dslreports logo
 story category
Washington First State to Officially Protect Net Neutrality

Yesterday the FCC's net neutrality rules were officially eliminated in what may just be the least popular tech policy decision in internet history. That said, more than half the states in the nation are now eyeing their own net neutrality protections, either in the form of executive orders banning states from doing business with net neutrality violating ISPs (like in Montana or New York), or new net neutrality state-level laws that in many instances (California) go even further than the federal laws they're intended to replace.

Click for full size
Yesterday the first state level rules in the nation took effect in Washington State, signaling the first of many state level challenges Ajit Pai's FCC and major ISPs will have to contend with.

"It’s obviously incredible," Washington state Representative Drew Hansen said in a phone interview with Motherboard. “We passed net neutrality with overwhelming bipartisan support, proving that it’s really not that hard for elected officials to listen to their real bosses: the people. I just wish congress would do the same."

Washington State has traditionally been tougher on bad behavior by large ISPs than other States, having taken Comcast to task recently for routinely misleading billing practices.

Both the FCC and large ISP lobbying organizations have stated they may sue states that try to protect consumers in this fashion, but legal experts say that the FCC's legal authority over state sovereignty is dubious at best, especially in the wake of the agency's decision to neuter much of its authority. Washington State lawmakers have previously laughed off the FCC's claims of authority over states' rights.

"The FCC doesn't have preemption authority just because it says so," state Rep. Representative Drew Hansen told Ars Technica back in March. "The industry was opposed and the public was in favor," Hansen said of the FCC's historically unpopular repeal. "And you know, we do still live in a democracy, so that still matters."

Most recommended from 28 comments



C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium Member
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

19 recommendations

C0deZer0

Premium Member

For those with upcoming elections

Make sure to unconitionally vote against any incumbent official to make it clear. Party affiliations be damned. The irresponsibility of our existing officials to even allow Ajit to do this to warrant this kind of action to be necessary, is a blatant and egregious gesture of incompetence that shouldn't be allowed to continue.
bdginmo
join:2017-09-24
Saint Charles, MO
Cisco DPC3008
ARRIS BGW210-700

14 recommendations

bdginmo

Member

The Irony

The irony here is that those opposed to net neutrality lobbied against a single standardized set of rules and in the end they may get a different non-standard sets of rules for each state. Naturally you might conclude that businesses operating under such a disparate set of rules may opt to calibrate their own business practices under the most restrictive set of rules. It may very well be a case of "be careful what you wish for because you just might get it".

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

8 recommendations

n2jtx

Member

Double Standard

Back when the FCC tried to overturn state ISP protection laws that prohibited municipal internet services, the ISP's were all giddy that he FCC's enforcement over the states, under even the old rules, prevented them from doing that. Now these same ISP's are claiming the FCC does have authority. Well, if the courts should for some reason rule that way I have to wonder if all those state bans against municipal internet service would suddenly be in jeopardy again. It cannot work both ways.

PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

4 recommendations

PapaMidnight

Member

Enforcement?

Not for nothing, but enforcement by states and municipalities against ISPs who violate their own franchise agreements has been less than stellar - to put it nicely. As some states move forward with laws like this, other states and cities are all but run by incumbent ISPs -- cases in point being AT&T in North Carolina, and Comcast in Philadelphia.

While Washington is neither of these places, I'm wondering - not if but when (because it is frankly all but inevitable) it comes time to put up or shut up - just how effective will enforcement be? If Charter, as an example, does something underhanded, will the state of New York really enforce a ban against them?

I have to be honest, I'm of the opinion that a lot of this is lip service, or doing it for the sake of saying "we did something". I'll truly believe that they're willing to stand up to ISPs when it comes time to put up or shut up. However, I've also seen how carriers (many of whom are one in the same with ISPs) can act when they get into carriage disputes. In the mind of a typical consumer, who do you think will win between a politician and a carrier when the ads run from ISPs saying "your governor/state legislature is hostile to business and is the reason you don't have internet right now"?