Montana has become the first U.S. state to take executive action on the subject of net neutrality. On Jan. 22, Montana Governor Steve Bullock signed an executive order requiring internet service providers (ISPs) to follow net neutrality principles to be awarded state contracts, contradicting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s Dec. 14 vote for ISPs to be much less heavily regulated than they have been since 2015. Montana’s rationale is that the loss of net neutrality will increase the state’s cost of doing business.
According to the executive order, the state’s Department of Administration will have to prepare policies and guidelines relating to net neutrality by March 1 of this year, and contracts awarded by the state will be required to adhere to those guidelines starting July 1. Twenty other states and Washington D.C. have also filed motions in court related to the issue of net neutrality, and New York, Massachusetts, Washington and California have legislation currently in motion at the state level.
U.S. states are at times granted a level of autonomy to govern more locally, which can result in actions and imperatives that are contrary to the direction of the federal government. Under U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, some of the issues prompting states to diverge from federal policy have veered out of the realm of domestic politics and onto the global stage, as states take action on immigration and climate change policies.
All 49 Democrats and one Republican in the Senate have indicated they would vote to pass a resolution reversing the FCC’s recent net neutrality decision, and states are already enacting local policy — primary along party lines — to address their concerns. It may not be easy for them, as the FCC ruling explicitly seeks to make sure that states cannot act contrary to it. But the commission’s previous attempts to preempt state laws — such as in the case of broadband expansion — have been struck down in federal court. Indeed, much like other issues in the United States that have prompted several states to diverge from the current administration, the courts will likely be the ultimate decision makers.
