Montana Becomes First State To Implement Net Neutrality After FCC Repeal (thehill.com) 132
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) signed an executive order on Monday requiring internet service providers with state contracts to abide by net neutrality principles. The order makes his state the first to push back on the Federal Communications Commission's decision to repeal the open internet rules last month. The order says that in order to receive a contract with the state government, internet service providers must not engage in blocking or throttling web content or create internet fast lanes. Those practices were all banned under the Obama-era 2015 net neutrality order. Bullock's office said the executive order goes into effect immediately, but there will be a six-month grace period for companies to ensure that they're in compliance. The governor said on Monday that he is encouraging his counterparts and legislators in other states to follow suit, promising to personally email a copy of his order to any who ask for it. Further reading: The New York Times
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to see how states could lose such a case. They aren't forbidding companies from operating in their state, they are stating conditions for companies to have state contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to see how states could lose such a case. They aren't forbidding companies from operating in their state, they are stating conditions for companies to have state contracts.
True, but sadly pointless.
Its like gun control, if one state bans it, you can just hop over the border and buy what you like. Net Neutrality needs to be protected nationally or it cant be protected at all because Bastard Telecom can just route all Montana traffic through a "friendlier" state where they can hobble it to their hearts delight.
Re: (Score:2)
Its like gun control, if one state bans it, you can just hop over the border and buy what you like.
You are comparing orange with apple. Do you mean those who want faster speed and would pay for it would have to hop over to another state to get the service (cable/fiber optic) line crossing back to their houses? One is a physical product/item, the other is a service. They are different.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every word in that last sentence is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
why? net neutrality is about the last mile. interstate commerce doesn't apply here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Last Jedi was the first decent S.W. movie since the original trilogy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Rogue One was a reasonable sci-fi movie. Last Jedi was a good Star Wars movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely off topic but Rogue One!
The ending space battle where the rebel fleet warps in right on top of those two star destroyers is the best space battle Star Wars has ever seen
Re: (Score:1)
Comcast was already serving Montana so poorly they lost any bargaining force they have in the matter, too, or this wouldn't have happened.
Re: Good luck with that. (Score:2)
Sure, Comcast could do that, but they wouldn't be eligible for contracts with any governing entities in that state. They could also do that with privacy rules as well, and there's all of about zero that the federal government can do about it.
They can probably also force an ISPs hand to do this in other states as well. Essentially what is happening is the state government is boycotting the ISP, and state contracts are quite lucrative. As far as I know, the federal government can't force the state governments
Re: (Score:2)
While they're at it, they should also boycott ISPs that issue needlessly burdensome data caps given to fixed line residential customers
While agreeing with the rest of your post, this stuck out. What do you mean by needlessly burdensome?
Re: Good luck with that. (Score:2)
I don't have a specific definition, but some caps are reasonable. For example, that time Verizon mentioned booting a guy who was doing north of 10TB a month. You just can't have every residential customer do that, or else the backbone pipe will be prohibitively expensive to the point that residential customers are effectively paying business tier pricing.
Cox however does a 1tb cap, even on their gig service. We already know that the last mile isn't saturated, because when this happens, there ends up being p
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, given network neutrality, hard caps are the way to respond to the high network usage that Netflix etc consume.
What those caps should be seems like it would be hard to regulate. In theory, competition would be the solution, but in reality, meaningful competition is just not going to happen for the majority of households.
1 TB does seem low for a GB fibre connection and even worse if they start charging by the MB if you go over rather then just throttling the connection.
Really the solution seems to be to
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure that would be a smart move for Comcast. That would essentially REQUIRE the state to provide broadband to its citizens. Comcast does NOT want to get states into that business.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but why can't the local gov org that doles out monopolies do this? This is exactly what they should be doing, your lic is not renewed without guaranteeing to net neutrality and gets yanked when you fail to do so. Hells our first line defense should be truth in advertising anybody blocking content without a court order should be having the state AG breathing down their necks.
Re: Good luck with that. (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s possibly a legal workaround to Pai preventing states countering his actions. Here Montana isnâ(TM)t really countering his actions, instead it is just a requirement for government contracts, which just happen to have and intended side effect
Re: (Score:2)
Examine the failure case! (Score:1)
What happens if you try?
With auto manufacturers, we've seen a situation where a state (CA) has different regulations than others or the feds, and the market decided that it's easier to just comply with their law than to have two (or more) products. Are you sure ISPs who operate both intrastate and interstate, might not use a similar optimization?
Less important, but...
Re: (Score:2)
"Among the several states": this is inside Montana. Montana is not saying who Idaho can use for an ISP. I know the ICC has been stretched a lot, but I'm not seeing it used here.
Re: (Score:2)
"Even if no goods were sold or transported across state lines, the Court found that there could be an indirect effect on interstate commerce."
It's a pretty long bow to draw, but has apparently worked previously - though that was related to agriculture...
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but state laws like this essentially become federal laws for the purpose of business (provided they're actually enforced). Introducing red tape and risk to the money making schemes intended to deliver consumers to the content delivery dark ages with all the associated billing models makes such bullshit unpalatable to the sort of pointy haired bastards fighting against net neutrality.
Re:Good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
this is embarrassingly stupid
This is fine; you might want to actually read beyond the pure BS clickbait title and into at least part of the summary. All Montana is doing is setting contractual requirements; ISPs are free to accept the terms or not. If the state can't find anyone willing to accept the requirements they can change them or do some other thing that makes them happy. Either way it's all volitionary and entirely reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, see, you have it wrong as well. I am forever amazed at the rarity of reading comprehension.
Montana's terms require a provider to practice net neutrally. Not just on behalf of Montana, but on behalf of all of the providers customers, including "average person." Extrapolated to many states and other large institutions it could mean NN becomes a defacto requirement for all ISPs and all of their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a genius move. Where would any internet company go, where they have to pay extortion fees to ISPs or to a state where they don't?
Re: (Score:2)
I want net neutrality, but this is embarrassingly stupid. You can't have net neutrality in one state on a practical level to begin with, and this is definitely not something the states are empowered to do beside that.
We are a collection of states that can generally do what they want. You have it wrong, my friend. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The usual Commerce Clause that gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce, even as extended as it is, can hardly be used to override a state from placing equal access requirements on local services.
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is a big enough state and then things change.... like say California. If any internet provider wants to do business with the government of the 8th largest economic power on the planet, then they must follow net neutrality in their business practices.
This would have an effect on all big providers wishing to do business with the state government and hence might likely be de facto Net Neutrality for the rest of the country as well.
The citizens really don't want net neutrality by a wide margin even
Re: (Score:2)
> You can't have net neutrality in one state on a practical level to begin with
yes. you. can.
net neutrality is all about the last mile. and guess where that last mile is in Montana?
IT'S IN FUCKING MONTANA
Montana? MONTANA? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
The dental floss tycoons have a very strong lobby in Montana and they demanded it.
Re:Montana? MONTANA? (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Montana. Not an American citizen, but proud of being here. Best place in the world.
Have you noticed that this is an executive order signed by a DEMOCRATIC governor?
Re: (Score:1)
And supported by a Republican Secretary of State. http://www.dailyinterlake.com/letters_to_the_editor/20171203/internet_neutrality_is_good_for_business
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So? Not all Republicans are religious nutjobs, just like not all Democrats are braindead SJWs.
Decent politicians do actually exist. They're few and far between and you have to look carefully for them, but when you found one, treasure him or her and keep voting for her, because it's all that stands between you and having another dud in an office.
Re: (Score:2)
So? Not all Republicans are religious nutjobs, just like not all Democrats are braindead SJWs.
Decent politicians do actually exist. They're few and far between and you have to look carefully for them, but when you found one, treasure him or her and keep voting for her, because it's all that stands between you and having another dud in an office.
I've always just assumed titles like RINO an DINO were just American words for what we in the ROTW would describe as a centrist.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah. but federal law does not limit regulations Montana can apply to businesses operating in Montana. there's no overriding going on here.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Indeed. I can't understand how this is happening. Makes me worry about my future shill checks; I mean if our corporate masters can't rely on republicon trumpanzee states to do their bidding why pay? Won't anyone think of the corporations??!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they might be thinking of the corporations. No Net Neutrality hurts pretty much any company that isn't an ISP. And as far as I know, no major ISPs are based in Montana. So, for any Montana corporations, this is a good thing.
Re:Montana? MONTANA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it that strange, conservative legislature with a liberal governor should end up more centrist with less stupid left or right wing bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that strange, conservative legislature with a liberal governor should end up more centrist with less stupid left or right wing bits.
Because that's how it used to be? People working together to solve problems? States have power over the federal government and I'm glad a small state is using it instead of just complaining.
That would be true if Clinton hadn't moved (Score:3)
Thing is, when he was done shifting the Democratic party to the right he put the Republican party in a bad spot. They were little more than Democra
American here, this's due to how our politics work (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What if he blocked CRISPR gene research to save the unborn?
People will do what businesses will now do, just in the opposite direction.
The beauty about a federal system is that if you don't like a law, just move to a place where it's more to your liking.
Re: (Score:2)
the will of the people
If you got more zingers like that you could work as a stand-up comedian.
Use the legislature (Score:3)
So a executive order implemented and repealed at one level of government has been replaced with an executive order implemented and repeal-able at another level. When will these people learn? You're supposed to shop like-minded judges until you get one that will find a right in the Constitution. Just kidding! Use the legislature for this kind of thing, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok so... (Score:2)
Ok so, let's say for example, Verizon wants to say fuck you to NN, but still sell service in MN.
They create a subsidiary for all MN government contracts that obeys the law, but then keep their main Verizon branch for all non-government "contracts". Boom, done.
I put
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fucked up the abbrv but no, only if they want to do business with the state, not residents of the state.
"to receive a contract from the state of Montana..."
If a company wants to sell only to residents, they don't need a contract from the state.
If they want to sell to the state, then they create a subsidiary and sign the contract under that company.
Re: (Score:2)
What you are suggesting GGP means is how I thought they'd do this: Verizon-MT traffic is routed through Verizon-USA and traffic-shaped upstream. You are probably right that Montana would consider that a breach of contract and shut them down.
That is not actually what GGP is suggesting, though. S/He is saying that there is a Verizon-MT-Gov and a Verizon-USA. Verizon-MT-Gov only has the government contracts ("two customers") and does not violate NN. Verizon-USA sells to everyone else in Montana and continues t
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, thank you for putting it bluntly.
Net neutrality was never a problem (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Then of course there's simple logic... you don't spend millions lobbying and buying ads to get a rule overturned unless you plan on breaking it.
This is a no brainer (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Rubber, meet Road (Score:2)
State enforcing a NN telco monopoly? (Score:2)
A wealthy gated community wants to set up their own community broadband.
A municipality wants to set up broadband services.
An industrial estate wants to give exiting and new business total ISP freedom via their own new network.
Will state bureaucrats now demand the use of existing monopoly telco providers as only they legally meet the new state NN rules?
The state will enforce connections only to a set of NN approved ISP and a telco monopoly?
Did the state gov help
Re: (Score:2)
A wealthy gated community wants to set up their own community broadband.
A municipality wants to set up broadband services.
An industrial estate wants to give exiting and new business total ISP freedom via their own new network.
Will state bureaucrats now demand the use of existing monopoly telco providers as only they legally meet the new state NN rules?
From TFS: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) signed an executive order on Monday requiring internet service providers with state contracts to abide by net neutrality principles. Only service providers having contracts with the state are forced to comply with the governor's order, so the answer to your question appears to be "No", unless the new service providers enter into contracts with the state.
Re: (Score:2)
They're the government. They can install their own wires if they like.
Probably not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Montana isn't exactly swimming in money. They're 35th in the nation on per capital GDP. And as a Red state they probably don't have the tax dollars to do that or the political will to raise those tax dollars.
Huh. Seems biased to me. Republicans did implement TARP and quantitative easing to stop the Recession. These things should have made Democrats happy, but the stereotypes persist.
Re: (Score:1)
You are a bit of a cunt, aren't you? Rhetorical question of course. You are.
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes for renewals, the clauses will be part of it, resulting in the state losing it's current connections too.
No..... that would be easy money for whoever is bidding against them. That could even make it worthwhile to start a brand new ISP; just to be the ONLY ISP that can service the state government.
Re: (Score:2)
...ALL of them should put in clauses allowing them to throttle. That way the govt can no longer get any internet connections. See how long it takes them to reverse the order.
EVERY ISP that's bigger than half a man in a garage implements various QoS and caching schemes (a.k.a. "throttling").
That way the govt can no longer get any internet connections.
Already there, man.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that's collusion (unless they all do it completely independently - which is unlikely). Collusion is illegal in the United States. That doesn't seem to stop a number of companies from doing it, but not many are willing do so to cause specific harm to a government body. That's playing with fire.
Re: (Score:3)
How would your group of ISPs handle defectors? All it takes is for one of them to be a for-profit business, and then instead of closing in Montana like all the other ISPs, they just comply with the law and get all the business.
Imagine you ran one of the ISPs implementing your plan. You kiss your wife goodbye that morning, knowing that when you come home later, you'll be unemployed, but at least you'll have had the spiteful last word and Montana won't have any ISPs anymore. You'll win. All that copper and f
Re:Unamerican. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny because the FCC wants to big-government-regulate away the rights of states to write their own Net Neutrality protections!
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think the op believes what they wrote?
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't necessarily make it trolling. Here's the definition [urbandictionary.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's Law, it's not just fore religious nutjobs anymore.
Yes, I do actually think we have arrived at the point where we do have idiots who actually believe this bullshit. Being exposed long enough to media that keep droning on with the mantra can do this to you.
Re: (Score:2)
No he's probably paid to post whatever his boss tells him. We have many right-leaning slashdotters, nutters, and rightwing nutters. With a few notable exceptions most of them actually have good or excellent karma!!
With some exception slashdot is rather tolerant of reasonably articulate or insightful viewpoints that go against it's generally liberal status quo. The reason we have extremely low quality buzzword filled shitposts like that one is because some Shillco associate is able to easily make his pos
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pleased to see this sort of thing happening at a local level. If every municipality enacts a hodgepodge of badly written net neutrality laws then telecom providers will be too scared to do anything even approaching the slow lanes for stupid people models of their fantasies and their opponents will be far too numerous to challenge in court.
It's exactly the way these litigious corporate greedheads operate so it will be wonderful to see them get a taste of their own medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy: By not allowing monopolies (which ISPs are in many areas) to give preference to their own services you increase competition.
Why do you like monopolies and restriction of competition?
Re: (Score:2)
it's about imposing the will of the people of Montana.
suck it.