SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 "When the FCC repealed its net neutrality rules, it said consumers should choose," Bullock said in his statement.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.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:52AM (1 child)
Taking that as an example, just how would valid copyright status be determined or proven? And would it be default on or default off?
Same goes for obscenity, even assuming there is a usable definition.
Now what happens when there are malicious actors involved that want to derail or control part of the net by fiddling with the definintions or their application?
Those have all happened at various times. It's not at all a clear cut task except maybe if they opt to require strict RFC 3514 compliance [ietf.org] on their part of the Internet. However, that will constrain them to IPv4 and thus limit a lot of opportunity for growth and advancement.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday January 24 2018, @03:44PM
The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (17 USC 512) describes the procedure to file a notice of claimed infringement and to contest blocking pursuant to such a notice.
When interpreting the obscenity laws of the several states, the Supreme Court has defined an obscene work as an explicit sexual depiction that appears intended to sexually arouse the viewer without serious artistic value (Miller v. California [wikipedia.org]). In practice, state prosecutors even in strongly Republican-controlled states have found it difficult to meet the "no serious artistic value" prong of the Miller test when asserting obscenity against garden-variety porn.