قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Business / California has passed far-reaching network neutrality rules

California has passed far-reaching network neutrality rules




<div _ngcontent-c16 = "" innerhtml = "[196591001] Students protested in front of the federal building in Los Angeles, California, on November 28, 2017, during a rally to protect net neutrality as they opposed their opposition to the FCC poll on net neutrality (Photo: Mark Ralston / AFP / Getty Images)

On Thursday, the California Assembly passed the net neutrality law SB 822 with a vote of 58 to 17. This net neutrality law fills a gap for the remaining state in June last year Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed the net neutrality rules passed in 2015 during the Obama administration's abrogation, which is far-reaching for industries such as media and entertainment, providing a legal route to many content providers in California, like Facebook , Google, movie studios, television studios, and gambling companies, if Internet service providers (ISPs) use their I discriminating unfairly

The bill is reintroduced for Califor B. the Obama-era light-line rules prohibiting internet service providers from blocking or downgrading legitimate content or prioritizing content for a fee. These "brightline" rules ensure a level playing field for competition in the digital space, even though no law is perfect: research shows that mandatory paid prioritization may hamper ISP investment and innovation.

But the bill goes beyond the Brightline rules, making it the strongest net neutrality requirement ever passed in the US:

  1. Sponsored zero rating plans are unlawful: companies can also donate for paying 1
    -800 numbers, Providers can pay to ensure their content is not included in a consumer's data plan. The California bill makes sponsored zero rating plans unlawful because they favor those who pay through others, such as AT & T's Plan Zero rates its own DirecTV streaming service.
  2. Potentially Illegal Alternative Services: Other services that use the same connection (z) that the Internet uses to access a home may be unlawful if used to circumvent the rules or adversely affect the Internet service through congestion [19659006] Together, the Hell Line rules and these two additional rules are considered unfriendly by ISPs as consumers. In a sense, they are because we will not enjoy premium content through fast internet lanes or sponsored zero rating plans. Cable companies may also shy away from premium services, such as virtual reality games or premium TV content, that could affect Internet bandwidth.

    Instead, these stricter rules should be a relief to those who advocate a free and neutral Internet. As I argued earlier, restrictive rules such as the prohibition on paid priorities could hamper investment and innovation by ISPs to the detriment of consumers. So there should be a happy medium.

    The good news is that the explicit zero rating rule in SB 822 is close to a lucky medium. The ban on sponsored zero rating is reasonable because ISPs have acquired their own content services (eg, AT & T bought DirecTV and Time Warner, which owns HBO; Comcast owns NBCUniversal and has a stake in Hulu) and some have these services at zero the cost of competitors. But the law does accept zero rating programs that do not discriminate, so ISPs can actually offer more all-inclusive zero rating programs such as T-Mobile's Binge On content from numerous video streaming services that simply meet certain technical requirements. The zero rating decision is rigorous, but explicit, and the resulting regulatory certainty is better for investment and innovation than the vague Obama era federal rules that outlaw zero rating plans, but rated them on a

    Technically, California's grid neutrality rules may also be far-reaching, as ISP networks beyond California could be affected. A content provider that streams from a data center in Florida to a customer in California may use an ISP network outside California to deliver the content. If the content slows down or degrades while traveling, would California be in charge? I'm not sure, but different state rules in a network economy can lead to confusion and complications for the actors involved.

    After all, the California bill is far-reaching because it is a warning to national legislators to join forces and standardize nationwide net neutrality. I hope this bill will trigger Congressional action to develop nationwide network neutrality rules for a consistent and neutral Internet.

    In the meantime, the California bill could protect consumers and content providers, but could also hurt indirectly because ISPs struggle to comply with regulations and innovate, which they see as a more restrictive and confusing regulatory environment. But overall, net net, if the governor signs in the next 30 days, it will be better than nothing.

    ">

    Students protest in front of the Federal Building in Los Angeles, California on November 28, 2017, during a rally to protect net neutrality when they voiced their opposition to the FCC's vote to lift net neutrality (19659015) On Thursday, the California Assembly passed the SB 822 Network Neutrality Bill with a 58-17 votes This net neutrality law fills a gap left for the state by federal legislators last June as Trump's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed the net neutrality rules in 2015 during the Obama administration has lifted media and entertainment because it offers many California-based content providers, such as Facebook, Google, movie studios, television studios, and gaming companies, a legal option if Internet service providers (ISPs) are dissatisfied (19659003) strict rules of the Obama era that prohibit Internet service providers from blocking or degrading legitimate content or prioritizing content for a fee. These "brightline" rules ensure a level playing field for competition in the digital space, even though no law is perfect: research shows that mandatory paid prioritization may hamper ISP investment and innovation.

    But the bill goes beyond the Brightline rules, making it the strongest net neutrality requirement ever passed in the US:

    1. Sponsored zero rating plans are unlawful: companies can also donate for paying 1-800 numbers, Providers can pay to ensure their content is not included in a consumer's data plan. The California bill makes sponsored zero rating plans unlawful because they favor those who pay through others, such as AT & T's Plan Zero rates its own DirecTV streaming service.
    2. Potentially Illegal Alternative Services: Other services that use the same connection (z) that the Internet uses to access a home may be unlawful if used to circumvent the rules or adversely affect the Internet service through congestion [19659006] Together, the Hell Line rules and these two additional rules are considered unfriendly by ISPs as consumers. In a sense, they are because we will not enjoy premium content through fast internet lanes or sponsored zero rating plans. Cable companies may also shy away from premium services, such as virtual reality games or premium TV content, that could affect Internet bandwidth.

      Instead, these stricter rules should be a relief to those who advocate a free and neutral Internet. As I argued earlier, restrictive rules such as the prohibition on paid priorities could hamper investment and innovation by ISPs to the detriment of consumers. So there should be a happy medium.

      The good news is that the explicit zero rating rule in SB 822 is close to a lucky medium. The ban on sponsored zero rating is reasonable because ISPs have acquired their own content services (eg, AT & T bought DirecTV and Time Warner, which owns HBO; Comcast owns NBCUniversal and has a stake in Hulu) and some have these services at zero the cost of competitors. But the law does accept zero rating programs that do not discriminate, so ISPs can actually offer more all-inclusive zero rating programs such as T-Mobile's Binge On content from numerous video streaming services that simply meet certain technical requirements. The zero rating decision is rigorous, but explicit, and the resulting regulatory certainty is better for investment and innovation than the vague Obama era federal rules that outlaw zero rating plans, but rated them on a

      Technically, California's grid neutrality rules may also be far-reaching, as ISP networks beyond California could be affected. A content provider that streams from a data center in Florida to a customer in California may use an ISP network outside California to deliver the content. If the content slows down or degrades while traveling, would California be in charge? I'm not sure, but different state rules in a network economy can lead to confusion and complications for the actors involved.

      After all, the California bill is far-reaching because it is a warning to national legislators to join forces and standardize nationwide net neutrality. I hope this bill will trigger Congressional action to develop nationwide network neutrality rules for a consistent and neutral Internet.

      In the meantime, the California bill could protect consumers and content providers, but could also hurt indirectly because ISPs struggle to comply with regulations and innovate, which they see as a more restrictive and confusing regulatory environment. But overall, net net, if the governor signs within the next 30 days, it will be better than nothing.


    Source link