Slashdot Mirror
New York Governor Signs Executive Order To Keep Net Neutrality Rules After FCC's Repeal (theverge.com)
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced today that he has signed an executive order that would require internet service providers with state contracts to abide by net neutrality rules, even though the FCC recently voted to repeal those rules last month. Cuomo's announcement comes a couple days after Montana's governor signed essentially the same order. The Verge reports: [Both executive orders] require service providers with contracts to abide by the widely agreed upon tenets of net neutrality: no blocking, throttling, or otherwise favoring content. But the more populous New York could now become a key battleground over net neutrality. According to the order, any service provider receiving or renewing a contract after March 1st in New York will be required to sign an agreement saying they will adhere to net neutrality principles. Major companies, including Verizon and AT&T, have signed contracts with the state. That, however, doesn't mean the executive order will stand. When it passed its repeal of net neutrality rules late last year, the FCC specifically included a provision blocking states from passing their own rules. New York, like other states that attempt similar plans, will likely face a legal challenge.
As I read this, New York isn't imposing a rule that would run afoul of the FCC's ban on states and localities imposing rules on internet providers.
They're just saying that neutrality is a condition of doing business with New York.
If you don't want to do net neutrality, fine, knock yourself out, but New York will not do business with you. Your choice.
I don't see that the FCC has a say in this.
are going to have to pick up the slack that the federal government is abdicating. I don't really care that the savage fucks in the south don't really want a government, we do. For now well have to maintain civilization on state by state basis until we resubjugate the south. Unfortunately doing so will negate much of the economics of scale that the Federal government could achieve, but state by state civilization on the coats is better than the no civilization advocated by those anarchic lunatics.
Regardless of your stance on Net Neutrality, this looks to me to be a clear abuse of the "executive order." We have legislative branches for such things.
This isn't a law that undoes the FCC ruling.
It basically says that if ISP's want to do business with the state and wants their contracts, Net Neutrality is one of the agreements.
ISP's have a choice if they want those contracts or not. And there's NO law anywhere saying that State governments absolutely must do business with the ISP's. No such law can exist because that would be immediately squashed in court.
Finally someone sees it for what it really is.
Want new, innovative competition in broadband services consider states and parts of the USA with less telco bureaucracy and rules.
Would those be the same states that still don't have internet to rural areas?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
We endure him in New York, bust just barely. It does not matter if there can be no legal teeth to his pronouncements, everything he does is about relaying a carefully focus-grouped sound bite or photo op. His stances on various issues have routinely "evolved" as the political winds have shifted during his career. He is the poster child for everything that is wrong with American politics: descended from political royalty, with the commensurate sense of entitlement, absolutely no moral compass or POV on anything that has not been vetted by pollsters, and a clear and unabashed tie-in to the media.
Chances are NY is doing it under threat of withheld federal aid.
... Federal, state and local governments negotiated contracts with vendors to give their traffic priority, for "public safety" reasons. Now they want to put in place rules that forbid that... Seems political expediency is more important than public safety now.
Innovative:
I'm on the south side of my street, and get 500Mb down/50Mb up for $80/mo
Not Innovative:
A few hundred feet north, the only option offered is 10Mb down, 1Mb up.
The innovative side has upped its pipe, but not service area in the last two years (WOW), whereas Comcast (the north side) has stayed in the 90s/Early 2000s.
One of the few times I'm proud to be south.
It's a capricious contractual clause, that contributes nothing to the service provided in the contract
Prohibiting throttling or traffic shaping or favoring of some content over other contributes nothing to the service provided by an ISP?
...with state contracts...
Like Montana, how do New York state residents benefit?
Rural areas? Last I checked some of them didn't have anything beyond dial-up even in the cities. (Well, that was well over a decade ago, but I'm talking about South Dakota.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Except in this case it is what is right.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Would those be the same states that still don't have internet to rural areas?
Which states aren't those? I can get internet, but I can't get it on a wire. People at both ends of the road I live on are being offered gigabit cable now, and I'm paying $99/mo for 6 Mbps.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wrong.
What has been so far accomplished by Net Neutrality, as weak as it has been so far, is prevent ISPs from continuing the worst of the anti-consumer stunts they have tried.
You would probably be paying extra to your ISP to stream each and every web video provider othewise.
If Comcast and the like had their way you would be watching 480p Netflix or Hulu with your basic internet service.
Oh, you want Hulu in 1080p?
That package costs you an extra $20 a month on your Internet package.
Netflix in HD too? Another $20 added to your Comast bill.
It's a capricious contractual clause, that contributes nothing to the service provided in the contract, and is therefore a violation of most states purchasing laws. If imposed with federal money, it would be a violation of whichever appropriations act authorized the money.
And let's be honest. Nothing about this stunt from Obama or Cuomo did anything for what you and I believe is net neutrality; it was merely a populist stunt camouflaging the application of CALEA to ISPs.
-1 for stating an opinion that is neither inflammatory or trolling. No doubt modded that way by net neutrality supporters.
Just remember, he was behind the attack on Usenet. https://m.slashdot.org/story/103987
He has manhandled ISPs before. https://m.slashdot.org/story/103987
Obama lost, GET OVER IT!
Contracts with the state already come with SLA's. Does nothing for the rest of the state populace, though.
The states lost much power to the federation after the civil war. With actions like these, the states are clawing back power over their own affairs and trade that they are supposed to have under the constitution.
If the left hadn't gone completely insane I probably would've supported net neutrality, isn't that weird? I valued free speech to the point that I left Reddit in favor of 8chan - eventually I wound up on /pol/. I've got a better grasp on reality now but I've certainly lost friends - they recoil in horror when you pubicly reject the popular dogma. Lately I've found myself hating the left so much, hating the anti-male anti-white agenda, that I'm willing to hurt myself to hurt you.
No he doesn't. He just prefers the "spirit of the law" to supersede the "letter of the law" when it comes to legal matters. (Many countries in Europe do it that way: if in doubt about the intention of a law, the judge goes through the work that went into producing that law to check.)
I don't believe any of what you wrote would have happened but I believe you believe it.
It amazes me that people think "Thank God the government stepped up and forced my ISP to delivery me 1080p content." As someone older - but not that old - it just amazes me the role people feel government should have in their lives.
The US elected a goverment to SHUT DOWN so called "net nutrality". This run around the justly enacted law is exactly how democracy dies and it is no surprise the coup is being led by Saudi financed Clinton-Soros associated liberal leftist politicans.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
When did Obama lose?
Imagine ... NY state championing states rights!!
I can see ISPs contracting with the state of NY buying into this, grinning. First DDoS they refuse to block or throttle will likely lead to some fun discussions.