US sues California over net neutrality

‘Extreme, illegal state law’

WASHINGTON, Oct 1, (Agencies): The US Justice Department on Sunday sued California to force it to abandon a law, passed earlier in the day, to protect “net neutrality” aimed at requiring all online data to be treated equally.

Rules governing online access have undergone numerous court challenges and regulatory moves over the past decade, and in December the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to reverse a 2015 order which established net neutrality.

On Sunday California Governor Jerry Brown signed a law that re-established net neutrality in his state, the country’s largest and wealthiest. The law also marks the latest challenge between Brown’s administration and President Donald Trump’s Republicans, who have already clashed over environmental and immigration regulations.

“Under the Constitution, states do not regulate interstate commerce – the federal government does. Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

“We are confident that we will prevail in this case – because the facts are on our side,” Sessions said.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai described California’s law as illegal and bad for consumers.

He has previously argued that ending net neutrality would give the private sector “greater incentives to invest” in the new generation of super-fast 5G wireless networks and ensure the United States keeps its technological edge over other nations.

Net neutrality prohibits the blocking of sites or services for competitive reasons, and bans “fast” and “slow” lanes for different kinds of online traffic.

Activists have protested the changes, saying dominant broadband providers could favor their own services, hinder those of rivals and charge more for certain kinds of access.

Trump

Supporters

Internet giants Amazon, Facebook and Google are among the supporters of net neutrality.

A number of other US states would also like to implement their own rules to protect net neutrality, although the FCC’s decision clearly forbids such moves.

As a result, the Trump administration wants to make an example of California.

USTelecom, which represents companies in the broadband sector, said it supports net neutrality but disagreed with the California law.

“Rather than 50 states stepping in with their own conflicting open internet solutions, we need Congress to step up with a national framework for the whole internet ecosystem and resolve this issue once and for all,” the industry group said.

Telecommunications companies lobbied hard to kill it or water it down, saying it would lead to higher internet and cellphone bills and discourage investments in faster internet. They say it’s unrealistic to expect them to comply with internet regulations that differ from state to state.

USTelecom, a telecommunications trade group, said California writing its own rules will create problems.

“Rather than 50 states stepping in with their own conflicting open internet solutions, we need Congress to step up with a national framework for the whole internet ecosystem and resolve this issue once and for all,” the group said in a Sunday statement.

Net neutrality advocates worry that without rules, internet providers could create fast lanes and slow lanes that favor their own sites and apps or make it harder for consumers to see content from competitors.

That could limit consumer choice or shut out upstart companies that can’t afford to buy access to the fast lane, critics say.

The new law also bans “zero rating,” in which internet providers don’t count certain content against a monthly data cap - generally video streams produced by the company’s own subsidiaries and partners.

Oregon, Washington and Vermont have approved legislation related to net neutrality, but California’s measure is seen as the most comprehensive attempt to codify the principle in a way that might survive a likely court challenge. An identical bill was introduced in New York.

Meanwhile, Allie Bohm, policy counsel at the consumer group Public Knowledge, said examples abound of companies not only using the data to market products but also to profile consumers and restrict who sees their offerings: African Americans not getting access to ads for housing, minorities and older people excluded from seeing job postings.

What is needed, privacy advocates maintain, is legislation to govern the entire “life cycle” of consumers’ data: how it’s collected, used, kept, shared and sold.

Rules

The 28-nation European Union put in strict new rules this spring that require companies to justify why they’re collecting and using personal data gleaned from phones, apps and visited websites. Companies also must give EU users the ability to access and delete data, and to object to data use under one of the claimed reasons.

Andrew DeVore, Amazon’s vice-president and associate general counsel, told the Senate panel Wednesday that it should consider the “possible unintended consequences” of California’s approach. For instance, he said the state law defines personal information too broadly such that it could include all data.

State Sen Scott Wiener, a Democrat who authored the legislation, said that this was “a historic day in California. A free and open internet is the cornerstone of 21st Century life: our democracy, our economy, our healthcare and public safety systems, and day-to-day activities. While the Trump Administration does everything in its power to undermine our democracy, we in California will continue to do what’s right for our residents.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is challenging the FCC’s repeal in court along with other state attorneys general, said that “while the Trump Administration continues to ignore the millions of Americans who voiced strong support for net neutrality rules, California, home to countless start-ups, tech giants and nearly 40 million consumers, will not allow a handful of power brokers to dictate sources for information or the speed at which websites load. We remain deeply committed to protecting freedom of expression, innovation and fairness.”