Oregon Becomes Second State To Pass a Net Neutrality Law (katu.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from KATU: Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signed a bill Monday withholding state business from internet providers who throttle traffic, making the state the second to finalize a proposal aimed at thwarting moves by federal regulators to relax net neutrality requirements. The bill stops short of actually putting new requirements on internet service providers in the state, but blocks the state from doing business with providers that offer preferential treatment to some internet content or apps, starting in 2019. The move follows a December vote by the Federal Communications Commission repealing Obama-era rules that prohibited such preferential treatment, referred to generally as throttling, by providers like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon. Brown's signature makes the state the second to enact such legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. It also stakes out the state's claim to a moderate approach, compared to others: Five weeks to the day before Brown, Washington State Gov. Jay Inslee signed a bill in his state to directly regulate providers there. The prohibition, which restricts with whom the state may contract for internet services, applies to cities and counties, but exempts areas with only a single provider.

Comments

Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before supposed Federalists are commenting about the overreach of state regulations?

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[FictionPimp]

That makes perfect sense! Water is a public utility so my neighbors pool is a public pool!

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Opportunist]

So because roads may be used by everyone I have to let everyone use my parking lot, too, and can't limit its use to my customers?

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[XxtraLarGe]

How long before supposed Federalists are commenting about the overreach of state regulations?

You're confused. This is actually a perfect example of how federalism should operate. Ironically, it took the election of Donald Trump for the left to embrace federalism.

Re: Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure you're allowed to limit access to your "pool" (website) but if you are the "water company" (ISP), you can't gouge people who want to use the "water" (access) to fill their "pools" instead of using that publically owned utility for any other purpose. If you're a pool owner who sells pool access, you're going to have to pass off the special pool water price increase to your customers. And what happens when Big Pool pays off the water company to keep you from filling up your backyard pool at a reasonable rate? Funny how much better this analogy works as an argument in favor of NN.

Re: Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be more akin to the state charging increased tolls to get to your parking lot as opposed to the parking deck next door.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

NO that's full on bullshit and you know it. Telephones are a public utility, the girlfriend you call isn't The road is a public utility, your house that you drive to using that road isn't

Re: Fair Weather Federalists

[jellomizer]

However in droughts the water company can limit your access to water, so you cannot use public water to fill the pool, or water your lawns. Because while it is a public utility, in case of scarcity water supply needs to be throttled and managed so there is drinking water for the public, and it isn't wasted on the rich who wants a green lawn or a nice pool.

I am in favor of Net Neutrality. However the water company analogy isn't a good one, because water is a scarce resource (in some areas) while data speeds and bandwidth are much less limited then a water supply. Where the ISP just needs to add newer faster switches and routers to meet demand, or slow down all traffic to keep everyone working. Vs. judging the content of the data.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine with me. Did the government arrest those users for their views? Or was it just private companies deciding not to provide a platform to those people? Once you get out of middle school these things will make more sense.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I would expect the Federalists to complain before the Anti-Federalists, but then again, I know my US history.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's what you're waiting for, be prepared to wait forever. Those of us who feel that the federal government should be in charge of regulating internet concerns won't bat an eye at states doing it. Because the world is not binary. We are very well aware that what we consider the best outcome is not going to happen with this administration, so we'll settle for a better outcome.

Stop trying to bait people with straw men and lumping all people into two non-complex groups in your mind.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Penguinisto]

Probably about as long as Net Neutrality supporters postint the internet should be a public utility, but then think it's OK for YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter to ban non-"progressive" users.

If the internet is a public utility, the things people use the internet for are public utilities too.

Not a "progressive", but the Internet is not Google, Facebook, and/or Twitter. HTH.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Penguinisto]

Agreed. I live in Oregon, so this concerns me, and not residents of other states.

If Comcast, CenturyStink, Frontier, Charter, and suchlike throw a fit, that affects us, though it's unclear how they will react.

Now coho.net (a small wireless ISP) specifically blocks/bans BitTorrent packets (they say as much on their customer page, so it'll be interesting to see how they respond...)

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[jellomizer]

There is still the general problem that States can't make money like the feds. However State rights have been hindered by both political parties. Politically I am more of a Whig myself. Where the idea that each state has different needs, cultures, and sensitivities. Each state should have more control of what it does and what laws are passed.
The problem isn't too much regulation or too little. But regulations that are passed across a country that goes from ocean to ocean and has multiple climates from tundra to tropical, home to the worlds largest cities, and most sparse rural areas. An environmental law that works for New York, doesn't necessarily work for Alaska. Now with that being said. There still needs federal oversight as some environmental laws just because it may not work for say Pennsylvania it could negatively affect New Jersey, and the people of New Jersey are suffering from Pennslvania's actions.
 

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Penguinisto]

Even funnier... I wonder if the State of Oregon realizes that VoIP QoS might be considered throttling...

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

When "states rights" stop wanting states to legalise pot because federal law says it's illegal. Some time right about then, wouldn't you say?

I'd also like to point out to the morons that one reason for a federal law, even by the eeebil "unelected agencies" is so that instead of some score or more different regulations to obey, only one federal one has to be dealt with.

Dumbasses.

Re: Fair Weather Federalists

[JackieBrown]

Water companies (at least in San Antonio) are allowed to charge different rates if you use more water than allotted for typical usage. They define typical usage.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

That is like saying that phones are public utilities, therefore every service available over the phone is a public utility.

Net neutrality is about having neutral infrastructure, not neutral services. Things only become a problem when there's a private company that both owns the only infrastructure available in an area and has a monopoly on service provided through it. When the infrastructure was phone lines, and ISPs were a number you dialed, NN wasn't an issue (neutral providers could compete, because you could reach them from the same phone lines). This competition pretty much stopped after migration to (mostly cable based) broadband.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Ichijo]

Now let's work on embracing fiscal federalism by asking Washington to send each state an itemized bill. This would effectively abolish the IRS as each state figures out how to tax its own residents to pay the bill. A weak central government is still a conservative virtue, right?

Of course this will likely bankrupt the red states other than Texas but it will save the blue states a ton of money. For liberals, that will mean two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?

Let's do this!

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep repeating that line. Yes, you're spending a lot of money to keep an army in my state. That benefits you as much as me. Oh, and that money you're spending on federal lands, preventing us from doing anything more than going "ooh, pretty." ... yup, that's clearly us getting money from you.

By the way, your assertion is completely nullified by the federal income tax break you get on your state taxes. That completely changes the metrics.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

For fucks sake, the Oregon all funds budget is $36 BILLION a year for FOUR MILLION people.

Pennsylvania has the same budget for 15 million people.

You cant catch your fucking rainwater in a barrel here, to LITTLE regulation?

Oregon Tier One retirees at 30 years currently retire at 110% of their base pay, forever.

A money problem? Are you on crack?

Re: Fair Weather Federalists

[dryeo]

My internet work the same. I'm allocated X amount and if I go over, I pay extra and different plans offer different values of X. Doesn't matter what I download, just how much.

Re: Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived a dozen places, and every water company has different fees for filling pools and agricultural uses. Generally they're lower, as they don't have to pay for sewage treatment, but in Colorado it was higher because they didn't get to resell the discharged water.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[CrimsonAvenger]

No, Federalism does NOT mean "Washington does whatever it wants and bills the States".

Federalism is "Washington does ONLY what the Constitution says it can, and everything else is up to the States".

Note that most of the current Federal Budget consists of things that the Constitution does NOT mention as Federal Powers (Social Security and Medicare alone being most of the Federal budget...).

What we'd have left at the Federal level would be the military, INS/Customs, and arguably the Interstate Highway System. Which would reduce the Federal budget by a factor of five or six,...

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[penandpaper]

You cant catch your fucking rainwater in a barrel here, to LITTLE regulation?

That is common in the west because water is very very valuable because the west is arid. Water rights have a long and sometimes violent history in the west sprinkled with a lot of corruption. For some perspective check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..." The Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902..

When you capture rain water that is used to fill reservoirs essentially you are taking someone elses water rights who paid for that water.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[penandpaper]

Ooops on first link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's just wikipedia.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're spending a lot of money to keep an army in my state. That benefits you as much as me.

No, it doesn't. Even if the military benefit is equally distributed (which is debatable), the money spent to keep the military in your state is pumped into your state's economy, not mine.

Oh, and that money you're spending on federal lands, preventing us from doing anything more than going "ooh, pretty." ... yup, that's clearly us getting money from you.

The amount of money being spent on Federal lands is fairly minimal, but once again, it's pumped into your state's economy, not mine. And whatever you lose in mining, ranching, and logging, you more than make up for in tourism.

By the way, your assertion is completely nullified by the federal income tax break you get on your state taxes. That completely changes the metrics.

That tax break is already figured into the metrics - remove it and it's that much more money leaving blue states and going to red states.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Oregon is not Arid, for the most part. Eastern Oregon is a high desert, but with all the irrigation availability created by the hydroelectric projects on the Columbia, that was mostly sorted out. Western Oregon is a coniferous rain forest, and gets more rain than they know what to do with.

Re: Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you tell them then? My bad, one of the kids left the back yard hose on for a while and it all ran down that drainage ditch. Sorry.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Ichijo]

If you are correct, then there's nothing to fear from abolishing the IRS. With nobody able to block the Republicans until the next elections, will they have the courage to do it?

Re: Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

(Social Security and Medicare alone being most of the Federal budget...).

Nope. You've been fooled by their gambit of throwing them in with the other programs, but they aren't part of the discretionary budget.

Decades too late to argue they're unconstitutional because of it. All the existing contributors would sue.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Marxist Hacker 42]

In Soviet Oregon,
Your pond water is your neighbor's water, your internet bill goes to feed your neighbor's porn addiction (which is what net neutrality really is all about), if you can't feed yourself you can be starved to death (HR4135) and abortion is preferred in the tax system to pregnancy (in that you can get a free paid-by-income taxes abortion, but you can't be born on the public dime).

Re: Fair Weather Federalists

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That would be incorrect in Oregon http://caselaw.findlaw.com/or-court-of-appeals/1347290.html

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[edtice1559]

And wen Barack Obama was president, the conservatives embraced federalism. In other words, people will take the fight to wherever they can win!

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[penandpaper]

>Oregon is not arid. Eastern Oregon is a high desert.

Okay. It's not arid but more than half the state is a desert. ... For the most part Oregon is a desert because 2/3 of the state is east of the Cascades. If I had said "generally arid" would you have still made that flippant statement?

> all the irrigation availability created by hydroelectric projects.

Oregon is listed in the Newfoundlands Reclamation Act 1902 which I referenced. That irrigation availability and hydroelectric capacity are what I am talking about because when it comes to "irrigation availability" and water usage for "hydroelectric" it is a very contentious issue. Yet, as wikipedia elucidates : "more than 600 of their dams on waterways throughout the West provide irrigation for 10 million acres of farmland, providing 60% of the nation's vegetables and 25% of its fruits and nuts. ". Oregon is included in those numbers. A recent example of water usage and water rights is for energy storage. Energy hungry states (California ) and companies are trying to gain water rights to use local reservoirs as energy storage. However, if the reservoirs are being drained and filled daily it makes it very hard or very little water left for other water rights holders.

You typed a lot without saying anything.

Re: Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it measured by quantity or by use?
Up to X units is price Y per unit but over that it's Z per unit, would not violate net neutrality.

Charging homes that have a pool Z per unit, while also running a membership only pool and offering membership free with the X per unit price only to non-pool owners is more along the lines of what ISPs have been doing (zero rating, and bundling their own content services with their network services).

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Obfuscant]

Agreed. I live in Oregon, so this concerns me, and not residents of other states.

It might be interesting when the State of Oregon goes back to 1990 and loses all Internet connectivity because it cannot find an internet provider that doesn't do some traffic limiting. Even if it is nothing more than the border congestion issues that look like throttling. Of course, we don't have a fancy ACA health portal to worry about needing internet for -- the previous Governor and Oracle managed to screw that up pretty good.

Does this apply to local governments, too? I mean, will the schools have to throw out the Comcast broadband that they have as part of their local franchise agreements?

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[HiThere]

That is *an* example of how federalism should work. The GP however, was claiming that those who previously espoused federalism would denounce it. It wouldn't surprise me if he was correct, as poliitcal stances usually seem more tied into emotional reactions to social and economic issues than to the logic that they purportedly are based on.

The thing is, calling the NeoCons federalists is abuse of the language. They are as much centralists as are most of the progressive left. Centralist vs. Decentralist is really nearly orthogonal to Left vs. Right, despite the verbal speeches. Watch what they do, not what they say. All of the major political parties (all four of them) are centralist. This is reasonable, when you think about it, because each one represents a centralization of power around some issues. It's sort of weird that the Libertarians are centralists, but they are...well, most of them. If you go back far enough both the Democrats and the Republicans had wings that weren't centralist, but they were founded on local groups and as the "central committe"s gained more control, they went away.

FWIW, I'm more in favor of cities and counties rights than I am of states rights, but I know human nature, and so I know that there needs to be an overlying enforcement layer to ensure that they abide by their charters and ordinances. Similarly the purpose of the Federal Government should be to ensure that the states adhere to their own laws and constitutions. And here we run into problems, because the Federal Government cannot be held to its own laws and constitution. I haven't seen any way around this. Patrick Henry's solution isn't really workable.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Ichijo]

Federalism is "Washington does ONLY what the Constitution says it can, and everything else is up to the States".

Not exactly. Federalism is where the central government and the regional governments have equal power.

Note that most of the current Federal Budget consists of things that the Constitution does NOT mention as Federal Powers (Social Security and Medicare alone being most of the Federal budget...).

The welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) disagrees with you that Social Security and Medicare are not federal powers.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[XxtraLarGe]

Now let's work on embracing fiscal federalism by asking Washington to send each state an itemized bill. This would effectively abolish the IRS as each state figures out how to tax its own residents to pay the bill. A weak central government is still a conservative virtue, right?

Works for me. We can use apportionment for determining every state's share. While we're at it, can we turn welfare back to the states as well?

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Ichijo]

You'd have to strike the welfare clause from the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), or the 10th Amendment, to turn welfare back to the states.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[XxtraLarGe]

You'd have to strike the welfare clause from the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), or the 10th Amendment, to turn welfare back to the states.

General welfare doesn't mean "payments to poor people." That stuff didn't start until "The Great Society" under Johnson. Before that, it was handled either by the counties, states, churches or other charities.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Ichijo]

General welfare doesn't mean "payments to poor people."

What definition of "general welfare" are you using that excludes payments to poor people?

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a misunderstanding of the Welfare Clause. The Constitution limits the power of the federal government yet you are using a broad interpretation of "promote the general welfare" as to mean anything you want.

"Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government"

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

The definition which relates to the general interests of the federal government which is what the definition is in the constitution.

The citizens are not a concern or responsibility for the federal government nor the idea of federalism. That is the responsibility of the states and local governments.

You are misunderstanding general welfare in the context of federalism and the constitution. Simply put, the federal government concerns itself with foreign issues, currency, defense, and interstate issues. The states are concerned with everything else (which includes the people).

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

CenturyLink is the only ISP in my area that offers an unlimited bandwidth plan. It's gigabit for $80/month, so I'm hoping they aren't complete shit.

Re:Fair Weather Federalists

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before supposed Federalists are commenting about the overreach of state regulations?

The Commerce Clause should make this Oregon law unconstitutional!

Win for the good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

We need more states to take this type of action.

Re:Win for the good guys

[Anonymous Coward]

In before the screeching of "AAUughghghghhh TYRANNYYYYYY"

not in WI

[Anonymous Coward]

That will never happen in Wisconsin while scooter is still gov.

I would love to see all the ISP tell the state....

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a hike! no internet for you!

The analogy from FUBAR

[cahuenga]

Nobody is saying the "product" is public property. These laws aren't even saying the delivery of the 'product' to the public is regulated. They are saying that the delivery of the product cannot be throttled or receive preferential treatment if you want any future state or local contracts.

VICTORY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woohoo! My state is awesome again.

Meaningless virtue signaling

[magzteel]

They didn't actually impose any rules on a carrier. Just said they wouldn't give "state business" to a carrier. Big deal.

Re:Meaningless virtue signaling

[SirGarlon]

TFA doesn't mention the obvious question: is Oregon sure that a carrier that doesn't preferentially throttle traffic even exists?

Re:Meaningless virtue signaling

[MachineShedFred]

Doesn't matter - if they want business from the State of Oregon, they'll have to exist.

Someone will want those contracts, even if it's not a massive conglomerate like Comcast or Charter / Spectrum.

Re:Meaningless virtue signaling

[Obfuscant]

Someone will want those contracts,

The question will be, will anyone be able to afford fulfilling them? They'll have to provide full bandwidth peering with someone just to avoid any border gateway congestion issues at any time, for example. That will have to ripple down to the end user.

And what's even funnier, it may mean that the state has "better" internet service, but it won't mean squat for the residents. The big companies will just create subsidiaries to deal with the state.

But the lower level question is, how can they do that? I mean, ISP is supposed to be a government monopoly business. If the government only permits a few ISPs and none of them are squeaky clean wrt traffic shaping, then who is left to sell the state service?

Re:Meaningless virtue signaling

[MachineShedFred]

The actual cables and wires are government granted monopoly, because it makes sense to not have 7 different coax demarcs on the side of each house depending on what company you are working with. However, in the case of not-cable ISPs, they are all "common carrier" status, so they get to pick who gets their MPLS data as long as they can get a physical circuit in place at the site.

This whole thing is stupid because it's not like they are using residential services here that are virtually guaranteed to be effected by the lack of NN - at the very least they are using a "business class" service for each location so that there is a service level agreement in place - that's historically why you paid so much more for that 1.5Mbps T1 than you did for a >3Mbps DSL line - because with telcos, money talks and bullshit waits on hold.

Re:Meaningless virtue signaling

[Obfuscant]

The actual cables and wires are government granted monopoly,

No, they are not. They are part of the franchisee's equipment, and there are no exclusive franchises anymore.

because it makes sense to not have 7 different coax demarcs on the side of each house depending on what company you are working with.

Coax is so 1900's. In any case, you don't need to have 7. The customer only needs as many as the number of companies he buys from. I have two already -- one for cable, one for telephone. Sorry, but the original franchise rules (which did permit exclusivity) weren't there to keep the customer from needing multiple demarcs.

at the very least they are using a "business class" service for each location so that there is a service level agreement in place

Many city-level connections are provided through the franchise agreement, such as free connections for the schools and city hall. The "money" that talks is perhaps a smaller franchise fee than would be required otherwise.

The fact will remain, the "government" will either have to do without (because no company will waste time dealing with them or be able to prove the negative that is required), or be buying service from a special subsidiary that deals only with government, and the public will see no effect. "Comcast Government Division of Oregon" will promise no throttling and charge a pretty penny for it, because it costs a lot of money to provision at 100%. "Comcast of Oregon" will never provide service to any government agency and will keep costs lower by provisioning to some lower percentage like every company already does. When that percentage is exceeded by burst use people will cry "throttling" like they already do, the state will look at the problem and realize their ISP is a different company.

ISP's should call the bluff

[Anonymous Coward]

I want ISP's to start throttling in Oregon just so the next headline reads "State of Oregon Offices without internet; cut themselves off"

Re:ISP's should call the bluff

[bugs2squash]

Fog in Oregon Internet - rest of continent cut off

Re: ISP's should call the bluff

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Oregon a state in my country? Whoknew/wgaf

Re:ISP's should call the bluff

[HiThere]

I think you don't understand what an ISP is. ISPs are relatively easy to set up. Running the lines is expensive, but that's not a part of the job of the ISP, that's the phone company, or the cable company, or some such. And if they want to be common carriers, they can't refuse to carry the traffic of an ISP. Around here there are several ISPs that use AT&T lines, one of which is a subsidiary of AT&T.

Show up to your primaries

[rsilvergun]

if you don't want all these laws over ridden by federal law. You need to vote the bums out (on both sides, I'm lookin' at you, Nancy Pelosi).

Re:Trump Eunuchs hate net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would a eunuch watch porn? What would be the purpose?

... but exempts areas with only a single provider

[Anonymous Coward]

If an area in WA State has only a single provider that is "throttling" or otherwise violating this new law, they should loose their exclusivity and automatically open the area up to competitors.

Re:... but exempts areas with only a single provid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not be open to competitors by default? These monopolies only exist because the local governments prevent competition.

Re:I would love to see all the ISP tell the state.

[Anonymous Coward]

In which case the government uses eminent domain to take the infrastructure and open it to smaller ISPs to take on maintenance and operation, and the consumers win in the long run. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out., Comcast.

Next is Cali

[WillAffleckUW]

Going to California, Cali, Cali, going to California, got Net Neutrality!

Ecotopia is here, btw, Apple just went 100 percent renewables worldwide, and we're not letting the grampas hold us back.

Re:Next is Cali

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if people are looking more to organised things on a state level than on the federal level then grampas is winning. In general, the decentralisation of power is more popular with older people and younger people are more interested in moves towards world government (thinking positively about the EU and the UN and readily buying into scares like Climate Change). There are some exceptions (e.g. Bitcoiners) but it's a general rule not unrelated to the classic observation: "If you're not a socialist by 20 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by 30 you have no brain."

Re:Trump Eunuchs hate net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Which party affiliation actually got David Duke elected to government office again? Oh yeah, Republican.

Funny how nobody talks about the real costs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how nobody talks about the real costs of the internet.

There are NO free lunches.

Re:Funny how nobody talks about the real costs.

[HiThere]

Net Neutrality is orthogonal to unmetered service. Unmetered service is basically impossible without an unlimited budget. Net Neutrality is easier than the alternatives (except no internet, of course).

What Net Neutrality says is "there are no favored modes of communication". There are reasons why this is less than ideal, because some modes of communication are more time sensitive than others. But allowing violation of Net Neutrality requires that you trust the provider to not penalize users unfairly, and very few seem willing to believe that. Recent history should provide you with ample reasons why many people consider corporations untrustworthy.

Oregon has Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you consider 2 soup cans and some twine... I guess so.

Re:... but exempts areas with only a single provid

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that hasn't been true in over 20 years, right?

Hopelessly vauge

[SlaveToTheGrind]

There are so many weasel words baked into this that no ISP on the planet could be confident they wouldn't fall afoul of it, and so many exceptions that state agencies can pretty much do whatever they want anyway.

Here's the relevant language from the enrolled version of the bill:

(3) A public body may not contract with a broadband Internet access service provider that, at any time on or after the operative date specified in section 3 of this 2018 Act:
(a) Engages in paid prioritization;
(b) Blocks lawful content, applications or services or nonharmful devices;
(c) Impairs or degrades lawful Internet traffic for the purpose of discriminating against or favoring certain Internet content, applications or services or the use of nonharmful devices;
(d) Unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably disadvantages an end user’s ability to select, access and use the broadband Internet access service or lawful Internet content, applications or services or devices of the end user’s choice; or
(e) Unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably disadvantages an edge provider’s ability to make devices or lawful content, applications or services available to end users.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) of this section, a public body may contract with a broadband Internet access service provider that:
(a) Is the sole provider of fixed broadband Internet access service to the geographic location subject to the contract;
(b) Engages in any of the activities described in subsection (3) of this section in the process of addressing copyright infringement or other unlawful activity or the needs of emergency communications, law enforcement, public safety or national security authorities;
(c) Engages in paid prioritization if the Public Utility Commission determines that the broadband Internet access service provider’s paid prioritization provides significant public interest benefits and does not harm the open nature of the provided broadband Internet access service;
(d) Engages in any activities described in subsection (3)(b) to (d) of this section if the Public Utility Commission determines that the broadband Internet access service provider’s engagement in the activity is reasonable network management. An activity is reasonable network management if the activity:
(A) Has a technical network management justification;
(B) Does not include other business practices; and
(C) Is narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology
    of the broadband Internet access service; or
(e) Engaged in any of the activities described in subsection (3) of this section at any time on or after the operative date specified in section 3 of this 2018 Act if:
(A) The broadband Internet access service provider certifies that it has ceased engaging in all of the activities described in subsection (3) of this section; and
(B) The Public Utility Commission determines that allowing a public body to contract with the broadband Internet access service provider provides significant public interest benefits.

(5)(a) A broadband Internet access service provider engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service to a public body shall publicly disclose information regarding the provider’s network management practices and performance characteristics and the commercial terms of the provider’s broadband Internet access service sufficient for end users to verify that the service is provided in compliance with subsections (3) and (4) of this section.

Re:Hopelessly vauge

[farble1670]

Yes, laws are complex. Who knew?

Re:Hopelessly vauge

[Obfuscant]

Yes, network neutrality is complex and so the laws that govern it have to be complex, too. Who knew?

(b) Blocks lawful content, applications or services or nonharmful devices;

One of my local ISPs blocks email that is not spam. It is in violation of this law. Another one blocks specific well-known-ports (which pass lawful content). One of them is a major company. One of them is not. Who does my local government get its internet from? Who do the schools start paying for internet when they can't get it for free from Comcast?

Re:Hopelessly vauge

[SlaveToTheGrind]

That might have been a valid rejoinder had complexity been one of my critiques. I'd suggest you try to educate yourself a bit about the issues I actually did raise, but I can appreciate how retasking those neurons might unduly detract from your ability to produce the stream of drive-by one-liners littering your comment history.

Re:Hopelessly vauge

[farble1670]

One of my local ISPs blocks email that is not spam.

Interesting business model, but okay.

It is in violation of this law.

Welcome to the US of A, where we have judges, and juries presiding over trials. That is where your silly hypotheticals get thrown out.

Who do the schools start paying for internet when they can't get it for free from Comcast?

Won't someone think of the children?

Re:Hopelessly vauge

[farble1670]

your ability to produce the stream of drive-by one-liners littering your comment history.

You do realize, your post consists of exactly one line of original text, right? Otherwise you just lazily pasted an excerpt of the law and hoped people would be outraged because it's more than one line and contains legalese.

Re:Hopelessly vauge

[Anonymous Coward]

We're slow. Point out some of the "weasel words" for us.

Re:I would love to see all the ISP tell the state.

[HiThere]

I know there is Supreme Court precedent to the contrary, but I still feel it is violation of the Constitution for eminent domain to be used to take property from one group of people and give it to another group of people which are not a governmental body. That's not what eminent domain meant until around 1980. (I don't know exactly when that case started, so I'm guessing.) And the laws that were used to justify it were emplaced before that date.

Fuck Oregon, then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Net Neutrality is a direct attack against American freedom and our capitalist system.

Re:... but exempts areas with only a single provid

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it still is. Try getting any cable tv from anyone besides comcast/xfinity in Vancouver, WA. Every city around it has other options, but as soon as you have a vancouver address, they can't do it.

Re:Trump Eunuchs hate net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC you replied to.

I could declare myself a Democrat or a Republican and run for office as well and so could you. It's not like either Democrats or Republicans can legally force anyone to not declare themselves as Republican or Democrat. The most they can do is issue press releases decrying him and withhold Party funds and assistance.

Nice "whataboutism" deflection, too bad it fell flat on it's ass. You need to up your game.