Slashdot Mirror
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.
How long before supposed Federalists are commenting about the overreach of state regulations?
We need more states to take this type of action.
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.
They didn't actually impose any rules on a carrier. Just said they wouldn't give "state business" to a carrier. Big deal.
Fog in Oregon Internet - rest of continent cut off
Nullius in verba
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).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.