Ernesto Falcon

California’s network neutrality bill, SB 822, is often referred to as the “gold standard” of state-based net neutrality laws. The bill tackles the full array of issues the Federal Communications Commission had addressed right up until the end of 2016 before it began repealing net neutrality. One such issue is the discriminatory use of zero rating, where Internet service providers could choose to give users access to certain content for “free”—that is, without digging into their data plans.

In their effort to prevent states from protecting a free and open Internet, a small handful of massive and extraordinarily-profitable Internet service providers (ISPs) are telling state legislatures that network neutrality would hinder their ability to raise revenues to pay for upgrades and thus force them to charge consumers higher bills for Internet access. This is because state-based network neutrality will prohibit data discrimination schemes known as “paid prioritization” where the ISP charges websites and applications new tolls and relegate those that do not pay to the slow lane.

[Commentary] AT&T has decided it’s good business to advocate for an “Internet Bill of Rights.” Of course, that catchy name doesn’t in any way mean that what AT&T wants is a codified list of rights for Internet users. No, what AT&T wants is to keep a firm hold on the gains it has made in the last year at the expense of its customers’ rights. There is nothing in the history—the very recent history—of AT&T to make anyone believe that it has anyone’s actual best interests at heart.

The California Senate approved legislation that would require Internet service providers (ISPs) in California to follow the now-repealed 2015 Open Internet Order. While well-intentioned, the legislators sadly chose an approach that is vulnerable to legal attack.