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."
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
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.
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.
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!!
Or this idea might spread to other states, and ISPs that have markets in multiple states will start to feel the pinch and lose government contracts. Money is a big motivator.
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.
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.
Those fighting net neutrality have been collectively bargaining and winning. This is fighting fire with fire. The government is the consumer in this case. They have a responsibility to protect their interests and, in the process, our tax dollars. The only thing missing here is all of the other consumers.
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.
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.
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.
You're going to have corruption and abuse no matter where you go or what you do. Welcome to earth. But nobody wants the special flavor of tyranny that you want to add on top of it, except for you and your fellow sadists.
This is a good attempt to start re-exerting states rights. The Federal government has over stepped their authority by co-opting powers that should be the purview of the State governments. The Federal government has done this using Federal regulations and laws that states are required to adopt or face being penalized. And the penalty is always losing federal money. A State that refuses to abide by the Federal Highway speed limits faces losing the federal money traditionally used to maintain the federal highways with-in the State. The Federal government was able to enforce the federally mandated drinking age using the same penalty. Any state that did not immediately raise their drinking age to 21 faced losing Federal highway money. Hell the Civil War was about state rights not freeing slaves. Making slavery illegal in the south was only one relatively minor being fought over. The imposition of Federal taxes and commerce regulations was more important than the slavery issue by far. After the North won the war slavery became illegal but that had very little impact on the lives of the former slaves living in the South. Instead of slave they were "share croppers". Racism and discrimination did not change in the least.
Before the FBI was created there was no federal law enforcement across state lines. So in the name of "Public Safety" the Federal government was able to create a law enforcement agency that made every State law enforcement agency subservient to the federal government. That doesn't mean that all federally mandated laws and regulations should be shit canned. Federal EPA regulations work better for the country as a whole instead of state by state. Federal NIST regulations fall into the same category as well. Federal airspace regulations also make sense.
The countries military hierarchy and division of powers is also a good example of States retaining control over their National Guard. The Federal government cannot deploy any federal military assets without the specific request of a states governor.
The Federal government was never supposed to usurp the state rights they have amassed over the years. Let corporations deal directly with states if they want to do business in that state.
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.
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.
How many levels of indirection do you require before you consider the person unelected? Pai was appointed by someone who was elected, but the people certainly didn't vote for him. He was kept in by someone who actually lost the popular vote. He then went on to ignore the clear will of the people during the comment period.
There is no sane, controlled way of conducting a bloody revolution. The killing of public officials out of hand is a rejection of law and order, not the imposition of it. Unless you can change the political character of the public, you'll only be substituting politically skilled people with people skilled at murder and mayhem.
What I think is needed is a major change (I won't argue with the term revolution) in how the public thinks about, and interacts with, the political system in their country. Democracy works better than any other system we know of, but works best when the public actually participates. Here are the problems I see with democracy as practised in the G7, but most strongly and clearly in the U.S.A.
1) Voter apathy : The sources I check don't agree on an exact number, but all would agree with the statement that less than 60% of those eligible to vote in the 2017 US presidential election actually did so. According to Wikipedia, there is over 235 Million eligible voters in the US, with a 60% voter turnout, that means over 93 Million people weren't involved.
2) There is a significant number of people who vote for a particular party, pretty much regardless of current platform or candidates. "Straight ticket voters" ensure that even weak candidates are going to have a significant voter base if they can win the parties nomination for a position. 10 US states make it very easy to vote straight ticket
3) Low voter turnout combined with straight ticket voting means that the more extreme voices on either end of the spectrum carry far more weight in politics than the raw numbers would justify. It also means that a politician can court the more extreme factions fairly safely without risking alienating their core voter base. It is my personal, unsupported opinion that the more extreme factions on either end of the political spectrum are far less likely to engage in even the minimal thought that your average voter does in choosing candidates. As long as a politician says the right things (dog whistling and rabble rousing) he or she can get away with behaviour in office that is totally different from their campaign platform. 4) Those three factors together mean that the voters, regardless of faction, do not have as much influence on the actions of the elected official as they should. That in turn means it is easier for lobbyists to influence, or even control what bills the official submits and what that official votes for. It is rare for a politician to be held accountable for going against his constituents interests. Most of the time they are only subject to repercussions if they get involved in some scandal that touches on morality and even then, often only if that scandal occurs in an election year. Being a dirty politician or puppet of the lobbyists is not a problem because for those with the deep pockets funding campaigns and the top people who control a party are used to that, it's business as usual. Cheating on your wife, being caught in a gay and/or underage sex scandal though is political death.
Bottomline; I believe the voting public needs to be a) better informed b) pay attention to, and remember a politicians actions while in office and hole them accountable at the next election and c) be more willing to vote based on the individual candidate and issue rather than party lines.
I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj