Washington State Net Neutrality Bill Moves Forward A Washington State effort to enshrine state-wide net neutrality principles has taken a step forward in the state legislature. House Bill 2282, which prohibits ISPs from engaging in uncompetitive blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization has passed on a strong bipartisan 93-5 vote and now heads to the Senate for consideration. The bill is one of more than a dozen efforts at state-level rules in the wake of the FCC's historically unpopular assault on federal net neutrality protections. Contrary to some ISPs' efforts to frame net neutrality as partisan to sow dissent, the rules had broad, bipartisan support.

"Net neutrality has worked very well to protect a free and open internet," said bill sponsor Drew Hansen. "We are going to keep those protections in place in Washington state even after they go away at the national level." AT&T, Comcast and Verizon lobbyists successfully lobbied Ajit Pai's FCC to include language in the agency's repeal that attempts to ban states from protecting consumers from net neutrality violations. The measure also aims to prevent states from protecting consumer privacy, after the GOP and Trump administration killed modest broadband privacy protections last year at incumbent ISP behest. "We don't know what will happen in court," Hansen said of his proposal. "But the states traditionally have very broad consumer protection authority and that's what we're exercising here." Some states, including New Jersey, Montana and New York, are also changing rules banning ISPs that violate net neutrality from securing state contracts. The fight between the states and the FCC is just one of numerous legal showdowns that will occur this year in the wake of the agency's historically unpopular decision to kill the popular rules. Some states, including New Jersey, Montana and New York, are also changing rules banning ISPs that violate net neutrality from securing state contracts. The fight between the states and the FCC is just one of numerous legal showdowns that will occur this year in the wake of the agency's historically unpopular decision to kill the popular rules.







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 view:

topics flat nest Thistool

join:2013-12-05

Auburn, WA Thistool Member Good for Washington state completely unenforceable Route all layer 4 traffic from. Washington to Montana for layer 4 level only and your not guilty of any priority violations.

tshirt

Premium Member

join:2004-07-11

Snohomish, WA tshirt Premium Member It's good to be on record with the OFFICAL state view ...all to easy for some in DC to pretend "no preference was stated"

not sure it has any force of law or consequences positive or negative.

battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 1 recommendation battleop Member The lack of uniformity... The lack of uniformity from state to state will make this a nightmare in the future. State governments rarely do anything where they don't fuck something up with silly rules. I don't expect this to be any different. They probably think their plans are well though out and will not be full of loopholes but that's likely not the case. Tony0945

join:2015-03-26

Streamwood, IL -1 recommendation Tony0945 Member Aren't the Feds planning to preempt the states on this? With a federal rule allowing anything. kherr

Premium Member

join:2000-09-04

Collinsville, IL kherr Premium Member Ultimately it's ... ... interstate commerce which only congress regulates. there's only so much say a state has ... they can make laws all day long, whether they can enforce them is another question ....

firephoto

We the people

Premium Member

join:2003-03-18

Brewster, WA firephoto Premium Member Re: Ultimately it's ... said by kherr: ... interstate commerce which only congress regulates. there's only so much say a state has ... they can make laws all day long, whether they can enforce them is another question .... Since most popular online content providers locate close to their customers in various regions it will be hard to play the interstate clause to apply to everything, unless of course the ISP is ensuring that the closest content servers are being bypassed for those farther away and more congested and then can rightfully claim that all traffic is interstate. Isn't control great? kherr

Premium Member

join:2000-09-04

Collinsville, IL kherr Premium Member Re: Ultimately it's ... it can apply regardless if there are intrastate segments. content from that local server originates out-of-state. look at railroads .... just because a run is within the state ... federal regulations apply regardless ... same with trucking ....

Anon3fa71

@2600:8807.x Anon3fa71 to firephoto

Anon to firephoto

As long as the company has a physical presence in the state, all state laws apply to it. your comment..

