5 ms·
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
by dmode 9y ago
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 9y agoDefinitely 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 9y agoIt'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 9y agoIndeed. “Defeating States Rights to Allow an Open Internet” has a very different ring to it.
- Blazespinnaker 9y agoYeah, California and New York will implement this ina flash if they can which will force NN in major isps.
- terravion 9y agoI love the fact that the announcement couches the order in the state's prerogative to consume services that it deems best fit its needs, which is very slick politically, however that works legally.
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoI think that the state can do that, yes. It can't say "you have to do this to do business in our state", but it can say "you have to do this to do business with us, the state government". 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.
- fleitz 9y agoNo it can't dictate, but it can attach state requirements to federal funding. Similar to the way Montana can't dictate NN, but it can require it to do business with the state.
- someonelse9184 9y agoI think we're far beyond valid use of federal power at this point ?
- Feniks 9y agoNo, the telecom industry is gonna go home and rethink their lives ;) Oh and Montana will vote Republican again next election as you well know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Montana,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele... Business won in America, money is free speech and nobody cares.
- jessaustin 9y ago...Montana will vote Republican... It's almost as if this issue has no obvious link to simplistic partisanship, but rather is a pretty good measure of official corruption.
- throwawaywa8 9y agoYeah, democrats are totally trying to attack an open internet and pass draconian laws and regulations that give ISPs unfettered power, and republicans are absolutely trying to fight for free and open access to information. The FCC vote totally wasn’t along party lines either. Nope nope nope, no siree!
- bmelton 9y agoPardon? > Oh and Montana will vote Republican again next election as you well know Montana's current governor, Steve Bullock[1], is a Democrat. He was the incumbent in the last election, but initially won his seat from the outgoing Brian Schweitzer[2], another Democrat. Going by the gubernatorial seat, Montana's been a blue state since 2005. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bullock_(American_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bullock_(American_politi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer
- Feniks 9y agoMore interested in what Montana's representatives voted in Washington about NN. Oh and Trump is going to be reelected. Calling it.
- dibujante 9y agoYeah. It's depressing. The start of the ruling made me think, "This could be a triumph for federalism - states can still pass their own laws and we can put Net Neutrality to the test." Then I read the rest of the ruling. So much for states' rights! It's... still the Democrats' fault, right?