Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 165 posts

Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal

#51

Post by skynetv2 »

joshuaheard wrote: post #37

The headline is a little misleading. The state is not implementing rules or regulations for net neutrality. It is simply requiring, as a condition of contracting with the state, that ISPs abide by the principles of net neutrality. If an ISP does not have any state contracts, it is free to do whatever it wants under the federal law. Many jurisdictions attach such conditions to entering into a contract with the jurisdi…

its pretty routine and accepted policy.

you should see the conditions San Francisco city attaches to its contracts.

Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal

#52

Post by jedberg »

fabianhjr wrote: post #41
JohnStudio wrote: post #34

Not to be against state's rights here, but isn't Net Neutrality anti-business? If a state goes it alone, does it risk pro-business components who might leave the state? Curiosity vs. equality slant, so not looking to pick a bone here. Real question ..

Net Neutralitiy is pro-buisness and pro-consumers. If you want to make an internet startup in a NN jurisdiction you won't have additional costs to deliver the service to customers. For what reason would NN make be anti-buisness?

NN is technically anti-business, if your business happens to be "large nation-wide ISP".

Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal

#53

Post by Blazespinnaker »

simcop2387 wrote: post #6
dmode wrote: post #2

Good job Montana. If I recall correctly, the FCC ruling also prevented states from creating their own NN laws. I am wondering if there will be litigation around in executive order.

Definitely going to be a number of lawsuits regarding this. With as many states doing it or planning on doing it. But I think the only way it's going to happen is if the ISPs sue the states doing it. I'd be surprised if the FCC tries to sue the states over it.

Yeah, California and New York will implement this ina flash if they can which will force NN in major isps.

Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal

#56

Post by ende »

komali2 wrote: post #50
simcop2387 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely going to be a number of lawsuits regarding this. With as many states doing it or planning on doing it. But I think the only way it's going to happen is if the ISPs sue the states doing it. I'd be surprised if the FCC tries to sue the states over it.

It'll be interesting to see what propagandic angle the lobbyist and purchased politicians take if ISPs sue states over this. When it was anti-NN, the language was "Defeating Federal Overreach to Allow an Open Internet."

Indeed. “Defeating States Rights to Allow an Open Internet” has a very different ring to it.

Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal

#57

Post by imsofuture »

rebuilder wrote: post #35

So, as someone with no knowledge of the landscape in Montana, I'm wondering: how many ISPs are there who would pick Montana state contracts over the ability to throttle and prioritize traffic?

One of our main telecoms (Blackfoot) is a co-op that rose from the ashes of Bell abandoning the state entirely, so definitely they would.

Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal

#58

Post by takk309 »

dboreham wrote: post #43
joshuaheard wrote: post #37

The headline is a little misleading. The state is not implementing rules or regulations for net neutrality. It is simply requiring, as a condition of contracting with the state, that ISPs abide by the principles of net neutrality. If an ISP does not have any state contracts, it is free to do whatever it wants under the federal law. Many jurisdictions attach such conditions to entering into a contract with the jurisdi…

I live here and have some familiarity with the ISP landscape. I'm going to bet that all* ISPs operating in the state are going to have contracts with the state. *Well, all ISPs of any consequence.

Also a Montanan and I second this opinion. We are a small state (population) with few ISP's, especially in the rural areas. I am sure they all do some sort of business with the State.

Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal

#59

Post by fleitz »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #33
terravion wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the fact that the announcement couches the order in the state's prerogative to consume services that it deems best fit its needs, which is very slick politically, however that works legally.

I think that the state can do that, yes. It can't say "you have to do this to do business in our state", but it can say "you have to do this to do business with us , the state government". The alternative is that the federal government can dictate which businesses the state governments do business with, which is, to put it mildly, probably not a valid use of federal power.

No it can't dictate, but it can attach state requirements to federal funding. Similar to the way Montana can't dictate NN, but it can require it to do business with the state.

Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal

#60

Post by joe_the_user »

dboreham wrote: post #43
joshuaheard wrote: post #37

The headline is a little misleading. The state is not implementing rules or regulations for net neutrality. It is simply requiring, as a condition of contracting with the state, that ISPs abide by the principles of net neutrality. If an ISP does not have any state contracts, it is free to do whatever it wants under the federal law. Many jurisdictions attach such conditions to entering into a contract with the jurisdi…

I live here and have some familiarity with the ISP landscape. I'm going to bet that all* ISPs operating in the state are going to have contracts with the state. *Well, all ISPs of any consequence.

Sure but if push came to shove, if a non-net-neutral approach became a profit center for an ISP, they could afford to jettison those contracts.

You would think the state of Montana would/could also put conditions on contracts for using municipal telephone poles in the state (since states have imposed the condition that, say, municipalities can't operate their own ISPs). You'd think but you think incorrectly given the way things work in the US.

Post reply on HN