Montana becomes first state to implement net neutrality rules post-FCC repeal

[pyrojoe34]

5 hours ago, Max_Settings said:

I didn't think there were enough people in Montana that have internet for them to care.

Hey man... there are dozens of us I tell you, dozens!

[AlTech]

Noice, hopefully we'll hear more soon from DC about that lawsuit.

[Doobeedoo]

Oh man you should see comments across socil media about this. It's so cancer. 

[Rigg3L]

looks like New York is joining too?

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-executive-order-protect-and-strengthen-net-neutrality-new-york

[Nowak]

2 minutes ago, Rigg3L said:

looks like New York is joining too?

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-executive-order-protect-and-strengthen-net-neutrality-new-york

That's two states. 48 to go.

[AlTech]

5 hours ago, Daring said:

That's two states. 48 to go.

Meanwhile Europe be like: LMAO wtf even has Trump's puppet done. We can't do that shit here cos that's anti-consumer.

[dwright]

The statement that most Republicans don't support Net Neutrality is completely false. However saying that most Republican representative in the government do not support it is accurate. There have been polls where up to 71% of Republican civilians support it and 83% of Democrats do too. It's not a "people don't support it problem," it's a "the government doesn't care what we think of the topic problem."

[Nowak]

2 minutes ago, dwright said:

The statement that most Republicans don't support Net Neutrality is completely false. However saying that most Republican representative in the government do not support it is accurate. There have been polls where up to 71% of Republican civilians support it and 83% of Democrats do too. It's not a "people don't support it problem," it's a "the government doesn't care what we think of the topic problem."

The article was talking about Republican politicians.

[asus killer]

25 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Meanwhile Europe be like: LMAO wtf even has Trump's puppet done. We can't do that shit here cos that's anti-consumer.

don't you celebrate just yet. You guys will be out of EU soon, no guarantees your government wont do the same.

[asus killer]

can a state control, police and enforce this? and a very small one apparently.

[AlTech]

41 minutes ago, asus killer said:

don't you celebrate just yet. You guys will be out of EU soon, no guarantees your government wont do the same.

Actually I can cos they're gonna make all EU laws into the UK in an upcoming Bill. So yeah, I can celebrate and if they undo it at some point in time then I'm sure I can find somewhere else to live where a country respects me.

[mr moose]

On 1/23/2018 at 1:17 PM, Daring said:

More and more stores are shifting job applications to the internet down here in the States as well. It basically is an essential part of the modern life.

How scary is the thought that an ISP could control  an individuals access (based on web surfing data) to certain job application sites? 

[AlTech]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How scary is the thought that an ISP could control  an individuals access (based on web surfing data) to certain job application sites? 

Very Scary. Imagine if they hid all the job listings from competing businesses and any business which didn't pay them for the right.

[GoldenLag]

11 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Very Scary. Imagine if they hid all the job listings from competing businesses and any business which didn't pay them for the right.

or even worse. redirected any e-mail or attempt on reaching any competitor website to their own.

suddenly everyone who attempts to use google get redirected to Bing..... Oh god the horror

[BachChain]

On 1/22/2018 at 8:22 PM, Daring said:

The State of Montana is one of the biggest consumers of internet services in our state

What?

[ItsMitch]

13 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Actually I can cos they're gonna make all EU laws into the UK in an upcoming Bill. So yeah, I can celebrate and if they undo it at some point in time then I'm sure I can find somewhere else to live where a country respects me.

lol like our government will protect internet laws haHAA

[Nowak]

20 minutes ago, BachChain said:

What?

Don't ask me, I'm not Steve Bullock ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Inkz]

Now if Michigan could just follow through, that would be great.

[Unclescar]

On 1/22/2018 at 6:22 PM, Daring said:

requiring ISPs to be compliant with net neutrality rules if they wish to continue doing business within the state.

This specific line worries me, because we can't ignore the possibility of ISP's in Montana just jumping ship and leaving the state with no internet at all.
Some people consider access to the internet a human right (it's not, but that is also not the point). What good is a right to the internet if there is no one to provide it? Montana may have the "best" and "most fair" rules for regulating the ISPs, but if there are no ISPs to regulate those laws are a moot point and the citizens ultimately lose. This is just hypothetical, I highly doubt ISPs would completely shut off that state, but we can't ignore that possibility, as cutting off incentives to do things often results in them no longer being done, look at socialist countries that have declared healthcare a right but have no doctors.

Providing internet is a service that has to be profitable otherwise the companies that provide it will no longer do so. Unless every state legislates similar rules, it is entirely possible for companies to relocate to a place where they can make more money.

I am very much for the principals that all internet data should have equal priority, but I do want to point out that the internet rules are now similar to the same rules that wireless phone companies have for cellphone service, as it was just two years prior to the ruling. When "Net Neutrality" was introduced (and it wasn't actually how most people describe it, nor followed as well as you'd think), internet service stopped progressing in any meaningful way, new ISPs are essentially non-existent (thanks to local governments regulating things), speeds have not really gotten improved and many think their service has gotten worse, accessibility has not improved much and I personally suspect that some ISPs have actually stopped servicing areas creating fewer options for residents, etc.. But cell service that has been regulated differently has continued to improve both in speed and accessibility in the meantime. Time will tell if the FCC's ruling is beneficial in any way, though.

I also agree with state rights and believe that local governments should have more power over their immediate area and states over their land and the federal govt having the least amount of power and influence, so this "states can't make their own rules" is a line I dislike even more-so, not just in the FCC ruling but the idea of that kind of law is totalitarian in principal.

Like I said, I agree with the all data being treated equal, and in that sense I very support 'Net Neutrality', but I don't think it's quite fair to shout doomsday just yet.

[Jito463]

10 hours ago, Unclescar said:

Providing internet is a service that has to be profitable otherwise the companies that provide it will no longer do so. Unless every state legislates similar rules, it is entirely possible for companies to relocate to a place where they can make more money.

I doubt that would happen.  The more likely scenario - if they felt they weren't making enough profit - would be to raise the prices on their customers.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, Unclescar said:

This specific line worries me, because we can't ignore the possibility of ISP's in Montana just jumping ship and leaving the state with no internet at all.
Some people consider access to the internet a human right (it's not, but that is also not the point). What good is a right to the internet if there is no one to provide it? Montana may have the "best" and "most fair" rules for regulating the ISPs, but if there are no ISPs to regulate those laws are a moot point and the citizens ultimately lose. This is just hypothetical, I highly doubt ISPs would completely shut off that state, but we can't ignore that possibility, as cutting off incentives to do things often results in them no longer being done, look at socialist countries that have declared healthcare a right but have no doctors.

Providing internet is a service that has to be profitable otherwise the companies that provide it will no longer do so. Unless every state legislates similar rules, it is entirely possible for companies to relocate to a place where they can make more money.

I am very much for the principals that all internet data should have equal priority, but I do want to point out that the internet rules are now similar to the same rules that wireless phone companies have for cellphone service, as it was just two years prior to the ruling. When "Net Neutrality" was introduced (and it wasn't actually how most people describe it, nor followed as well as you'd think), internet service stopped progressing in any meaningful way, new ISPs are essentially non-existent (thanks to local governments regulating things), speeds have not really gotten improved and many think their service has gotten worse, accessibility has not improved much and I personally suspect that some ISPs have actually stopped servicing areas creating fewer options for residents, etc.. But cell service that has been regulated differently has continued to improve both in speed and accessibility in the meantime. Time will tell if the FCC's ruling is beneficial in any way, though.

I also agree with state rights and believe that local governments should have more power over their immediate area and states over their land and the federal govt having the least amount of power and influence, so this "states can't make their own rules" is a line I dislike even more-so, not just in the FCC ruling but the idea of that kind of law is totalitarian in principal.

Like I said, I agree with the all data being treated equal, and in that sense I very support 'Net Neutrality', but I don't think it's quite fair to shout doomsday just yet.

Most companies only dump a complete service when they are losing money, therefore ISP's are not likely to just stop providing services.   And if they did leave, another company would come in and take over, because a small profit for a small company is better than no company.   And at absolute worst case (which won't happen) facebook will provide free internet.  *feels shiver run down spine*

[Tellos]

@mr moose Not all companies Can the ISP I work for cannot enter the state because of anti monopoly Laws. To enter we'd have to give up another area. So we only do that to gain a likely more lucritive area. There are entire States the ISP I work for is not in. Montana is one.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Tellos said:

@mr moose Not all companies Can the ISP I work for cannot enter the state because of anti monopoly Laws. To enter we'd have to give up another area. So we only do that to gain a likely more lucritive area. There are entire States the ISP I work for is not in. Montana is one.

but another company could.  maybe not yours. 

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

but another company could.  maybe not yours. 

LIS, Linus Internet Services. Comes with free Floatplane access... wait that's no better than cable tv companies being ISPs >.<. Damn net neutrality lol.

[Jito463]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

LIT

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Linus Internet Services