But what is it?
Washington yesterday became the first state to set up its own net-neutrality requirements after USA regulators struck down Obama-era rules that banned internet providers from blocking content or interfering with online traffic.
Residents of Washington State are getting so-called net neutrality rules back, with the nation's first state law that prevents internet service providers from blocking and slowing down content online.
Washington's bill received strong bipartisan support in both chambers of the Legislature, overcoming the objections of opponents who said the state should wait for Congress to enact nationwide legislation.
On February 22, a coalition of 23 state attorneys general challenged the FCC in the DC Circuit, alleging the new order violated USA federal law, including the Communications Act of 1934. But Oregon's measure wouldn't put any new requirements on internet providers. Internet service providers said they weren't necessary, and could restrict the expansion of faster internet into underserved areas.More news: Eden Hazard will now want to leave Chelsea, says pundit
CNET reports that the bill was signed into law yesterday. 23 attorneys general have also filed a challenge to the repeal, and the Senate is working on a resolution that might undo the FCC's vote as well. The tone-deaf celebration was a pretty hollow attention seeking move, but was also an ouroboros of blistering idiocy.
Montana's order, for instance, bars telecommunications companies from receiving state contracts if they interfere with internet traffic or favor higher-paying sites or apps.
Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed into law rules banning ISPs from blocking content, throttling traffic, or accepting payment for prioritization.
It will likely take more than a year for these lawsuits to be decided, one way or the other, but the new FCC rules will go into effect in the interim. They go into effect June 6.
"This is not a partisan issue", said Norma Smith, a Republican who co-sponsored the bill. With federal authorities moving in the opposite direction, do states have any leeway to implement their own rules?