[briffle]

The simple answer is the laws don't enforce net neutrality. They say that the state government (schools, agencies, etc) Can't purchase any networking/etc from companies that don't follow net neutrality.

Kind of like forcing "prevailing wage" on construction contracts, instead of raising minimum wage state-wide.

[sp_nster]

Hopefully someone here can shed some light on my limited understanding regulations, but aren't internet services, because they are inter-state in nature out of the jurisdiction of the state?

[Noted]

No, if they operate in the state then they are part of the state's jurisdiction. All terrestrial internet services would have to have some presence in the state otherwise they wouldn't be able to provide internet access. Multi-state entities have to follow the laws and regulations of each place they have a presence, not just federal laws.

[zamalek]

Basically, if ~~the FCC~~ Verizon and Comcast loose in court, ISPs will be able to do as they please only in states with no net neutrality protections. They will have to follow both the FCC and state law otherwise.

In effect, this is highly likely to backfire. ISPs will have to spend more money than they claimed they did (before the repeal) in order to meet regulations.

I'm personally a bigger fan of mandated line sharing. This would actually foster competition. Furthermore, if the FCC were to protest it, it would be irrefutable evidence that they are captured and that NN wasn't repealed to foster competition at all.

[stcredzero]

Basically, if ~~the FCC~~ Verizon and Comcast loose in court

I don't think they will loose in court. Bows and Arrows wouldn't make it through the security check. (Commanders before the invention of firearms wouldn't be saying "fire" you see.)

[dragonwriter]

> Basically, if ~~the FCC~~ Verizon and Comcast loose in court

You mean, if the win the challenge to the FCC repeal action and lose the effort to have that repeal preempt state neutrality laws. Win/win and Lose/moot are also possibilities.