California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018

Last updated
California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018
Seal of California.svg
California State Legislature
Full nameCalifornia Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018 [1]
IntroducedJanuary 3, 2018
Assembly votedAugust 30, 2018
Senate votedAugust 31, 2018
Signed into lawSeptember 30, 2018
Sponsor(s) Scott Wiener
Governor Jerry Brown
CodeCivil Code
Section3100
ResolutionSB822 (2017-2018 Session)
Status: Current legislation

The California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018 is a law in California designed to protect net neutrality. [2] It was signed into law on September 30, 2018. [2]

Contents

The act prevents internet service providers from doing the following things: [3]

The act has been lauded as the "gold standard" of net neutrality laws. [4]

Responses

Within hours, the United States Department of Justice responded by suing the state of California, claiming that states have no jurisdiction over the Internet. [5] California has said that they will fight the suit. [6] A separate lawsuit from four lobbying groups that represent the major United States terrestrial and mobile communication carriers, United States Telecom Association, CTIA, NCTA and the American Cable Association, also sued the state of California for similar reasons as the Justice Department, claiming that the state does not have authority to regulate Internet providers. [7]

The cases were put on hold during litigation of Mozilla v. FCC , a multi-party suit which challenged the 2017 FCC order that had reclassified ISPs as Title I information services under the Communications Act of 1934 and rolled back net neutrality provisions; this same order had denied that states had authority to override the FCC's rules related to net neutrality. [8] Mozilla v. FCC was decided in October 2019, upholding most of the FCC's new rules but did find that the FCC did not have power to restrict state and local governments from setting their own net neutrality provisions. [9]

Both the DOJ and industry's suit against California over the law was restarted in August 2020 following the conclusion of the Mozilla case. [10] With the election of Joe Biden as president in January 2021 and the indication that the FCC would likely change its rules to be favorable of net neutrality, the DOJ dropped its suit against California. [11] On February 23, 2021, Federal Judge John Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied a motion for a preliminary injunction from the telecom lobbying groups, allowing the law to go into effect. [12] Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in January 2022 that California's net neutrality law may continue to be enforced and cannot be overridden by the FCC as, current as of the decision, Internet services were classified as information services. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Communications Commission</span> Independent U.S. government agency

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet service provider</span> Organization that provides access to the Internet

An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organization that provides services for accessing, using, managing, or participating in the Internet. ISPs can be organized in various forms, such as commercial, community-owned, non-profit, or otherwise privately owned.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), also known as the "Digital Telephony Act," is a United States wiretapping law passed in 1994, during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Net neutrality</span> Principle that Internet service providers should treat all data equally

Network neutrality, often referred to as net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, offering users and online content providers consistent rates irrespective of content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, a destination address, or method of communication.

In the United States, net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate, has been an issue of contention between network users and access providers since the 1990s. With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet in the United States</span> Overview of the Internet in the United States of America

The Internet in the United States grew out of the ARPANET, a network sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense during the 1960s. The Internet in the United States in turn provided the foundation for the worldwide Internet of today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julius Genachowski</span> American lawyer and businessman

Julius Genachowski is an American lawyer and businessman. He became the Federal Communications Commission Chairman on June 29, 2009. On March 22, 2013, he announced he would be leaving the FCC in the coming weeks. On January 6, 2014, it was announced that Genachowski had joined The Carlyle Group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Section 230</span> US federal law on website liability

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

<i>Comcast Corp. v. FCC</i> 2010 US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case

Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, is a case at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have ancillary jurisdiction over the content delivery choices of Internet service providers, under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. In so holding, the Court vacated a 2008 order issued by the FCC that asserted jurisdiction over network management policies and censured Comcast from interfering with its subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

The Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Order of 2010 is a set of regulations that move towards the establishment of the internet neutrality concept. Some opponents of net neutrality believe such internet regulation would inhibit innovation by preventing providers from capitalizing on their broadband investments and reinvesting that money into higher quality services for consumers. Supporters of net neutrality argue that the presence of content restrictions by network providers represents a threat to individual expression and the rights of the First Amendment. Open Internet strikes a balance between these two camps by creating a compromised set of regulations that treats all internet traffic in "roughly the same way". In Verizon v. FCC, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated portions of the order that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers.

Internet bottlenecks are places in telecommunication networks in which internet service providers (ISPs), or naturally occurring high use of the network, slow or alter the network speed of the users and/or content producers using that network. A bottleneck is a more general term for a system that has been reduced or slowed due to limited resources or components. The bottleneck occurs in a network when there are too many users attempting to access a specific resource. Internet bottlenecks provide artificial and natural network choke points to inhibit certain sets of users from overloading the entire network by consuming too much bandwidth. Theoretically, this will lead users and content producers through alternative paths to accomplish their goals while limiting the network load at any one time. Alternatively, internet bottlenecks have been seen as a way for ISPs to take advantage of their dominant market-power increasing rates for content providers to push past bottlenecks. The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has created regulations stipulating that artificial bottlenecks are in direct opposition to a free and open Internet.

Net bias is the counter-principle to net neutrality, which indicates differentiation or discrimination of price and the quality of content or applications on the Internet by ISPs. Similar terms include data discrimination, digital redlining, and network management.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ajit Pai</span> American attorney and former FCC chairman

Ajit Varadaraj Pai is an American lawyer who served as chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 2017 to 2021. He has been a partner at the private-equity firm Searchlight Capital since April 2021.

<i>Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC</i> (2014)

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 740 F.3d 623, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010, which the court determined could only be applied to common carriers and not to Internet service providers. The case was initiated by Verizon, which would have been subjected to the proposed FCC rules, though they had not yet gone into effect. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zero-rating</span> Internet access under certain conditions

Zero-rating is the practice of providing Internet access without financial cost under certain conditions, such as by permitting access to only certain websites or by subsidizing the service with advertising or by exempting certain websites from the data allowance.

<i>United States Telecom Association v. FCC</i> (2016)

United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F. 3d 674, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholding an action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the previous year in which broadband Internet was reclassified as a "telecommunications service" under the Communications Act of 1934, after which Internet service providers (ISPs) were required to follow common carrier regulations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brendan Carr (lawyer)</span> American lawyer

Brendan Thomas Carr is an American lawyer who has served as a member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) since 2017. Appointed to the position by Donald Trump, Carr previously served as the agency's general counsel and as an aide to FCC commissioner Ajit Pai. In private practice, Carr formerly worked as a telecommunications attorney at Wiley Rein.

"Net Neutrality" is the first segment of the HBO news satire television series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver devoted to net neutrality in the United States. It aired for 13 minutes on June 1, 2014, as part of the fifth episode of Last Week Tonight's first season.

Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

<i>Mozilla Corp. v. FCC</i>

Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F. 3d 1 was a ruling the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2019 related to net neutrality in the United States. The case centered on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s decision in 2017 to rollback its prior 2015 Open Internet Order, reclassifying Internet services as an information service rather than as a common carrier, deregulating principles of net neutrality that had been put in place with the 2015 order. The proposed rollback had been publicly criticized during the open period of discussion, and following the FCC's issuing of the rollback, several states and Internet companies sued the FCC. These cases were consolidated into the one led by the Mozilla Corporation.

References

  1. "SB-822 Communications: broadband Internet access service". California State Legislature . Retrieved 8 October 2018.
  2. 1 2 Cameron, Dell (September 30, 2018). "California Net Neutrality Bill Signed Into Law". Gizmodo . Retrieved October 1, 2018.
  3. Fung, Brian (July 5, 2018). "California's net neutrality bill is back and as tough as ever". The Washington Post . Retrieved October 1, 2018.
  4. Reardon, Marguerite (September 30, 2018). "California's 'gold standard' net neutrality becomes law". CNET . Retrieved October 1, 2018.
  5. "US justice department sues California over new net neutrality law". The Guardian . September 30, 2018. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
  6. Sumagaysay, Levi (September 30, 2018). "California sued by DOJ after governor signs 'model' net neutrality bill". The Mercury News . Retrieved October 1, 2018.
  7. Kelly, Makena (October 3, 2018). "Broadband industry groups sue California over net neutrality bill". The Verge . Retrieved October 3, 2018.
  8. Kelly, Makena (October 26, 2018). "California strikes deal with FCC to delay state net neutrality law". The Verge . Retrieved October 26, 2018.
  9. Patel, Nilay (October 4, 2019). "The Court Allowed The FCC To Kill Net Neutrality Because Washing Machines Can't Make Phone Calls". The Verge . Retrieved October 4, 2019.
  10. Shepardson, David (August 6, 2020). "U.S. Justice Department asks court to block California net neutrality law". Reuters . Retrieved August 6, 2020.
  11. Maddaus, Gene (February 8, 2021). "Biden's Justice Department Drops Legal Challenge to California Net Neutrality Law". Variety . Retrieved February 8, 2021.
  12. "California Wins Court Victory for Its Net Neutrality Law".
  13. Lyons, Kim (2022-01-28). "Appeals court upholds California's net neutrality law". The Verge. Retrieved 2022-05-05.