes. “It’s no coincidence that confirmations were less contentious when the court was engaging in less political decisionmaking,†says Leonard Leo, a top adviser to President Trump on judicial nominations. “When the court injects itself into lots of things that it shouldn’t, and when there’s lots of overreach by the court, that’s an inevitable thing.â€
A judge has ruled that California can’t require the city of Huntington Beach to follow a state law limiting local police collaboration with federal immigration agents.
