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.
*Well, all ISPs of any consequence.
* ISP Owner in MT
Same, until last year. We never had state customers and of course we ran traffic shaping that didn't look at source address.
Instead Congress needs to create a separate Section III (or whatever) to address net neutrality specifically, and empower the FCC to act within that purview. The FCC does not get to decide on its own that it wants more authority than was previously granted it by Congress.
Congress (and the various involved presidents) deserve to have all the cannons aimed at them. As it stands, people directing their ire at the FCC chairs (on either side) are letting Congress get away with being irresponsible.
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.
The 2015 net neutrality rules applied Title II with forbearance. It left out those things you mention.
Except the FCC was only enforcing the NN part of it.
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 way things work in the US.
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.
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.
The Program was funded through the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) program, administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). It ran from Jan 1, 2010 through Dec 31, 2014.
I'm guessing the funding either ran out, or the program was discontinued due to cost?
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.
Seems like the state would be in the same place most consumers are, we don't like it, but there are no alternatives.
the interim would suck... but so what.
The headline is clickbait.
you should see the conditions San Francisco city attaches to its contracts.
The alternative is that the federal government can dictate which businesses the state governments do business with, which is, to put it mildly, probably not a valid use of federal power.
> Oh and Montana will vote Republican again next election as you well know
Montana's current governor, Steve Bullock, is a Democrat. He was the incumbent in the last election, but initially won his seat from the outgoing Brian Schweitzer, another Democrat.
Going by the gubernatorial seat, Montana's been a blue state since 2005.
Did you imagine that a vote had been conducted, and then further imagine that the obviously Republican Senators from Montana voted against it?
It's almost as if this issue has no obvious link to simplistic partisanship, but rather is a pretty good measure of official corruption.
Now that would be a regulatory nightmare.
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.
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).
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.
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.
I notice no difference.
For better or worse this makes me think of Montana as a pretty red state unlikely to pass regulation like NN.
So still ~75% of the population voted with that knowledge and put him in office.
Being red isn't the governing factor on which side of NN you fall on. Current FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworce (D) https://youtu.be/Ja6MW94RaIQ?t=3m40s put it nicely.
*He’s a transplant like many who live here including me.
Both papers, the Missoulian and the Billings Gazette, issued scathing denunciations of Gianforte.
Look at the election results from Missoula, Great Falls, Billings, etc and then compare them to San Francisco (a place actually wildly blue).
Jeanette Rankin, the first female member of congress, was elected twice, in time to be the sole vote against entering WWI and WWII. She was a pacifist and a Progressive Republican.
So while small in population, there might be more diversity of opinion than you might think.
(Full disclosure: 3rd generation Montana citizen, living the expatriate life in Bridgeport, IL)
Butte, for example, has historically been very blue collar, socially conservative / Irish Catholic, and left wing in a “you can’t scare me, I’m sticking to the union” kind of way.
Something like 13% of Missoula County voted Green Party in 2000.
Way I see it, MT has a mix of hippy-left, labor left, and truly moderate right wing politics that make it far more purple than red.
EDIT: Also a multi-generation Montanan with homesteading ancestors.
3rd generation Montanan, raising the 4th.
This is incorrect. Corporations are not allowed to donate to political campaigns, and that's been illegal throughout the US for a very, very long time.
Individuals (like you and me) who are unaffiliated with political campaigns are allowed to make political statements. And we're allowed to spend money to make those statements, as long as we don't coordinate with campaigns at any point. Citizens United ruled that individuals retain this right when they band together in groups to make political statements (again, as long as that group of people remains unaffiliated with political campaigns and does not coordinate with them in any way).
Montana tried to argue that this law didn't apply to state and local elections, but they were struck down, because... well, it was a particularly weak argument for them to make in the first place, from a legal perspective.
The Corrupt Practices Act of 1912 was a demonstration of the shift from corporate control of the state house to one where corporations were viewed very warily. It was recognized that a corporation is more likely to act in its own interest than that of the state or its citizens.
In the decades since then, this has found its way into many pieces of law and the political consciousness of Montana appears to be one that still views corporations through a wary eye. It is recognized that it is the responsibility of the state is to protect its citizens from corporations. Going by http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/report_50_states.pdf , Montana has fairly strong consumer protection.
So, let me rephrase my original statement... Montana is a state that appears to value protecting its citizens more than corporations as demonstrated by its challenge (the only state that did so) to Citizens United. That Montana is attempting to implement net neutrality should come as no surprise when one looks at the history of the state and its relationship with corporations.
a few of these decisions to be aware of:
The Rev John Bracken v. The Visitors of Wm & Mary College (7 Va. 573 -- 1790 Supreme Court of Virginia) established that a corporation had the right to reorganize itself, ie, that the people working together for a common cause could hire+fire just like they would if there was a single owner
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (17 U.S. 518 -- 1819) established that groups of people could enter into contracts and that they'd be enforceable just as contracts with a "natural person".
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) established that the 14th amendment (due process) applied to groups of people organized under a common cause, and not just to individuals. This is followed up in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888) which rather explicitly states "corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution".
United States v. Auto Workers, 352 U.S. 567 (1957) upheld the ban on corporate campaign funding, but as is so eloquently noted in the dissent, "associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions" should have "all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community."
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) extended the restriction on campaign funding to also cover advocacy, limiting the speech that could be undertaken by groups of people pooling funds together.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 844 (2010) overturned the Austin and McConnell decisions. Justice Kennedy: "wealthy individuals and unincorporated associations can spend unlimited amounts .... Yet [under the Austin decision] certain disfavored associations of citizens — those that have taken on the corporate form — are penalized for engaging in the same political speech .... When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful."
Amusing how a country with a thousand different religious denominations only has two political opponents isn't it?
I think he’s running
So state preemption would rub a lot of Montanians the wrong way. Montana also has a democrat governor at the moment.
Seems a bit of stretch if you ask me. I am not sure I would call that interstate commerce.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why? Can't they also just fine them in increasing amounts until they comply?
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.
If you want to make an internet startup in a NN jurisdiction you won't have additional costs to deliver the service to customers. For what reason would NN make be anti-buisness?
Depends on which business we're talking about. Also, why do I care if it's pro or anti business? Things like mandatory sick days are good for the people, but considered "anti business".