SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Fnord666
Entire broadband industry sues Vermont to stop state net neutrality law
The nation's largest broadband industry lobby groups have sued Vermont to stop a state law that requires ISPs to follow net neutrality principles in order to qualify for government contracts.
The lawsuit[pdf] was filed yesterday in US District Court in Vermont by mobile industry lobby CTIA, cable industry lobby NCTA, telco lobby USTelecom, the New England Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the American Cable Association (ACA), which represents small and mid-size cable companies.
CTIA, NCTA, USTelecom, and the ACA also previously sued California to stop a much stricter net neutrality law, but they're now expanding the legal battle to multiple states. These lobby groups represent all the biggest mobile and home Internet providers in the US and hundreds of smaller ISPs. Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile US, Sprint, Cox, Frontier, and CenturyLink are among the groups' members.
While the California law applies to all consumer broadband providers, Vermont's law is narrower and may be more likely to survive legal challenge. Vermont's law creates a process in which ISPs can certify that they comply with net neutrality guidelines, and it says that state agencies may only buy Internet service from ISPs that obtain those certifications.
Vermont Governor Phil Scott, a Republican, also issued an executive order[pdf] imposing similar requirements on state agencies. The broadband industry lawsuit asks the court to rule that both the Vermont law and executive order are preempted by federal law.
The lobby groups point to the Federal Communications Commission repeal of US-wide net neutrality rules because the FCC order claims the authority to preempt state net neutrality laws.
[...] The state law is also preempted because of "the inherently interstate nature" of broadband, the complaint said.
To get certified for state contracts, Vermont says that ISPs must demonstrate that they do not block or throttle lawful Internet traffic or engage in paid prioritization. The certification also prohibits ISPs from "engaging in deceptive or misleading marketing practices that misrepresent the treatment of Internet traffic or content to its customers." ISPs seeking certification also have to publicly disclose accurate information about their network management practices, network performance, and the commercial terms of their Internet service.
[...] The lawsuit could serve as a test case for other states that are attempting to regulate net neutrality indirectly through state contracts. Besides Vermont, the governors of Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island have also issued executive orders to impose net neutrality rules on ISPs that provide Internet service to state government agencies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22 2018, @06:41PM (2 children)
it makes perfect sense for a publicly funded entity like a state to require that public funds only be spent with companies who fulfill net neutrality requirements. instead of suing, the whores at the ISPs should just let the state service itself. fuck their contracts. you shouldn't get to use stolen funds to pay for service that is operated like the money was volunteered anyways. using public funds to fund private companies is a problem. let them be separate and let the chips fall where they may. the state needs to stop stealing the money from the people by force to begin with, as well. the gov is supposed to be protecting the rights of it's citizens with a very limited scope of work and funded by very limited means, not stealing and pimping to corps for every excuse under the sun. the ISPs and state gov are just thieves and slave traders fighting over their slaves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday October 22 2018, @10:25PM
Sounds perfectly reasonable so far...
Well, they would, except the ISP's keep suing to stop them doing just that.
Oh lord, it's the "violently imposed monopoly" idiot
I don't have time for this anymore, I have to get back to fighting off the tax officials who have besieged my castle.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 23 2018, @08:09AM
It happens that there are some communities where, if you want fire protection, you have to pay for it specifically. Those fire protection fees are _voluntary_.
So the article I read reported some guy whose house was burning down. The firemen turned up then took care to ensure that his fire didn't spread to any of his neighbors' homes.
His neighbors had paid the fee. This guy hadn't. He quite desperately begged the fire crew to save his home - for me, the greatest loss would be photographs, my school yearbooks and the like - but the fire crew did what the city employed them to do, and so permitted his once-happy home to burn to the ground.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]