Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday January 29 2018, @08:58PM   Printer-friendly
from the waiting-for-48-more-states-to-follow-suit dept.

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


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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday January 29 2018, @11:02PM (5 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 29 2018, @11:02PM (#630074) Journal

    as long as none of them comply, Montana government will appear foolish doing on thing and saying another.

    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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Monday January 29 2018, @11:08PM (4 children)

    by insanumingenium (4824) on Monday January 29 2018, @11:08PM (#630079) Journal

    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)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 29 2018, @11:23PM (#630092) Journal

      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

        by insanumingenium (4824) on Monday January 29 2018, @11:39PM (#630096) Journal

        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

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @08:30AM (#630244)

      Well many states explicitly don't permit this

      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

      by darnkitten (1912) on Tuesday January 30 2018, @05:31PM (#630479)

      From the Montana Code Annotated:

      2-17-603. Government competition with private internet services providers prohibited -- exceptions. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b), an agency or political subdivision of the state may not directly or through another agency or political subdivision be an internet services provider.
                (2) (a) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider if:
                (i) no private internet services provider is available within the jurisdiction served by the agency or political subdivision; or
                (ii) the agency or political subdivision provided services prior to July 1, 2001.
                (b) An agency or political subdivision may act as an internet services provider when providing advanced services that are not otherwise available from a private internet services provider within the jurisdiction served by the agency or political subdivision.
                (c) If a private internet services provider elects to provide internet services in a jurisdiction where an agency or political subdivision is providing internet services, the private internet services provider shall inform the agency or the political subdivision in writing at least 30 days in advance of offering internet services.
                (3) Upon receiving notice pursuant to subsection (2)(c), the agency or political subdivision shall notify its subscribers within 30 days of the intent of the private internet services provider to begin providing internet services and may choose to discontinue providing internet services within 180 days of the notice.
                (4) Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit an agency or political subdivision from:
                (a) offering electronic government services to the general public; or
                (b) acquiring access to the internet from a private internet services provider in order to offer electronic government services to the general public.

      As interpreted, it generally prevents muni-wifi, etc.