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.

Comments

Clever way around "blocked from imposing rules"

[Mike Van Pelt]

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.

Re:Clever way around "blocked from imposing rules"

[Software]

At the risk of nitpicking, it's not a business practice, it's a government practice. The distinction is important because the courts have typically given governments broad leeway in using their "power of the purse". A good example is the 21 year old drinking age, which is not a federal law. However, the states were threatened with losing their share of the federally-allocated highway funds if they didn't enact their own 21 year old drinking age laws.

The potential harm of traffic shaping is not something the state should ignore in its procurement processes. The ISPs who shape traffic will eventually start to throttle VPNs once customers realize they can get Netflix faster over a VPN without having to buy the "Streamer's Package" (or whatever the ISPs will call it). VPNs used by government employees working remotely will get throttled, too. So the state has a legitimate interest in discouraging traffic shaping.

Re:Clever way around "blocked from imposing rules"

[PopeRatzo]

I really dislike attempts at bypassing a law or rule by leveraging a technicality.

In this case, the "technicality" being leveraged is the U.S. Constitution.

Re:Clever way around "blocked from imposing rules"

[ZipK]

which would be.... imposing a rule

They aren't imposing a rule about doing business in the state New York, they're imposing a rule about doing business with the State of New York. The FCC didn't appear to prohibit the latter.

Clever, and it doesn't violate the FCC's rules.

[SilverBlade2k]

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.

Re:NY Cali MA etc

[bobbied]

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.