I am going to repeat this in every chain: net neutrality is the law in California.

Vitally, net neutrality is an actual law in California. It can't be overturned arbitrarily by some bureaucrats.

Since Congress won't do anything at the national level, this is going to be re-hashed out by the FCC every time the president's tie changes color.

Wait -- I'm genuinely curious -- does that mean that data-throttling plans from mobile providers do not exist in California? All the plans I see (in New York) say things like "unlimited but video will be SD instead of HD" which seems a frank violation of the principle of net neutrality (not to mention a bit of a technical marvel).

Are these plans legal in California, or is the California law not sufficiently specific to rein in this kind of thing?

And ISPs are treating it like it's the law in the whole country: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/17/att-will-count-hbo-max-towar...

> The change will extend beyond California, since, AT&T said, “the Internet does not recognize state borders.”

The harm is that it takes away resources from other important issues that require our focus right now.

I know you're kidding, but it surprises me how often I hear the idea that an organization the size of the FCC can't multitask.

Especially when never bringing up what some of those more important things could be.

You didn't hear that idea. You heard the idea that the FCC doesn't have unlimited resources. Do you disagree with that?

(For the record I don't agree that this is unimportant, but you're arguing against a straw man.)

How many resources would be taken away from which issues?

That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.