Alaska the Latest to Propose its Own Net Neutrality Rules Alaska is just the latest state to propose its own net neutrality rules in the wake of the FCC's repeal of federal rules. Numerous states including Washington, Massachusetts, New York, California and Rhode Island have all proposed their own net neutrality rules in the wake of the FCC's repeal of federal rules, despite the fact the FCC's repeal order attempts to ban states from doing so at Verizon and Comcast's request. Other states, like Montana and New York, have signed executive orders banning ISPs that violate net neutrality from securing state contracts.

In other words, incumbent ISP efforts to dismantle arguably modest and consistent federal net neutrality rules isn't going particularly well. Adding fuel to this fire is Alaska, which now says it too is considering its own net neutrality protections for internet users. Under recently introduced SB 160, ISPs "may not block content or services, impair or degrade lawful internet traffic, or interfere with the end user's access to the internet," while allowing for "preferential bandwidth speeds for distance learning and telemedicine to ensure rural Alaskans have access to necessary services." "If Congress won't protect the consumers of Alaska, we in the legislature must," said State Senator Tom Begich. "Access to information is vital to Alaskans and shouldn't be endangered, especially in rural areas of the state." The FCC's attempts to pre-empt states from protecting consumers will likely result in numerous, costly legal battles around the country. Those battles will occur at the same time the FCC attempts to defend its handout to the telecom sector in the wake of lawsuits by numerous consumer groups and internet startups. Of course that's something incumbent ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Charter probably should have thought about before they rushed to repeal consistent federal rules with broad, bipartisan support. Expect more proposals like this as nervous politicians attempt to get on the right side of this issue ahead of the looming midterms. Of course that's something incumbent ISPs like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Charter probably should have thought about before they rushed to repeal consistent federal rules with broad, bipartisan support. Expect more proposals like this as nervous politicians attempt to get on the right side of this issue ahead of the looming midterms.







News Jump California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 17 comments

jackal

join:2004-01-06

Ozark, MO 2 edits 4 recommendations jackal Member I'll be shocked if this passes



I recognized the name of the sponsor, Tom Begich. His family has long been involved in Alaska politics--all on the Democratic side. His brother Mark was a one-term US Senator before getting beat by a no-name Republican.



Alaska is a very red state that leans relatively libertarian. (



Anyway, if this magically does get through the Senate despite the fact that Democrats hold only 6 of the 20 seats, then maybe there's a shot at it passing the House (which Democrats do control, though only because they control a caucus that includes 17 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 2 Independents; the minority caucus has 18 Republicans in it). But Governor Walker, a conservative Independent, is a wildcard. I don't think anyone has figured out how to predict what he will do on any given issue.



The telecommunications infrastructure in Alaska is interesting. The major ISPs in the Lower 48 basically have no presence. The vast majority of the market is controlled by two local entities: GCI (a cable company with basically a statewide franchise; they were recently bought by an out-of-state private equity firm) and ACS (the ILEC for most of the populated areas of the state). Each company owns its own undersea fiber links between Anchorage and Seattle as well as to coastal communities in the Southeast and Southcentral portions of the state and terrestrial fiber to the central Interior (predominately to Fairbanks); the remainder of the state is served by satellite backhaul, although GCI has invested in a microwave network reaching the western portion of the state (not surprisingly, they aren't charging any less than people were previously paying for the satellite-backhauled service). (



Unlike in the Lower 48, there aren't options for larger customers. You can't just connect to Level 3 or NTT or buy cheap transit from Cogent or HE. Well, you can, but you'll be leasing an expensive line from GCI or ACS to Seattle, the closest IXP where you can get service from any of those guys.



So to a level that I don't think is replicated elsewhere in the country, the state of Alaska is dependent on only two entities (and in some of the more rural places, there literally is only one choice). That makes me think that a truly epic spat between the state and the ISPs is not going to happen, because the state needs them. If the state were to make a rule in the vein of Montana's recent one saying that they won't do business with a company that interferes with network traffic, that may very well cut off some the entire state government from communication entirely.



(I'm not saying that GCI or ACS regularly engages in anti-net-neutrality behavior, but given their past histories, it certainly wouldn't be out of character for them to.)



Most Alaskans hate GCI (they hate ACS less, but with its copper twisted pair plant, ACS simply can't compete with GCI's speeds), and I would love nothing more than for GCI to get put in its place. Between the political climate and the fact the state depends so wholly on these two providers and that these two all-powerful, high-priced, high-profit ISPs very likely have the small Alaska legislative branch in their pockets, I can't see this actually happening. I'll be watching it with interest, though. (I speak as someone who lived in Alaska for 17 years.)I recognized the name of the sponsor, Tom Begich. His family has long been involved in Alaska politics--all on the Democratic side. His brother Mark was a one-term US Senator before getting beat by a no-name Republican.Alaska is a very red state that leans relatively libertarian. ( Even the Democrats are relatively conservative. ) Democrats have bases in the lower/lower-middle-income parts of Anchorage and in a couple of the more hippie-friendly areas of the state (Girdwood, Homer, Juneau, etc.) and in the Native population (though sometimes Republicans, like Senator Lisa Murkowski, win their hearts). A branch or two of the government might occasionally come under Democratic control, usually when the locals get fed up with the good ol' boy network of the Republicans, but it's usually temporary.Anyway, if this magically does get through the Senate despite the fact that Democrats hold only 6 of the 20 seats, then maybe there's a shot at it passing the House (which Democrats do control, though only because they control a caucus that includes 17 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 2 Independents; the minority caucus has 18 Republicans in it). But Governor Walker, a conservative Independent, is a wildcard. I don't think anyone has figured out how to predict what he will do on any given issue.The telecommunications infrastructure in Alaska is interesting. The major ISPs in the Lower 48 basically have no presence. The vast majority of the market is controlled by two local entities: GCI (a cable company with basically a statewide franchise; they were recently bought by an out-of-state private equity firm) and ACS (the ILEC for most of the populated areas of the state). Each company owns its own undersea fiber links between Anchorage and Seattle as well as to coastal communities in the Southeast and Southcentral portions of the state and terrestrial fiber to the central Interior (predominately to Fairbanks); the remainder of the state is served by satellite backhaul, although GCI has invested in a microwave network reaching the western portion of the state (not surprisingly, they aren't charging any less than people were previously paying for the satellite-backhauled service). ( Arctic Fibre is another very recent development but its effects are limited to small coastal communities in the northwest corner of the state.) AT&T does have some wireline infrastructure in the state, but they focus solely on business services and are a very small player, although they do play a significant role in providing that satellite backhaul to the remote areas not served by terrestrial links. (They seem to have given up their old, slow subsea fiber link to the Lower 48 and now lease space on one of the other providers' cables.) It's basically a statewide duopoly, and everyone--including the state government itself--is wholly dependent on those two providers for every bit of connectivity. Small local ISP? You're buying transit from GCI or ACS. Big enterprise? You're leasing your fiber from GCI or ACS. Business in a small, rural community? You're going to pay GCI through the nose, or you might have the choice to pay AT&T through the nose if you can deal with 600ms pings over their satellite.Unlike in the Lower 48, there aren't options for larger customers. You can't just connect to Level 3 or NTT or buy cheap transit from Cogent or HE. Well, you can, but you'll be leasing an expensive line from GCI or ACS to Seattle, the closest IXP where you can get service from any of those guys.So to a level that I don't think is replicated elsewhere in the country, the state of Alaska is dependent on only two entities (and in some of the more rural places, there literally is only one choice). That makes me think that a truly epic spat between the state and the ISPs is not going to happen, because the statethem. If the state were to make a rule in the vein of Montana's recent one saying that they won't do business with a company that interferes with network traffic, that may very well cut off some the entire state government from communication entirely.(I'm not saying that GCI or ACS regularly engages in anti-net-neutrality behavior, but given their past histories, it certainly wouldn't be out of character for them to.)Most Alaskans hate GCI (they hate ACS less, but with its copper twisted pair plant, ACS simply can't compete with GCI's speeds), and I would love nothing more than for GCI to get put in its place. Between the political climate and the fact the state depends so wholly on these two providers and that these two all-powerful, high-priced, high-profit ISPs very likely have the small Alaska legislative branch in their pockets, I can't see this actually happening. I'll be watching it with interest, though.