ISPs must follow net neutrality in New Jersey, governor declares

ISPs can’t block or throttle traffic if they sell broadband to state agencies.

Read the whole story

 

[Dr. Jay]

New Jersey's elected the anti-Christ(ie).

 

[normally butters]

From Equifax to net neutrality, the Trump admin is making the case for states' rights.

 

[Deleted member 1]

What a mess. Only a matter of time before Pai is gone...

 

[xWidget]

Good thing that repealing Net Neutrality and preempting municipal broadband is preventing a patchwork of regulations.

 

[J-Be]

We the people will be heard whether you're listening or not Mr. Pai.

You'll be looked back upon as a textbook example (hopefully literally) of how not to administer a government agency.

 

[mach10nj]

As both a citizen consumer and I.T. director, I look forward to holding their feet to the fire over this. When Verizon pre-empted local franchise agreements with municipalities, and bribed the state for a state-wide franchise, I held them to the finer points of the agreement to wire all municipal buildings with TV and Internet service (Comcast included).

Comcast and Verizon fought to avoid rendering the service and installation as required. Threat of lawsuits over their franchise agreements, and our unwillingness to budge has resulted in free TV access for all buildings including first responders’ buildings and free Wi-Fi for all guests around these facilities.

Yes, some government employees are on your side and don't deserve the crap we get from the public.

 

[Legatum_of_Kain]

If the FCC decides it shouldn’t regulate, it gives states the rights to regulate.

What I see coming is a 3-2 vote to put a regulation to deregulate ISPS, which... is moronic and basically what Republicans and telecoms want: lack of accountability.

 

[DanNeely]

Have any of the states doing this spoken publicly about what they intend to do if the ISPs call the states bluffs and collect their modems at the end of their current contracts leaving the govt offices offline?

The same 1 or occasionally 2 decent providers limit that lets them get away with anti-consumer policies also means that even a single intransigent ISP could leave part of the govt without an alternative.

 

[potato44819]

If the FCC decides it shouldn’t regulate, it gives states the rights to regulate.

What I see coming is a 3-2 vote to put a regulation to deregulate ISPS, which... is moronic and basically what Republicans and telecoms want: lack of accountability.

No, the FCC rules specifically pre-empted that.

 

[Akemi]

Hope the ISP's are enjoying having to follow a patchwork of regulations that differ by state instead of having one rule set for everybody. Even better, if the ISP's want to challenge the state's. They'll have to do it state by state. Which is far more expensive than a single lawsuit against the FCC.

 

[10thDoctor]

I'm mostly in favor if Net Neutrality but this executive order crap needs to stop at all levels. That's not representative government. That's dictatorship.

Working to enact the will of over 80% of the American public is not dictatorship. That's the governor doing his job.

 

[TomXP411]

If the FCC decides it shouldn’t regulate, it gives states the rights to regulate.

What I see coming is a 3-2 vote to put a regulation to deregulate ISPS, which... is moronic and basically what Republicans and telecoms want: lack of accountability.

They already did that as part of the order to remove Net Neutrality. The order specifically forbids states from regulating Net Neutrality and claims the authority to do so under Federal authority.

I'm a little skeptical, since the first part of the order removes the Title II Telecommunications Provider status, which was required for NN regulation to stick in the first place.

So, basically, by removing Title II status and calling ISP's "Information Service Providers", rather than "Telecommunications Carriers", they negated their ability to deregulate ISP's.

Why can't the FCC deregulate an "Information Service"? When the FCC, under Wheeler, tried to
institute Net Neutrality, Verizon sued, saying they didn't have the authority to regulate without Title II, and the court agreed. So by removing Title II, the results of that lawsuit should also invalidate any de-regulatory powers the FCC is trying to invoke.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

If the FCC decides it shouldn’t regulate, it gives states the rights to regulate.

I've seen this repeated a lot here. It's NOT what the FCC says. The FCC says it has the exclusive right to regulate American internet companies, and doubles down on this by expressly forbidding states from applying net neutrality rules.

 

[ZhanMing057]

I'm mostly in favor if Net Neutrality but this executive order crap needs to stop at all levels. That's not representative government. That's dictatorship.

If neither the federal nor state governments protects net neutrality, who will? Individual municipalities?

That said, I do fear that this will lead to a lot of extra regulatory costs in particular for smaller broadband providers. However, the blame for that is 100% on Ajit Pai.

 

[b7253f3ac6fa0]

I'm mostly in favor if Net Neutrality but this executive order crap needs to stop at all levels. That's not representative government. That's dictatorship.

Maybe. But our government has ceased to function due to partisan politics. Gerrymandering has allowed these scum to stay in office too long without worry of being replaced.

Until we the people can get new candidates into office that will hear the voice of the people we need our elected officials to do whatever they can to make sure the will of the people is implemented.

So... Vote, call, donate, do whatever you can to make sure they hear your voice.

 

[TomXP411]

If the FCC decides it shouldn’t regulate, it gives states the rights to regulate.

I've seen this repeated a lot here. It's NOT what the FCC says. The FCC says it has the exclusive right to regulate American internet companies, and doubles down on this by expressly forbidding states from applying net neutrality rules.

Except that Verizon sued, and won, when the FCC tried to previously do that without Title II. And the FCC took Title II back off the table with this order, so based on the Verizon suit can no longer regulate or deregulate Net Neutrality.

 

[j17robotdancer]

New Jersey's elected the anti-Christ(ie).

Only because they were tired of the bullshit he was doing.

 

[TomXP411]

I'm mostly in favor if Net Neutrality but this executive order crap needs to stop at all levels. That's not representative government. That's dictatorship.

An executive order is simply the head of the Executive branch of government telling his employees what to do. Remember that all state agencies are a function of the executive branch of government. And since the business of government is handled by agencies, these agencies all report to the governor's office.

In fact, just like Congress could enact a law countermanding the FCC's order, a state legislature could enact a law countering Murphy's order. The fact that the Legislature has not done so is a tacit approval of his actions.

Also, it's worth noting that Executive orders cannot countermand existing legislation, and they must stay within the Constitutional bounds of the office. Murphy's order is perfectly legal and reasonable, as it is not a law and doesn't affect anyone who does not choose to contract with the state. This is simply the state saying "we don't want to do business with you if you don't respect our citizens."

There is no requirement than an ISP do business with the state government or for the state to contract with any particular ISP. If an ISP wants to censor their customers, they have every right to do so. They just won't get state contracts.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

If the FCC decides it shouldn’t regulate, it gives states the rights to regulate.

I've seen this repeated a lot here. It's NOT what the FCC says. The FCC says it has the exclusive right to regulate American internet companies, and doubles down on this by expressly forbidding states from applying net neutrality rules.

Except that Verizon sued, and won, when the FCC tried to previously do that without Title II. And the FCC took Title II back off the table with this order, so based on the Verizon suit can no longer regulate or deregulate Net Neutrality.

The ruling at the time was that ISPs were not common carriers, and thus exempt from NN rules.

The FCC under Wheeler then classified ISPs as common carriers, thus eliminating the exemption.

The FCC under Pai removed the classification.

This clearly shows that the FCC does have the right to regulate ISPs. It currently chooses not to.

 

[Theory240]

I'm mostly in favor if Net Neutrality but this executive order crap needs to stop at all levels. That's not representative government. That's dictatorship.

An executive order is simply the head of the Executive branch of government telling his employees what to do. Remember that all state agencies are a function of the executive branch of government. And since the business of government is handled by agencies, these agencies all report to the governor's office.

In fact, just like Congress could enact a law countermanding the FCC's order, a state legislature could enact a law countering Murphy's order. The fact that the Legislature has not done so is a tacit approval of his actions.

Also, it's worth noting that Executive orders cannot countermand existing legislation, and they must stay within the Constitutional bounds of the office. Murphy's order is perfectly legal and reasonable, as it is not a law and doesn't affect anyone who does not choose to contract with the state. This is simply the state saying "we don't want to do business with you if you don't respect our citizens."

There is no requirement than an ISP do business with the state government or for the state to contract with any particular ISP. If an ISP wants to censor their customers, they have every right to do so. They just won't get state contracts.

Wish I could upvote this a few thousand times!

--

 

[TomXP411]

If the FCC decides it shouldn’t regulate, it gives states the rights to regulate.

I've seen this repeated a lot here. It's NOT what the FCC says. The FCC says it has the exclusive right to regulate American internet companies, and doubles down on this by expressly forbidding states from applying net neutrality rules.

Except that Verizon sued, and won, when the FCC tried to previously do that without Title II. And the FCC took Title II back off the table with this order, so based on the Verizon suit can no longer regulate or deregulate Net Neutrality.

The ruling at the time was that ISPs were not common carriers, and thus exempt from NN rules.

The FCC under Wheeler then classified ISPs as common carriers, thus eliminating the exemption.

The FCC under Pai removed the classification.

This clearly shows that the FCC does have the right to regulate ISPs. It currently chooses not to.

That's right... the FCC has the right to regulate if ISP's are a common carrier. Remove common carrier status, and the FCC loses that authority.

 

[Thad Boyd]

I'm mostly in favor if Net Neutrality but this executive order crap needs to stop at all levels. That's not representative government. That's dictatorship.

Maybe. But our government has ceased to function due to partisan politics. Gerrymandering has allowed these scum to stay in office too long without worry of being replaced.

What does that have to do with net neutrality?

Title II regulations were stripped by the FCC. FCC commissioners are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Where are you seeing gerrymandering in this process? Do you think state boundaries count as gerrymandering?

Similarly, we're talking about a move here by the governor of New Jersey. Where's the gerrymandering there? Does New Jersey have some kind of statewide electoral college I'm not aware of?

 

[Deputy Cartman]

As both a citizen consumer and I.T. director, I look forward to holding their feet to the fire over this. When Verizon pre-empted local franchise agreements with municipalities, and bribed the state for a state-wide franchise, I held them to the finer points of the agreement to wire all municipal buildings with TV and Internet service (Comcast included).

Comcast and Verizon fought to avoid rendering the service and installation as required. Threat of lawsuits over their franchise agreements, and our unwillingness to budge has resulted in free TV access for all buildings including first responders’ buildings and free Wi-Fi for all guests around these facilities.

Yes, some government employees are on your side and don't deserve the crap we get from the public.

Didn't you get the memo (har har har) from Fox News and its Republican hivelings? Government is the root of all evil. Corporations never run inefficient dungheap companies, nor do they do anything wrong.

Oh wait, I mean they routinely try to screw you over if given half the chance. Case in point, ISPs caught redhanded throttling services that competed with their offerings. It's almost as if the hand of the federal government needs to be stronger than the vaunted Invisible Hand of the free market, because it will start rooting around in your pockets for change if given half the chance.

 

[bokuwaomar]

Have any of the states doing this spoken publicly about what they intend to do if the ISPs call the states bluffs and collect their modems at the end of their current contracts leaving the govt offices offline?

The same 1 or occasionally 2 decent providers limit that lets them get away with anti-consumer policies also means that even a single intransigent ISP could leave part of the govt without an alternative.

They're not going to give up lucrative state contracts for the mere possibility of extorting online services for money; the services may simply choose not to pay. But even if they did, states have eminent domain powers and they would have just given them cause to seize their infrastructure.

 

[TomXP411]

Have any of the states doing this spoken publicly about what they intend to do if the ISPs call the states bluffs and collect their modems at the end of their current contracts leaving the govt offices offline?

The same 1 or occasionally 2 decent providers limit that lets them get away with anti-consumer policies also means that even a single intransigent ISP could leave part of the govt without an alternative.

It's a whole different world when you start dealing with commercial buildings. I used to work for a hosting company, and we switched carriers during my tenure there. We didn't even have to change equipment. The local loop just got taken over by the new carrier.

Yes, this will affect small offices located in areas that don't have access to multiple carriers, but I'm sure there will be an exception to allow for that.

 

[kb9skw]

Interesting question...

I provide service to several township halls that have satellite as their only other option... (without $25k+ install fee's)

Were the state to try this on me, I'd decline to provide service to them any longer.

You are funny you know that. You talk like you are an ISP who has launched a bird into orbit. At best you are an independent re-seller of a service from Hughes. Your township halls are free to just purchase service directly from Hughes of course or Exede.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

If the FCC decides it shouldn’t regulate, it gives states the rights to regulate.

I've seen this repeated a lot here. It's NOT what the FCC says. The FCC says it has the exclusive right to regulate American internet companies, and doubles down on this by expressly forbidding states from applying net neutrality rules.

Except that Verizon sued, and won, when the FCC tried to previously do that without Title II. And the FCC took Title II back off the table with this order, so based on the Verizon suit can no longer regulate or deregulate Net Neutrality.

The ruling at the time was that ISPs were not common carriers, and thus exempt from NN rules.

The FCC under Wheeler then classified ISPs as common carriers, thus eliminating the exemption.

The FCC under Pai removed the classification.

This clearly shows that the FCC does have the right to regulate ISPs. It currently chooses not to.

That's right... the FCC has the right to regulate if ISP's are a common carrier. Remove common carrier status, and the FCC loses that authority.

And who decides that status? The FCC.

"Hey, guys! Today you're common carrier, so let's regulate!"

"Hey, guys! Today you're no longer common carrier, go do what you want!"

The FCC never loses that authority.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

Interesting question...

I provide service to several township halls that have satellite as their only other option... (without $25k+ install fee's)

Were the state to try this on me, I'd decline to provide service to them any longer.

You are funny you know that. You talk like you are an ISP who has launched a bird into orbit. At best you are an independent re-seller of a service from Hughes. Your township halls are free to just purchase service directly from Hughes of course or Exede.

And they should since he just admitted to not supporting NN.

 

[dhmg]

What a mess. Only a matter of time before Pai is gone...

Why would Pai be dismissed? Trump put him there, and Pai is doing exactly what Trump wants. The FCC commissioner serves at the pleasure of the president. If anything, blame Trump not Pai.

Edit: Actually, blame both of them. Pai has been an industry lobbyist before Trump got there.

 

[Head Pirate]

The reasonable ISP response is to create a subsidiary that only does business with the state. It can charge double or triple the ordinary commercial rate because of the headaches.

Silly Democrats.

You don't know how the internet works, or what net neutrality is. Stop talking.

A subsidiary can't break net neutrality. Only it's bulk provider could. And that bulk provider would be SELLING net access to a RESELLER. Something it couldn't do under the law if it violated net neutrality.

This information is not secret. You can go to hundreds of websites and learn about how the internet works and gets to your door. Some even have really well produced easy to follow videos so you don't need to do none of that book learning.

I will NEVER understand how any human being, regardless of party line, would choose to ignore basic information readily available to them on topics they are interested in. Why do you treasure your ignorance so highly?

 

[C.M. Allen]

If the FCC decides it shouldn’t regulate, it gives states the rights to regulate.

I've seen this repeated a lot here. It's NOT what the FCC says. The FCC says it has the exclusive right to regulate American internet companies, and doubles down on this by expressly forbidding states from applying net neutrality rules.

Except that Verizon sued, and won, when the FCC tried to previously do that without Title II. And the FCC took Title II back off the table with this order, so based on the Verizon suit can no longer regulate or deregulate Net Neutrality.

The ruling at the time was that ISPs were not common carriers, and thus exempt from NN rules.

The FCC under Wheeler then classified ISPs as common carriers, thus eliminating the exemption.

The FCC under Pai removed the classification.

This clearly shows that the FCC does have the right to regulate ISPs. It currently chooses not to.

That's right... the FCC has the right to regulate if ISP's are a common carrier. Remove common carrier status, and the FCC loses that authority.

And who decides that status? The FCC.

"Hey, guys! Today you're common carrier, so let's regulate!"

"Hey, guys! Today you're no longer common carrier, go do what you want!"

The FCC never loses that authority.

You're missing the point: in order for the FCC to enact the 'no regulatory oversight' framework being espoused, they have to have regulatory authority over the internet, which means the internet MUST be a Common Carrier service and subject to all the requirements therein (including all that NN entails). If the internet is no longer a common carrier service, then the FCC no longer has the regulatory authority to force the issue.

It's a catch-22. To do what Pai's FCC wants to do, they have to have the power that, by the very act of having it, prevents them from doing so.

 

[raxadian]

What a mess. Only a matter of time before Pai is gone...

At the very least they should replace him by someone who lies better.