Montana Governor Takes First Steps To Protect State Net Neutrality

Status
Not open for further replies.

velocityg4

Illustrious
Doesn't seem like something ISPs will be quaking in their boots over. Don't government buildings normally get served by different ISP than residential. Such as Metro Ethernet and other commercial grade services.

Now if they sign a bill ending government granted monopolies over cities. That might get their attention. Although Montana has a pretty low population. So, they wouldn't care too much.
 

mihen

Reputable
Oct 11, 2017
413
43
4,840
16
I thought one of the prohibitive elements for new ISPs is that many municipal governments have them provide service for local libraries and schools. I imagine it would be better not to have those contracts in the first place.
Also Government services are generally filtered(not neutral) to prevent unlawful access.
 

michaelahess

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2006
1,711
0
19,780
0


Same ISP's, different services. I know as I designed them, in Montana, among many other states. This is a good thing...
 

michaelahess

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2006
1,711
0
19,780
0
@mihen all contracts are good to have, just talk to any sales guy ;)

Also, the ISP doesn't limit or filter, the customer (ie the government office, school, etc) does that part. And that has nothing to do with net neutrality.
 

husker

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2009
1,041
83
19,360
0
Facebook was developed, evolved and is free to use. All social media for that matter. Tom's is free to visit and comment on. Google searches? Free. Gmail? Free. Sending any email over this magical thing called the internet? Free. So many, many, many other examples of what the internet gave us that no one can event begin to list them all. Somehow all this came to be without this "Net Neutrality" thing that just came into existence a couple of years ago as a money power grab for governments.
 

grimfox

Distinguished


Right, but that was before we saw the signs of ISPs beginning to treat that traffic differently.

We shouldn't need a law to tell ISPs to treat youtube and this other upstart video network fairly, but the ISPs have proven, above all things, that they can not be trusted to treat anything fairly. The FCC made "be fair" a requirement. The ISPs fought it tooth and nail. Why would a good honest company fight "be fair?" We know that ISPs are not good and honest. Year after year they come in ranked at the bottom of customer satisfaction ratings. All net neutrality says is to be fair, like you were before you realized there was money to be made by throttling and blocking and generally holding hostage "customers" trapped on a monopolistic network.
 

toadhammer

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2012
113
3
18,685
0


Actually, neutrality was the default from the very beginning when the internet was nothing but interconnected universities and research institutions. As grimfox said, no one even thought twice about this until some ISP realized they could make an extra buck by screwing someone else. Perfectly reasonable capitalism, but it goes against the deliberate intent that has existed from day one to keep the internet a level playing field.
 

toadhammer

Distinguished
Nov 2, 2012
113
3
18,685
0
And let me point out what net neutrality really means in this context. You pay your ISP for a pipe to connect you to the internet. It shouldn't matter what path the individual packets take, nor should it matter what is in those packets. None of them should cost you more or less. The same is true for Facebook. They pay their provider for a pipe. No individual packet should cost them more or less based on content or destination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS