[rokob]

I have been struggling with this question also. The responsibility of the state government is similar to the federal government in that they are meant to represent the interests of their citizens. Within a state it is undoubtably good policy to provide a mechanism for enforcing a positive social good like utility regulation if that is what the residents of that state want. The flip side is that the internet is necessarily interstate commerce and hence the federal government can always invoke the interstate commerce clause (the same argument they use for drug policy) to do whatever they want. However, as we see states invoking their rights to designate drug policy within their borders this seems to be a natural policy extension.

I think what you are bringing up though is the quagmire that could result from trying to build a network that has to abide by 50 different regulatory systems. I would like to see an independent third party draft regulation on net neutrality that each participating state could then adopt through their own procedures. I know that probably won't happen, but it would be nice to see a form of "collective bargaining" among the states.

Personally, it is good policy for states to support net neutrality if that is what their constituents want. But the implementation might be a shit show.