Middle Schoolers Cheer As Oregon Passes A Net Neutrality Law
from the the-people-are-kind-of-pissed dept
More than half of all states are now pushing their own net neutrality rules in the wake of the federal repeal. Some states are pushing for new net neutrality laws that closely mirror the discarded FCC rules, while others are signing executive orders that prohibit states from doing business with ISPs that behave anti-competitively. And while these discordant laws may make doing business from state to state harder on incumbent ISPs, that's probably something they should have thought about before dismantling arguably modest (and hugely popular) federal protections.
This week Oregon became the latest state to sign net neutrality protections into law with what was largely bipartisan support. House Bill 4155 largely mirrors the FCC ban on things like paid-prioritization and anti-competitive blocking and throttling, though (also like the discarded FCC rules) it wouldn't address usage caps and overage fees or zero rating, one of the key areas where anti-competitive behavior often takes root. The bill also carves out numerous exemptions for legitimate instances of prioritization (medical care, prioritized VoIP services).
The bill also mandates that state and local governments contract only with companies that abide by the principles of net neutrality. Again highlighting the popularity of these efforts, three middle school kids testified before the State Senate in support of the new law:
"Leading up to the bill's passage, three students from Mt. Tabor Middle School testified in support of net neutrality in Salem. "It isn't common that kids get very involved in this, and it shows just how important this issue is to us," Luca Larsen-Utsumi, who spoke in front of the House Committee on Rules said."
While these state laws are an organic reaction to the federal government selling out consumers and the health of the internet, they'll only be as good as the people willing to actually enforce them. Many of the laws carve out exceptions for "reasonable network management," language ISP lobbyists have routinely and successfully abused to effectively allow pretty much anything -- at least in states where lawmakers and regulator ethics are malleable via campaign contribution (read: most of them). In other words, passing these rules is only part of the equation.
Granted this is the same state that just got done giving Comcast an inadvertent $15 million annual tax break for doing absolutely nothing, so you have to hope they crossed their t's and dotted their i's on this particular legislation, and remain alert to post-passage lobbying efforts to subvert it.
States like Oregon also have to contend with likely legal challenges by incumbent ISPs and their BFFs at the FCC.
After it was lobbied to do so by Verizon and Comcast, the FCC included language in its net neutrality repeal that attempts to "pre-empt" (read: ban) states from protecting consumers on issues of privacy and net neutrality. But this authority is untested, which could result in some significant and interesting legal battles in the months to come. Again though: this expensive, confusing battle could all have been avoided if the FCC had actually bothered to listen to data, the experts, and the will of the public and kept the FCC rules intact.
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: ajit pai, fcc, net neutrality, oregon, states rights
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So you embrace a "do it for the children" publicity stunt when suits your purpose, besides the silliness that kids are worth hearing on complex techno-societal topic. You then go on to HEDGE with mention of the many exceptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you embrace a "do it for the children" publicity stunt when suits your purpose, besides the silliness that kids are worth hearing on complex techno-societal topic. You then go on to HEDGE with mention of the many exceptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least they know the definition of:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you embrace a "do it for the children" publicity stunt when suits your purpose, besides the silliness that kids are worth hearing on complex techno-societal topic. You then go on to HEDGE with mention of the many exceptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you embrace a "do it for the children" publicity stunt when suits your purpose, besides the silliness that kids are worth hearing on complex techno-societal topic. You then go on to HEDGE with mention of the many exceptions.
TL;DR - Its not people saying 'we're doing this for the children' as a strawman to push their agenda, it's children saying 'This is important enough that we are engaging in state politics despite our age'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you embrace a "do it for the children" publicity stunt when suits your purpose, besides the silliness that kids are worth hearing on complex techno-societal topic. You then go on to HEDGE with mention of the many exceptions.
Besides, are you really going to sit there and say "kids aren't worth listening to"? What a jerk.
Kids can sometimes understand things better than some adults do. And some kids are a lot smarter than some adults. Just because they are kids, doesn't mean they should be ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, including the ones eating Tide pods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The importance of midle-schoolers
The legislators who are paying attention become aware of how important an issue is when middle-schoolers show up to lend their voice.
And since when is not having your information sources fucked with a "complex techno-societal topic"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a claim that 'Millennials' have only one perspective on everything. There will be a claim that the 'next' generation will have one perspective on everything.
This brings two (or at least two) questions to mind. What will they call the next generation And what will 'they' claim their one perspective is?
Also: Who is THEY?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My maternal grandmother was born in 1944. My dad was born in 1960. My mom was born in 1963. My wife was born in 1979. I was born in 1982. I have a cousin who was born in 1994.
Gran and Dad are Boomers; Mom and wife are Gen X; my cousin and I are Millennials. It's kind of a silly way of delimiting age groups, if you look at it like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These States Clearly Have No Respect For States’ Rights
In other words, you are given your freedom to do only doctrinally acceptable right-wing things. Deviate from the One True Path, and your freedom to do as you like will be taken away from you.
Oh, and the Second Amendment takes precedence over any other part of the Constitution, OK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These States Clearly Have No Respect For States’ Rights
I certainly hope you neglected the /s sarc mark at the end of that.
There is a Constitution. All parts are equal. Some interpretations may be argued over time, but the basic document remains in tact, and there is no one Amendment that precludes any other. If there was, it would be stated in the document itself. Can you point to such a statement? Or was that statement sarcastic?
To be sure:
The piece that many fail to reiterate when refering to this Amendment is that part about 'A well regulated Militia'. Who regulates this militia? Well, who makes regulations? But in the view of Thomas Jefferson's November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith:
There may, at some time be a need for the Second Amendment to take some precedence over other Amendments, but only if in fact that precedence is in fact in support of the other Amendments. Not something else. Otherwise, it would just be anarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh don't be fooled, he understands just fine what he's doing, he just doesn't care. He's corrupt, not stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Caught in obvious lies, fibs, making things up and not having the intelligence to at least put some spin on the revelations but instead reiterating the same blatant lies over and over again.
Unfortunately those who have any ability to do anything about it are just as corrupt and stupid as he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]