Nebraska The First 'Red' State To Craft Its Own Net Neutrality Law
from the the-people-have-spoken dept
So we've noted repeatedly how the attack on net neutrality is just one small part of a much larger, dumber plan by major ISPs to neuter nearly all federal and state oversight. A plan that involves gutting all meaningful FCC authority over broadband ISPs, then shoveling any remaining authority to the FTC. An FTC (surprise surprise) the broadband industry is currently in court arguing has no authority over broadband providers. Ajit Pai's FCC (at Verizon and Comcast lobbyists' request) also included provisions pre-empting states from trying to protect consumer privacy or net neutrality.
So far individual states aren't listening. New York, Washington, Minnesota, Massachusetts and California are all pushing their own net neutrality rules. And since the FCC's net neutrality repeal prohibits states from passing such laws, many of these states are creatively eyeing provisions that require ISPs adhere to net neutrality if they want to win government contracts, or if they want to keep getting taxpayer subsidies for those fiber networks they always tend to leave half built anyway.
ISP lobbyists have already begun trying to argue that these individual state efforts create a discordant patchwork of regulations that may be difficult to adhere to. But that's the sort of thing said lobbyists should have thought about before rushing mindlessly to destroy federal net neutrality rules. Rules that were actually among the more modest of any of the developed nations that have passed such protections (see The Netherlands, India, Japan, Canada, Germany).
Nebraska has now added itself to the list of states stepping up to the plate in the wake of federal consumer apathy. State Senator Adam Morfeld has introduced LB 856 (pdf), which would restore the federal net neutrality rules on the state level, and prevent ISPs from "limiting or restricting access to web sites, applications, or content." Speaking to his hometown newspaper, Morfield expressed surprise at the volume of bipartisan feedback he received in the wake of the FCC's decision:
"For me, this is an economic development and consumer protection bill,” Morfeld said. “The internet drives the economy now and it’s critical people have open and fair access to the internet. I knew I was passionate about it, but I was shocked at the support I received from Republicans, from Democrats and Libertarians," he said.
He shouldn't be surprised. Survey after survey (including some from the industry itself) show that net neutrality has broad, bipartisan support among consumers. One recent poll indicated that 83% of Americans opposed the FCC's handout to the telecom sector. The fact that the FCC ignored this support in its rush to repeal the rules will be playing a starring role in the looming lawsuits awaiting the agency later this year.
Whether Nebraska's law will be preempted by FCC authority is something else the courts will have to hash out, especially since the FCC has had its wrist slapped for overreach in the past when it has tried to preempt state authority on matters of broadband. ISP lobbyists (and the countless think tankers, lobbyists, consultants and academics paid to love them) express breathless adoration of "states rights" when states are criticized for passing anti-competitive state laws, but when those same states actually try to protect consumers and small businesses, you'll notice that this adoration of states rights magically disappears.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fcc, nebraska, net neutrality, states rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm hoping this leads to the end of violations as a whole, including data caps (I can dream, no?) and widespread deployment of municipal broadband.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some high tax states like California and New York are making creative loopholes to get around the new $10,000 cap on SALT deductions (deducting taxes paid to state & local governments from your federal taxes), by allowing you to donate to state run charity organizations for dollar for dollar credits on your state taxes. (charity donations are deductible with no limits if you itemize in the new tax law)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those aren't taxes on money, though; they're taxes on the purchase of specific products.
As I understand matters, the idea of "double taxation" only really comes into the picture when the same transaction is being taxed twice. (E.g., a federal income tax and a state income tax both target the same transaction: the transfer of money from your employer to you.) If this weren't the case, any later tax on money which had been subject to an income tax would be double taxation.
With a gas tax, the transaction being targeted is the purchase of the gas. The same thing applies to a liquor tax, luxury tax, cigarette tax, or what-have-you; in each case, there is a specific transaction which is being taxed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not much like that, no.
This is happening in state legislatures. To date, only one state has legalized marijuana through its legislature; the rest have done it through ballot referenda, usually against the wishes of the state legislature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By 'non-partisan' I mean you can't run as a member of a political party. Everyone is listed as unaffiliated on the ballot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: non-partison
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
see guys
It is finally getting "better" gears moving. Next time it will be much harder for a turd like Pai to fuck it up for everyone "IF" this moment keeps up.
It is far better for each state to develop their own NN rules or ISP networks to put a stick in the eye of the incumbent government and regulatory blessed monopolies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: see guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: see guys
He is, sadly, serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: see guys
well if you are going to be that ignorant about the problem maybe you should shut up and avoid discussing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: see guys
But, no, like your accusing me of lying when I present facts in previous threads, you're not here for an honest discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: see guys
I don't claim to be super "knowledgeable", but I'll try to meet your challenge.
Did you happen to see who we voted in as President? We replaced an incompetent President with a circus clown. Apparently as a whole, we are not the brightest people in the world. Understanding that; Can you start to see why the individual States would want to take matters into their own hands? We are incompetent at a federal level at best, willfully corrupt at worst. Having a patchwork of laws on the books by state is not a great solution, but it is better than what we have now, which is nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: see guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: see guys
Are the states really that much different? I see lots and lots of stories about corrupt and useless people at the state level, they just don't get as much focus outside of their electorate because they don't affect as many people as the orange clown.
"Having a patchwork of laws on the books by state is not a great solution, but it is better than what we have now, which is nothing"
Rushing to implement "something" rather than carefully considering the actual best course of action is what gets people in a lot of their messes to begin with. "Nothing" could actually be better than a hideous patchwork of rushed, poorly considered laws passed by people who have no direct knowledge of the subject (and so are highly vulnerable to manipulation by the existing monopolies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: see guys
IMO, Yes, they are. It is a hell of a lot easier for the people to participate politically on a state level vrs federal. I can quite literally drive over to my local representatives office and ask to be seen; In contrast; I'll probably never get to knock on Trump's door.
Is their some corruption at the state level? Sure there is. But it is not a blanket that wraps up the entire country like federal does.
"Rushing to implement "something" rather than carefully considering the actual best course of action is what gets people in a lot of their messes to begin with. "Nothing" could actually be better than a hideous patchwork of rushed, poorly considered laws passed by people who have no direct knowledge of the subject (and so are highly vulnerable to manipulation by the existing monopolies)."
I would argue this is why NN failed in the first place. A partisan vote created NN, and a partisan vote destroyed it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. If they really wanted NN to be a lasting thing, you would think they would reach across the isle and come to an agreement that both sides could live with. If they could not do that, then doing nothing would have indeed been better, to that point we agree. However,Now that it's been created, then destroyed, it's left a vacuum. The states are trying to fill that vacuum before the Federal Government does. Looking at the partisan history of NN, I can't say that I blame them.
These are my opinions. Your welcome to disagree, but I think history supports my opinions quite well. We tried NN at a Federal level and it failed. Short of doing nothing, and if the courts fail to reverse what's been done, I think the states have every right to protect their constituents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: see guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: see guys
There is a reason for states rights, this is a good reason to exercise them.
If an ISP only operates at the local level then the FCC technically has no authority over them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: see guys
Do you understand how the Internet works? That's like saying that if a courier service that delivers interstate packages only operates at the local level, then the federal government technically has no authority over them.
ISPs are more than a local information service. And the FCC manages RF emissions even if your device will only ever broadcast in-state.
The relationship between Federal and State laws and rights is not so simple as you appear to want to paint it. Local actions DO have larger repercussions, and having federal oversight is generally a good thing. What's a bad thing is when that oversight turns into management of local behavior, and the constitution and associated case law has safeguards that theoretically protect against that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: see guys
In many ways, he's already confirmed that in the negative, among many other subjects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: see guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: see guys
Also far, far more difficult for anyone competent to fix things.
"It is far better for each state to develop their own NN rules or ISP networks to put a stick in the eye of the incumbent government and regulatory blessed monopolies!"
Because state government blessed monopolies are better? Why not use the federal government to restrict and break up the monopolies, as other countries have done to generate real competition, rather than have 50 different state rules for traffic which will cross their boundaries during every single communication?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: see guys
Because it's really not a federal problem. State utility commissions and local governments generally have more say in who is actually able to run the last mile.
The BGP and peering are working as well as ever, and there's a lot of dark fiber around. It's the last mile that's the main bottleneck to competition, and it's where states and municipalities can exert the most influence.
What would help at the federal level is strong liability protections (common carrier style, if and ISP treats all traffic equally, they are not liable for it), which would let a lot of co-ops and small guys inter the biz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: see guys
Possible, but "last mile" is far from the actual problem. It is part of how the major ISPs have gained local monopolies, for sure. But, it's neither the only problem nor something that could not have been solved in ways that other countries have solved on a national basis.
"a lot of co-ops and small guys inter the biz"
While a neat thing to happen, there's more problems with things like collusion and the fact that so many major ISPs are closely married to content and server provision that this type of thing won't come close to solving. There's also the problem on timescales - local loop unbundling too a long, long time for many places in the UK, so even if this started today in the US the effects of removing NN at the federal level will be massively felt for a long time before the benefit of competition becomes visible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: see guys
Centralized control works great as long as the people running it are completely incorruptible ethical individuals with a devotion to duty.
Unfortunately, people retire/die/get fired and jobs change hands. The power belongs to the office, not the person, so any increased power granted to the office gets passed on to the next person, who may be a blatantly corrupt corporate shill, or some tyrannical psychopath.
I have personally never heard of any government, ever, in all of history, ceding authority without being forced.
It is a heck of a lot easier to fire a state legislator than it is to give a sitting federal representative the boot. If, lets say, an FCC chairman or even a President screws up, it takes a LOT of work to kick them out of office, and even then they are pretty much immune to repercussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean those same corporations that want to know exactly where you are and exactly what you are up to 24/7?
Yeah, it will be sooo difficult for them to accommodate such differences in their customer base.
"This has got to be a nightmare situation for the big ISP's."
Poor babies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yup, those are the ones. They share that affliction with the U.S. Government apparently.
"Yeah, it will be sooo difficult for them to accommodate such differences in their customer base."
Not difficult, expensive. Hopefully to the point it's not worth doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Depends on how it's implemented. If federal laws no longer exist to override them, there may be nothing to stop them pulling the same trick as the credit card companies did and simply make it so that they are technically only located in the states(s) with the most favourable laws. If implemented in ways that make this possible, that's exactly what they would do.
Plus, they already showed they have no problem buying federal legislators to write laws the way they want them written,. Why would you assume they'd spend the money fighting laws rather than just buying the state legislators as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A small edit
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]