Governor of Montana signs executive order banning state from doing business with non-neutral ISPs

Originally published at:




Glad to see another front opened up in the war to roll back the anti-Net Neutrality ruling. Between state-level actions like this, Congressional Review, and lawsuits from consumers and tech companies Pai and his cronies at Verizon better exploit their opening while they can.


Cue the ads paid for by Americans for Something, which nobody can find out who they are:

"Governor Steve Bullock has saddled Montana with Obamanet, leaving our children to pay the cost! (images of crying children.) Call your representative today and demand - no Obamanet for real Americans!


In the days of old, the (point-to-point) broadband circuits used to be provided by a vendor other than the Internet Service Provider who was on the other end of the circuit.

Perhaps reduce this to having a strict definition as to what defines Internet access and prohibit advertising it as such when the definition is not met.

With truth in labeling, big media companies could sell it as Broadband access but not as Internet access. This would be similar to how automotive insurance is sold in the states. (It is quit illegal to label and sell coverage as automotive insurance unless it meets minimum state standards as to what is covered and how much. CEOs and their board would be jailed if they attempted such shenanigans.)


wait, you’re telling me there’s a politician who correctly understands net neutrality?


I’ve been saying this for what feels like ages now. If it’s not neutral, it’s not Internet service, but something else instead.

Just like the labeling and not calling it Internet service, if the local franchise agreement includes selling Internet service, they’re no longer providing that and have violated/lost the agreement.


AOL? CompuServe?

Sure, both good examples, sort of. Great examples in their initial forms. After they added Internet Gateways and let you get to the rest of the Internet they became more like an ISP and less like something else.

But, yes, both AOL and CompuServe with all of their service only content are great examples of something that wasn’t an ISP but instead provided curated content and actually was more like an Information Service instead of a Communication Service.

Both functions that nobody wants anymore too.


On the one hand, the FCC insists that it has the authority to ban states and cities from establishing public alternative networks.

I’ve always loved/hated this bit of political sophistry that has never been anything other than a blatant propping up of the ISP industry’s monopoly. I have never, even once heard any explanation for this that amounted to anything other than " It’s not fair to the ISPs! How are they supposed to continue overcharging for their service if they were to be consistently out performed and out priced by a municipal organization?"

It’s like the AV industry complaining when Microsoft put in measures like Windows Defender to safeguard their own product. They can’t do that! It’s not fair to the AV industry!


This is wonderful! If Montana can do it, so can every other state. Come on Utah, pull your heads out!


It is also ironic how conservatives always scream ‘state’s rights!’ until it isn’t.



No, not really.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.