Montana To FCC: You Can't Stop Us From Protecting Net Neutrality (arstechnica.com) 151
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Montana governor's office has a message for the Federal Communications Commission and Internet service providers: the state can't be stopped from protecting net neutrality, and ISPs that don't like it don't have to do business with state agencies. Governor Steve Bullock signed an executive order to protect net neutrality on Monday. But with questions raised about whether Bullock is exceeding his authority, the governor's legal office prepared a fact sheet that it's distributing to anyone curious about potential legal challenges to the executive order. ISPs are free to violate net neutrality if they only serve non-government customers -- they just can't do so and expect to receive state contracts. "Companies that don't like it don't have to do business with the State -- nothing stops ISPs from selling dumpy Internet plans in Montana if they insist," the fact sheet says.
The FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules attempts to preempt states and localities from issuing their own similar rules. But Bullock's executive order doesn't directly require ISPs to follow net neutrality rules. Instead, ISPs that accept contracts to provide Internet service to any state agency must agree to abide by net neutrality principles throughout the state. Bullock's fact sheet is titled, "Why Isn't Montana's Executive Order Preempted?" and it offers numerous answers to that question. "Through the order, the State of Montana acts as a consumer -- not a regulator," the fact sheet says. "Because there's no mandate, and no new regulations, there's certainly no federal preemption. Companies that don't like Montana's proposed contract terms don't have to do business with the State."
The FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules attempts to preempt states and localities from issuing their own similar rules. But Bullock's executive order doesn't directly require ISPs to follow net neutrality rules. Instead, ISPs that accept contracts to provide Internet service to any state agency must agree to abide by net neutrality principles throughout the state. Bullock's fact sheet is titled, "Why Isn't Montana's Executive Order Preempted?" and it offers numerous answers to that question. "Through the order, the State of Montana acts as a consumer -- not a regulator," the fact sheet says. "Because there's no mandate, and no new regulations, there's certainly no federal preemption. Companies that don't like Montana's proposed contract terms don't have to do business with the State."
I love the idea (Score:2, Interesting)
By removing the mandate as a government rule and replacing it with contractual obligations they will bypass anything the FCC can do.
The State system is a big enough customer to have the clout to make it happem
Re: I love the idea (Score:2)
How many 'state' contracts with ISIs are funded with federal eRate funds, this exempting them from state requirements?
Re: I love the idea (Score:1)
This may explain the Montana.gov timeout errors... (Score:2)
Re:This may explain the Montana.gov timeout errors (Score:5, Insightful)
I can imagine big ISPs simply pulling the plug on the state government, and leaving the contract to a local ISP.
Sounds like a great way to piss off the legislature and begin the proliferation of municipal ISPs.
Re:This may explain the Montana.gov timeout errors (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the advantages of classifying ISPs as Title II common carriers was that it allowed for the implementation of line sharing rules, which were baked into the Telecommunications Act. These rules were implemented briefly in 1999, and worked well, but they were only implemented for DSL and were revoked in 2005 when a
natural monopolies are the problem (Score:2)
Distinction without a difference. Limited monopolies are a deal to get ISP's to accept government regulation. End said regulation and you'll still end up with a single (or dual) provider anyway due to market consolidation. And then they'll really gouge you. The onl
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This may explain the Montana.gov timeout errors (Score:4, Insightful)
Montana. Not enough market to matter to large ISP's....
The tiny tip of a very large iceberg.
Re: (Score:2)
New York is supposedly following their lead and putting in the same regulations. Add California, and who needs the federal regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
First, the state would probably like this, and would probably only agree to if the 'local' isp was in position to compete with the big isp.
The state would probably offer direct incentives to the local isp to expand to consumers as well as state actors.
If the big isp attempted to prevent this, the state would probably sue for breaking monopoly laws.
Re: (Score:2)
There's 1 million people in Montana, and a total of 120 ISP. I don't think this is a death blow for the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
There's 1 million people in Montana, and a total of 120 ISP. I don't think this is a death blow for the FCC.
The tiny tip of a very large iceberg.
Re: (Score:2)
The LAST thing the big ISPs want is to encourage competition. They've essentially got monopolies. You think they want to encourage states to look for alternatives?
Rough road ahead. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure if the people involved in repealing NN thought this was going to go away or not but it seem very clear that those against this are going to fight this to the bitter end. I don't expect anyone involved to walk away from this unmarred.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, they were prepared for this. The new FCC rules explicitly forbid states from defining their own net neutrality laws.
As long as an ISP crosses state lines to provide Internet access (and, internet, so they do), the states can't regulate them because it's explicitly in the domain of the federal government.
They were ready and already cut these off a the knees. Montana is free to regulate ISPs that only provide connections to services within the state of Montana, but if they provide access to anything outsi
Re: (Score:1)
In a low-population, large-area state like Montana, state government is one of the largest Internet customers around. This isn't regulation; this is the 800-pound gorilla declaring its preferences.
Re:Rough road ahead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Montana did not pass a law or regulation. They stipulated a contractual condition for receiving state business.
If you and I negotiated a contract for a service that placed conditions on how I provided my service to others, that wouldn't be a law or regulation either.
Now, whether these contractual conditions are enforceable ... well, go watch the courts, and don't forget the popcorn.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it would be a valid contractual condition, and the state could provide compelling reason in a court of law by claiming it's good for their citizens and promotes the interests of the state.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Especially since by using an ISP for government entities, they'd want to ensure that their own ISP would adhere to NN principles not only for themselves, but for citizens and employees throughout the state to be able to access their services with certain reasonable expectations (such as those defined by NN).
The state has a vested interest in ensuring timely, affordable public and employee access to their services unbarred by ISP interference.
Re: (Score:2)
the state could provide compelling reason in a court of law by claiming it's good for their citizens and promotes the interests of the state.
You don't think that is something that matters, do you?
Maybe once upon a time.
Re: Rough road ahead. (Score:2)
The rub is going to be internet services funded by federal eRate subsidies - will schools that pay for their internet services be limited to only those providers that meet state purchasing requirements? Not sure, since the state isn't finding the purchase, it likely has no say - since this is only a contractual requirement.
Re:Rough road ahead. (Score:4, Insightful)
State contracts are the Montana's domain... not the FCC's domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they were prepared for this. The new FCC rules explicitly forbid states from defining their own net neutrality laws.
As long as an ISP crosses state lines to provide Internet access (and, internet, so they do), the states can't regulate them because it's explicitly in the domain of the federal government.
They were ready and already cut these off a the knees.
What the FCC (and Congress) cannot do is order the states who they must do business with just like the federal government cannot order state law enforcement to enforce federal laws.
Montana is free to regulate ISPs that only provide connections to services within the state of Montana, but if they provide access to anything outside the state - that's the FCC's domain.
The states cannot even do that because the courts have ruled that anything *affecting* interstate commerce can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause as well. Even if the activity is purely intrastate, it counts. If the activity uses anything which passed in or affects interstate commerce, then it counts.
Montana & States' Rights (Score:2)
Re:Montana & States' Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The left also has a hard time with reading comprehension. His explicit statement is that the left doesn't care if a government action or regulation is constitutional.
As long as it is to their liking they push it as the only answer.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it is to their liking they push it as the only answer.
Especially since Montana and NYS used executive orders instead of the democratic process.
I'm as much in favor of NN as most of the nerds on /., but executive orders and judicial rulings on political issues are always a bad thing, since they sow dissension that could be averted with a little more time in the legislature.
Re:Montana & States' Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
When the partisan bullshit stops, the us versus them is over, and the 'my team is better than your team' nonsense finally ends, then shit can get done and the nation can move forward. The football mentality of the current political climate will be the death of us all if this shit doesn't stop soon.
Compromise is the key, and dumbass shit like "the left/right has a hard time with reading comprehension" adds absolutely fuck all in terms of useful dialogue.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it amusing that all three of your statements apply to the Right as well.
I didn't say they didn't. I simply explained why GerryGilmore was making the wrong argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
those in power WANT and COUNT on us bickering between this football team and that one.
yeah, that's a good way to think of it. petty differences at a certain level, but as long as you can keep the middle and lower classes 'amused' by hating each other, they've spent their hate toward someone OTHER than the ruling class.
the sooner we all realize this and stop being played as fools, the sooner we can fix america. and not in a MAGA way, either.
but it won't happen. religion is too deeply embedded in most amer
Gaslight (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember that the Democrats literally nominated a cable company lobbyist to head the FCC when they had the chance
Gaslight for the fail.
During the Bush years, under Chairman Michael Powell (Colin's son) the FCC went to the Supreme Court in order to kill net neutrality [theatlantic.com] (and succeeded in 2005).
Then Obama appointed, Tom Wheeler, former lobbyist turned Benedict Arnold [latimes.com] who not only brought back net neutrality but also pushed for a bunch of other consumer freedoms like killing the Comcast/Time-Warner merger, and forcing cable companies to let customers use their own set-top boxes to save on rental fees.
As for Idjit Pai being
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure Obama spent his rare moments off the golf course bothering to vet FCC appointees.
BTW, what do you think the golf course is FOR? That's where meetings and discussions happen -- in a relaxed, casual atmosphere when folks are not on guard.
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least, forcing its opponents to fight the Net Neutrality battle at the State level multiplies the resources needed and aggravates those who benefit from its repeal.
In this case it also drags the 9th and 10th Amendments into a court fight where the federal government risks a decision expanding state's rights.
Might provide the answer about competition (Score:1)
One of the points made is that the "marketplace" would decide things because those that didn't like it would just use a provider that kept things on an even keel.
However, if Montana sticks to its guns, and none of the ISPs are willing to provide service under those terms, then it would show there is not valid competition in the marketplace (at least in Montana), such that the consumer (in this case the state) can find and use a provider that does business the way the consumer wants.
It's the ultimate voting
Re: (Score:1)
I'm just afraid the answer is not going to be a good one.
Why? The state can just build and manage their own cabling/wireless using local labor and be the ISP.
Re: (Score:3)
what if no IPS will do business with Montana now? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon Government Services, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Verizon, pledges that it will live up to Net Neutrality With Unicorn Chasers, and also that it won't bid for any business except for state and local governments that have contractual clauses requiring Net Neutrality With Unicorn Chasers.
Re: (Score:1)
Unlikely to happen.
State contracts are incredibly lucrative, and the ISP's love money.
They would be leaving money on the table if they just pulled out, and it would probably cost the ISP's more money if they just pulled out entirely. They would rather make money and follow the contract rules, than to pull out and make nothing.
Everyone needs to do this (Score:3)
This is nothing more than consumers exercising their rights to walk away from bad products. If we all had the courage to do this, we'd have no need for government action to stop it.
Instead of the short-term boycotts used in the past to fight bad actors, what we need this time is something like an organized "national day of service termination". The importance of having it be a "day" instead of just a general campaign to quit bad actors and move to good ones is to highlight the reasons for the drops and publicize it so that they can't just launch discount campaigns to pull in new suckers.
There has been much organization and lobbying to fight net neutrality. Consumers, not just government consumers, need to start penalizing those seeking to take advantage of them with sharp organization that targets what counts, bottom lines.
Re: (Score:2)
You should choose your sources in life with greater care. Someone is using you.
Abandonment of impotent federal agencies (Score:2)
Fine, but... (Score:2)
It's all well and good that the state is doing nothing more than setting requirements for vendors it deals with, but what if none decide to play the state's game? What is the fallback position, is the state going to establish it's own ISP just for government use? Are they going to try and use these new requirements to back out of existing multi-year contracts with ISPs?
There's a very real chance (IMHO) that Montana doesn't wield the clout with ISIs it thinks it does.
It will be interesting how this will play
Re: (Score:2)
Montana doesn't operate schools on a state level, you would know this if you were familiar with the government.
Obviously, you are not.
I worked in public school K-12 IT for a handful of years, albeit not in Montana. The issue is the gov. implemented requirements for ISP access purchased with state dollars, and as you pointed out, the money that funds the schools is not state funds, so then this decision has no impact on the ISP services purchased by public schools. So this provides no NN protection for the kids in schools.
It also pretty common for municipalities to negotiate "free" internet access for public offices when they "award" monop
Re: (Score:2)
I question how much ISP service the state pays for? Do they run their own web servers or use a hosting service?
LOL, too funy (Score:2)
Too funny. Republicans are staunch defenders of "state's rights" right up until they interfere with any corporate interests they're beholden to that might have their profits threatened.
The thing is, the Feds took away federal-level regulation and oversight, in effect giving it back to the states. There is nothing that says states can't make certain rules about how they do business, and with whom. They do it all the time and it's entirely reasonable for them to do so (e.g. to make sure they're meeting certai
Re: (Score:2)
Too funny. Republicans are staunch defenders of "state's rights" right up until they interfere with any corporate interests they're beholden to that might have their profits threatened.
Both parties are the same way. States rights are a great idea when they interfere with the other party.
Re: (Score:2)
Both parties are the same way.
That statement is simply not true.
Both parties suck at many things, but the democrats have always treated state's rights more seriously than republicans, who only pay attention to it when it hampers their business interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Both parties are the same way.
That statement is simply not true.
Both parties suck at many things, but the democrats have always treated state's rights more seriously than republicans, who only pay attention to it when it hampers their business interests.
They sure are and not just on federalism. State's rights are normally associated with the right but the left pushes them just as much when they serve their purpose. They have the same policies on executive power; it is great when their own party has it. Also known as the "it's not evil when we do it" rationalization.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
http://reason.com/archives/201... [reason.com]
Re:Not enough (Score:4, Insightful)
We've seen this ideology of overthrowing democracy before, with one in particular inflicting suffering and innumerable costs to life worldwide for over a century (and it still hasn't ended) using the EXACT same argument about not having time for democracy:
http://www.stephenhicks.org/20... [stephenhicks.org]
All that happens is you end up with sadists running the government, and democracy never returns until your glorious revolution, and everything it stands for, comes to an end.
Re:Not enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Eliminating net neutrality was the opposite of democracy. It was an unelected official ignoring the voice of the people and doing whatever the hell he wanted.
Re: Not enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly unelected. We are in a representative democracy, which means you vote for people believing that they will make decisions with your best interests in mind. Unfortunately, that process put fat mouth in the FCC. This isn't the first, or last, time that an elected representative made a decision unpopular with his constituents.
Re: (Score:3)
How many levels of indirection do you require before you consider the person unelected? Pai was appointed by someone who was elected, but the people certainly didn't vote for him. He was kept in by someone who actually lost the popular vote. He then went on to ignore the clear will of the people during the comment period.
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly unelected.
He was exactly unelected. He was appointed. Representatives, Senators, and the President are elected. FCC commissioners are not. "Unelected" doesn't mean put in office through an anti-democratic process, it just means he was not decided as the result of an election.
Re: Not enough (Score:2)
He is acting on behalf of the guy that was elected. That's pretty much the way all government jobs work. Joe Dirt doesn't vote for the clerk at the DMV, who can make decisions that have significant legal implications. Joe Dirt also doesn't vote for SCOTUS, which in many ways has more power than the president.
Re: (Score:2)
All correct. Sounds like you got the idea - Pai was not elected. :-) I don't agree with the claim that that's "the opposite of democracy" though.
Re: (Score:2)
"Elections have consequences." If you don't like the policies chosen by the duly elected government and the people they appoint, "go out there and win an election."
If you don't want the president to appoint unelected people to the executive branch, convince people to change the start of Article II of the Constitution where it says that "[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Also the bit in Article I that says that "no Person holding any Office under the Uni
Re: (Score:2)
But don't call it overthrowing democracy when taking action against an unelected official appointed by someone who didn't even actually win a majority of votes cast.
Fair enough to call it too extreme in this particular case.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't we call it overthrowing democracy [reason.com]? If you're going to be that pedantic about the definition of democracy, don't call the US a democracy at all, because it's also a representative republic. Does it matter that much whether the phrase you accept is "overthrowing democracy" or "overthrowing the legitimate government"?
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's beyond silly to call assertion of the will of the people an overthrow of democracy?
Re: (Score:2)
It's really not, especially when you haven't actually polled all of "the people" on the question, and also when they (reasonably) delegate most sovereignty because they don't want to learn the details off every issue.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, we know how the public comments were handled and ultimately discarded.
Re: (Score:2)
That's still not democracy. Besides, you are conflating two seriously different ideas: one is that "the people" want net neutrality, and the other is that "the people" want violent attacks on Ajit Pai. Even if the first is true, the second is certainly false, so it still makes sense to call violent attacks on Ajit Pai "subverting democracy".
Re: (Score:2)
Right, that's not democracy. So attacking it isn't overthrowing democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
To recap: you idiosyncratically define "democracy" such that the US isn't one, you cite non-democratic methods a a way of divining what "democracy" would demand, and you attempt to justify violent insurrection on the basis that the government doesn't fit your definition of "democracy". You might want to seek psychiatric help, champ.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I stated that Pai was not democratically elected and that his action was not consistent with democracy, so attacking him wouldn't be an overthrow of democracy. I then said it's fair enough to call a physical attack on Pai too extreme for the situation.
In other words, it would be wrong to PHYSICALLY attack Pai over this, but it would not be an overthrow of democracy. Kind of like stealing a car is wrong but it isn't murder.
Please read more carefully.
Re: (Score:2)
So you've spent how many comments attacking a straw man? (Hint: Maybe *you* should have read more carefully at the start of the thread. Or maybe you should just go seek that psychiatric help. Or both -- they're not exclusive, and they will probably both help.)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a straw man, ArmoredDragon's claim that it would be an attack on democracy. I see that you're now resorting to ad hominem attacks.
To be a strawman, I would have to have initially proposed that this would be an attack on democracy. I m not ArmoredDragon.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no, ArmoredDragon's words were "this ideology of overthrowing democracy". That's different. A straw man attack is any time that you attack some version of an opponent's position that you have simplified in order to make it easier to attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the fact that you keep misquoting ArmoredDragon, most people do not use the dim-wittedly narrow definition of "democracy" that you do, as explained by the article I linked earlier, among many others.
Attacking a high-level federal official because of their official actions is an attack on the legitimate US government and its democratic underpinnings. Most of the people who currently claim the US isn't "democratic" are only doing so in a fit of pique that their preferred candidate isn't president rig
Re: (Score:2)
When he said that, he was necessarily characterizing OP's statemens as that.
You still resorted to Ad Hominem attacks. I await your sincere apology.
Re: (Score:2)
AH, unrepentant, I see. *PLONK*
Re: (Score:2)
An ideology of overthrowing democracy often includes things that are not specifically overthrowing democracy. So what if ArmoredDragon characterized calling for violent attacks on Ajit Pai an example of the ideology of overthrowing democracy?
The only thing I will apologize for is not immediately correcting your misunderstanding and misuse of the phrase ad hominem attack [wikipedia.org]. I apologize for the delay in correcting you on that subject.
Re: (Score:1)
the EXACT same argument about not having time for democracy
Time isn't the issue. It's the idiocy, apathy, and corruption of the voters that is killing democracy. Plato was right.
Re: (Score:2)
But as conservatives and Trump supporters love to keep telling us, we're not a democracy.
Re: Not enough (Score:2)
They are correct in that the federal government is a de-facto republic, though when you examine the US as a whole and include state and local governments, particularly in the case of referenda, we can be considered both.
Re: (Score:3)
You're going to have corruption and abuse no matter where you go or what you do. Welcome to earth. But nobody wants the special flavor of tyranny that you want to add on top of it, except for you and your fellow sadists.
Re: (Score:2)
We've seen the ideology of compliance and complicity with tyranny, corruption, and abuse before.
Yeah. Someone's Netflix stream might be a bit slower until Netflix pays off the ISP. OH NOOESS. So worth the rivers of blood that result from such revolutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So....we should destroy the village in order to save it? Where have I heard that before?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
There is no sane, controlled way of conducting a bloody revolution. The killing of public officials out of hand is a rejection of law and order, not the imposition of it. Unless you can change the political character of the public, you'll only be substituting politically skilled people with peo
Re: (Score:2)
An innumerate antisemite. How original.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a good attempt to start re-exerting states rights. The Federal government has over stepped their authority by co-opting powers that should be the purview of the State governments. The Federal government has done this using Federal regulations and laws that states are required to adopt or face being penalized. And the penalty is always losing federal money. A State that refuses to abide by the Federal Highway speed limits faces losing the federal money traditionally used to maintain the federal highw
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to re-assert states' rights, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. The original method for appointing senators was explicitly intended to ensure that the Senate would protect the rights and interests of state-level governments, and not just be a copy of the House of Representatives with longer terms.
The 17th Amendment was passed because of extensive corruption in how states chose senators, but we have a much stronger set of laws and political restraints against that kind of corruption now, so we pr
Re: (Score:2)
By the time the 17th Amendment was ratified, a majority of the states already elected their US senators by popular vote so the effect of the Amendment was minor.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the 17th Amendment, those states could always change their approach. The amendment could have a major effect even if it did not change the way many states selected their US senators.
Re:That might not stop them. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the government offices will still want internet, so *somebody* will be providing it - and now who do you suppose will be the ones getting more favorable consideration in future legislation and other government dealings?
Plus the sate of Montana is responsible for over 5% of employment in the state - that's a lot of well-distributed business to just hand over to your competitors. Especially if nobody in the oligopoly wants to play ball - then some little upstart is suddenly going to be getting really favorable pole leases, etc. from the state to deploy the necessary infrastructure.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like an interesting story, but it makes me wonder why out here on a densely populated part of the southern California coast, we also only have one insurance company available to us. (The one we had through last year just pulled out, and a new one moved in this year). It's certainly not because there aren't enough customers...
Re: Reminds me of Nevada's Handling of Obamacare (Score:2)
Because it's California? Your state has a history of letting voters change state regulations on a selfish whim, like when the voters decided homeowners insurance was too expensive, so they passed a legally-binding referendum to lower premiums, which drove insurers out of the the state.