The FCC Can't Help Cities Trapped By Predatory Internet Deals With Big Telecom

Jason Koebler writes: At least 20 states have laws that make it illegal for communities to offer local government-owned high speed internet access. Wednesday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler threw consumers a bone by suggesting that the agency could make it easier for cities to skirt those laws. That's a great first step — but many cities have locked themselves into telecom company-caused messes the FCC probably can't fix. The FCC's power becomes much less certain once you drill into the other major reason—besides state laws—why cities can't offer broadband to their constituents: local, long-term agreements with internet service providers.

Comments

A Question from a Stupid Foreigner.

[newcastlejon]

If the FCC is seemingly so impotent to regulate the industry, just what the hell are you guys paying it to do?

Re:A Question from a Stupid Foreigner.

[sexconker]

If the FCC is seemingly so impotent to regulate the industry, just what the hell are you guys paying it to do?

Prevent breasts from being shown on TV.

Re:A Question from a Stupid Foreigner.

[Trepidity]

As with many things in the U.S., it boils down to the complex relationship between different levels of government. Telecom is regulated largely at the national level, but in part at the local level. The right to sign monopoly deals with local providers is one right that is delegated to local government, under current law anyway. So if a given local government actually signs such a deal, they're stuck with it.

Re:A Question from a Stupid Foreigner.

[alen]

a town or city signs a deal with a company to provide services to citizens with all kinds of conditions to protect both sides
what is the FCC supposed to do about it? any town or city can pull out of the contract, they just have to pay up, lose revenue or whatever the contract says the terms are

now this comcast/verizon vs netflix issue, that's a different story

Re:A Question from a Stupid Foreigner.

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Breasts on TV would be the end of American civilization itself.

You mock, but a child exposed to such things would be horribly scarred, psychologically. The economy would ultimately suffer as well from the burden of supporting them.

Re:A Question from a Stupid Foreigner.

[Anonymous Coward]

I advocate that we blind children at birth:
- it would prevent any trauma caused by wardrobe malfunctions
- it would prevent kids from seeing their own penis/vagina (and immature women from seeing their own breasts)
- it would prevent kids from seeing any and all the horrors of this world

(and if it works, I suggest we deafen them too so they don't ear all the swear words and heathen rethorics)

Re:A Question from a Stupid Foreigner.

[rusty0101]

Yes, but they don't live the American Dream. Crushing debt for health care, lifetime fear of being told that you're not employable because of a non-debilitating chronic disorder, the opportunity to give up all rights to have courts redress grievances because you 'liked' the defendant at some point in your life, which mandated that you go through binding arbitration through lawyers paid by the defendant in a non-ethically questionable arrangement. After all, "That's the American Way!" these days.

Re:A Question from a Stupid Foreigner.

[ColdWetDog]

Yeah, but you guys are Socialists.

Re:A Question from a Stupid Foreigner.

[webnut77]

This. Breasts on TV would be the end of American civilization itself.

You mock, but a child exposed to such things would be horribly scarred, psychologically. The economy would ultimately suffer as well from the burden of supporting them.

We already have a way of supporting them. It's called a bra.

FCC - what it does

[mveloso]

Title 47

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...

I don't particularly want to understand the FCC's area of authority, so here is Title 47.

Local government mismanagement

[Kohath]

Your local governments made sweetheart monopoly deals to get cable money. Now you think the solution is for your local government to make a different kind of sweetheart monopoly deal for municipal internet access?

Open up local wired infrastructure to competitive use instead. The wire is in the ground. End monopoly access to it. Let companies compete for subscribers.

Re:Local government mismanagement

[DaAdder]

How about doing what has been done in the US, and is being done successfully all over the world:

Let the local government own the network.

Either the local government makes their own infrastructure company for maintenance and development of the network itself, or let an established company do it.
The point being of course, that everyone can buy access and then sell services in the network. Whoever runs the network publicly document costs, and charges everyone the same, cost based, non-profit fee.

Meaning you have close to the perfect competitive environment, in a future proof network environment that will benefit the consumer/citizen AND corporations alike, no matter what the current size of the corporation happens to be.

It's proven successful, easy, fast and functional everywhere it's been tried. Why not try it yourselves?

Re:Local government mismanagement

[Rick Zeman]

Nah, I think the local government should review the contract to confirm that the provider is meeting their obligations. If they are not, then a simple contract cancellation due to non-performance of the provider should be all it takes to clean up the mess.

LOL, you must be new to this country.

Re:Local government mismanagement

[sir-gold]

If the wire was used entirely for broadband, instead of 300 channels of crap nobody watches and 10 million phone lines that nobody wanted, it would be enough bandwidth to make the entire fiber-optic debate moot (for another 30 years anyway)
 

politicians put the public over that barrel. Tea p

[raymorris]

The local governments, the politicians, made those deals because it gave them what they want (campaign money). They aren't over a barrel, they are perfectly happy with the arrangement. When a citizens' group ASKS them what they think about the public getting screwed, they'll SAY they don't like it. They made the deal willingly, though. It's the public that they stuffed into the barrel.

I'm not a tea party member, so maybe I shouldn't speak for them, but I'm pretty sure they are AGAINST having the government outlaw competition like this. I think the Tea Party way would be that anyone who wants to offer better, faster service should be allowed to do so, and the government shouldn't stop them. Currently, local governments outlaw competition. I don't think that's what Tea party people want.

Re:politicians put the public over that barrel. Te

[reanjr]

The Tea Party people want whatever the Koch brothers tell them to want. If the Koch brothers have a stake in telecom, I bet most teabaggers support these contracts.

Re:Google "cable franchise"

[guises]

In order to humor you, I have Googled the term "cable franchise." It seems to be exactly what I said: a grant of privileged status given in exchange for promises of particular service. Something quite different from outlawing competition. However, the legal dictionary had a result pertaining to cable television franchises: "The 1992 Cable Act ... abolished the exclusive franchise agreement."

It then went on to talk about how later deregulation (in 1996) has since led to cable consolidation, less competition, and higher prices.