Slashdot Mirror
Montana To FCC: You Can't Stop Us From Protecting Net Neutrality (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Montana governor's office has a message for the Federal Communications Commission and Internet service providers: the state can't be stopped from protecting net neutrality, and ISPs that don't like it don't have to do business with state agencies. Governor Steve Bullock signed an executive order to protect net neutrality on Monday. But with questions raised about whether Bullock is exceeding his authority, the governor's legal office prepared a fact sheet that it's distributing to anyone curious about potential legal challenges to the executive order. ISPs are free to violate net neutrality if they only serve non-government customers -- they just can't do so and expect to receive state contracts. "Companies that don't like it don't have to do business with the State -- nothing stops ISPs from selling dumpy Internet plans in Montana if they insist," the fact sheet says.
The FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules attempts to preempt states and localities from issuing their own similar rules. But Bullock's executive order doesn't directly require ISPs to follow net neutrality rules. Instead, ISPs that accept contracts to provide Internet service to any state agency must agree to abide by net neutrality principles throughout the state. Bullock's fact sheet is titled, "Why Isn't Montana's Executive Order Preempted?" and it offers numerous answers to that question. "Through the order, the State of Montana acts as a consumer -- not a regulator," the fact sheet says. "Because there's no mandate, and no new regulations, there's certainly no federal preemption. Companies that don't like Montana's proposed contract terms don't have to do business with the State."
The FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules attempts to preempt states and localities from issuing their own similar rules. But Bullock's executive order doesn't directly require ISPs to follow net neutrality rules. Instead, ISPs that accept contracts to provide Internet service to any state agency must agree to abide by net neutrality principles throughout the state. Bullock's fact sheet is titled, "Why Isn't Montana's Executive Order Preempted?" and it offers numerous answers to that question. "Through the order, the State of Montana acts as a consumer -- not a regulator," the fact sheet says. "Because there's no mandate, and no new regulations, there's certainly no federal preemption. Companies that don't like Montana's proposed contract terms don't have to do business with the State."
I can imagine big ISPs simply pulling the plug on the state government, and leaving the contract to a local ISP.
Sounds like a great way to piss off the legislature and begin the proliferation of municipal ISPs.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Montana did not pass a law or regulation. They stipulated a contractual condition for receiving state business.
If you and I negotiated a contract for a service that placed conditions on how I provided my service to others, that wouldn't be a law or regulation either.
Now, whether these contractual conditions are enforceable ... well, go watch the courts, and don't forget the popcorn.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
We've seen this ideology of overthrowing democracy before, with one in particular inflicting suffering and innumerable costs to life worldwide for over a century (and it still hasn't ended) using the EXACT same argument about not having time for democracy:
http://www.stephenhicks.org/20...
All that happens is you end up with sadists running the government, and democracy never returns until your glorious revolution, and everything it stands for, comes to an end.
Actually, if you'll notice - outside your Fox bubble - it's "The Left(TM)" that has pushed hardest for NN and "The Right(TM)" that has been sucking on the "Free Market Uber-Alles(TM)" schlong. Where THF did you EVER get the idea that The Left opposes NN?? Damn, that's not just stupid, but downright delusional, dude. Wake up!!
When the partisan bullshit stops, the us versus them is over, and the 'my team is better than your team' nonsense finally ends, then shit can get done and the nation can move forward. The football mentality of the current political climate will be the death of us all if this shit doesn't stop soon.
Compromise is the key, and dumbass shit like "the left/right has a hard time with reading comprehension" adds absolutely fuck all in terms of useful dialogue.
Beware of the Leopard.
However, the government offices will still want internet, so *somebody* will be providing it - and now who do you suppose will be the ones getting more favorable consideration in future legislation and other government dealings?
Plus the sate of Montana is responsible for over 5% of employment in the state - that's a lot of well-distributed business to just hand over to your competitors. Especially if nobody in the oligopoly wants to play ball - then some little upstart is suddenly going to be getting really favorable pole leases, etc. from the state to deploy the necessary infrastructure.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Eliminating net neutrality was the opposite of democracy. It was an unelected official ignoring the voice of the people and doing whatever the hell he wanted.
Montana. Not enough market to matter to large ISP's....
The tiny tip of a very large iceberg.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
State contracts are the Montana's domain... not the FCC's domain.
Not exactly unelected. We are in a representative democracy, which means you vote for people believing that they will make decisions with your best interests in mind. Unfortunately, that process put fat mouth in the FCC. This isn't the first, or last, time that an elected representative made a decision unpopular with his constituents.