New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the executive order yesterday, days after Montana Governor Steve Bullock did the same. The states are challenging the Federal Communications Commission, which repealed its own net neutrality rules and preempted states from imposing similar ones.
The executive orders attempt an end run around the FCC's preemption of local laws. Instead of directly requiring all ISPs to follow net neutrality principles, the executive orders require state agencies to only do business with ISPs that offer neutral networks.
"The FCC's dangerous ruling goes against the core values of our democracy, and New York will do everything in our power to protect net neutrality and the free exchange of ideas," Cuomo said in an announcement yesterday.
No charging extra for specific content
The order says state agencies and departments may not "enter into any contracts for Internet service unless the ISPs agree to adhere to net neutrality principles." ISPs would disqualify themselves from obtaining state contracts if they "block, throttle, or prioritize Internet content or applications or require that end users pay different or higher rates to access specific types of content or applications."
The New York order goes beyond Montana's by including the specific provision against charging users higher rates to access specific types of Internet content and applications.
[Links from original included to flesh out the report] The item concludes with insufficient wording to the effect it is the Democrats that are serving the public interest whereas Pai, appointed to FCC by Trump January, 2017, is the hatchet man the Republicans love because it would serve a nefarious will to impede the citizenry by allowing big money to pervert the Internet to the sorry, sad level of cable TV:
States are using a few strategies to rebel against the FCC's elimination of net neutrality rules. There is net neutrality legislation pending in several states, and 22 attorneys general are suing the FCC in an attempt to reverse the net neutrality repeal.
In general, Democratic state officials are the ones challenging the FCC. Every US state with a Democratic attorney general is part of the lawsuit against the commission, but no Republican state attorneys general joined the effort.
It is a short item, well reported.
Per the final item paragraph, Minnesota AG Lori Swanson has joined her office in the state litigation against the heavy boot of the corporatist FCC impositions. She is DFL. She is doing the right thing. It as much exposes the Republican anti-citizen position to a voting public, as well as challenging the "preemptive" reach of the FCC to do nationwide uniform harm.
Ars, here, has follow-up reporting about Montana's position that its governor's executive order is lawfully sound. It links to a fact sheet stating the reasoning behind that contention; this screen capture (click it to enlarge and read, or this link):
Finally, yes this post indulges in hyperbole, but the issue has been back-burner with mainstream media while it is quite serious a thing. Hyperbole might have to be used to awaken the public's interest over abridgment of the public interest. End of story.
__________UPDATE____________
Dayton may awaken. Do read that Montana fact sheet. It is inclusive, while artfully held to a single page. Write or phone or email Governor Dayton to advocate his following two other leading governors in protecting their state's people as best as the situation allows. Dayton remains vexingly behind the leading edge of the wave on the issue of ending failed marijuana prohibition and instead regulating cannabis commerce. Perhaps he'd be more comfortable with a progressive position on Net Neutrality. While far from a Bernie level of progressivism, the man is, after all, not a Republican.