7 ms·
Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
- dmode 9y agoGood job Montana. If I recall correctly, the FCC ruling also prevented states from creating their own NN laws. I am wondering if there will be litigation around in executive order.
- simcop2387 9y agoDefinitely going to be a number of lawsuits regarding this. With as many states doing it or planning on doing it. But I think the only way it's going to happen is if the ISPs sue the states doing it. I'd be surprised if the FCC tries to sue the states over it.
- komali2 9y agoIt'll be interesting to see what propagandic angle the lobbyist and purchased politicians take if ISPs sue states over this. When it was anti-NN, the language was "Defeating Federal Overreach to Allow an Open Internet."
- ende 9y agoIndeed. “Defeating States Rights to Allow an Open Internet” has a very different ring to it.
- Blazespinnaker 9y agoYeah, California and New York will implement this ina flash if they can which will force NN in major isps.
- terravion 9y agoI love the fact that the announcement couches the order in the state's prerogative to consume services that it deems best fit its needs, which is very slick politically, however that works legally.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoI think that the state can do that, yes. It can't say "you have to do this to do business in our state", but it can say "you have to do this to do business with us, the state government". The alternative is that the federal government can dictate which businesses the state governments do business with, which is, to put it mildly, probably not a valid use of federal power.
- fleitz 9y agoNo it can't dictate, but it can attach state requirements to federal funding. Similar to the way Montana can't dictate NN, but it can require it to do business with the state.
- someonelse9184 9y agoI think we're far beyond valid use of federal power at this point ?
- Feniks 9y agoNo, the telecom industry is gonna go home and rethink their lives ;) Oh and Montana will vote Republican again next election as you well know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Montana,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... Business won in America, money is free speech and nobody cares.
- jessaustin 9y ago...Montana will vote Republican... It's almost as if this issue has no obvious link to simplistic partisanship, but rather is a pretty good measure of official corruption.
- throwawaywa8 9y agoYeah, democrats are totally trying to attack an open internet and pass draconian laws and regulations that give ISPs unfettered power, and republicans are absolutely trying to fight for free and open access to information. The FCC vote totally wasn’t along party lines either. Nope nope nope, no siree!
- bmelton 9y agoPardon? > Oh and Montana will vote Republican again next election as you well know Montana's current governor, Steve Bullock[1], is a Democrat. He was the incumbent in the last election, but initially won his seat from the outgoing Brian Schweitzer[2], another Democrat. Going by the gubernatorial seat, Montana's been a blue state since 2005. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bullock_(American_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bullock_(American_politi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer
- Feniks 9y agoMore interested in what Montana's representatives voted in Washington about NN. Oh and Trump is going to be reelected. Calling it.
- dibujante 9y agoYeah. It's depressing. The start of the ruling made me think, "This could be a triumph for federalism - states can still pass their own laws and we can put Net Neutrality to the test." Then I read the rest of the ruling. So much for states' rights! It's... still the Democrats' fault, right?
- Animats 9y agoMontana. Now that's an unexpected source for business regulation.
- pktgen 9y agoSurprisingly, it's also the only state to require just cause for terminating an employment relationship (not at-will).
- shagie 9y agoMontana has had bad experiences with a lack of regulation in the past. Montana was also the state with corporate political donations limits that went up against Citizens United.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> Montana was also the state with corporate political donations limits that went up against Citizens United. This is incorrect. Corporations are not allowed to donate to political campaigns, and that's been illegal throughout the US for a very, very long time. Individuals (like you and me) who are unaffiliated with political campaigns are allowed to make political statements. And we're allowed to spend money to make those statements, as long as we don't coordinate with campaigns at any point. Citizens United ruled that individuals retain this right when they band together in groups to make political statements (again, as long as that group of people remains unaffiliated with political campaigns and does not coordinate with them in any way). Montana tried to argue that this law didn't apply to state and local elections, but they were struck down, because... well, it was a particularly weak argument for them to make in the first place, from a legal perspective.
- rhizome 9y ago"Unaffiliated" is doing a lot of work in that description, as it turns out.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
- badrequest 9y agoGood for them. Hopefully Texas will fo-lol I can't even finish that sentence.
- RainaRelanah 9y agoReading Cruz's tweets on net neutrality invokes a special type of enragement[0]. It is downright offensive how he treats his constituents, especially us lucky folks in the "People's Republic of Austin". 0. https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/941489723901665280?lang=en https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/941489723901665280?lang=e...
- Hextinium 9y agoThe way that Cruz talks about NN is infuriating to everyone I have talked to in CS or literally anyone I have talked to in DFW. There are a massive amount of tech people in DFW who should be pushing for NN for their business more than there is in Austin and I am suprised nothing has come of it.
- moduspol 9y agoAnother executive order... and this one only affecting ISPs wanting a contract with the state government. Is that really the best that can be done?
- vec 9y agoIf you're the Governor of Montana, it probably is the best that can be done. It's not a lot by itself, of course, but I'm not going to begrudge local and state officials from exercising what powers they do have to try and make the situation a bit better.
- Feniks 9y agoThey could stop running as Republican candidates. Just an idea.
- kijin 9y agoThe Governor of Montana is a Democrat.
- _delirium 9y agoThe governor's even been a Democrat for the past 13 years, for that matter (4 consecutive elections). People seem to have the idea that Montana is an ultra-conservative state where Republicans win every election, which isn't really true.
- sctb 9y agoDo you mind not injecting partisan politics? Discussions tend to become instantly boring and/or hostile when we do so. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- twunde 9y agoKeep in mind that most ISPs get contracts with state government and are generally subsidized by state contracts, especially for city and rural rollouts. Notably Verizon gets a number of complaints in NYC and NJ for not fulfilling contracts. It also opens the doors for other smaller ISPs to get those contracts and create more competition.
- hetfeld 9y agoRelocating my company in 3... 2... 1...
- godgod 9y agoThat's not how things are supposed to work. Civil wars have begun this way.
- jackdaniels2 9y agoGood thing your country has state rights.
- shmerl 9y agoCongrats!
- JohnStudio 9y agoNot to be against state's rights here, but isn't Net Neutrality anti-business? If a state goes it alone, does it risk pro-business components who might leave the state? Curiosity vs. equality slant, so not looking to pick a bone here. Real question ..
- fabianhjr 9y agoNet Neutralitiy is pro-buisness and pro-consumers. If you want to make an internet startup in a NN jurisdiction you won't have additional costs to deliver the service to customers. For what reason would NN make be anti-buisness?
- jedberg 9y agoNN is technically anti-business, if your business happens to be "large nation-wide ISP".
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoOr any small ISP that wants to be able to compete with those large nationwide ISPs. It's much harder for small ISPs to comply with Title II regulation than large ones with tons of employees.
- kingnothing 9y agoThe parent's account appears to be new and largely used for political and ideological discussion. I'm not a moderator, but I'd encourage you to read the community guidelines as that type of behavior is specifically prohibited: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- JohnStudio 9y agoSo let's pull down reference: Not to be against state's rights here, but isn't Net Neutrality anti-business? >> generalization, but specific to a yes/no. No politics, but setting aside states vs. federal overlap and differences >> Net Neutrality hits at the heart of overlap. That was a tactile approach to ask a question w/o saying Trump, Democrats suck, Republicans Suck .. etc. If a state goes it alone, does it risk pro-business components who might leave the state? >> How is THIS political? I ask the risk for analysis >> to help me expand the dynamic understand that is required for Net Neutrality to have an informed view. NN IS political, and I'm trying to understand the longer view of its implications to each part. THAT is neutral. Curiosity vs. equality slant, so not looking to pick a bone here. Real question .. >> Lastly ... I stated my intent. Intent is either what sets you free ... or lands you in jail. >> In this case, I used intent to direct towards WHY is NN so controversial and how can we make it LESS controversial. >>I don't understand people that don't like open-minded requests for help in understanding the broader strokes of very BROAD topics. It's the nuances ... not the prickly parts .. that make for good conversation.
- rebuilder 9y agoSo, as someone with no knowledge of the landscape in Montana, I'm wondering: how many ISPs are there who would pick Montana state contracts over the ability to throttle and prioritize traffic?
- imsofuture 9y agoOne of our main telecoms (Blackfoot) is a co-op that rose from the ashes of Bell abandoning the state entirely, so definitely they would.
- client4 9y agoMy friend made an app that lets you peek at the State Checkbook and see what ISP's are getting checks. http://www.porkcast.com/ http://www.porkcast.com/
- djsumdog 9y agoLooks like it's gone. The domain is for sale.
- 1024core 9y agoAnd California (where I live) is still lounging, doing nothing.
- joshuaheard 9y agoThe headline is a little misleading. The state is not implementing rules or regulations for net neutrality. It is simply requiring, as a condition of contracting with the state, that ISPs abide by the principles of net neutrality. If an ISP does not have any state contracts, it is free to do whatever it wants under the federal law. Many jurisdictions attach such conditions to entering into a contract with the jurisdiction, ie paying a living wage, hiring a certain percentage of minorities, etc.
- dboreham 9y agoI live here and have some familiarity with the ISP landscape. I'm going to bet that all* ISPs operating in the state are going to have contracts with the state. *Well, all ISPs of any consequence.
- takk309 9y agoAlso a Montanan and I second this opinion. We are a small state (population) with few ISP's, especially in the rural areas. I am sure they all do some sort of business with the State.
- twothamendment 9y agoYeah, I'm pretty sure my ISP is the only one in the county, so there is a good chance the serve the schools and government buildings.
- joe_the_user 9y agoSure but if push came to shove, if a non-net-neutral approach became a profit center for an ISP, they could afford to jettison those contracts. You would think the state of Montana would/could also put conditions on contracts for using municipal telephone poles in the state (since states have imposed the condition that, say, municipalities can't operate their own ISPs). You'd think but you think incorrectly given the way things work in the US.
- 9y ago
- debt 9y agoGreat, but there's like five people in Montana; it's practically a Dakota. http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml
- indigodaddy 9y agoIs it likely that the whole NN issue will end up decided by SCOTUS?
- icebraining 9y agoWhat's there for the SCOTUS to decide?
- solomatov 9y agoThat's great news! But what about internet privacy?
- howard941 9y agoIf it's at all effective congress will preempt it.
- steamer25 9y agoI think that'd be an uphill battle. E.g., I, for one, oppose federal interference with the technical decisions of ISPs via so-called net neutrality. I've written my representatives on multiple occasions saying so. If I lived in Montana, I'd be similarly opposed to the state government's meddling. As a citizen of Minnesota, I'd actually oppose an overreaching federal government if they tried to overturn Montana's law. Even though I think it'd be better policy for Montanans, I regard Montana's rights as a state as more important than my ego's desire to direct their policy from afar. My guess is that a lot of other opponents of federal internet regulation would agree. I'm actually quite glad to see this playing out among the various states as 'laboratories of democracy'. In ten years, we'll both have a lot more data on which policy promotes better offerings. What I'd really like to see is one of the states declare municipal grants of telecommunications monopolies to be void. E.g., if some town has contracted with Comcast to be the only ISP legally allowed, then the state would come in and say that those terms are legally unenforceable and that the town has to license at least one or two competitors or face charges from the state.
- howard941 9y ago> I think that'd be an uphill battle. Yeah, nothing in this arena's going to come easily to either side, there's far too much at stake. The Supreme Court didn't help planning or certainty when it disturbed fairly well-settled federal preclusion doctrine with a number of split holdings over the past 20 years so one way or the other we're in for a show.
- jnordwick 9y agoFor this requirement to have any meaning, Montana would need to be able to enforce it (ie choose another isp). But that would show that the isp landscape isn't owned by monopolies. This would actually seriously undermine many arguments as to why net neutrality needs laws to protect it over what the market can do. I wonder is if we will start to find out that maybe the isp market isn't as closed as we thought - wireless tech, more entrants, new tech - and those saying we need NN laws because the market isn't healthy enough will pivot to a more normative claim regardless of completion. I am somebody who could easily be brought on board with specifically crafted NN laws, but see much of the title ii at all costs advocacy a little of the mark.
- s73ver_ 9y agoWhy? What, specifically, is bad about Title II? What makes it good for telephone, but not good for Internet?
- kelnos 9y ago> For this requirement to have any meaning, Montana would need to be able to enforce it (ie choose another isp). Why? Can't they also just fine them in increasing amounts until they comply?
- jnordwick 9y agoNo they can't. Its not a law. It is just a directive that the government will not do business with isps that do not comply to certain standards.
- bekimdisha 9y agoMontana - The forefront of the digital advancement lol ...
- anfilt 9y agoWhile it's not a complete net-neutrality across the board. Having lived in Montana before I can tell you why they did this despite being Red State. Montana has always been a state that values strong state rights. It was one of the last States to have a speed limit. So state preemption would rub a lot of Montanians the wrong way. Montana also has a democrat governor at the moment.
- jdmichal 9y agoMontana is also the state that tried to pass a gun law that didn't require federal registration if the gun was made, sold, and used in Montana. Federal courts struck that one down. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act
- lostapathy 9y agoKansas has a similar law on the books. These laws haven't exactly been struck down, but states can't seem to uphold them either. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2017/feb/06/2-kansas-men-spared-prison-prosecution-over-state-/ http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2017/feb/06/2-kansas-men-spared...
- anfilt 9y agoHonestly, when reading about that, I find the panels reasoning of: "Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Congress could regulate the internal manufacture of firearms within Montana because the creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally." Seems a bit of stretch if you ask me. I am not sure I would call that interstate commerce.
- AlexandrB 9y agoIt's really ironic that the Comcasts of the world were probably hoping to get a free pass to do whatever they want, when in reality they will end up with different rules for each state increasing the cost of compliance.
- wsxcde 9y agoDoubtful. Comcast only need a small number of states without these rules to make create a miserable user-experience for Netflix/Youtube and then word of mouth will do the rest. After that, whatever sums Comcast have to pay their lawyers will pale in comparison to whatever they can extort from the Netflix/Google.
- jeffdavis 9y agoGood point. Not to mention that it can switch back and forth as the political winds change, making it hard to keep any lucrative deals going for very long. NN might be one of those things that companies just don't violate for all kinds of reasons at many different levels; regardless of federal mandates. We should probably get used to fighting at many different levels. Freedom requires eternal vigilance; not a really great FCC chairperson.
- ascagnel_ 9y agoMontana could also structure their rules such that any ISP with a connection terminating at a state government must apply their NN rules to any data transferred through the state while it is in-state, even if the source and destination are outside of the state. Now that would be a regulatory nightmare.
- zanny 9y agoIf any states had legitimate balls they would use this as an opportunity to justify funding a public fiber network that anyone can plug in to.
- bahmboo 9y agoCreate a state law that defines what constitutes "internet access". ISPs would be forced to offer that or "limited internet access" or some such.