Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you say this? I ask because, I am from Montana and I often find outside knowledge of Montana consists of "they have an unlimited speed on the highway/interstate" (which hasn't been true for quite sometime) mindset applied to any information about Montana. It is usually viewed as a red state, but it's a different kind of red than what you find on the coasts. Our governor is blue and our state was essentially fo…
When I think of Montana politics the first thing I remember is this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/2... For better or worse this makes me think of Montana as a pretty red state unlikely to pass regulation like NN.
Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
61–70 of 165 posts
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#62Montana. Now that's an unexpected source for business regulation.
Why do you say this? I ask because, I am from Montana and I often find outside knowledge of Montana consists of "they have an unlimited speed on the highway/interstate" (which hasn't been true for quite sometime) mindset applied to any information about Montana. It is usually viewed as a red state, but it's a different kind of red than what you find on the coasts. Our governor is blue and our state was essentially fo…
It doesn't take much time in a place to get a feel for it, I felt the Montana vibe about an hour or two after visiting Missoula.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#63The 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…
Seems like the state would be in the same place most consumers are, we don't like it, but there are no alternatives.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#64Good 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.
Oh and Montana will vote Republican again next election as you well know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
Business won in America, money is free speech and nobody cares.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#65Montana. Now that's an unexpected source for business regulation.
People don't fit into neat left/right political boxes.
Amusing how a country with a thousand different religious denominations only has two political opponents isn't it?
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Unaffiliated" is doing a lot of work in that description, as it turns out.
Not really; this area of case law is pretty well-established, going back long before the Citizens United decision.
a few of these decisions to be aware of:
The Rev John Bracken v. The Visitors of Wm & Mary College (7 Va. 573 -- 1790 Supreme Court of Virginia) established that a corporation had the right to reorganize itself, ie, that the people working together for a common cause could hire+fire just like they would if there was a single owner
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (17 U.S. 518 -- 1819) established that groups of people could enter into contracts and that they'd be enforceable just as contracts with a "natural person".
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) established that the 14th amendment (due process) applied to groups of people organized under a common cause, and not just to individuals. This is followed up in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888) which rather explicitly states "corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution".
United States v. Auto Workers, 352 U.S. 567 (1957) upheld the ban on corporate campaign funding, but as is so eloquently noted in the dissent, "associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions" should have "all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community."
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) extended the restriction on campaign funding to also cover advocacy, limiting the speech that could be undertaken by groups of people pooling funds together.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 844 (2010) overturned the Austin and McConnell decisions. Justice Kennedy: "wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts .... Yet [under the Austin decision] certain disfavored associations of citizens — those that have taken on the corporate form — are penalized for engaging in the same political speech .... When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful."
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#67Another executive order... and this one only affecting ISPs wanting a contract with the state government. Is that really the best that can be done?
If you're the Governor of Montana, it probably is the best that can be done. It's not a lot by itself, of course, but I'm not going to begrudge local and state officials from exercising what powers they do have to try and make the situation a bit better.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#68The 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…
So if they choose not to abide by net neutrality, the state will just do without internet service? Seems like the state would be in the same place most consumers are, we don't like it, but there are no alternatives.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Montana is considered a Western state, not midwest. I agree it's somewhat surprising, but Montana is dominated (population-wise) by relatively left-leaning population centers. I'd consider it to be a libertarian leaning western state similar to Colorado but without the insanely religious component of Colorado Springs.
And without the CA transplants who (I'm generalizing here) lean left to the point where "libretarian" is not a good descriptor for any government they have a meaningful say in. Montana might be a western state but as far as most people on the coasts (also generalizing) care or know (is there a difference) if you don't have saltwater coastline or a big city you're a backwards flyover state with nothing much going on.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#70Good 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.
No, the telecom industry is gonna go home and rethink their lives ;) Oh and Montana will vote Republican again next election as you well know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... Business won in America, money is free speech and nobody cares.
It's almost as if this issue has no obvious link to simplistic partisanship, but rather is a pretty good measure of official corruption.