Slashdot Mirror
Many US States Propose Their Own Laws Protecting Net Neutrality (seattletimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times:
Lawmakers in at least six states, including California and New York, have introduced bills in recent weeks that would forbid internet providers to block or slow down sites or online services. Legislators in several other states, including North Carolina and Illinois, are weighing similar action... By passing their own law, the state lawmakers say, they would ensure that consumers would find the content of the choice, maintain a diversity of voices online and protect businesses from having to pay fees to reach users.
And they might even have an effect beyond their states. California's strict auto-emissions standards, for example, have been followed by a dozen other states, giving California major sway over the auto industry. "There tends to be a follow-on effect, particularly when something happens in a big state like California," said Harold Feld, a senior vice president at a nonprofit consumer group, Public Knowledge, that supports net-neutrality efforts by the states. Bills have also been introduced in Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Washington.
In addition, a representative in Alaska's legislature has also pre-filed legislation requiring the state's ISPs to practice net neutrality, which will be introduced when the state legislature resumes on January 16th.
"The recent FCC decision eliminating net neutrality was a mistake that favors the big internet providers and those who want to restrict the kinds of information a free-thinking Alaskan can access," representative Scott Kawasaki told a local news station. "That is not the Alaskan way, and I am hopeful my colleagues in the House and Senate will agree..."
The Independent also notes that Europe "is still strongly committed" to net neutrality.
And they might even have an effect beyond their states. California's strict auto-emissions standards, for example, have been followed by a dozen other states, giving California major sway over the auto industry. "There tends to be a follow-on effect, particularly when something happens in a big state like California," said Harold Feld, a senior vice president at a nonprofit consumer group, Public Knowledge, that supports net-neutrality efforts by the states. Bills have also been introduced in Massachusetts, Nebraska, Rhode Island and Washington.
In addition, a representative in Alaska's legislature has also pre-filed legislation requiring the state's ISPs to practice net neutrality, which will be introduced when the state legislature resumes on January 16th.
"The recent FCC decision eliminating net neutrality was a mistake that favors the big internet providers and those who want to restrict the kinds of information a free-thinking Alaskan can access," representative Scott Kawasaki told a local news station. "That is not the Alaskan way, and I am hopeful my colleagues in the House and Senate will agree..."
The Independent also notes that Europe "is still strongly committed" to net neutrality.
The states that have it will see an increase of geeks immigrating to their states and setting up businesses there.
Fuck Ajit Pai.
Fuck Ajit Pai
I see Comcast cable dangling over my backyard, suspended on utility poles I pay for with my tax money. I don't see any reason to allow that if they get frisky. How about my town does competitive bidding to get a backbone hookup and maintain local routers and wires? If Comcast wins fine, but Silicon Valley has lots of startups who would love to land a big gig.
"[W]hether the FCC can govern intrastate commerce" is not a very accurate description of the question before the Supreme Court, or that court's decision. That case was an extremely narrow ruling on whether two particular sections of the federal law establishing the FCC gave the FCC authority to preempt state rules on depreciation schedules for equipment where both the FCC and the state had jurisdiction over setting telecom rates.
Contrast that to the rulings in Wickard and is progeny, through Gonzales v. Raich (2005), where federal law can govern even intrastate activities as long as the local effects are part of an overarching scheme of national regulation.
That's not the problem.
To use a specific example, the problem is ISPs partnering with Nextflix to slow down competitors to Netflix.
That's pretty overt, but it could also be something like the ISP offering a package where Netflix doesn't count towards your data cap, but Netflix competitors do count towards that cap. Different technique, similar results.
Now multiply by every other company that relies on the internet to reach customers, and you have a way for entrenched business to artificially limit competition and stifle innovation.
ISPs shouldn't get to meddle with the free market's of other industries/services/content.