{"id":5767,"date":"2018-11-06T22:45:49","date_gmt":"2018-11-07T02:45:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=5767"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:52:29","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:52:29","slug":"california-vs-jeff-sessions-battle-net-neutrality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/california-vs-jeff-sessions-battle-net-neutrality\/","title":{"rendered":"California vs. Jeff Sessions: The Battle for Net Neutrality"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 2015<\/a>, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)\u00a0 enacted a rule<\/a> that prevented internet service providers (ISPs) \u201cfrom using their market power to favor some websites and services over others.\u201d Known as net neutrality<\/a>, this rule had prevented ISPs from intentionally blocking, slowing down specific content or websites, and charging their customers additional fees for access to certain internet services. Thus, companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable could not deny their customers access to, charge extra for, or purposefully slow down an internet service or website, like Netflix or Instagram.
\nISPs argued <\/a>that these regulations hurt their profits and would prevent them from being able to provide quality service to their customers. Telecom companies maintain that deregulation will encourage a free market and an open Internet. However, this argument is undercut <\/a>by the fact that ISPs virtually have a monopoly and operate with little competition — in fact, there are only a handful of ISPs and most American customers only have access to one<\/a> such provider.
\nIn December 2017, under the direction of chairman Ajit Pai and the Republican majority on the Commission, the FCC reversed<\/a> the 2015 rule that upheld net neutrality. This decision was wildly unpopular<\/a>; over three dozen entities<\/a>, including a group of 22 attorney generals from various states and the District of Columbia, brought twelve lawsuits the FCC in the US Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit, asserting<\/a> that the FCC\u2019s decision\u00a0 puts consumers at risk of abusive practices by broadband providers\u201d and unlawfully restricted \u201cstate and local regulation of broadband service.\u201d Additionally, perhaps in response to outrage<\/a> from constituents, five months later, the Senate issued an official disapproval<\/a> of the rule; however, only 176 of the 435<\/a> Congressmen in the House of Representatives have signed a petition to necessitate a vote on a potential review of the FCC\u2019s decision.
\nOver the past year, many states have decided to take the net neutrality debate into their own hands<\/a>. According to the National Regulatory Research Institute\u2019s net neutrality tracker<\/a>, Washington and Oregon passed legislation into law; the governors of Vermont, New York, New Jersey Montana, Hawaii and Rhode Island issued executive orders; 25 other states and DC have either proposed legislation or currently have legislation pending.
\nHowever, none of the actions of these states have attracted as much attention and backlash as those of California. On August 31, 2018, California legislators passed \u201cthe strongest internet protections in the country.<\/a>\u201d Governor Jerry Brown signed<\/a> the bill into law on September 30. The law will prevent<\/a> ISPs from blocking or slowing down lawful Internet traffic; requiring additional fees from websites or online services to prioritize their traffic to consumers (known as \u201cpaid prioritization\u201d);\u00a0 and bans exempting certain traffic from counting against a customer’s data usage (known as “zero-rating”).<\/p>\n

Unlike other states\u2019 net neutrality laws, the California law fully restores<\/a> the FCC\u2019s 2015 net neutrality regulations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Verizon, a major ISP,\u00a0 may have played a key role in California\u2019s push for such strong net neutrality laws. In July 2018, while wildfire firefighters in Santa Clara county<\/a> were in the middle of combating a the largest fire in state history<\/a> — spreading almost 300,000 acres — Verizon cut off the internet connection to a vehicle that firefighters relied upon for vital emergency communications. Verizon notified the fire department\u2019s IT officer that the department had exceeded its data plan, and to restore internet speed, the department would have to upgrade to a new plan that cost twice as much<\/a>, forcing the fire department to rely on other departments\u2019 internet connections and eventually purchase the more expensive plan. (Verizon later claimed that their communications had nothing to do with net neutrality and were a \u201cmistake<\/a>\u201d in what the company\u2019s customer service communicated to the fire department about their plan.)
\nImmediately after Governor Brown signed the bill, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced<\/a> that it would sue California, claiming that the state\u2019s net neutrality laws were unconstitutional. According to the DOJ, the Constitution and the FCC\u2019s order preempts<\/a> the California law, since only the federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The DOJ filed the lawsuit<\/a> the same day, asking for an injunction<\/a> to prevent the law from going into effect<\/a>. On October 3, telecom lobby groups (which together represent all of the nation\u2019s major ISPs) also filed suit<\/a> against California, echoing the DOJ\u2019s claims that California\u2019s law was unconstitutional and the need for an injunction.
\nProponents of California\u2019s net neutrality laws assert that by repealing net neutrality laws, the federal government effectively abandoned<\/a> regulation in this area, leaving it open for states to enact their own rules regarding net neutrality. According to attorney Gigi Sohn<\/a>, who helped craft the 2015 FCC net neutrality rules, the the California net neutrality law simply fills a gap in consumer protection that the FCC has willingly and happily created.\u201d Furthermore, proponents also argue that the FCC\u2019s repeal of net neutrality endanger public safety, citing the Verizon-Santa Clara fiasco (the County of Santa Clara also sued<\/a> the FCC) since without regulation, ISPs have — and may continue to — slow down internet connections<\/a> of emergency response teams during natural disasters, endangering crucial emergency communications. California\u2019s law will go into effect<\/a> on January 1, 2019 if the federal government is unable to preempt it.
\nWith these lawsuits pending and midterms elections looming, net neutrality is likely to be a major point of discussion and debate among both constituents and candidates. Yet this issue seems like it should hardly be a partisan one; after all, there is no evidence or data<\/a> that shows that net neutrality has hurt ISPs\u2019 profits, and most (if not all) people who have ever paid for internet service will agree that they would like to be able to access Netflix and YouTube without having to pay extra — in time and money.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)\u00a0 enacted a rule that prevented internet service providers (ISPs) \u201cfrom using their market power to favor some websites and services over others.\u201d Known as net neutrality, this rule had prevented ISPs from intentionally blocking, slowing down specific content or websites, and charging their customers additional fees for access …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5768,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5767"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5767"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5767\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6906,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5767\/revisions\/6906"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5768"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}