7 ms·
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 contractin
by joshuaheard 9y ago
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.
- dboreham 9y agoI live here and have some familiarity with the ISP landscape. I'm going to bet that all* ISPs operating in the state are going to have contracts with the state. *Well, all ISPs of any consequence.
- takk309 9y agoAlso a Montanan and I second this opinion. We are a small state (population) with few ISP's, especially in the rural areas. I am sure they all do some sort of business with the State.
- twothamendment 9y agoYeah, I'm pretty sure my ISP is the only one in the county, so there is a good chance the serve the schools and government buildings.
- joe_the_user 9y agoSure but if push came to shove, if a non-net-neutral approach became a profit center for an ISP, they could afford to jettison those contracts. 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.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoBootstrappy conservative state rolls up sleeves and delivers municipal/coop Internet after being forsaken by for-profit corporation. The news story almost writes itself. 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.
- joe_the_user 9y agoTwenty one states have enacted laws against municipal broadband, including ... Montana. The FCC under Obama overturned these. Given broadband providers now are effectively getting their wish-list, it seems like these laws may come back in force. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-law...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- devindotcom 9y agoThey may, except the FCC is also abandoning considerable authority by throwing away Title II, so it may not be able to overturn (or over-overturn, or whatever) those and other rules — and perhaps may not even be able to enforce its prohibition against state/city net neutrality rules.
- at-fates-hands 9y agoThis is kind of interesting considering the state did provide broadband service from 2010-2014: http://broadband.mt.gov/default.aspx http://broadband.mt.gov/default.aspx 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?
- gonational 9y ago
- client4 9y agoHey Now! ...but that's fair, the little ISP's were already for Net Neutrality. * * ISP Owner in MT
- devindotcom 9y agoGood to hear, since the FCC was so loud about a handful of small ISPs like yours being vaguely against the Title II rules.
- davidp 9y agoTitle II != net neutrality. Title II is a highly bureaucratic strong-oversight-in-all-things tool aimed at a completely different problem space, namely providing a legislative solution to the case-law-derived 1980s consent decrees with AT&T & IBM. It covers things that have nothing to do with what ISPs want to deal with as part of their businesses, and places the expensive burden of proof and compliance on the ISP. So yes, it makes sense that small ISPs would not want to compete with the AT&Ts and Comcasts of the world with their armies of compliance officers. You'd never see another small ISP formed again. 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.
- eldridgea 9y agoThis is a common talking point against the FCC retaining Title II classification. While I don't disagree in principle, until Congress acts, Net Neutrality is only achievable in the US via Title II enforcement by the FCC. The FCC reclassifying ISPs as Title I without a corresponding push to have an alternative Net Neutrality plan in place was irresponsible, unethical, and against the will of the constituents of all parties. Ire at Congress for not acting is completely reasonable, but acting as if what the FCC did was in any way acceptable is not.
- skynetv2 9y agoits pretty routine and accepted policy. you should see the conditions San Francisco city attaches to its contracts.
- jjeaff 9y agoSo 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 9y agoTwo 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 9y agoSo 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_ 9y agoNot in the least. There are still plenty of areas where there is only one option.
- betenoire 9y agoI'm not in Montana, but I'm close, and the thought of scaring away the only two realistic options I have for internet sounds... well it sounds intoxicating. I would love a disruption of service and for new things to start shaking out. the interim would suck... but so what.
- rootusrootus 9y agoI am guessing (perhaps wrongly) that for most commercial addresses there are other options available for Internet service that do not rely on carriers which also serve residential customers. If the state can't get Comcast to agree to their terms, they might have to buy a different class of service than cheapo Comcast Business.
- joshuaheard 9y ago
- topspin 9y ago> The headline is a little misleading. The headline is clickbait.
- TimesOldRoman 9y agoDo we know if this can be federally overturned under the almighty Commerce Clause?
- hammock 9y agoHas there ever been a successful telecom that did not have government contracts?
- rocqua 9y agoWould you consider small (local) WISPs that are profitable succesful?
- colejohnson66 9y agoI may be wrong, but what about Google Fiber?
- PopsiclePete 9y agoHe said "successful". Google Fiber gave up.
- colejohnson66 9y agoThey were still successful in multiple areas. Also, AFAIK, they didn’t “give up”; They switched from fighting over poles to microtrecnching and wireless.