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

151–160 of 165 posts

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

#151

Post by JohnStudio »

kingnothing wrote: post #49
JohnStudio wrote: post #34

Not to be against state's rights here, but isn't Net Neutrality anti-business? If a state goes it alone, does it risk pro-business components who might leave the state? Curiosity vs. equality slant, so not looking to pick a bone here. Real question ..

The parent's account appears to be new and largely used for political and ideological discussion. I'm not a moderator, but I'd encourage you to read the community guidelines as that type of behavior is specifically prohibited: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

So let's pull down reference:

Not to be against state's rights here, but isn't Net Neutrality anti-business? >> generalization, but specific to a yes/no. No politics, but setting aside states vs. federal overlap and differences >> Net Neutrality hits at the heart of overlap. That was a tactile approach to ask a question w/o saying Trump, Democrats suck, Republicans Suck .. etc.

If a state goes it alone, does it risk pro-business components who might leave the state? >> How is THIS political? I ask the risk for analysis >> to help me expand the dynamic understand that is required for Net Neutrality to have an informed view. NN IS political, and I'm trying to understand the longer view of its implications to each part. THAT is neutral.

Curiosity vs. equality slant, so not looking to pick a bone here. Real question .. >> Lastly ... I stated my intent. Intent is either what sets you free ... or lands you in jail. >> In this case, I used intent to direct towards WHY is NN so controversial and how can we make it LESS controversial. >>I don't understand people that don't like open-minded requests for help in understanding the broader strokes of very BROAD topics. It's the nuances ... not the prickly parts .. that make for good conversation.

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

#152

Post by JohnStudio »

kingnothing wrote: post #49
JohnStudio wrote: post #34

Not to be against state's rights here, but isn't Net Neutrality anti-business? If a state goes it alone, does it risk pro-business components who might leave the state? Curiosity vs. equality slant, so not looking to pick a bone here. Real question ..

The parent's account appears to be new and largely used for political and ideological discussion. I'm not a moderator, but I'd encourage you to read the community guidelines as that type of behavior is specifically prohibited: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was being constructive, yet the immediate response was "I am not a moderator (but implied .. if I was, you'd be banned)" like its IRC

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

#153

Post by rconti »

s73ver_ wrote: post #83
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually, most of the "transplants" that go to Montana or Idaho are those who are going because they believe the state is "too liberal" or that there's "too much crime".

Sure, but that doesn't mean they don't bring values that don't fit there.

I actually sat next to a woman and her son at a Seahawks game in Seattle; they live in Pocatello, ID but had moved there from Redding, CA a handful of years ago. Some amusing (to me) bullet points from our conversation:

* She wanted to make sure they went to an afternoon game because she didn't want to be in "the city" after dark

* As a reaction to moving to Pocatello, "when we moved to Idaho, I thought WE were conservative, but..."

* She was successful in her career and her husband was a stay at home dad and had difficulty meeting people/making friends as someone not in the workforce and who didn't 'fit in' to the social fabric of non-working folks (Eg, female homemakers).

They might even be more conservative than the average Idahoan, but it's not a binary thing; likely they've got "California values" they didn't even realize they held, but folks in Idaho could spot a mile a way.

The same way (say) cops in populated areas of California might be VERY pro-law-and-order and consider themselves very conservative, but not bat an eye over LGBT issues that might rile up a bible-thumper from the midwest who is otherwise a moderate.

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

#154

Post by PopsiclePete »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #137
hammock wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there ever been a successful telecom that did not have government contracts?

I may be wrong, but what about Google Fiber?

He said "successful". Google Fiber gave up.

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

#155

Post by joe_the_user »

zer0t3ch wrote: post #138
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…

"they could afford to jettison those contracts" Don't they have to have a contract with the state to have access to the cables? IE: any ISP would have a state contract. If it ceased those contracts, it wouldn't be able to function as an ISP.

No, those contracts are with cities and counties; the owners of the land that telephone poles sit on.

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

#156

Post by anfilt »

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

Honestly, when reading about that, I find the panels reasoning of: "Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Congress could regulate the internal manufacture of firearms within Montana because the creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally."

Seems a bit of stretch if you ask me. I am not sure I would call that interstate commerce.

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

#157

Post by zanny »

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.

If any states had legitimate balls they would use this as an opportunity to justify funding a public fiber network that anyone can plug in to.

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

#158

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

tzs wrote: post #122
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…

> 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…

Partially applied laws are the building blocks of tyranny - Rule by law instead of rule of law.

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

#159

Post by colejohnson66 »

PopsiclePete wrote: post #154
colejohnson66 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong, but what about Google Fiber?

He said "successful". Google Fiber gave up.

They were still successful in multiple areas. Also, AFAIK, they didn’t “give up”; They switched from fighting over poles to microtrecnching and wireless.

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

#160

Post by hueving »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #143
wglb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were a lot of votes cast before the incident, so the outcome might have been different had the incident happened sooner.

This is the most salient point -- Montana has one of the largest, if not the largest, vote-by-mail operations in the US, so ballots were probably cast and posted a few days before the election.

It is not the most salient point. I personally know several folks that still voted for him in person after it happened. Getting a Republican into office was the number 1 priority and pushing down a reporter was hardly crossing a line when they already distrust the media.
Post reply on HN