Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate
MinnPost's Good Jobs beat is made possible by a grant from MSPWin, a philanthropic collaborative committed to strengthening the workforce in the Twin Cities metro area. MSPWin plays no role in determining the content of the coverage.

A federal court just said states can set their own net neutrality rules. What that means for Minnesota

Ajit Pai
REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein
After Donald Trump won office, the FCC, led by the new chairman he appointed, Ajit Pai, axed the rules and moved to block states from implementing their own.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday largely upheld a decision by federal regulators to reverse Obama-era net neutrality rules, but also said states could implement their own internet laws.

The opinion by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was a victory for states like California and Washington that have made rules to bar internet service providers from throttling web traffic and charging businesses more for faster speeds. They can still face legal challenges. But the ruling gives new life to those who want Minnesota to follow suit.

Top Republicans at the Minnesota Legislature have argued the state can’t and shouldn’t enforce its own net neutrality laws, and internet providers like AT&T have pledged to adhere to the “principles of net neutrality.” Yet the Democrats who control the state House passed new regulations this year anyway.


A measure first introduced by Rep. Zack Stephenson, a first-term DFLer from Coon Rapids,  stalled in the Republican-led Senate. But he pledged to try again in 2020. “I think net neutrality is the consumer protection issue of our day,” Stephenson said. “The unrivaled power that [internet service providers] have to control what people see when they open their browser is a paramount concern.”

A brief history of net neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved net neutrality rules in 2015, during the tenure of former president Barack Obama. The regulations aim to stop internet service providers from slowing down browsing or favoring certain services with faster speeds.

State Rep. Zack Stephenson
State Rep. Zack Stephenson
Supporters have framed net neutrality as a necessary protection against powerful internet providers who could tilt the scales of commerce to elevate preferred businesses. For instance, some worry a provider could strike a deal to slow Netflix streaming while boosting Hulu or another competing business. The concept is often described as “paid prioritization,” or an internet “fast lane.”

“In today’s Internet economy, a rollback of Net Neutrality means businesses and startups that operate online or use platforms like Twitter to reach customers would be at the mercy of ISPs for vital communication exchanges,” said Twitter’s public policy manager Lauren Culbertson in a 2017 statement.

After Trump won office, the FCC, led by the new chairman he appointed, Ajit Pai, axed the rules and moved to block states from implementing their own. Some telecom companies said net neutrality discouraged investment in broadband and slowed innovation because there would be less incentive to create faster internet speeds. Pai argued net neutrality wrongfully regulated internet service providers as utilities rather than an “information services,” which faces less oversight.

In response, states including California and Washington passed their own net neutrality rules, and 22 states sued the FCC over its decision. On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit said the FCC didn’t have the power to preempt states, although it was allowed to reverse its own net neutrality rules. Legal hurdles remain for states, which will likely still face lawsuits and have to prove their rules don’t conflict with federal policy.

In a statement, Pai said the court “affirmed the FCC’s decision to repeal 1930s utility-style regulation of the Internet imposed by the prior Administration.”

Drew Hansen, a state representative in Washington who sponsored net neutrality legislation, said their first-in-the-nation law passed “in the face of a vigorous argument that our law would be preempted because the FCC had told us that it would preempted.”

“As it turns out the D.C. circuit ruled this morning that we were right,” Hansen said. Washington’s Legislature is controlled by Democrats, but Hansen noted his measure passed with significant GOP support. “People of all political stripes — Republicans, Democrats and independents — understand why a free and open internet that’s not controlled by giant corporations is really important.” 

A debate at the Legislature

At a Minnesota House hearing in March on Stephenson’s bill, debate was less focused on whether the government had the authority to pass net neutrality laws and more focused on whether it should.

Anna Boroff, executive director of the Minnesota Cable Communications Association said all cable companies in the state “support and strictly adhere to the principles of net neutrality,” which includes no blocking of legal content and no throttling of web traffic.


But she urged a federal standard, rather than a patchwork of state laws that could be hard for companies to comply with. “Data travels without regard for state lines,” Boroff said. “Several of our members cross multiple state borders.”

The U.S. House voted this year to reinstate federal net neutrality bills but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has called the measure dead on arrival. On Tuesday, Boroff again called on Congress to pass a bipartisan national policy, and said state attempts to regulate the internet will “have a direct and adverse impact on providers’ ability to deploy broadband and encourage investment.”

Paul Weirtz, president of AT&T Minnesota, said at the March hearing the company is committed to an open internet and also called for national regulations. “We do not block websites, we do not censor online content, we do not throttle, discriminate or degrade internet traffic, period,” he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
The U.S. House voted this year to reinstate federal net neutrality bills but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has called the measure dead on arrival.
John Gordon, executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota, said the industry created its own problem by lobbying for the FCC to reverse net neutrality. “They’re killing off net neutrality rules on a federal level and then come crying to the states about why the states shouldn’t be doing anything,” Gordon said. “It’s a little bit like the guy who kills both of his parents and then seeks mercy on the grounds that he’s an orphan. I don’t think that we should be fooled by that kind of argument.”

Weirtz shot back: “A few weeks ago we were accused of censoring the rock band Pearl Jam as a reason for why we need net neutrality. Today, AT&T and others are the Menendez brothers, the equivalent of killing your parents. This bill is really a solution looking for a problem.”


The measure that passed the Minnesota House would block internet service providers from censoring “lawful content,” impairing or degrading traffic and engaging in paid prioritization.

State Sen. David Osmek
State Sen. David Osmek
The House measure also prevents state and local governments from doing business with providers that don’t stick to net neutrality rules. It did exempt governments in Minnesota in places where only one provider exists, and also had an exception for providers expanding services in rural areas as part of the state’s border-to-border broadband grant program.

Sen. David Osmek, a Republican from Mound who chairs the Senate’s Energy and Utilities Finance and Policy Committee, said he wasn’t interested in passing net neutrality legislation. 

In an interview before the D.C court ruling, he said the issue should be dealt with by the federal government, and said there’s no proof that providers have been “blocking or slowing down speeds whatsoever.” He described the push for net neutrality as a slick marketing campaign against a “bogeyman” that doesn’t exist.

(At the March hearing in the House, Gordon at the ACLU pointed to the time AT&T blocked FaceTime video chats on its cellular network for users on some of its data plans as evidence of telecom meddling.)

In a statement issued after the D.C. court order, Stephenson said the ruling “only adds urgency to the need to pass net neutrality legislation in our state.”

“Minnesotans deserve a fair and open internet,” he said.

Comments (8)

  1. Submitted by Paul John Martin on 10/02/2019 - 11:33 am.

    “Top Republicans at the Minnesota Legislature have argued the state can’t and shouldn’t enforce its own net neutrality laws, and internet providers like AT&T have pledged to adhere to the “principles of net neutrality.” And they believe they won’t follow the $$ once free to do so? Aww, bless their little trusting hearts.

  2. Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 10/02/2019 - 03:34 pm.

    It’s easy to claim that your monopoly telecommunications firm honors net neutrality. The industry is all for regulations. They’ve just never seen a regulation that they like. That is, one that actually regulates. Do they discriminate? Of course they discriminate. Just in ways that none can prove is illegal. Which now under this court decision they’re allowed to. Robbery is not a crime if there’s no law to prohibit it either.

  3. Submitted by Joel Stegner on 10/02/2019 - 06:39 pm.

    We use a streaming service named MHZ which has streamed European television with subtitles. Very high quality programming, but almost every night between 6:30 and 7:15, the load rate slows to a crawl. Often the signal drops completely , s very frustrating experience. It is not the kind of service that will ever have the audience to pay for the fast lane.

    Obviously the big players can monopolize the market by pay for priority. That is very obviously something big companies can do as long as Republicans favor big business over the consumer. There is no reason that Minnesota needs to follow the direction of Trump and his people – everyone benefits from competition. Republicans used to believe in it, but no more.

  4. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 10/03/2019 - 06:07 am.

    Just offhand, it does seem to me that the world wide web is an interstate commerce kind of a deal.

  5. Submitted by Andy Briebart on 10/03/2019 - 07:26 am.

    The states that implement Net Neutrality will stymie new tech development.

    The big boys will be working closely with regulators to make sure any competition will be hindered.

    • Submitted by Mark Noonan on 10/04/2019 - 03:07 am.

      I Hope not. Two of the States largest employers BOEING and MICROSOFT. Here in WASHINGTON STATE. So We’ll see if they try to stymie anything. Exclude Boeing. They aren’t In the business of the Internet.

  6. Submitted by Mark Noonan on 10/04/2019 - 03:04 am.

    Mitch McConnell. A thorn in the sides of every American. To think what we could accomplish in bipartisan fashion if it were not for the Gentleman who sits on every piece of legislation that he doesn’t like.

  7. Submitted by richard owens on 10/04/2019 - 11:03 am.

    Be glad you don’t rely on Frontier Communications for your ISP.

    Barely functional is so many MN rural communities, Frontier is broke, their infrastructure is junk (cables hanging between trees), and the schools, businesses and students are left with a 20th century internet.

    The big ISPs will not buy Frontier, as it is not a profitable company and they don’t care to tap into such a small market.

    That’s why we need people like Osmek and the other Republicans, to step up and help people for a change. If they were in charge back in the the day, farms still wouldn’t have electricity.

    Net neutrality is simply a way to limit the power of your ISP so as to make it more friendly to all users, including those who don’t generate big profits (like our students).

Leave a Reply