Washington Becomes First State to Pass Its Own Net Neutrality Law in Defiance of FCC

[MacRumors]

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 (via The New York Times).

Many multi-state lawsuits began cropping up following the net neutrality vote in December, but this marks the first time that a state has directly gone against the FCC and enacted its own regulations on how ISPs are regulated within the state. Now, the Washington state law will go into effect starting June 6, 2018, barring ISPs from blocking websites, throttling speeds, or charging its customers more for faster speeds on select sites "in a way that benefits the broadband company and partner websites."

Today we make history: Washington will be the first state in the nation to preserve the open internet with our own #NetNeutrality law. The open internet lives on for Washingtonians. pic.twitter.com/3wsmAycWLN - Governor Jay Inslee (@GovInslee) March 6, 2018

These actions are now technically legal under the repeal of net neutrality by the FCC, made official by its entry into the Federal Register in February and becoming nationwide law itself April 23, 2018. The law signed by Inslee is said to "immediately" put back into place consumer protections provided by net neutrality rules, and was "passed with broad bipartisan support in the state legislature."

"Today we make history: Washington will be the first state in the nation to preserve the open internet," Inslee said during today's bill signing ceremony. "We've seen the power of an open internet. It allows a student in Washington to connect with researchers all around the world -- or a small business to compete in the global marketplace. It's allowed the free flow of information and ideas in one of the greatest demonstrations of free speech in our history."

Besides Washington state, lawsuits and movements against the FCC have appeared in nearly two dozen states, with bills in each appearing similar to the one signed by Governor Inslee this week. Washington state's law -- and any others that appear in the future -- are expected to end up in court, because part of the FCC's rules passed under the repeal of net neutrality explicitly mentioned that states could not create their own rules.

Various tech companies also joined together in a lawsuit against the FCC filed on Monday, with Etsy, Foursquare, and Kickstarter among the companies banning together to fight the net neutrality repeal. Before the 3-2 vote in December, Apple was vocal against the potential repeal of net neutrality, emphasizing its stance in a letter last August that urged the FCC not to roll back the rules. Apple said this repeal could risk "fundamentally altering the internet as we know it today--to the detriment of consumers, competition, and innovation."

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Washington Becomes First State to Pass Its Own Net Neutrality Law in Defiance of FCC

 

[iModFrenzy]

Now we just need the rest of the United States

 

[neuropsychguy]

Edit: My initial response was mistaken but will stay (indented below) as a mark of my failure.

The law isn't in defiance of the FCC. States are allowed to pass net neutrality laws if they want to. In defiance would be if the FCC had a regulation and authority to enforce that states couldn't pass net neutrality laws but states did so anyway.

Now we need more states to do this as well as the Federal government.​

After searching the FCC ruling (17-166), I found the following wording:

"Just as the Title II Order promised to “exercise our preemption authority to preclude states from imposing regulations on broadband service that are inconsistent” with the federal regulatory scheme, we conclude that we should exercise our authority to preempt any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with the federal deregulatory approach we adopt today. We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order. Among other things, we thereby preempt any so-called “economic” or “public utility-type” regulations, including common-carriage requirements akin to those found in Title II of the Act and its implementing rules, as well as other rules or requirements that we repeal or refrain from imposing today because they could pose an obstacle to or place an undue burden on the provision of broadband Internet access service and conflict with the deregulatory approach we adopt today. Although we preempt state and local laws that interfere with the federal deregulatory policy restored in this order, we do not disturb or displace the states’ traditional role in generally policing such matters as fraud, taxation, and general commercial dealings, so long as the administration of such general state laws does not interfere with federal regulatory objectives. Indeed, the continued applicability of these general state laws is one of the considerations that persuade us that ISP conduct regulation is unnecessary here." (pp. 117-119; https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0104/FCC-17-166A1.pdf; emphasis added)​

 

[AustinIllini]

Thank God some states have functional governments

 

[ACST]

Great, now the state can do whatever they want with our network instead of our ISP's, what an improvement.

 

[gnipgnop]

The law isn't in defiance of the FCC. States are allowed to pass net neutrality laws if they want to. In defiance would be if the FCC had a regulation that states couldn't pass net neutrality laws but states did so anyway.

The FCC is attempting to say that not only can they remove the federal law, but they can also prevent states from passing their own laws. I agree with you though that the FCC's actual legal ability to do that is probably zero. It doesn't seem to be constitutional for the FCC to try and claim they control state lawmaking.

 

[barkomatic]

This is great to read and is the strongest repudiation yet of the direction the FCC is taking. I hope it stands up in court and I don't see how the FCC thinks it has the authority to make a rule that states can't pass their own regulations--though I'm no lawyer.

At the least, maybe this will scare the ISP from making any anti-consumer moves for awhile like we all know they are dying to do.

 

[b0nd18t]

I just tweeted at my states governor to ask if he plans to do the same. If you want it for your state doesn’t hurt to go straight to the top.

 

[TMRJIJ]

Great, now the state can do whatever they want with our network instead of our ISP's, what an improvement.

Let’s see:
ISPs that screws us over repeatedly.
OR
States that sometimes screws us over until they realize that we won’t vote for them next time.

Go Washington state

 

[simonmet]

The law isn't in defiance of the FCC. States are allowed to pass net neutrality laws if they want to. In defiance would be if the FCC had a regulation that states couldn't pass net neutrality laws but states did so anyway.

Now we need more states to do this as well as the Federal government.

Isn’t that what the article says the FCC have tried to do?

This is interesting and funny rebuke of national politics and even the authority of the federal government to control the states. I hope for your sake you see more of this “states taking back control” approach. You sure need to for gun laws (if you live in one of the sane states that is).

 

[barkomatic]

Great, now the state can do whatever they want with our network instead of our ISP's, what an improvement.

Sometimes the government screws us over and sometimes corporations do. It's about strategically managing both entities if we can to create the best circumstances right?

In this particular case, regulation is warranted when you see what deregulation has resulted in other countries. It's just my gut, but I think that most of the ISP's are waiting for the wide deployment of 5G to screw us all. They can justify it by saying 5G is a higher level/different type of service and a new billing model is needed.

 

[roland.g]

Here is some irony.

Typically conservatives believe in less regulation and less Federal oversight in which the states should govern themselves.

Typically liberals believe in bigger government, greater regulation, and more Federal oversight with less state independence.

Yet in the case of both California with its sanctuary cities laws and now with Washington state with the net neutrality law, we are seeing more liberal states take on that which conservatives would argue for: greater independence in governing themselves. However, in both instances, that is in direct violation of specific Federal statutes.

The idea is suppose to be that the states govern themselves in the instances in which they are free to and in which the Federal government has chosen to stay out of. Not because they just don’t like it.

 

[cfurlin]

Thank God some states have functional governments

I’m not sure I’d call Inslee “functional”, but we do pat him on the head and give him a cookie...occasionally.

 

[CWallace]

Great, now the state can do whatever they want with our network instead of our ISP's, what an improvement.

I have more influence as a voting citizen of Washington State than I do as a customer of Comcast so if it is one or the other, I'll take the State having the authority.

And yes, I expect the FCC's clause that States cannot amend the rules will go down in flames at both the Western Washington District Court and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supremes could be a wild-card, but considering the majority like to call themselves Constitutionalists, that should influence them to vote against the FCC, as well.

 

[simonmet]

Here is some irony.

Typically conservatives believe in less regulation and less Federal oversight in which the states should govern themselves.

Typically liberals believe in bigger government, greater regulation, and more Federal oversight with less state independence.

Yet in the case of both California with its sanctuary cities laws and now with Washington state with the net neutrality law, we are seeing more liberal states take on that which conservatives would argue for: greater independence in governing themselves. However, in both instances, that is in direct violation of specific Federal statutes.

The idea is suppose to be that the states govern themselves in the instances in which they are free to and in which the Federal government has chosen to stay out of. Not because they just don’t like it.

If I lived in a state that was always majority Democrat (like Washington) I’d wonder what the point of being in a union where half the time the federal government is drastically different politically and the other half controlled by Democrats who still have to appease more republican-leaning States and never get much done as a result (case in point: Obama).

Seems to me America would be happier being two countries given how geographically divided opinion is on practically everything.

 

[roland.g]

I just tweeted at my states governor to ask if he plans to do the same. If you want it for your state doesn’t hurt to go straight to the top.

A little part of me just died inside when I read this.

 

[simonmet]

A little part of me just died inside when I read this.

Care to explain why?

 

[roland.g]

If I lived in a state that was always majority democrat (like Washington) I’d wonder what the point of being in a union where half the time the federal government is drastically different politically and the other half controlled by Democrats who still have to appease more republican-leaning States.

Seems to me America would be happier being two countries given how geographically divided opinion is on practically everything.

Yes you would have the slacker everyone loves everyone where diversity is welcome and respected as long as you don’t think in opposition neo-hippie-like country that is both dead broke from social programs and financial redistribution, rife with criminals and scum milking the systems, and ready to be invaded at any time, and then on the other side you would have a strong working America.

 

[cfurlin]

If I lived in a state that was always majority Democrat (like Washington) I’d wonder what the point of being in a union where half the time the federal government is drastically different politically and the other half controlled by Democrats who still have to appease more republican-leaning States and never get much done as a result (case in point: Obama).

Seems to me America would be happier being two countries given how geographically divided opinion is on practically everything.

Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach. ;-)

 

[roland.g]

Care to explain why?

It’s not just that we are witnessing the decline of civilization on a daily basis, but that statements like that punctuate it even more. If I have to explain it more than that you really aren’t going to get it.

 

[simonmet]

Yes you would have the slacker everyone loves everyone where diversity is welcome and respected as long as you don’t think in opposition neo-hippie-like country that is both dead broke from social programs and financial redistribution, rife with criminals and scum milking the systems, and ready to be invaded at any time, and then on the other side you would have a strong working America.

Aren’t wealth and health and generally better in the Democrat states?
[doublepost=1520350335][/doublepost]

It’s not just that we are witnessing the decline of civilization on a daily basis, but that statements like that punctuate it even more. If I have to explain it more than that you really aren’t going to get it.

You’re right. I don’t think I am.

 

[cfurlin]

Aren’t wealth and health and generally better in the Democrat states?

Smoke and mirrors.

 

[Huntn]

Bravo Washington State! Anti-Net neutrality is such a corporate profit, anti-citizen driven idea it would take a very specific mindset to foist this idea at the Federal level. Are there any surprises this standard (no net neutrality) came from the Trump Administration with all of the worst of its big business cronies?

 

[roland.g]

Aren’t wealth and health and generally better in the Democrat states?

California ranks 43rd in fiscal condition, and its fiscal solvency is questionable. New Jersey ranks last and New York is 40th. Whereas the top 10 states are primarily Republican.

Don’t get me wrong though. Social programs as an idea are wonderful. However, most of them are so poorly designed that they are either easily taken advantage of or they fail to achieve their overriding goal.

 

[cfurlin]

California ranks 43rd in fiscal condition, and its fiscal solvency is questionable. New Jersey ranks last and New York is 40th. Whereas the top 10 states are primarily Republican.

That’s what happens when you freely hand out money to anyone with a situation more difficult than a hangnail.