See, e.g., reporting, here, here and here.
Consumers in Minnesota need parallel help against dark forces. Time waits for nobody.
______________UPDATE_______________
The governor's website item:
http://governor.mt.gov/Newsroom/governor-bullock-protects-net-neutrality-in-montana
stating in its opening paragraphs:
Governor Steve Bullock today signed an executive order to protect net neutrality in Montana by requiring that successful recipients of state contracts adhere to internet neutrality principles.
Standing alongside a group of computer science students at the same high school he attended growing up, Governor Bullock said, “for as long as you, or I, or anyone in this room has used the internet, we’ve had certain expectations about how things work. We’ve had access to a free and open internet. But a free and open internet is no longer guaranteed. The loss of internet neutrality principles threatens the future of the students standing in this very room.”
“There has been a lot of talk around the country about how to respond to the recent decision by Federal Communications Commission to repeal net neutrality rules, which keep the internet free and open. It’s time to actually do something about it,” said Governor Bullock. “This is a simple step states can take to preserve and protect net neutrality. We can’t wait for folks in Washington DC to come to their senses and reinstate these rules.”
As the first governor in the country to implement action in the wake of the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality rules, Governor Bullock invited other governors and statehouses to join him. Governor Bullock’s administration will offer the framework to other states who wish to follow.
“To every governor and every legislator in every statehouse across the country, and to every small business and every Fortune 500 company that wants a free and open internet when they buy services: I will personally email this to you,” Bullock continued.
The executive order notably sets the terms on which the State of Montana will be making purchases and makes a preference for a free and open internet clear. The State of Montana is a significant purchaser of internet services.
The site, inverse.com, this link, publishes Governor Bullock's full text order in its reporting of the plug-in template other governors can use, under this opening screencapture:
____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
As one individual to soon be caucusing DFL, I expect from each of the multitude of present office seekers wanting to be Minnesota's next DFL governor to see this "by executive order" concept to be embraced. Any who might fail to embrace this approach as a campaign promise would have a credibility problem.
Is federal preemption of how a State contracts with vendors something to preempt States rights on such a question? The simple answer is you cannot know the answer as easily as by testing things. It is not a high cost thing. It's cottage industry cost, at any governor's mansion in the nation. The more, the merrier.
Aside from do it - find out, as a preemption question response, the Montana Template begins with "WHEREAS" recitations aimed at justifying an order which in essence mandates vendor requirements for doing ISP business with the State of Montana; something seeming to be Montana's business and not that of Washington, DC, (with certain caveats such as "only white people" or "only Democrats" being clearly void as against public policy). But aside from such considerations, is there any precedent of federal agencies preempting state vendor-qualification requirements? Probably so, but in what historical contexts?
Put another way if a Trump/Pence/Sessions/Pai four horsemen band wants to litigate over what Governor Bullock did, winning in federal courts might be losing in the court of public voter opinion, and such a factor is not without weight or impact. There will be voting next November so that action within the court of voter opinion would not be too remote in time.
Eyes on the prize is what is required for months, not years.
___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Think of the question in terms of how cable companies bundle. Some base service items you may want, others no, and pay extra for something you really want.
Think of it as getting Pat Robertson's Search in the base bundle; Microsoft Bing added in the Silver package; DuckDuckGo in the gold; and Google Search if you buy the platinum package. Is that in your best interests? You should wonder, why is your government doing this to you. The obvious answer, it's the money players' government, not yours, has its troubling aspects.