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."
He is trying to be clever et al. However I believe a more absolute and blunt approach is to physically trike ajit pai, perhaps fatally (fingers crossed).
Quite frankly we keep all acting civilized and are being steamrolled, I think the time of civil discourse has begun to end and the realization that we are at the dawn of an interal war is rising within our consciousnesss.
I think we should attack, bombs, bullets, and blood. Burn down the FCC offices, hang ajit pai publicly, capture the board of directors for comcast/at&t/time warner and cut pieces of them off streamed over the public airwaves for 3 hours.
We need to resume control and sanity, and until we descend into madness we will not see the light again.
By removing the mandate as a government rule and replacing it with contractual obligations they will bypass anything the FCC can do.
The State system is a big enough customer to have the clout to make it happem
Aim foot
Shoot
This will come down to simple economics. State government business might be drop in the bucket ISP giants will be making of controlling traffic. The math will be simple drop the government. Pretty soon government will realize that they have no choice but revoke the regulation.
I can imagine big ISPs simply pulling the plug on the state government, and leaving the contract to a local ISP.
I'm not sure if the people involved in repealing NN thought this was going to go away or not but it seem very clear that those against this are going to fight this to the bitter end. I don't expect anyone involved to walk away from this unmarred.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
At the very least, forcing its opponents to fight the Net Neutrality battle at the State level multiplies the resources needed and aggravates those who benefit from its repeal.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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.
All 50 of the State military forces vs. the US armed forces?
First, the state would probably like this, and would probably only agree to if the 'local' isp was in position to compete with the big isp.
The state would probably offer direct incentives to the local isp to expand to consumers as well as state actors.
If the big isp attempted to prevent this, the state would probably sue for breaking monopoly laws.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
One of the points made is that the "marketplace" would decide things because those that didn't like it would just use a provider that kept things on an even keel.
However, if Montana sticks to its guns, and none of the ISPs are willing to provide service under those terms, then it would show there is not valid competition in the marketplace (at least in Montana), such that the consumer (in this case the state) can find and use a provider that does business the way the consumer wants.
It's the ultimate voting with the wallet. I'm just afraid the answer is not going to be a good one.
There's 1 million people in Montana, and a total of 120 ISP. I don't think this is a death blow for the FCC.
lucm, indeed.
What's basically happening here is collective bargaining by the government to get what it wants. In the case of concepts of Net Neutrality this is not a bad thing.
What if the approach works though?
Is it that inconceivable that the next governor will do the same thing regarding some other matter? Their issue might be to throttle bit torrent? Block porn? Fight "fake news" (i.e. block any news outlet painting them in a non-flattering light)? Is this what we want?
All sorts of government interests could be pushed by this method. Will we have a chance to collectively bargain too to balance the scales? How's this going to work?
Or just the state government passing rules that make it illegal for city governments to grant monopoly rights to an ISP. That's essentially the source of the problem. You can't expect a market and therefor choices to exist when it's been explicitly prohibited by law, and no one is really interested in starting their own black market internet over the whole deal.
uhhh what if all ISPs simply stop taking contracts from government, and just.. allow it to stop having internet access? They'd be free to sell dumpy plans to everyone else in the state.. I guess it depends on how much $$$ montana pays for service?
This is nothing more than consumers exercising their rights to walk away from bad products. If we all had the courage to do this, we'd have no need for government action to stop it.
Instead of the short-term boycotts used in the past to fight bad actors, what we need this time is something like an organized "national day of service termination". The importance of having it be a "day" instead of just a general campaign to quit bad actors and move to good ones is to highlight the reasons for the drops and publicize it so that they can't just launch discount campaigns to pull in new suckers.
There has been much organization and lobbying to fight net neutrality. Consumers, not just government consumers, need to start penalizing those seeking to take advantage of them with sharp organization that targets what counts, bottom lines.
Do you mean the European Left, which has been clamoring to censor the internet, or the American Left, which submitted the internet to CALEA under the label of "Net Neutrality" while doing nothing at all to actually give us net neutrality?
No, son, the polical left doesn't want network neutrality; they want network control.
This kind of action will only become more common as people realize more and more that some federal agencies only act in the interest of the administration du jour.
AC comments get piped to
It's more likely that some of the smaller ISP's already have no problem with net neutrality and would be happy to get state contracts. The Comcasts and Verizons are likely the ones that would stop taking contracts.
Remember that the Democrats literally nominated a cable company lobbyist to head the FCC when they had the chance
Gaslight for the fail.
During the Bush years, under Chairman Michael Powell (Colin's son) the FCC went to the Supreme Court in order to kill net neutrality (and succeeded in 2005).
Then Obama appointed, Tom Wheeler, former lobbyist turned Benedict Arnold who not only brought back net neutrality but also pushed for a bunch of other consumer freedoms like killing the Comcast/Time-Warner merger, and forcing cable companies to let customers use their own set-top boxes to save on rental fees.
As for Idjit Pai being an "Obama appointee" not so much. By law the 5 member comission can only have 3 members from the same party. Idjit Pai was one of the two non-democrats during Obama's term. The way it works is that the senate minority party comes up with a list of acceptable candidates, in this case Pai was Mitch McConnel's first choice. Maybe Obama should have fought harder, but it didn't really matter since the 3 people he did pick could always overrule the Idjit. Now that the banana republicans are in charge, who Obama appointed is moot because killing NN was always a republican goal and they would have done it one way or another - since that is what they did back in 2005.
uhhh what if all ISPs simply stop taking contracts from government, and just.. allow it to stop having internet access?
Worst case, the government doesn't need to contract with a traditional ISP (i.e. one that also services residential customers). They only have a limited number of offices (especially in Montana). So in theory they could go with a commercial-only provider which typically have little business incentive to violate NN principles since commercial contracts are plenty lucrative enough on their own.
Interesting - they sure were not about that when they had some power at the federal level. I am guessing this is just a ruse to show off how they are resisting and such.
Anyway, it's Montana - nobody fucking cares what you do up there.
Then ... eminent domain.
Unlikely to happen.
State contracts are incredibly lucrative, and the ISP's love money.
They would be leaving money on the table if they just pulled out, and it would probably cost the ISP's more money if they just pulled out entirely. They would rather make money and follow the contract rules, than to pull out and make nothing.
Stick with me here...
One of the problems with Obamacare has been insurance companies pulling out of sparsely-populated areas because they weren't profitable 'enough' -- low-density population doesn't generate much revenue and since they can bail on a per-county basis, they do bail rather than spread the costs around the entire state. That has left a lot of counties with just 1 obamacare insurer, which is then free to jack the prices up because they literally the only game in town.
So Nevada said to the insurance companies - when it comes time to pick insurance companies to handle the state medicaid contracts, you get bonus points if you also offer obamacare plans too. The result? The 2 new insurance companies that won medicaid contracts for Nevada are also on the ACA exchanges for the entire state. So, unlike many other mostly-empty states, obamacare is pretty robust there. And, FWIW, this was done by a republican governor.
At the taxpayer's expense $$.
Montana. Not enough market to matter to large ISP's. The loss would be a rounding error. There are only about a million people in the whole state....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
There's 1 million people in Montana, and a total of 120 ISP. I don't think this is a death blow for the FCC.
The tiny tip of a very large iceberg.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The LAST thing the big ISPs want is to encourage competition. They've essentially got monopolies. You think they want to encourage states to look for alternatives?
It's not even a matter of partisan bullshit anymore, it's two conformist teams too busy whoring themselves for money to have noticed the water crawling towards a boil, or the noose tightening around their neck.
Any semblance of freedom, privacy, or justice in American has been corroded away by government officials and corporate interests. I used to have some optimism that the trend would right itself, but it is already too late. Those of us who doth protest had best start getting our luggage in order. Because you are going to want to be out of the country before they turn your eye on you, because once they have you won't have any path to escape.
New York is supposedly following their lead and putting in the same regulations. Add California, and who needs the federal regulations.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The term is monopsymy. There's so few sources for the service that the providers have no reason to compete with each other. Competing with each other would force down the profits for all of them. So, they give token competition, but really, they're all doing as little as possible to upset the status quo.
The correct way to solve the current problem is via government owned wires. It's one of the reasons why the '90s had such a large selection of options for internet. Virtually everybody was connecting over somebody else's network, which led to all sorts of competition and innovation.
but the big isps are in control of an ever increasing amount of the backbone those smaller muni-wide providers would connect to.. so one way or another, the big bad megacorps will still get their profits.
It's all well and good that the state is doing nothing more than setting requirements for vendors it deals with, but what if none decide to play the state's game? What is the fallback position, is the state going to establish it's own ISP just for government use? Are they going to try and use these new requirements to back out of existing multi-year contracts with ISPs?
There's a very real chance (IMHO) that Montana doesn't wield the clout with ISIs it thinks it does.
It will be interesting how this will play out with eRate grants from the federal government - eRate is federal money spent by schools, libraries to subsidize internet access - being federal, not state money these state requirements won't apply... Or will they?
Ken
We've been down that road before, redundant infrastructure is bad for other reasons and doesn't generate as much competition as you might hope for. Given the extremely high barrier to entry.
One of the advantages of classifying ISPs as Title II common carriers was that it allowed for the implementation of line sharing rules, which were baked into the Telecommunications Act. These rules were implemented briefly in 1999, and worked well, but they were only implemented for DSL and were revoked in 2005 when a new FCC decided to reclassify DSL as an "information service." (i.e.: exactly the same thing that the current FCC is doing)
... aligned the R's with religion and once that happened, we pretty much gave full control over to the ruling elites.
Rather amusingly as the R's took on the name of a Jewish heretic who saw political power as a Demonic temptation and saw the rich as unable to pass camels through the eye of a needle.
Trump: Wide-ranging and highly restrictively laws open to abuse should not be created by the Executive branch, it's the Legislative branch that should have this responsibility.
Legislative: Oh yeah? Well if you do that then we'll pass a law that does what we want. NAH NAH YOU CAN'T STOP US.
...will the states realize that yes, they can protect things within their borders. But, say, if they get their internet via a provider that is based in another state, can do whatever they want?
Just pass a requirement that all ISP's in your state must provide service within a set time frame (say 2 weeks) to any customer in that state that requests it for the same rate advertised to all customers regardless where in that state they live. Boom, now everyone in that state has the same number of options for access. You know, as opposed to ISPs who defend their business practices by use maps showing where ISPs could offer service instead of where they do.
An illiterate Pavlovian idiot. How stupid.
Solution: state-owned utility companies with backbones.
Truly in the interest of the public.
Distinction without a difference. Limited monopolies are a deal to get ISP's to accept government regulation. End said regulation and you'll still end up with a single (or dual) provider anyway due to market consolidation. And then they'll really gouge you. The only alternatives are:
a) Even more government regulation to mandate levels of service, equipment upgrades, and price caps
b) Make the ISP a government run utility
But the people who tend to complain about government trading limited monopolies for regulation tend to oppose more regulation or ermagerd socialism even more strongly.
Verizon Government Services, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon, pledges that it will live up to Net Neutrality With Unicorn Chasers, and also that it won't bid for any business except for state and local governments that have contractual clauses requiring Net Neutrality With Unicorn Chasers.
Too funny. Republicans are staunch defenders of "state's rights" right up until they interfere with any corporate interests they're beholden to that might have their profits threatened.
The thing is, the Feds took away federal-level regulation and oversight, in effect giving it back to the states. There is nothing that says states can't make certain rules about how they do business, and with whom. They do it all the time and it's entirely reasonable for them to do so (e.g. to make sure they're meeting certain standards, hiring practices, sourcing, etc).
And the ISPs can't object- no ISP is forced to do contractual (i.e, profit making) business with any state. If they don't like the state's rules they're free to market their services elsewhere.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...