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.
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.
pick up the slack that the federal government is abdicating . . . maintain civilization on state by state basis . . . those anarchic lunatics.
The irony is strong with you.
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.
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.
In my view of the US constitution... This is EXACTLY how it should work....
As I recall the 10th amendment is pretty clear about this. States need to take back their power and tell the Fed where to get off with all their locally applied regulations....
Not that I'm defending NY's decision here. I think they are being stupid... I'm just agreeing that they have the right to do this if that's what their voters want.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
It is how the Constitution is setup. For good or for bad state's rights enable each state to regulate when the Fed fails to do so. Unfortunately this balkinization also causes massive problems for national/international organizations. This was simply not a problem when the Constitution was written. With additional rules being put in place by each state, at best they will supplement each-other, at worst they can directly contradict each-other. Now each ISP has to comply with each states net neutrality regulation in an ever growing quagmire of bureaucracy.
To see an older example of this cluster fuck balkinized bullshit look at the state by state sales taxes and how shit is all fucked up for internet taxation, for decades creating a uneven playing field that fucked small and mid sized organizations in favor of the truely massive who could game the system. http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/2... .
This all could have been avoided if the anti-government savage leaders even bothered to list their anti-government savage followers. http://thehill.com/policy/tech... . Even the most savage of people had to admit that net neutrality was a good thing.
... 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.
ISPs are natural monopolies if the infrastructure is not nationalized or opened to the public by regulation. The only thing is unlike with any other natural monopoly the price/quality of the good is not controlled by regulation.
Except, of course, the Internet clearly being an interstate commerce mechanism, and this being a deliberate interference in interstate commerce.
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.
I don't agree. I think the framers did a masterful job with their design and it would work fine today if people understood how this worked and let it happen. The federal government was supposed to be limited in size and scope and focused on things like national defense, international treaties and the like but we have let it grow into an all powerful unifying entity that directly impacts state and local government operations though "grants" and attached regulations which has blown it all out of proportion to its original design. This is not how it's supposed to work. It's supposed to be limited, in scope and size, leaving the bulk of the regulation to the state and local governments who are closer to the people and the things they are regulating. The framers where right.
However, if you don't like it this way, you are going to need to get the constitution modified to account for your perceived issues. What would be your proposed amendment?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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
ISPs are natural monopolies
Please stop spouting this nonsense. ISPs are not monopolies. When you can find 8 different companies all selling service in the same area, it isn't a natural, unnatural, or any other kind of monopoly.
What IS a natural monopoly are certain forms of delivery of ISP services. Cable and telco are natural monopolies. But since "ISP" and "cable" are not synonyms, the latter does not create a monopoly status on the former.
The delivery mechanism when owned by a private entity and unregulated chooses to become a monopoly on the ISP end. Thus the ISP portion is part of the natural vertical and horizontal monopolistic entity.
The delivery mechanism when owned by a private entity and unregulated chooses to become a monopoly on the ISP end.
That's what I said. There are certain forms of DELIVERY that are natural monopolies just because of the cost of the infrastructure. That does not make "ISP" into "natural monopoly".
Thus the ISP portion is part of the natural vertical and horizontal monopolistic entity.
THAT ISP using THAT DELIVERY MEDIUM has a natural monopoly on THAT DELIVERY MEDIUM. If you haven't noticed, there are more available media than just "cable" and "telco".
"One ISP has a monopoly on cable delivery of internet service" is NOT THE SAME as "ISPs are a natural monopoly."
In my view of the US constitution... This is EXACTLY how it should work....
As I recall the 10th amendment is pretty clear about this. States need to take back their power and tell the Fed where to get off with all their locally applied regulations....
The problem is that the people in power right now, will scream bloody murder about state's rights when it suits them. This of course is because they have managed to figure out a way to get elevted by the voters, while actually working for their corporate overorlds who pay the baksheesh to do their bidding. But now they are all about the power of the Federal Government.
At present, they are getting hoist by their own petard. This current situation, Where Montana, New York, Vermont, Colorado, and California, have flipped a big middle finger to the Powers that be is actually pretty fascinating. And more will join.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.'"
I actually like you response annnd I actually think the Constitution was just relatively good as written for when it was written. The problem is we have not done it anything close to justice by adequately maintaining it since then by utilizing its own self correcting mechanisms. We have the large population, economical vibrant, and educationally well endowed states which have recognized and want to leverage the economics of scale of a unified economic,social, and infrastructural system, and a smaller,subsistence level economic locations which want to plug their ears, remain isolated and agrarian, and pretend that 1787 dosent need an update. Unfortunately the legislative systems we have in place were written with the explicit purpose of bribing the philosophic/if not geological ancestors of the current subsistence advocates into joining the union who just by (sarcasm) chance happened to be the slave dominated agrarian economies. As such the bribe they required to um join the union, was that the Constitution be written to disproportionately benefit their agrarian feudal societies by giving them disproportionate voting rights codified by senate representative system and a Constitutional update vote where each state gets the same vote independent of population. As such this feudalistic,slave promoting, under educated group has been refusing to update the Constitution since day 1. From the bill of rights, to the end of slavery to the implementation of prohibition to the removal of prohibition the agrarian advocates have always been on the wrong side of history and leveraged their disproportionate voting power to hold back needed and in retrospect nearly-universally respected reform.
Ideal solution to keep the US together? Ban gerrymandering, ensure roughly equal representation per person, remove states rights for anything that federal regulation is required to ensure economics of scale
Realistic solution? There is none. We are headed for another civil war because because the two frameworks are irreconcilable and the feudalistic states will abuse the system to keep as much power as they can.
The southern states are beat, population, economic and militarily, but they have the legislative system which gives them more power. That outsized power is unsustainable and will end worse for them than Sherman's march but the whole nation will suffer.
"If you haven't noticed, there are more available media than just "cable" and "telco"." No there are not, . Webpass and cellphones are not viable solutions for general population broadband.
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.
you can find 8 different companies all selling service in the same area
Where?
"If you haven't noticed, there are more available media than just "cable" and "telco"." No there are not,
Your ignorance also does not convert "ISP" into "monopoly."
I've counted about five in the city where I live.
Does the system that was invented close to 250 years back really make sense now? It has already led to a pretty brutal war due to the States wanting to do different things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
If your view is political power and controlling everything, then I can see someone thinking like you do.
The problem though is many republicans are not enamored with obtaining political power for the federal government and fully understand what that means to their ability to control everything. When we preach "states rights" we mean it. If California wants to be a liberal wasteland of failed utopian policies and high taxes, so be it. IF Texas wants low taxes and conservative government, so be that too.
For example. Remember that Trump sad about abortion and Roe/Wade? He said it was bad law and should be overturned, right? Then they asked him how that would effect the country and he said (and I paraphrase) "Then the decision about abortion would be left to the states to decide."
This is the way it was designed to be done and the framers had a reason for this. We've subverted it by ignoring the designed in limits on Federal power and are paying the price for our error. Republicans recognize this, and are indeed pushing for a form of government that gives them less power. You should welcome this..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
And what was that war about in the 1860's? The counting of slaves verses freemen in the north and south?
We've gone far away from our founding design and I believe this is not a good thing. Where the Federal government is properly charged with enforcing the constitution and civil rights within our borders, we've long ago left ideal of limited government where the power is left to the states and the people.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Ah, so I take it you think an all powerful central government is just the ticket then?
I see your views as an attack on our founding principles as well as our founder's wisdom in their choices for how our government was designed to work. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that our form of government is somehow old fashioned and thus ineffective.
I believe that the actual problems of government haven't really changed in thousands of years and as such the most effective form of government remains the same. I don't think mankind has changed or the things we need government for are any different. As such, I think the founders recognized this truth and designed a system of government that addresses the real problems we need government for. They invented a solution that isn't about the means of government (the laws and functions of it) but a system of government that allows the control of the means to be by the people. We have abandoned this principle because of thoughts like yours, and we do so at our peril.
I suggest you read the debates about all this in the Federalist papers. This was well debated and our system well thought out and quite brilliant when you understand the actual reasons for things, information sorely lacking in most civics classes these days.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How many of those serve any specific address. I'll bet you find it's not many.
I have a choice of two, but I live in a downtown apartment in an urban area.
Cheap storage VM.
The internet itself is interstate. The provision of its service is not - it is very specifically local.
"I see your views as an attack on our founding principles as well as our founder's wisdom in their choices for how our government was designed to work. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that our form of government is somehow old fashioned and thus ineffective."
You imply that the founding fathers were some kind of homogeneous group. This debate has been raging since before the nation was even founded. The acquiesce to the states rights fanatics directly caused our first nation under the Articles of Confederation to completely fall apart. Even then those fanatics failed to see the abject failure of their ideas and only signed onto the Constitution after incredible political bribery thus ingraining their power as stated above. At that point as in today, the stronger US powers disagreed. However, in the revolutionary war era the Federalist states were not powerful enough to stand alone in the world and needed the help of the less powerful but still vital states.
Ever since then those states rights locations have been on decline to this point in history where they are currently essentially third world countries compared to the modern pro-centralized states.
If state's rights anti-federalism were somehow a bulwark against oppression you would assume at least at one point in our history that we would have a bloom of freedom coming from them. Instead at each and every epoc in our history the federalist locations had to reach down and force the rural agrarian states from oppressing the shit out of people.
From the bill of rights, to the right of women to vote, to the rights of minorities to vote, to the end of slavery, to the civil rights movements, the same anti-federalist groups and locations have fought for repression. Each and every time the federal government had to reach down and end their oppressive actions.
The statistics are in, from an economic point as measured by GDP growth ant-federalism is a failure, from a social point as measured by advocating for general freedom anti-federalism is a failure, The situation got so bad we had to kill the fanatics during the civil war, unfortunately my guess is that the lesson was not learned and this will repeat itself soon. The anti-federalism strain is the greatest evil at the core of our nation, not though direct malice but by ignorance of the historical proof that it causes needless suffering by restraining the nation from fixing our great problems. We get there, but in each and every time the anti-federalist efforts have caused suffering by slowing the process.
All the Federal actions you point to are part of it's valid function of enforcing the bill of rights.. However, the bill of rights has little to do with the bulk of the Federal government.
How do you justify "The Department of Energy" or "Department of Education" and how they meddle with what the states can and cannot do? The EPA has grown WAY beyond any kind of constitutionally limited part of the Federal government. How is the Federal government even involved in things like welfare and Medicaid from a constitutional perspective?
My point isn't that ALL power rests with the states, only that the majority of what the Federal government does today with the exception of defense, measured both by dollars and people is really outside the constitution's frame work our founders provided us. We've allowed expediency to drive us towards a government which is too big, too expensive and too involved in things best left to the states.
Also, Capitalism is enabled by smaller government and I have news for you about the numbers. When you remove oppressive regulations, the economy grows. Don't believe me? What's the last 9 months mean to you? Anti-Federalism seems to be working great for Trump's administration.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If your view is political power and controlling everything, then I can see someone thinking like you do.
The problem though is many republicans are not enamored with obtaining political power for the federal government and fully understand what that means to their ability to control everything.
Just who are these many Republicans? As a person who used to vote 75-80 percent Republican, I have not seen any of that for a long time. The Republican Party is the Party of Donald Trump, and do not deny it. Trump had a record number of votes for any Republican candidate ever. This is the person the Republican Party wanted and elected. He represents the views of the majority of Republicans.
When we preach "states rights" we mean it. If California wants to be a liberal wasteland of failed utopian policies and high taxes, so be it.
And you preach a balanced budget too. That's pretty amusing. And tell ya what - as a Goldwater conservative, I can tell you there are words and there are actions. And personally I would take a liberal wasteland over the party of pedophiles, russian collaborators, and payoffs to porn stars that Republicans actively support. I wouldn't like it, but the present party is running on deep abiding hatred. I mean I was apalled with Bill Clinton's behavior, but Republicans simply do not care thet their leader seems to have teh morals of an alley cat, has paid a pornstar for silence over an ongoing affair and still support the man they voted for and who represents their beliefs. A model of moral consistency you have ot admit.
Republicans recognize this, and are indeed pushing for a form of government that gives them less power. You should welcome this..
I would welcome actual work in that direction, but you seriously don't believe these folks do you? Never ever believe a person who wants a job that says he wants to have less power or that wants to get rid of the job.It just isn't in the nature of people who want to lead.
There is a lot of money that is passing into politician' hands these days, and just like power, few people actively seek to become poorer.
The biggest problem with the Republican Party is that since the Clinton administration it has taken a hard right turn, and after th ecountry had the nerve to elect a president "that doesn't look like us!" they have gone off the rails, culminating in our present situation.
As my boy Barry said - "I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws but to repeal them." That would seem to argue against my premise, but here's the kickers that got him into trouble
The big thing is to make this country... quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. ... They're American citizens.
You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.
A woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.
Finally the ideologial core of the 2000's version of the Republican party.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
This is your problem, As a Republican, you want some life or death power over citizens, and you will brook no compromise.
I don't agree with everything My boy Barry said, but I respect him. And there sure as hell aren't many Republicans like him any more, after Gingrich started demanding they walk in locks
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.