Slashdot Mirror

It's the typical business model in most cities as far as cable companies go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_franchise_fee. This is an extension of rules created under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, which probably never anticipated cable companies becoming internet service providers. Here're the specific city laws for Seattle, though most cities will have something similar. Technically there's nothing there that necessitates a monopoly, but there's also nothing stopping a company from acquiring a non-compete clause either, which means they're legally the only company that has rights to offer service. Comcast was quite notorious for doing that.

There are also a large number of states which have laws that attempt to hinder or outright prevent local municipalities from creating their own ISP, which almost ensures they'll have to deal with one of the large national ISPs.

Personally I'm of the opinion that cities should be in charge of their own infrastructure (they can contract this out to some private entity if they feel they lack the ability to do this effectively themselves) and allow various companies to offer competing services to the city's residents. The problem has been that cities tried to treat internet access like a utility without bothering to put any rules in place for price restrictions or service requirements.

The issue is not NN but competition. We have an issue with monopolies because the government... local and state mostly grants exclusive franchise licenses to run cable to no more than two companies typically.

Nope. Still got it wrong, Karmashock? Why do you knowingly repeat something you admit, even in this post, that you recognize is false? Congress outlawed that over 20 years ago, in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

And in fact, many municipal and state codes specifically indicate that any license granted for use of public rights-of-way and easements must be non-exclusive.

that people presume to be surprised when abusive and monopolistic behavior occurs when you grant companies monopolies is baffling.

That you, an individual, mistate the problem, even when you've been repeatedly informed of the error you are making, is not at all baffling, you found your easy answer, and now you're simply refusing to reassess the problem and actually understand the situation.

You do not have the right to such ignorance.

And you don't have the right to willfull blindness.

Grant right of way access to poles and conduits for third party last mile ISPs and all this NN stuff becomes irrelevant.

Nope. You neglect to mention the most important part. You actually have to have the connections run, you can't just magically declare the problem solved, there actually needs to be provisioning.

Google is having a hard time running cable. That is how bad and how corrupt these franchise agreements are right now. And if google with all its resources is having a hard time then what chance does anyone else stand?

Google has actually gotten numerous franchise agreements, because, contrary to your initial false assertion, the issue was not exclusivity.

Whether or not Google is having a "hard time" because of "how bad" and "how corrupt" these franchise agreements are right now, is not something you've provably established either, but at least it's not blatantly false. So there is that. If you can't do anything else, maybe you should stick to claiming there's corruption instead.

Unfortunately, you'll still likely be ignoring some of the realities of the situation, so you shouldn't stop there, but expand your perceptions and seek more information.

Here some fool will say that such agreements are illegal. De Jura they are... De facto they're the law of the land. Try to run cable and see what I mean. You can't. Only former Bell Companies and TV Cable companies are running last mile cable. This isn't because other people don't want to run cable or can't afford to run cable or because there isn't a market. It is because if you try... you are denied.

Oh, so the braying fool who willfully cites a false reason from the beginning, presents a blustering defense. Why don't you refrain from a poor phrasing, and describe your problem without resorting to something you know is inaccurate? It'll actually improve your own position, rather than make you look like an obstreperous fool who can't manage to present his ideas without deliberat

Regarding power and telephone lines, most newer neighborhoods in the US have them underground. Not all neighborhoods, of course, but many. The Reno code requires underground utilities in new developments:

--
All new or relocated utility distribution and service facilities, including communication and cable television, shall be placed underground except surface mounted transformers located in conformance to applicable setbacks
--

https://www.municode.com/libra...

Jacksonville, FL.

Thank you for the pointer. In researching the franchise for this city, I find this. It appears that Florida has actually decided to remove cable franchising from the local municipalities and taken it on as a state function. One thing I do note is that there is no statement that the franchises issued by the state of Florida are exclusive, and lacking that provision, they are not.

What is interesting in light of the previous cited law, is this municipal code. It clearly states that the franchise shall be non-exclusive. Most of this code appears to have a 2003 origination date, but a part of it was updated in 2011. Clearly, Jacksonville thinks they still issue franchises. In any case, as of 2003 franchises were, indeed, non-exclusive.

As to "cable broadband", there is nothing in the Jacksonville Municipal Code that I can find regarding issuing franchises for that service, but section 710.124 does require any cable franchisee to provide:

(b) High speed "Internet" access service to Duval County public schools.

and includes a provision that should the incumbent franchisee fail to provide adequate service the city can require "an additional Franchisee" to do so. If there can be additional Franchisees providing the same service, then the original franchise is clearly non-exclusive.

If you find the reference to the monopoly that the PUC was asked to remove for cable internet, please pass that along. I know of no franchising authority for ISPs, and clearly with the proliferation of them over the years, any such franchise would have to be non-exclusive, were it to exist. Or were you referring to the monopoly that telcos do have as exclusive franchisees and not to Comcast?

Fighting is legal in Seattle, unless it poses danger to third parties.
https://www.municode.com/libra...

I'm not quite sure that says it's legal. It says that it's illegal in public unless either self-defense or licensed/authorized by law. The remaining part not addressed is fighting in private. Granted the rule is that anything not specifically made illegal is considered legal, but what that particular law doesn't tell us is whether or not there are any other laws that specifically address fighting in private.

But in the case of their sample screenshot for the app, it clearly discusses fighting in public "meet me behind 5th ave deli parking lot". The map next to it appears to be Harlem, NY. Not sure what the laws are in NY, but I doubt fighting in public is legal there.

Fighting is legal in Seattle, unless it poses danger to third parties.
https://www.municode.com/libra...

If it's legal in one city, I'd hazard a guess it's not a felony. No one commenting here so far has referenced any law that says it's illegal in any jurisdiction.

Turns out I was wrong here -- the ordinance does already exist :

13-1-1 - DEFINITIONS. ...
(6) AIRCRAFT means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

13-1-11 - CERTIFICATION REQUIRED.
(A) This section does not apply to a person properly assigned to operate an aircraft by military authority.
(B) A person may not operate an aircraft in or over the corporate limits of the city unless:
(1)the person has an airman's certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration; and
(2)the aircraft the person is operating has received a certificate of air worthiness from the Federal Aviation Administration.
(C)The operator of an aircraft in the corporate limits of the city shall deliver the operator's airman's certificate and the aircraft's certificate of air worthiness to a police officer or airport official on demand.
Source: 2003 Code Section 13-1-4; 1992 Code Section 17-2-4; Ord. 040729-16.

Of course, that ordinance is so vague that it effectively bans all hobbyist R/C airplanes in the city -- including at the two R/C club fields in town -- all the time, not just just during SXSW. It also bans paper airplanes. And kites. And frisbees too. (Letting your bird fly is OK, however, as birds are not devices.)

And it's been this way since at least 2003, though I don't think anybody really thought that it might apply to all of these things until now. Selective enforcement of the laws is rarely a good thing, and now that the cat is out of the bag it'll be interesting to see how this will be selectively enforced after SXSW is over.

Common sense, first of all. Does it harm someone or something? Could it easily harm someone or something if misused? Does it interrupt any other government function? Have you ever heard of someone getting in trouble for anything similar?

When the answer to any of those questions is "yes", it warrants further investigation. Go to a library. Ask the librarian for help. They actually do far more than just point out books. Often, they can help you with understanding the law in question (though note that they are not authoritative sources of legal advice... those are lawyers).

Don't just assume that laws are complicated. Here's a few examples of laws chosen nearly at random. They're all pretty simple to read, though a few of them require skipping over large definition sections or clarifying clauses. In fact, consider this a challenge: Find me an American law that can't be understood with high-school reading skills.

This was in Denver, seems like the city government is pretty with it on the interwebs.

Hmm, since the last time I looked it seems to have become available free through lexis/nexis but the view window is minuscule for no apparent reason. I guess I'll have to try to capture it. Hmm, javascript-protected. I can scrapbook each page manually, but they don't actually provide anything trivially downloadable.

Yes, they are published, in huge books that I can read down at the library. I have to start with the Criminal Code Act 1899, then apply all the amendments that have been voted in over the last 100+ years. And then I have to look at verdicts of court cases in my state that establish presidents about how that law is interpreted. After all that I am not sure if I will have enough time for my day job!

That is the excuse that lazy losers use.

You will have enough time for your day job. You will not, however, have time to watch television or otherwise waste your day.

If you need to get educated on the quick for a court case:

First, get a good thick book on Constitutional Law. I recommend:

Constitutional Law, ISBN 1-58360-538-X

This is useful for the major issues of your defense. It has indexes both of keywords and relevant cases as well as a glossary of big words in case your English isn't quite up to speed.

Amazon will literally ship you a used copy for $4.00

Your next stop will be Google, to research your state's Rules of Criminal Procedure or Rules of Civil Procedure, according to the nature of the charges against you.

For my home state, Alabama, the relevant links are:

http://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rules_crim_procedure.cfm
http://judicial.alabama.gov/library/rules_civ_procedure.cfm

You want to pay special attention to the "Depositions and Discovery" part of your state's procedural rules.

Bear in mind that your magistrate may well not know the rules governing criminal procedure.

Relevant anecdote: I got a ticket last year for running a stop sign. I decided to fight it. When I went to the magistrate's office to inquire about the procedure for discovery, the magistrate did not know what form to use. She eventually gave me a form. The form was a civil form and the charge was criminal, but I gleaned enough from the verbiage on the form that she gave, to track down the right form online.

The lesson: Always double check the forms you receive.

If the charge is handled by your municipal court, have a look at http://www.municode.com/ . It is a library of municipal codes for various towns.

Relevant anecdote: I have successfully used the Municode site to avoid a civil charge for putting commercial advertising flyers into newspaper boxes in a neighboring town, by pointing out that the town's "no door-to-door" law made no mention of newspaper boxes or curbside flyers, and pointing out that several local advertising papers are loaded into the same newspaper boxes every morning.

The mouth-breather on the other end of the phone sounded arrogant and was going to charge me, right up until I cited the relevant Chapter and Section of the city municipal codes.

After that he couldn't get me off the phone fast enough, and I never heard anything about it again.

The lesson: If you have all your ducks in a row, the "authorities" will go look for easier prey.

I will tell you this: when dealing with "city hall", leave your ebonics, hillbilly-bonics, cowboy hats, doo-rags, metallica shirts, little wayne shirts, and fake fingernails at the house. If you have neck tattoos or tattoos below the elbows, wear a long-sleeved turtleneck.

For people who are very poor, take $10 to your local thrift store and buy a suit. If you can't afford that, go to a local shelter or church and explain your situation. They might help you out, and it never hurts to ask.

If you look like a trashy loser, you will be treated like a trashy loser.

If you talk like a trashy loser, you will be treated like a trashy loser.

Relevant anecdote: I once went to court for a traffic ticket. I had on polished boots, khakis, a blazer and a nice white button-up shirt and c

IANAL, but the following comes straight from the horse's mouth. I will use Denver as an example locality.

Infractions are civil matters. You cannot get arrested for them (DPOM 204.06.3.c, "Arrests for traffic infractions are not allowed."), and you won't go to jail for them -- not unless you do something else, like failing to show up for a court date, that is. Local laws (state / municipal) usually default to treating everything as a criminal offence (DRMC 1-13) and enumerating what isn't (DRMC 54-4). You can be arrested when you commit a crime -- that is a criminal act, and infractions aren't (CRS 16-3-102 "A peace officer may arrest a person when: [...](b) Any crime has been or is being committed by such person in his presence") (DPOM 204.05.2.a "No individual will be jailed on misdemeanor traffic charges, including D.U.I., unless one of the following criteria is met [...]").

CRS is very clear in defining the scope of rules in title 16, I'm not making it up: "This code is intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding." (CRS 16-1-103). An infraction is not a crime, thus 16-3-102 does not apply, and the police operations manual (DPOM) clearly restates that.

Of course other jurisdictions may vary.

IANAL, but the following comes straight from the horse's mouth. I will use Denver as an example locality.

Infractions are civil matters. You cannot get arrested for them (DPOM 204.06.3.c, "Arrests for traffic infractions are not allowed."), and you won't go to jail for them -- not unless you do something else, like failing to show up for a court date, that is. Local laws (state / municipal) usually default to treating everything as a criminal offence (DRMC 1-13) and enumerating what isn't (DRMC 54-4). You can be arrested when you commit a crime -- that is a criminal act, and infractions aren't (CRS 16-3-102 "A peace officer may arrest a person when: [...](b) Any crime has been or is being committed by such person in his presence") (DPOM 204.05.2.a "No individual will be jailed on misdemeanor traffic charges, including D.U.I., unless one of the following criteria is met [...]").

CRS is very clear in defining the scope of rules in title 16, I'm not making it up: "This code is intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding." (CRS 16-1-103). An infraction is not a crime, thus 16-3-102 does not apply, and the police operations manual (DPOM) clearly restates that.

Of course other jurisdictions may vary.

In San Antonio you need a food permit to sell prepackaged food http://library.municode.com/HTML/11508/level3/PII_C13_AI.html#PII_C13_AI_s13-3 check the definition of food establisment.

In San Antonio you would need a license if you owned the machine. Here are excerpts from the municipal code for San Antonio.

Definition:
Food establishment shall mean an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption:

Food establishment includes:
(3) An establishment that offers only prepackaged foods that are not potentially hazardous;

Seems that selling anything but fresh fruit or vegetables is covered by food establishment and needs a permit. Check out the code http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11508&stateId=43&stateName=Texas

Since the definition of food includes edible items, the edible panties would be considered food and the sellers would need a permit.

Well, /. is just sooo full of laywers! ;)

But anyway, like I said, every jurisdiction probably has its own laws about this.

For instance, search for "lawful order" (including the quotes) in the Kansas City Code of Ordinances.

No, just a traffic violation.

http://library2.municode.com/mcc/home.htm?infobase =10122&doc_method=cleardoc, scroll to Sec. 21-259

Every city has weird laws like this. If they want to nail the kid, there's a good bet they'll find SOMETHING to pin on him.

Yes it is bad.

For the first example consider public records. Yes another database provider may manually reconstruct the entire set of public records each government entitiy creates. What happens when the government entity then enters into contract with the database provider to submit an electronic dataset. For example check out MuniCode. I could go down to my local city hall and get an entire copy of the municipal codes and manually type them and post them. However, this places me at a severe disadvantage over MuniCode. In fact this bill could prevent government agencies from selling electronic data submissions to multiple vendors since once the first vendor receives the data he may claim copyright on the collection and sue the government agency.

For the second example, consider telephone directories. The local telephone provider has a nice monopoly on this data since they are the creator and maintainer of the data. Once they publish the "phone book" it becomes a database. The only way another company can compete to produce directories would be to manually contact each home, business, etc. and collect the information from them. It would be illegal to simply copy the text of the phone book, rearrange it and publish with added value. BTW, check the link in the editorial linked to in the /. story post -- this happened!!! With this law it would be illegal!!!

In many places, if you want to read your city's laws, you need to pay for a license or go down to city hall and read their copy.

Many, many cities, and probably all States have their searchable Code online.

You can also search the Codes of quite a number of cities here