The Montana governor's office has a message for the Federal Communications Commission and Internet service providers: the state can't be stopped from protecting net neutrality, and ISPs that don't like it don't have to do business with state agencies.
Governor Steve Bullock signed an executive order to protect net neutrality on Monday, as we reported at the time. But with questions raised about whether Bullock is exceeding his authority, the governor's legal office prepared a fact sheet that it's distributing to anyone curious about potential legal challenges to the executive order.
ISPs are free to violate net neutrality if they only serve non-government customers—they just can't do so and expect to receive state contracts. "Companies that don't like it don't have to do business with the State—nothing stops ISPs from selling dumpy Internet plans in Montana if they insist," the fact sheet says.
The FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules attempts to preempt states and localities from issuing their own similar rules. But Bullock's executive order doesn't directly require ISPs to follow net neutrality rules. Instead, ISPs that accept contracts to provide Internet service to any state agency must agree to abide by net neutrality principles throughout the state.
Source: Ars Technica
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday January 29 2018, @11:02PM (5 children)
So, what stops the state government in creating a public non-profit corporation to provide internet access?
It worked for ""Bridging the Golden Gate Association"/"Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District", which finished the project ahead of schedule and $1.3 million (in 1933 dollars) under budget.
Are works for the benefit of the public banned in United States?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Monday January 29 2018, @11:08PM (4 children)
Well many states explicitly don't permit this, I have no idea about Montana. Even ignoring that, starting a municipal internet project on a statewide scale is a huge step away from issuing a executive order saying you will only do business with vendors who promise net neutrality to all citizens of Montana. The last mile problem is far worse in rural and semi-rural areas. I would love to see a government provided internet infrastructure (presuming they are serious about net neutrality, China's situation isn't endearing to me), but I don't kid myself that it is likely.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday January 29 2018, @11:23PM (1 child)
If ISP colude to ignore Montana's local regulation, what else can the state do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Monday January 29 2018, @11:39PM
Noncooperation doesn't imply collusion. And that was my point, I personally expect they will likely end up just doing business with the noncooperative ISPs regardless of this grandstanding.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @08:30AM
Depends. Some may have written "the state is not allowed to provide internet access". But others will have it written as "the state is not allowed to compete with private ISPs" - in which case, if every ISP refuses to play, they are not competing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darnkitten on Tuesday January 30 2018, @05:31PM
From the Montana Code Annotated:
As interpreted, it generally prevents muni-wifi, etc.