
Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality after FCC repeal - erict15
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/370133-montana-becomes-first-state-to-implement-net-neutrality-rules-following-fcc
======
joshuaheard
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
jurisdiction, ie paying a living wage, hiring a certain percentage of
minorities, etc.

~~~
jjeaff
So if they choose not to abide by net neutrality, the state will just do
without internet service?

Seems like the state would be in the same place most consumers are, we don't
like it, but there are no alternatives.

~~~
takk309
Two of the best ISPs in my area here in Montana are Montana owned. One is even
a co-op. I don't think it would be too painful to have Charter or Century Link
leave the state.

~~~
jnordwick
So then this would seem to be a good argument against the idea of Comcast or
Century Link being a monopoly and a serious argument against the idea that net
neutrality needs laws to enforce it.

~~~
s73ver_
Not in the least. There are still plenty of areas where there is only one
option.

------
dmode
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.

~~~
simcop2387
Definitely going to be a number of lawsuits regarding this. With as many
states doing it or planning on doing it. But I think the only way it's going
to happen is if the ISPs sue the states doing it. I'd be surprised if the FCC
tries to sue the states over it.

~~~
komali2
It'll be interesting to see what propagandic angle the lobbyist and purchased
politicians take if ISPs sue states over this. When it was anti-NN, the
language was "Defeating Federal Overreach to Allow an Open Internet."

~~~
ende
Indeed. “Defeating States Rights to Allow an Open Internet” has a very
different ring to it.

------
AlexandrB
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.

~~~
ascagnel_
Montana could also structure their rules such that any ISP with a connection
terminating at a state government must apply their NN rules to any data
transferred through the state while it is in-state, even if the source and
destination are outside of the state.

Now _that_ would be a regulatory nightmare.

------
rebuilder
So, as someone with no knowledge of the landscape in Montana, I'm wondering:
how many ISPs are there who would pick Montana state contracts over the
ability to throttle and prioritize traffic?

~~~
client4
My friend made an app that lets you peek at the State Checkbook and see what
ISP's are getting checks.

[http://www.porkcast.com/](http://www.porkcast.com/)

~~~
djsumdog
Looks like it's gone. The domain is for sale.

~~~
client4
Whomp whomp. If I recall, it was Centurylink and Charter who got the biggest
checks.

~~~
snowpanda
[https://web.archive.org/web/20170422171000/http://www.porkca...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170422171000/http://www.porkcast.com/)

------
Animats
Montana. Now that's an unexpected source for business regulation.

~~~
alexkavon
Why do you say this?

I ask because, I am from Montana and I often find outside knowledge of Montana
consists of "they have an unlimited speed on the highway/interstate" (which
hasn't been true for quite sometime) mindset applied to any information about
Montana. It is usually viewed as a red state, but it's a different kind of red
than what you find on the coasts. Our governor is blue and our state was
essentially founded by socialists. Our state is usually pretty vocal on
political matters and protecting the public (our most famous and easiest
example of course being protection of public lands).

~~~
fossuser
When I think of Montana politics the first thing I remember is this:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2017/05/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2017/05/25/fox-news-crew-watched-in-disbelief-as-gianforte-slammed-and-
punched-reporter/)

For better or worse this makes me think of Montana as a pretty red state
unlikely to pass regulation like NN.

~~~
alexkavon
Yes that was our most recent national claim to fame in politics. Gianforte is
not a good representation of Montana politicians. He is a party boy and his
campaign was nearly a replica of Trump's in a time of political uncertainty.
He went up against a very weak Democratic candidate and a very week
Libertarian candidate. That event also took place on the night before going to
the polls after most Montanan's had sent in their ballots through the mail.
When it boils down to being a red state, you'll see more party line voters.
However if you were to sit down with these red staters you'd find they're
mighty different.

~~~
hueving
Just to be clear, the majority of Montana's do not vote by mail. It's just
about 1/3 of the population. And only 2/3 of those absentee ballots had been
returned when that news hit.

So still ~75% of the population voted with that knowledge and put him in
office.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/25/poli...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/05/25/politics/montana-
special-election-turnout/index.html)

------
anfilt
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.

~~~
jdmichal
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](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act)

~~~
anfilt
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.

------
1024core
And California (where I live) is still lounging, doing nothing.

------
bahmboo
Create a state law that defines what constitutes "internet access". ISPs would
be forced to offer that or "limited internet access" or some such.

------
moduspol
Another executive order... and this one only affecting ISPs wanting a contract
with the state government. Is that really the best that can be done?

~~~
vec
If you're the Governor of Montana, it probably is the best that can be done.

It's not a lot by itself, of course, but I'm not going to begrudge local and
state officials from exercising what powers they do have to try and make the
situation a bit better.

~~~
Feniks
They could stop running as Republican candidates. Just an idea.

~~~
kijin
The Governor of Montana is a Democrat.

~~~
_delirium
The governor's even been a Democrat for the past 13 years, for that matter (4
consecutive elections). People seem to have the idea that Montana is an ultra-
conservative state where Republicans win every election, which isn't really
true.

------
indigodaddy
Is it likely that the whole NN issue will end up decided by SCOTUS?

~~~
icebraining
What's there for the SCOTUS to decide?

------
solomatov
That's great news! But what about internet privacy?

------
howard941
If it's at all effective congress will preempt it.

~~~
steamer25
I think that'd be an uphill battle.

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.

~~~
howard941
> I think that'd be an uphill battle.

Yeah, nothing in this arena's going to come easily to either side, there's far
too much at stake. The Supreme Court didn't help planning or certainty when it
disturbed fairly well-settled federal preclusion doctrine with a number of
split holdings over the past 20 years so one way or the other we're in for a
show.

------
shmerl
Congrats!

------
badrequest
Good for them. Hopefully Texas will fo-lol I can't even finish that sentence.

~~~
RainaRelanah
Reading Cruz's tweets on net neutrality invokes a special type of
enragement[0]. It is downright offensive how he treats his constituents,
especially us lucky folks in the "People's Republic of Austin".

0\.
[https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/941489723901665280?lang=e...](https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/941489723901665280?lang=en)

~~~
Hextinium
The way that Cruz talks about NN is infuriating to everyone I have talked to
in CS or literally anyone I have talked to in DFW. There are a massive amount
of tech people in DFW who should be pushing for NN for their business more
than there is in Austin and I am suprised nothing has come of it.

------
debt
Great, but there's like five people in Montana; it's practically a Dakota.

[http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml](http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml)

------
jnordwick
For this requirement to have any meaning, Montana would need to be able to
enforce it (ie choose another isp). But that would show that the isp landscape
isn't owned by monopolies. This would actually seriously undermine many
arguments as to why net neutrality needs laws to protect it over what the
market can do.

I wonder is if we will start to find out that maybe the isp market isn't as
closed as we thought - wireless tech, more entrants, new tech - and those
saying we need NN laws because the market isn't healthy enough will pivot to a
more normative claim regardless of completion.

I am somebody who could easily be brought on board with specifically crafted
NN laws, but see much of the title ii at all costs advocacy a little of the
mark.

~~~
kelnos
> _For this requirement to have any meaning, Montana would need to be able to
> enforce it (ie choose another isp)._

Why? Can't they also just fine them in increasing amounts until they comply?

~~~
jnordwick
No they can't. Its not a law. It is just a directive that the government will
not do business with isps that do not comply to certain standards.

------
JohnStudio
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 ..

~~~
kingnothing
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
JohnStudio
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.

