New York Governor Signs Executive Order To Keep Net Neutrality Rules After FCC's Repeal (theverge.com) 131
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced today that he has signed an executive order that would require internet service providers with state contracts to abide by net neutrality rules, even though the FCC recently voted to repeal those rules last month. Cuomo's announcement comes a couple days after Montana's governor signed essentially the same order. The Verge reports: [Both executive orders] require service providers with contracts to abide by the widely agreed upon tenets of net neutrality: no blocking, throttling, or otherwise favoring content. But the more populous New York could now become a key battleground over net neutrality. According to the order, any service provider receiving or renewing a contract after March 1st in New York will be required to sign an agreement saying they will adhere to net neutrality principles. Major companies, including Verizon and AT&T, have signed contracts with the state. That, however, doesn't mean the executive order will stand. When it passed its repeal of net neutrality rules late last year, the FCC specifically included a provision blocking states from passing their own rules. New York, like other states that attempt similar plans, will likely face a legal challenge.
Clever way around "blocked from imposing rules" (Score:5, Informative)
As I read this, New York isn't imposing a rule that would run afoul of the FCC's ban on states and localities imposing rules on internet providers.
They're just saying that neutrality is a condition of doing business with New York.
If you don't want to do net neutrality, fine, knock yourself out, but New York will not do business with you. Your choice.
I don't see that the FCC has a say in this.
Re: (Score:1)
As much as I like Net Neutrality, this does not quite pass the "smell test" in my book. I really dislike attempts at bypassing a law or rule by leveraging a technicality.
Even it may be legal, I feel like this is what is wrong with modern business practices.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any part of your government that doesn't? Try muttering bomb in an airport and see how far the 1st will protect you. Show up at a Federal building armed and see how far that right to be armed will get you. Those are two really simple parts of the Bill of Rights.
Re: (Score:2)
amirite?
Re: Clever way around "blocked from imposing rules (Score:1)
No he doesn't. He just prefers the "spirit of the law" to supersede the "letter of the law" when it comes to legal matters. (Many countries in Europe do it that way: if in doubt about the intention of a law, the judge goes through the work that went into producing that law to check.)
Re:Clever way around "blocked from imposing rules" (Score:5, Interesting)
At the risk of nitpicking, it's not a business practice, it's a government practice. The distinction is important because the courts have typically given governments broad leeway in using their "power of the purse". A good example is the 21 year old drinking age, which is not a federal law. However, the states were threatened with losing their share of the federally-allocated highway funds if they didn't enact their own 21 year old drinking age laws.
The potential harm of traffic shaping is not something the state should ignore in its procurement processes. The ISPs who shape traffic will eventually start to throttle VPNs once customers realize they can get Netflix faster over a VPN without having to buy the "Streamer's Package" (or whatever the ISPs will call it). VPNs used by government employees working remotely will get throttled, too. So the state has a legitimate interest in discouraging traffic shaping.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any exceptions? For example, should unjust laws also be obeyed without leveraging technicalities?
Cuomo is a Grandstanding Tool (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
His stances on various issues have routinely "evolved" as the political winds have shifted during his career... absolutely no moral compass or POV on anything that has not been vetted by pollsters
A lot of people complain about politicians like this. Since the US is theoretically a democracy, though, isn't it a positive trait for a politician to follow the will of their constituency? Don't we want politicians that pay more attention to the voters than to the donors?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that I'm assuming that you mean changes over time based on changes in public opinion. A politician who makes statements during a campaign and immediately goes against those statements when they're elected is a different issue.
Re:Clever way around "blocked from imposing rules" (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the "technicality" being leveraged is the U.S. Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the "technicality" being leveraged is the U.S. Constitution.
Conservatives are all about States Rights and the Constitution.
Except when they are paid not to be all about State's Rights and the Constitution.
Personally, I think it's a big mistake, the Republicans messing with people's porn.
Re: (Score:2)
And weed.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you not been able to access porn anymore? Where you not able to before Obama's version of net neutrality?
You think the left would have learned their lesson after exaggerating the impact of global warming. By the time the elections come up, no one is going to care about net neutrality because none of the extreme bad stuff will have happened. And by bracing everyone for that extreme, any small impacts will just seem minor.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would make sense except for a couple of things:
1) There is no "law" to be "supreme" in this case. The FCC removed a regulation, it didn't create one. So, the supremacy clause refers to federal laws being supreme, but where there is no law or regulation, the states are free to create them. Remember this language:
Re: (Score:1)
>the FCC removed a regulation, it didn't create one.
Obviously you're ignorant of what is in the FCC ruling. Why don't you go read it [fcc.gov] I'll wait...
Ah, who am I kidding? Everyone knows you won't read shit.
We conclude that regulation of broadband Internet access service should be governed
principally by a uniform set of federal regulations, rather than by a patchwork that includes separate state and local requirements. Our order today establishes a calibrated federal regulatory regime based on the pro-competitive, deregulatory goals of the 1996 Act. Allowing state and local governments to adopt their own separate requirements, which could impose far greater burdens than the federal regulatory regime, could significantly disrupt the balance we strike here. Federal courts have uniformly held that an affirmative federal policy of deregulation is entitled to the same preemptive effect as a federal policy of regulation. 726 In addition, allowing state or local regulation of broadband Internet access service could impair the provision of such service by requiring each ISP to comply with a patchwork of separate and potentially conflicting requirements across all of the different jurisdictions in which it operates. 727 Just as the Title II Order promised to “exercise our preemption authority to preclude states from imposing regulations on broadband service that are inconsistent” with the federal regulatory scheme, we conclude that we should exercise our authority to preempt any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with the federal deregulatory approach we adopt today. 728
195. We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or
requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order.
>States have been making their own regulations regarding abortion now since Rove v Wade, even though the "supreme" law of the land, aka a woman's right, can be superseded by a state regulation, you're going to have a hard time arguing against state regulation regarding which communications companies st
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC regulation "preempting" states was created, not by courts, or by congress or by the Founding Fathers, but by a bureaucrat who is several Constitutional levels below a SCOTUS judge or Congress or the Founding Fathers.
Regulations, while having the force of law, are not laws. When this goes to court, the State of New York will win.
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of reading, the EO from the governor of New York doesn't create or impose any regulation of any kind. It just states that the government of New York will not do business with any ISP that violates Net Neutrality rules.
Those businesses are still free to do business any way they see fit, but they won't be getting the business of the State of New York. There is no language of any kind in the FCC regs that state governments MUST do business wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of yes and sort of now. Regulations stay in place for access but it was distorted to allow for completely, unlimited, unequal access, to the point that some can have all, while the majority have none, this done over public infrastructure (the land upon which the service exists or the airwaves). So regulation allowing access are biased because those regulation that in the primary instance allow equal access, once control is privatised no longer allow equal access and this done with fore knowledge in the
Re: (Score:2)
What part of federal law is NY violating by laying out the rules under which that will sign contracts?
Re: Clever way around "blocked from imposing rules (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me, what federal law is NY violating? They are simply laying out the conditions of contracting with the state. How does that violate federal law?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a "technicality". States clearly have a right, and probably an obligation, to lay out the terms under which they will contract for services.
Re:Clever way around "blocked from imposing rules" (Score:5, Informative)
which would be.... imposing a rule
They aren't imposing a rule about doing business in the state New York, they're imposing a rule about doing business with the State of New York. The FCC didn't appear to prohibit the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans have been screaming forever that contracts are sacred, and this is a clever way around the problem. Going forward it will be a condition of doing business with the state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Capricious contractual clauses (Score:1)
Wrong.
What has been so far accomplished by Net Neutrality, as weak as it has been so far, is prevent ISPs from continuing the worst of the anti-consumer stunts they have tried.
You would probably be paying extra to your ISP to stream each and every web video provider othewise.
If Comcast and the like had their way you would be watching 480p Netflix or Hulu with your basic internet service.
Oh, you want Hulu in 1080p?
That package costs you an extra $20 a month on your Internet package.
Netflix in HD too? Another
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe any of what you wrote would have happened but I believe you believe it.
It amazes me that people think "Thank God the government stepped up and forced my ISP to delivery me 1080p content." As someone older - but not that old - it just amazes me the role people feel government should have in their lives.
NY Cali MA etc (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
pick up the slack that the federal government is abdicating . . . maintain civilization on state by state basis . . . those anarchic lunatics.
The irony is strong with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ISPs are natural monopolies
Please stop spouting this nonsense. ISPs are not monopolies. When you can find 8 different companies all selling service in the same area, it isn't a natural, unnatural, or any other kind of monopoly.
What IS a natural monopoly are certain forms of delivery of ISP services. Cable and telco are natural monopolies. But since "ISP" and "cable" are not synonyms, the latter does not create a monopoly status on the former.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The delivery mechanism when owned by a private entity and unregulated chooses to become a monopoly on the ISP end.
That's what I said. There are certain forms of DELIVERY that are natural monopolies just because of the cost of the infrastructure. That does not make "ISP" into "natural monopoly".
Thus the ISP portion is part of the natural vertical and horizontal monopolistic entity.
THAT ISP using THAT DELIVERY MEDIUM has a natural monopoly on THAT DELIVERY MEDIUM. If you haven't noticed, there are more available media than just "cable" and "telco".
"One ISP has a monopoly on cable delivery of internet service" is NOT THE SAME as "ISPs are a natural monopoly."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you haven't noticed, there are more available media than just "cable" and "telco"." No there are not,
Your ignorance also does not convert "ISP" into "monopoly."
Re: (Score:2)
you can find 8 different companies all selling service in the same area
Where?
Re: (Score:2)
I've counted about five in the city where I live.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a choice of two, but I live in a downtown apartment in an urban area.
Re:NY Cali MA etc (Score:5, Insightful)
In my view of the US constitution... This is EXACTLY how it should work....
As I recall the 10th amendment is pretty clear about this. States need to take back their power and tell the Fed where to get off with all their locally applied regulations....
Not that I'm defending NY's decision here. I think they are being stupid... I'm just agreeing that they have the right to do this if that's what their voters want.
Re: (Score:2)
It is how the Constitution is setup. For good or for bad state's rights enable each state to regulate when the Fed fails to do so. Unfortunately this balkinization also causes massive problems for national/international organizations. This was simply not a problem when the Constitution was written. With additional rules being put in place by each state, at best they will supplement each-other, at worst they can directly contradict each-other. Now each ISP has to comply with each states net neutrality regul
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree. I think the framers did a masterful job with their design and it would work fine today if people understood how this worked and let it happen. The federal government was supposed to be limited in size and scope and focused on things like national defense, international treaties and the like but we have let it grow into an all powerful unifying entity that directly impacts state and local government operations though "grants" and attached regulations which has blown it all out of proportion
Re: (Score:2)
I actually like you response annnd I actually think the Constitution was just relatively good as written for when it was written. The problem is we have not done it anything close to justice by adequately maintaining it since then by utilizing its own self correcting mechanisms. We have the large population, economical vibrant, and educationally well endowed states which have recognized and want to leverage the economics of scale of a unified economic,social, and infrastructural system, and a smaller,subsis
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so I take it you think an all powerful central government is just the ticket then?
I see your views as an attack on our founding principles as well as our founder's wisdom in their choices for how our government was designed to work. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that our form of government is somehow old fashioned and thus ineffective.
I believe that the actual problems of government haven't really changed in thousands of years and as such the most effective form of government remains the sa
Re: (Score:2)
"I see your views as an attack on our founding principles as well as our founder's wisdom in their choices for how our government was designed to work. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that our form of government is somehow old fashioned and thus ineffective."
You imply that the founding fathers were some kind of homogeneous group. This debate has been
Re: (Score:2)
All the Federal actions you point to are part of it's valid function of enforcing the bill of rights.. However, the bill of rights has little to do with the bulk of the Federal government.
How do you justify "The Department of Energy" or "Department of Education" and how they meddle with what the states can and cannot do? The EPA has grown WAY beyond any kind of constitutionally limited part of the Federal government. How is the Federal government even involved in things like welfare and Medicaid from a c
Re: (Score:2)
Does the system that was invented close to 250 years back really make sense now? It has already led to a pretty brutal war due to the States wanting to do different things.
Re: (Score:2)
And what was that war about in the 1860's? The counting of slaves verses freemen in the north and south?
We've gone far away from our founding design and I believe this is not a good thing. Where the Federal government is properly charged with enforcing the constitution and civil rights within our borders, we've long ago left ideal of limited government where the power is left to the states and the people.
Re: NY Cali MA etc (Score:1)
Except, of course, the Internet clearly being an interstate commerce mechanism, and this being a deliberate interference in interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In my view of the US constitution... This is EXACTLY how it should work....
As I recall the 10th amendment is pretty clear about this. States need to take back their power and tell the Fed where to get off with all their locally applied regulations....
The problem is that the people in power right now, will scream bloody murder about state's rights when it suits them. This of course is because they have managed to figure out a way to get elevted by the voters, while actually working for their corporate overorlds who pay the baksheesh to do their bidding. But now they are all about the power of the Federal Government.
At present, they are getting hoist by their own petard. This current situation, Where Montana, New York, Vermont, Colorado, and California,
Re: (Score:2)
If your view is political power and controlling everything, then I can see someone thinking like you do.
The problem though is many republicans are not enamored with obtaining political power for the federal government and fully understand what that means to their ability to control everything. When we preach "states rights" we mean it. If California wants to be a liberal wasteland of failed utopian policies and high taxes, so be it. IF Texas wants low taxes and conservative government, so be that too.
F
Re: (Score:2)
If your view is political power and controlling everything, then I can see someone thinking like you do.
The problem though is many republicans are not enamored with obtaining political power for the federal government and fully understand what that means to their ability to control everything.
Just who are these many Republicans? As a person who used to vote 75-80 percent Republican, I have not seen any of that for a long time. The Republican Party is the Party of Donald Trump, and do not deny it. Trump had a record number of votes for any Republican candidate ever. This is the person the Republican Party wanted and elected. He represents the views of the majority of Republicans.
When we preach "states rights" we mean it. If California wants to be a liberal wasteland of failed utopian policies and high taxes, so be it.
And you preach a balanced budget too. That's pretty amusing. And tell ya what - as a Goldwater conservative, I can te
Abuse (Score:2, Flamebait)
Regardless of your stance on Net Neutrality, this looks to me to be a clear abuse of the "executive order." We have legislative branches for such things.
Re: (Score:1)
This is also the state that passes laws in the middle of the night so you won't have to deal with that pesky opposition.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/state_emergency_gun_law.html
Re: (Score:2)
And in a fantastic role reversal, another dead-of-night legistlation deal, in 2012 Democratic Governor Cuomo went to extraordinary lengths to woo the Republican legislature (he allowed them to gerrymander the districts) to pass his "Tier 6" retirement plan, which massively gimped future public employee pensions. News article: Tier 6 Passes Assembly [timesunion.com]. The article reads like the twilight zone. In NYS, the Republicans are pro-union and the Democrats are the Scott Walkers. Keep in mind the NYS pension has no
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with the New York government (This is the state rather than the city, right?), and perhaps it should be an action by the state legislature. But as far as I know states normally have the right to decide what the terms of doing business with them are, so the order seems reasonable. Still, you may be right that it should have come from the legislature. This is not clear to me, as often the executive branch is allowed to decide such matters subject to being overruled by the legislature.
Re: (Score:2)
But as far as I know states normally have the right to decide what the terms of doing business with them are,
State government is a big enough customer that they shouldn't be buying ISP services from the home ISP providers anyway. Nobody in state government should have a comcast.net email address.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason I can see the legislature needing to get involved is if there's procurement laws that contradict the order. For example, things like "must pick the cheapest of 3 bidders". Even then, in the interim the theoretical net neutrality violating company would lose the state contract and have to fight it in court, which could take over a year. So not only are they not getting income from the state contract, but they're now paying lawyers and legal fees. In the meanwhile, the new contract winner
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with the New York government (This is the state rather than the city, right?), and perhaps it should be an action by the state legislature.
You think the legislature should be involved in every detail of contract negotiations between the state and private companies? If that were the case, the legislature wouldn't have time to discuss and pass actual laws that need to be handled. Granted, in some cases that would be a good thing, but overall I think it would be better for the legislature to spend time on laws instead of details of execution of the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes both sides are guilty of massive use of situational ethics, finding value in a principle if it supports a predetermined political position, and abhoring it if it does not.
See also the swap between sides on the protracted use of a special prosecutor. Republicans now find it a waste, instead of dragging it on and on, as they did under Clinton. And the reverse, where Democrats decried the waste of $50 million (in a budget of trillions) but now have no problem with it.
Here, some now want states to be able
Re: (Score:2)
Yes both sides are guilty of massive use of situational ethics, finding value in a principle if it supports a predetermined political position, and abhoring it if it does not.
See also the swap between sides on the protracted use of a special prosecutor. Republicans now find it a waste, instead of dragging it on and on, as they did under Clinton. And the reverse, where Democrats decried the waste of $50 million (in a budget of trillions) but now have no problem with it.
Here, some now want states to be able to override the golden child of power growth, interstate trade regulation. Guess who is on opposite sides now?
I've long noted that the historical blowjob impeachment would eventually come back to haunt the party of the high moral ground. The big issue being the difference between Ken Stars's throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks, and an actual criminal investigation that has already brought convictions
Re: (Score:2)
>Democrats do not care about abuse of executive power or legislative branches. Unless they can use it to empower themselves and enrich their corporate friends.
I believe BOTH parties abuse executive power, and more specifically the "executive order." BOTH parties spend too much. BOTH parties enrich themselves. BOTH parties erode civil liberties (just differently) and trample the Constitution. Welcome to our two-party system!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If you want it to change, we have to get some
Clever, and it doesn't violate the FCC's rules. (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't a law that undoes the FCC ruling.
It basically says that if ISP's want to do business with the state and wants their contracts, Net Neutrality is one of the agreements.
ISP's have a choice if they want those contracts or not. And there's NO law anywhere saying that State governments absolutely must do business with the ISP's. No such law can exist because that would be immediately squashed in court.
Re: (Score:2)
All this means is that "TWC Business Services LLC" must provide net neutrality to it's customers. Charter Communications LLC does not provide contracts for government/educational organizations and neither does TWC Business Services LLC provide residential internet services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spectrum is the brand name, TWC Business Services LLC and Charter Communications LLC are subsidiaries of Charter Communications Operating LLC. They have a BUNCH of subsidiaries, even as specific as Long Beach LLC and numerous other subsidiaries that operate very small geographical areas (probably to avoid legal scrutiny reserved to larger ISP). So legal-technical speaking, your "business" Spectrum is quite different from your "residential" Spectrum, I work with both regularly and they have different brandin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It actually does not.
It doesn't say that 'All ISP's MUST honor Net Neutrality" It says "Any ISP that wants a state contract must honor Net Neutrality."
The ISP's are free to choose if they want a contract with the state or not. It doesn't force them into it.
And the ISP's really can't go to the FCC or the Federal Government and say "Those people don't want to do business with us, make them!" No body can ultimately be forced into business with anyone else. Even if the ISP's try to file a lawsuit, it'll be thro
Re: (Score:1)
The states did not impose NN rules. The ISP's are free to conduct business as they wish. The states are free to decline to do business with said ISP's if they do not like their business practices. i see nothing to be litigated.
Re: (Score:2)
Want new, innovative competition in broadband services consider states and parts of the USA with less telco bureaucracy and rules.
Would those be the same states that still don't have internet to rural areas?
Re: (Score:2)
Rural areas? Last I checked some of them didn't have anything beyond dial-up even in the cities. (Well, that was well over a decade ago, but I'm talking about South Dakota.)
Re: (Score:2)
Would those be the same states that still don't have internet to rural areas?
Which states aren't those? I can get internet, but I can't get it on a wire. People at both ends of the road I live on are being offered gigabit cable now, and I'm paying $99/mo for 6 Mbps.
Eons ago... (2001) (Score:2)
... Federal, state and local governments negotiated contracts with vendors to give their traffic priority, for "public safety" reasons. Now they want to put in place rules that forbid that... Seems political expediency is more important than public safety now.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal, state and local governments negotiated contracts with vendors to give their traffic priority, for "public safety" reasons.
Interesting point. Is New York an adopter of FirstNet? If so, then they're going to have internet for first responders that has priority over normal consumers.
This'll go great, till it doesn't (Score:2)
I can see ISPs contracting with the state of NY buying into this, grinning. First DDoS they refuse to block or throttle will likely lead to some fun discussions.
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't matter, Cuomo is all about bullshitting to get himself elected president so he can reward his buddies.