Washington Pass Its Own Net Neutrality Law

[VitorG]

A new development on the net neutrality on US. I'm European and it stiil worried about the new FCC rules.

Usualy other countries tend to follow US practices. The effects here are starting to show on small things, like differentiated fraffic rules.

Providers are also slowly, but steadly changing their business tactics. The world needs this actions against FCC.

Quote

Washington this week became the first state to pass a new law -- House Bill 2282 -- that restores and protects certain net neutrality rules, after the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 in favor of repealing net neutrality nationwide late last year. Washington state's new rules were signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee yesterday, and prevent internet service providers from blocking and slowing down content online 

Sources:
https://www.macrumors.com/2018/03/06/washington-first-state-net-neutrality/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/business/net-neutrality-washington-state.html

[SansVarnic]

OP your post does not meet the required content for a news post. Please review the below link and update accordingly.

Quote

When creating a thread in the News subforum, please make sure your post meets the following criteria:

• Your thread must include some original input to tell the reader why it is relevant to them, and what your personal opinion on the topic is. This needs to be MORE than just a quick, single comment to meet the posting guidelines.
• Your thread must include a link to at least one reputable source. Most of the time, this should be a respected news site.
• Your thread should also include quotes from the cited source(s). While you shouldn't just copy the entire article, your quote should give the reader a summary of the article in a way that gives the key details, but also leaves room for them to read the full article on the linked website. Please use quote tags to show that you have copied this content from another site.
• The title of your thread must be relevant to the topic and should give a reader a good idea of the contents of the thread. Copying the title of the source is permitted but absolutely not required. It should be to the point and not be done in such a way as to mislead a reader, such as clickbait, etc.
• If your article is about a product or some form of media, images are always appreciated, although they are not required.

Failure to comply may result in your thread being locked or removed without warning.

 

[ARikozuM]

@VitorG Your thread doesn't match the TN&R guidelines; you need to add personal, insightful thoughts. 

 

HUZZAH! TAKE THAT, A$$-HATS AT THE FCC! 

Spoiler

Florida is joining this movement at the usual pace of six years later... 

 

[Canada EH]

Yup just make some passing remarks or any random thoughts you have.

 

ISP's will def find a way around slowing down connection. They really shouldnt be blocking content, and if that be the case then they should look at Facebook.

[dizmo]

Wasn't there a stipulation in the original act that states couldn't make their own net neutrality laws?
How are they getting around that?

[Riddler356]

2 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Wasn't there a stipulation in the original act that states couldn't make their own net neutrality laws?
How are they getting around that?

didn't they only repeal the act which would void that though?

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Wasn't there a stipulation in the original act that states couldn't make their own net neutrality laws?
How are they getting around that?

By pretty much walking past the FCC/Ajit Pai and going "up yours too buddy".

[dizmo]

11 minutes ago, Riddler356 said:

didn't they only repeal the act which would void that though?

I haven't really been following it that closely to be honest.

10 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

By pretty much walking past the FCC/Ajit Pai and going "up yours too buddy".

Haha, if they're doing that they deserve much kudos.

[TimeOmnivore]

So, if you live in Rhode Island, move to Washington, they won't block your porn.

[Riddler356]

11 hours ago, dizmo said:

I haven't really been following it that closely to be honest.

yeah I don't really either, even though i live in the US, Im just really busy.

 

My train of thought as basically, They pass net neutrality but said passing prevents state regulation, but then they repeal said law or whatever in whole, said restriction logically would be repealed as well.

[Eaglerino]

On 3/6/2018 at 7:56 PM, Canada EH said:

Yup just make some passing remarks or any random thoughts you have.

 

ISP's will def find a way around slowing down connection. They really shouldnt be blocking content, and if that be the case then they should look at Facebook.

They'll just add a stupidly low data cap

[GoldenLag]

On 7.3.2018 at 4:07 AM, dizmo said:

Wasn't there a stipulation in the original act that states couldn't make their own net neutrality laws?
How are they getting around that?

As far as i know they block any service provider from getting contracts from the state (or others, not shure) if they break netneutrality principles. Effectivly its not breaking the rules the FCC put down.

[Nowak]

"Washington this week became the first state to pass a new law"

 

False. Montana passed its own NN law back at the end of January, followed by New York two days later.

[Daegun]

6 hours ago, Daring said:

"Washington this week became the first state to pass a new law"

 

False. Montana passed its own NN law back at the end of January, followed by New York two days later.

Executive order vs law. Both of those articles say the governors signed an executive order, while Washington is the first to put it into law.

[dizmo]

13 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

As far as i know they block any service provider from getting contracts from the state (or others, not shure) if they break netneutrality principles. Effectivly its not breaking the rules the FCC put down.

So it's just state contracts? Like on a state government level? Or they can't get contracts from the population of said state?

[GoldenLag]

46 minutes ago, dizmo said:

So it's just state contracts? Like on a state government level? Or they can't get contracts from the population of said state?

I believe its only from the state, but that blocks quite a bit of revenue for the companies. I dont know all the details, but it is quite certain this will make companies refrain from breaking net neutrality rules. 

Also i dont think they get money from the goverment alocated to "improve" the infrastructure

[Trik'Stari]

To be honest, I'm divided on this debate.

 

I hate federal regulation. I think we need to go back to states governing themselves more than being governed by the federal government.

 

My reasoning is that it's FAR easier for a motivated population to hold local government responsible, than it is for a much MUCH larger and FAR more divided population to hold federal government responsible.

 

That being said, it's also FAR easier for a corporation to bribe local officials.

 

Fucked if you do, fucked if you don't?

[Ertman]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

To be honest, I'm divided on this debate.

 

I hate federal regulation. I think we need to go back to states governing themselves more than being governed by the federal government.

 

My reasoning is that it's FAR easier for a motivated population to hold local government responsible, than it is for a much MUCH larger and FAR more divided population to hold federal government responsible.

 

That being said, it's also FAR easier for a corporation to bribe local officials.

I don’t think that the division is much different federally vs state level, except in very small states. All you need to do I look at some of the state elections. I am not saying that federal government should run and control everything, but there is an inherent risk and difficulty in having wildly different laws and regulations in territories within the same country when it comes to business and the populous.