Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday January 23 2018, @05:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the violently-imposed-monopoly dept.

It seems: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal.

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.

The Republican FCC voted to dismantle those rules in December.

The FCC's repeal includes a ban on states implementing their own net neutrality rules, but Democratic-controlled legislatures around the country are eager to challenge that provision.

[...] "When the FCC repealed its net neutrality rules, it said consumers should choose," Bullock said in his statement. "The State of Montana is one of the biggest consumers of internet services in our state. Today we're making our choice clear: we want net neutrality."

We may end up with many different state net neutrality laws for ISPs to comply with.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:26AM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:26AM (#626458) Journal

    Montana will be attacked from at least a dozen different directions. The FCC will claim that Montana is interfering in a federal agency's jurisdiction. As mentioned already, interstate commerce will be invoked. It's going to come down to congress - they are either going to approve or disapprove of net neutrality. Watch for congress to either beat Ajit Pai into submission, or to beat Montana into submission. That should only take several weeks to a few months.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:33AM (5 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @09:33AM (#626477) Journal

    As has been pointed out above, interstate commerce has no say in the issue.

    You still need a Florida business license to sell Iowa Green Beans in Florida. And you can't bring just any old oranges into California.

    The outcome simply depends on how quickly other states do the same thing. The sooner they do, the better for all. The risk of regulation by 50 states will have big networks begging for net neutrality back.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @11:02AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 23 2018, @11:02AM (#626506) Journal

      Interstate commerce has been jammed down the state's throats many times before. But, I agree - the outcome will depend on how the various states react, and how quickly they act. If they all sit on their dead asses, waiting to see what happens next, the FCC is going to jam the worst possible regulations up all our asses.

      I don't know what the single worst thing about the clown in the White House is, for sure. But appointing the various shills to positions of authority may be it. All on his own, he can't damage America a helluva lot, but his shills can do a lot of harm. Ajit Pai - the internet's single worst enemy.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:02PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @02:02PM (#626547)

      Interstate commerce _shouldn't_ have any say in the issue, but Willard vs. Filburn says otherwise. If growing wheat on your own land for your own use can be construed to be "interstate commerce" then anything can.

      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:01AM

        by deimtee (3272) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @05:01AM (#626979) Journal

        Yeah, No.
        Nothing in Willard vs. Filburn says that the state cannot also impose regulations.
        Until the FCC promulgates a rule saying that ISPs must violate net neutrality there is no conflict with federal rules.

        --
        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:02PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:02PM (#626695) Journal

      While the interstate commerce clause has certainly been abused in the past the internet is pretty damned inter-state.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:44PM (#626745)

        But the ISPs providing the services to the local people are in the state. Even if those same ISPs have operations in other states, they can still follow different rules depending on where the infrastructure is. It doesn't matter who is being communicated with, because this is simply not an interstate issue.