Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like it's gone. The domain is for sale.
Whomp whomp. If I recall, it was Centurylink and Charter who got the biggest checks.
Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
101–110 of 165 posts
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
...Montana will vote Republican... It's almost as if this issue has no obvious link to simplistic partisanship, but rather is a pretty good measure of official corruption.
Yeah, democrats are totally trying to attack an open internet and pass draconian laws and regulations that give ISPs unfettered power, and republicans are absolutely trying to fight for free and open access to information. The FCC vote totally wasn’t along party lines either. Nope nope nope, no siree!
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#103Montana - The forefront of the digital advancement lol ...
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Montana has had bad experiences with a lack of regulation in the past. Montana was also the state with corporate political donations limits that went up against Citizens United.
> Montana was also the state with corporate political donations limits that went up against Citizens United. This is incorrect. Corporations are not allowed to donate to political campaigns, and that's been illegal throughout the US for a very, very long time. Individuals (like you and me) who are unaffiliated with political campaigns are allowed to make political statements. And we're allowed to spend money to make…
My point isn't that it was a strong or weak argument and if it should have been able to stand against Citizens United. Rather, my point was that part of the social and political fabric of Montana for the past century has been one of curtailing excessive political power held by corporations.
The Corrupt Practices Act of 1912 was a demonstration of the shift from corporate control of the state house to one where corporations were viewed very warily. It was recognized that a corporation is more likely to act in its own interest than that of the state or its citizens.
In the decades since then, this has found its way into many pieces of law and the political consciousness of Montana appears to be one that still views corporations through a wary eye. It is recognized that it is the responsibility of the state is to protect its citizens from corporations. Going by http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/report_50_states.pdf , Montana has fairly strong consumer protection.
So, let me rephrase my original statement... Montana is a state that appears to value protecting its citizens more than corporations as demonstrated by its challenge (the only state that did so) to Citizens United. That Montana is attempting to implement net neutrality should come as no surprise when one looks at the history of the state and its relationship with corporations.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They could stop running as Republican candidates. Just an idea.
The Governor of Montana is a Democrat.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey Now! ...but that's fair, the little ISP's were already for Net Neutrality. * * ISP Owner in MT
Good to hear, since the FCC was so loud about a handful of small ISPs like yours being vaguely against the Title II rules.
Title II != net neutrality. Title II is a highly bureaucratic strong-oversight-in-all-things tool aimed at a completely different problem space, namely providing a legislative solution to the case-law-derived 1980s consent decrees with AT&T & IBM. It covers things that have nothing to do with what ISPs want to deal with as part of their businesses, and places the expensive burden of proof and compliance on the ISP. So yes, it makes sense that small ISPs would not want to compete with the AT&Ts and Comcasts of the world with their armies of compliance officers. You'd never see another small ISP formed again.
Instead Congress needs to create a separate Section III (or whatever) to address net neutrality specifically, and empower the FCC to act within that purview. The FCC does not get to decide on its own that it wants more authority than was previously granted it by Congress.
Congress (and the various involved presidents) deserve to have all the cannons aimed at them. As it stands, people directing their ire at the FCC chairs (on either side) are letting Congress get away with being irresponsible.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#107Good 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.
Yeah. It's depressing. The start of the ruling made me think, "This could be a triumph for federalism - states can still pass their own laws and we can put Net Neutrality to the test." Then I read the rest of the ruling. So much for states' rights! It's... still the Democrats' fault, right?
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Or any small ISP that wants to be able to compete with those large nationwide ISPs. It's much harder for small ISPs to comply with Title II regulation than large ones with tons of employees.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#109Montana. Now that's an unexpected source for business regulation.
Montana has an interesting history. There were stories that said that Montana statehood was delayed by 25 years due to support of the south during the civil war. Jeanette Rankin, the first female member of congress, was elected twice, in time to be the sole vote against entering WWI and WWII. She was a pacifist and a Progressive Republican. So while small in population, there might be more diversity of opinion than y…
Yes! And the history of far left labor movements like the IWW (“Wobblies”) in MT is interesting too.
Butte, for example, has historically been very blue collar, socially conservative / Irish Catholic, and left wing in a “you can’t scare me, I’m sticking to the union” kind of way.
Something like 13% of Missoula County voted Green Party in 2000.
Way I see it, MT has a mix of hippy-left, labor left, and truly moderate right wing politics that make it far more purple than red.
EDIT: Also a multi-generation Montanan with homesteading ancestors.
Re: Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal
#110For 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 - wirele…
> For this requirement to have any meaning, Montana would need to be able to enforce it (ie choose another isp). Why? Can't they also just fine them in increasing amounts until they comply?
No they can't. Its not a law. It is just a directive that the government will not do business with isps that do not comply to certain standards.