111–120 of 165 posts
So state preemption would rub a lot of Montanians the wrong way. Montana also has a democrat governor at the moment.
If it's at all effective congress will preempt it.
E.g., I, for one, oppose federal interference with the technical decisions of ISPs via so-called net neutrality. I've written my representatives on multiple occasions saying so. If I lived in Montana, I'd be similarly opposed to the state government's meddling. As a citizen of Minnesota, I'd actually oppose an overreaching federal government if they tried to overturn Montana's law. Even though I think it'd be better policy for Montanans, I regard Montana's rights as a state as more important than my ego's desire to direct their policy from afar.
My guess is that a lot of other opponents of federal internet regulation would agree.
I'm actually quite glad to see this playing out among the various states as 'laboratories of democracy'. In ten years, we'll both have a lot more data on which policy promotes better offerings.
What I'd really like to see is one of the states declare municipal grants of telecommunications monopolies to be void. E.g., if some town has contracted with Comcast to be the only ISP legally allowed, then the state would come in and say that those terms are legally unenforceable and that the town has to license at least one or two competitors or face charges from the state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could stop running as Republican candidates. Just an idea.
The Governor of Montana is a Democrat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. S…
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…
While it's not a complete net-neutrality across the board. Having lived in Montana before I can tell you why they did this despite being Red State. Montana has always been a state that values strong state rights. It was one of the last States to have a speed limit. So state preemption would rub a lot of Montanians the wrong way. Montana also has a democrat governor at the moment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act
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.
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.
> Oh and Montana will vote Republican again next election as you well know
Montana's current governor, Steve Bullock[1], is a Democrat. He was the incumbent in the last election, but initially won his seat from the outgoing Brian Schweitzer[2], another Democrat.
Going by the gubernatorial seat, Montana's been a blue state since 2005.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bullock_(American_politi...
Earlier 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.
Pardon? > Oh and Montana will vote Republican again next election as you well know Montana's current governor, Steve Bullock[1], is a Democrat. He was the incumbent in the last election, but initially won his seat from the outgoing Brian Schweitzer[2], another Democrat. Going by the gubernatorial seat, Montana's been a blue state since 2005. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bullock_(American_politi... [2] http…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pardon? > Oh and Montana will vote Republican again next election as you well know Montana's current governor, Steve Bullock[1], is a Democrat. He was the incumbent in the last election, but initially won his seat from the outgoing Brian Schweitzer[2], another Democrat. Going by the gubernatorial seat, Montana's been a blue state since 2005. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bullock_(American_politi... [2] http…
More interested in what Montana's representatives voted in Washington about NN. Oh and Trump is going to be reelected. Calling it.
Did you imagine that a vote had been conducted, and then further imagine that the obviously Republican Senators from Montana voted against it?