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

121–130 of 165 posts

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

#121

Post by gonational »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #91
joe_the_user wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bootstrappy conservative state rolls up sleeves and delivers municipal/coop Internet after being forsaken by for-profit corporation. The news story almost writes itself. I’m unable to find any financial issues with Montana’s budget, and their bond ratings appear to be adequate to receive a great interest rate in order to borrow for a build out.

The reason Montana is in the position they’re in is precisely because they don’t do stuff like that.

Take a look at California, a state that implements just about every idea under the sun without a care in the world for the tax payers’ money (latest example is Hyperloop). Not coincidentally, California is also a state that is broke, crime riddled, filled with toxic waste and pollution, just about burned to the ground (say what you want - that’s a result of bad land management), running out of drinking water, and just about every other thing you could cram into a B-rated dystopian movie.

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

#122

Post by tzs »

davidp wrote: post #106
devindotcom wrote: post #97

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…

> 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.

The 2015 net neutrality rules applied Title II with forbearance. It left out those things you mention.

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

#123

Post by tzs »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #91
joe_the_user wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bootstrappy conservative state rolls up sleeves and delivers municipal/coop Internet after being forsaken by for-profit corporation. The news story almost writes itself. I’m unable to find any financial issues with Montana’s budget, and their bond ratings appear to be adequate to receive a great interest rate in order to borrow for a build out.

It's a conservative town rather than a whole state, but something like this?

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/what-...

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

#124

Post by ScottBurson »

gonational wrote: post #121
toomuchtodo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bootstrappy conservative state rolls up sleeves and delivers municipal/coop Internet after being forsaken by for-profit corporation. The news story almost writes itself. I’m unable to find any financial issues with Montana’s budget, and their bond ratings appear to be adequate to receive a great interest rate in order to borrow for a build out.

The reason Montana is in the position they’re in is precisely because they don’t do stuff like that. Take a look at California, a state that implements just about every idea under the sun without a care in the world for the tax payers’ money (latest example is Hyperloop). Not coincidentally, California is also a state that is broke, crime riddled, filled with toxic waste and pollution, just about burned to the ground…

Yeah, yeah, god it really sucks here, nobody should move to California. Thanks for helping to get the word out!

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

#125

Post by crazy1van »

eldridgea wrote: post #114
davidp wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a common talking point against the FCC retaining Title II classification. While I don't disagree in principle, until Congress acts, Net Neutrality is only achievable in the US via Title II enforcement by the FCC. The FCC reclassifying ISPs as Title I without a corresponding push to have an alternative Net Neutrality plan in place was irresponsible, unethical, and against the will of the constituents of all pa…

> and against the will of the constituents

It's Congress's job to be responsive to the will of the constituents, not the FCC. Congress has done a masterful job over the past several decades of outsourcing all the hard and potentially unpopular decisions to a regulatory body and then beating them up for their decisions.

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

#126

Post by lostapathy »

jdmichal wrote: post #116
anfilt wrote: post #111

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.

Montana is also the state that tried to pass a gun law that didn't require federal registration if the gun was made, sold, and used in Montana. Federal courts struck that one down. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act

Kansas has a similar law on the books. These laws haven't exactly been struck down, but states can't seem to uphold them either. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2017/feb/06/2-kansas-men-spared...

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

#127

Post by wsxcde »

AlexandrB wrote: post #117

It's really ironic that the Comcasts of the world were probably hoping to get a free pass to do whatever they want, when in reality they will end up with different rules for each state increasing the cost of compliance.

Doubtful. Comcast only need a small number of states without these rules to make create a miserable user-experience for Netflix/Youtube and then word of mouth will do the rest. After that, whatever sums Comcast have to pay their lawyers will pale in comparison to whatever they can extort from the Netflix/Google.

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

#128

Post by jeffdavis »

AlexandrB wrote: post #117

It's really ironic that the Comcasts of the world were probably hoping to get a free pass to do whatever they want, when in reality they will end up with different rules for each state increasing the cost of compliance.

Good point. Not to mention that it can switch back and forth as the political winds change, making it hard to keep any lucrative deals going for very long.

NN might be one of those things that companies just don't violate for all kinds of reasons at many different levels; regardless of federal mandates.

We should probably get used to fighting at many different levels. Freedom requires eternal vigilance; not a really great FCC chairperson.

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

#129

Post by twothamendment »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #91
joe_the_user wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bootstrappy conservative state rolls up sleeves and delivers municipal/coop Internet after being forsaken by for-profit corporation. The news story almost writes itself. I’m unable to find any financial issues with Montana’s budget, and their bond ratings appear to be adequate to receive a great interest rate in order to borrow for a build out.

The state will stay out of the ISP business. I already have a coop with fiber to my house and I'm out in the sticks. Not everyone in the state is that lucky, but that isn't a real Montana-like thing to do.

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

#130

Post by twothamendment »

takk309 wrote: post #58
dboreham wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure my ISP is the only one in the county, so there is a good chance the serve the schools and government buildings.
Post reply on HN