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

71–80 of 165 posts

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

#71

Post by betenoire »

jjeaff wrote: post #63
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…

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.

I'm not in Montana, but I'm close, and the thought of scaring away the only two realistic options I have for internet sounds... well it sounds intoxicating. I would love a disruption of service and for new things to start shaking out.

the interim would suck... but so what.

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

#72

Post by topspin »

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…

> The headline is a little misleading.

The headline is clickbait.

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

#74

Post by gonehome »

wglb wrote: post #31
gonehome wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A pretty solo point. I think that story is more about the candidate than any particular party. Note one of the comments in the article: Both papers, the Missoulian and the Billings Gazette, issued scathing denunciations of Gianforte.

He did win though, so while there may have been unusual circumstances suggested by other commenters - he had some support of the people of the state.

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

#75

Post by jnordwick »

takk309 wrote: post #68
jjeaff wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two of the best ISPs in my area here in Montana are Montana owned. One is even a co-op. I don't think it would be too painful to have Charter or Century Link leave the state.

So then this would seem to be a good argument against the idea of Comcast or Century Link being a monopoly and a serious argument against the idea that net neutrality needs laws to enforce it.

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

#76

Post by jnordwick »

For this requirement to have any meaning, Montana would need to be able to enforce it (ie choose another isp). But that would show that the isp landscape isn't owned by monopolies. This would actually seriously undermine many arguments as to why net neutrality needs laws to protect it over what the market can do.

I wonder is if we will start to find out that maybe the isp market isn't as closed as we thought - wireless tech, more entrants, new tech - and those saying we need NN laws because the market isn't healthy enough will pivot to a more normative claim regardless of completion.

I am somebody who could easily be brought on board with specifically crafted NN laws, but see much of the title ii at all costs advocacy a little of the mark.

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

#77

Post by hueving »

imsofuture wrote: post #61
gonehome wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is very purple (and very weird politically). Rural red areas but most of our population centers are wildly blue. Democrat governor, 1 Dem Senator. There's no real religious right, just a libertarian right.

'wildly blue' is incorrect about the population centers. If that were correct the vote would have gone to Trump given how the vast majority of the population is in the cities.

Look at the election results from Missoula, Great Falls, Billings, etc and then compare them to San Francisco (a place actually wildly blue).

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

#78

Post by hueving »

gonehome wrote: post #74
wglb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pretty solo point. I think that story is more about the candidate than any particular party. Note one of the comments in the article: Both papers, the Missoulian and the Billings Gazette, issued scathing denunciations of Gianforte.

He did win though, so while there may have been unusual circumstances suggested by other commenters - he had some support of the people of the state.

Because people vote party lines. If your goal is Republicans in office, then a little assault isn't gonna get in the way of that.

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

#79

Post by rootusrootus »

jjeaff wrote: post #63
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…

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.

I am guessing (perhaps wrongly) that for most commercial addresses there are other options available for Internet service that do not rely on carriers which also serve residential customers. If the state can't get Comcast to agree to their terms, they might have to buy a different class of service than cheapo Comcast Business.

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

#80

Post by client4 »

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.

Hey Now! ...but that's fair, the little ISP's were already for Net Neutrality. *

* ISP Owner in MT

Post reply on HN