FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike

tlhIngan writes Municipal broadband is in the news again — this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks and warned the (Democrat-led) FCC to not do anything that a future Republican led FCC would dislike. The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment.

Comments

yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck that guy

Re: yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Free marketism.
It's a fundamentalist religion.

Re: yeah

[SpockLogic]

Free marketism. It's a fundamentalist religion.

In other news Matthew Berry announced that he was looking forward to taking a highly paid position as VP for Media Obfuscation with a nationwide cable company in the near future.

Re: yeah

[lgw]

This has nothing to do with "free marketism", unless you're in the market for strawmen. This is the opposite.

Do you think most towns can just stand up a muni broadband network on their own? No - they're going to hire some company to build and run their MAN, just the way that many utilities work.

This is existing corporate giants, which have government granted monopolies in many areas (the polar opposite of free marketism), using their political muscle to block competition from new "utility" companies who would be stealing their business.

Re: yeah

[ShanghaiBill]

This has nothing to do with "free marketism", unless you're in the market for strawmen. This is the opposite.

The problem is that the term "free market" is used to mean two completely different things. It is used by economists to mean a market free of barriers to competition. But the same term is often used by others to mean a market free of regulation, which is often the opposite. In this case, the Republicans are opposed to regulations that would make the market more competitive, so they are using free market rhetoric to oppose free market competition. This is a shameful stance for them to take, and goes against the very principles they claim to stand for.

Re: yeah

[theshowmecanuck]

Government granted monopolies. How does this differ in practice to the current industry created cartels?

Re: yeah

[ArmoredDragon]

But the same term is often used by others to mean a market free of regulation, which is often the opposite.

Not quite. Regulations currently forbid a free market in this case. What they're proposing is regulation to remove regulation, which is a good thing in my opinion (and yes, I'm one of those evil free market libertarians.)

In my opinion, regulation is perhaps the biggest barrier to faster internet connectivity. Not regulation by the federal government, but regulation by the smaller governments. To include but not limited to regulation that forbids community broadband, regulation that says they have to pay absurdly high lease rates to run cabling through conduit, etc.

Don't ever allow the Republicans to say they are opposed to regulation. Quite the opposite; they love regulation.

Re: yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think most towns can just stand up a muni broadband network on their own? No - they're going to hire some company to build and run their MAN, just the way that many utilities work.

I and a friend, ie. 2 people have built 4 municipal broadband networks on our own for 4 separate townships in New Zealand.

So, no, building broadband networks is not difficult and it's not particularly expensive. The hardest part, in New Zealand, at least, is arranging suitable backhaul connections for the networks. Everything else is just leg work and gumboots.

Re: yeah

[Darinbob]

It's about "state's rights". We used to think it was about local control, the small state versus the big federal government. Now we learn it's about removing all control from things smaller than the state as well. State's rights means they don't want a government with power higher up on the food chain than they are, and no government with power lower on the food chain either.

Re: yeah

[Darinbob]

Your argument can be read as both in favor of the ban on municipal broadband as well as opposed to the ban on municipal broadband. It depends on who you think the "government granted monopolies" are, the ones dominating most of the state where no free market exists or the one at the municipal level brought in as a balance of power.

Municipalities should absolutely have the right to do this. This is the local citizen standing up to the status quo of monopolies. The republicans should be the ones backing this since they often are the ones claiming to support individual freedoms and local control rather than a distant out of touch government.

There are municipal run power and water utilities which very often are cheaper than the big boy competitors and much more reponsive to local needs. The same should be true of municipal cable and broadband. It's either that or a country with no choice but Comcast.

Re: yeah

[geekoid]

I'm one of those stupid free market libertarians.
FIFY
Whole history of corporate abuse without regulation and you ignore it.

"In my opinion, regulation is perhaps the biggest barrier to faster internet connectivity"
Your opinion is based on what facts? Every high speed internet service in every other country has as much or more regulation then the US.

Re:yeah

[JosKarith]

"We're not in charge, but we want you to behave as if we were cos' we might well be someday."
The sheer brass balls of his arrogance astounds me.

Re: yeah

[cyber-vandal]

I live in the heavily regulated UK and I have a choice of cable from one provider at 152Mbps, FTTC at 78Mbps from about 6 others or normal ADSL2 at around 17Mbps from about 40 others. The infrastructure (with the exception of cable) is run by the former government monopoly which is required by law to sell access to its network to other providers. The barrier to entry is the expense of creating the infrastructure in the first place which would exist even if there was no regulation.

Re: yeah

[Mr D from 63]

I agree municipalities should, in general, have the right to install utilities, broadband included. But I also like the idea of state control more than federal control, as it typically promotes more models that can be compared. In the case of municipal broadband, there are a range of successes and failures, including some big money losers. If State money is being used, then the States need to be able to determine the rules. If you don't want State level control, then let the local municipalities & citizens pay for the broadband utility build if they want, but they should also pay the debt if they fail and not ask for a State or Federal bail out.

Re: yeah

[Jason Levine]

This is existing corporate giants, which have government granted monopolies in many areas (the polar opposite of free marketism), using their political muscle to block competition from new "utility" companies who would be stealing their business.

Even worse, this is often corporate giants, which have government granted monopolies in some areas, using their political muscle to block new "utility" companies from serving areas where the corporate giants have refused to serve but want to keep their options open to decide to serve (sans competition) at some unspecified point in the future.

In other words, how dare Random Township try to set up a municipal broadband network to serve their citizens! They should sit back and wait with dial-up only until Comcast, Charter, etc decides they are worthy (read: profitable) enough to get broadband service!

Re: yeah

[lgw]

Oh, don't be naive about the local governemnts though. This is a federal politician owned by Comcast standing up against local politicians who would like to receive large donations from a new utility company (or who have a nephew they'd give the business to, or whatever), since they held out for too large a bribe from Comcast themselves and came up empty.

But it's getting pretty crazy that the "last mile" isn't a public utility.

Re: yeah

[WorBlux]

The teleco industry in the U.S. is/was extremely regulated, it's just not regulated very well. Additionally many of those countries have much higher population densidies.

Re: yeah

[WorBlux]

There's another option which is the let the last mile be publicly owned and get companies to bid to deliver to the public infrastructure. And the ripping up roads is less and less of an issue with new horizontal trenching methods. Anyways it can be limited to what is neccessary with the appropriate fee scheduale.

Re: yeah

[TemporalBeing]

Free marketism. It's a fundamentalist religion.

He's not advocating for a free market. A free market would allow municipal broadband.

Re: yeah

[TemporalBeing]

I agree municipalities should, in general, have the right to install utilities, broadband included. But I also like the idea of state control more than federal control, as it typically promotes more models that can be compared. In the case of municipal broadband, there are a range of successes and failures, including some big money losers. If State money is being used, then the States need to be able to determine the rules. If you don't want State level control, then let the local municipalities & citizens pay for the broadband utility build if they want, but they should also pay the debt if they fail and not ask for a State or Federal bail out.

US Constitution puts things primarily in local control; State is there to moderate the localities, and Federal is there to moderate the states. But it is first and foremost about the people being able to have control.

That said, there's been a lot of "take" at both the Federal and State levels that leave the localities with little control much of the time. All of that needs to change.

Re: yeah

[Tamerlin]

In this case, the Republicans are opposed to regulations that would make the market more competitive, so they are using free market rhetoric to oppose free market competition. This is a shameful stance for them to take, and goes against the very principles they claim to stand for.

The real failure here isn't the corrupt, self-serving republicans. It's the sheer idiocy of the people who still vote for them in spite of the fact that the republicans are in favor of things that hurt everyone in the country, like comcrap's monopoly.

That's not to say that the democrats are any better; they get bribes from the same lobbyists as the republicans, after all. If america were a nation of educated people, neither party would get any votes.

Re: yeah

[astar]

Dark fibre is about $400 a meter due to trenching etc. On a spool it is say $2 a meter. There is a lot more dark than lite but try buying dark!

I think the conduit is often a natural monolopy. Who should own it?

Muni and coops CAN put their own conduit in along with fibre and so on. The trick us that they cannot reasonably do a big big bang CAPEX investment. But they really do not need to do so if they are willing to DYI over say 20 years.

now ask yourself not only why you do not have single mode fibre to your apartment but when you look out the window you see power poles.

Re: yeah

[david_thornley]

In the case of natural monopolies (like anything that involves running something to individual houses), having a single regulated company has been shown to work well. That's how I get phone service, electrical power, and natural gas. The water and sewer connections go to city facilities. I have almost no problems with any of that.

Why shouldn't a town do its own fiber network? It's not going to be as complicated as water and sewer systems. Why not hire a company to do it? In what way is it more complicated than phone service?

When competition can work, a free market is generally the best way to arrange things. When there are really big barriers to entry, and massive waste if competition does occur, a regulated monopoly is the way to go.

Re: yeah

[lgw]

If we had a non-corrupt government at any level, we'd have "last mile" as a public utility and a free market for the long haul. If makes so much damn sense that it will never happen.

Re: yeah

[Darinbob]

I don't think these politicians are asking for state control either, they want to relinquish everything to existing companies.

Correction:

[Type44Q]

this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks

He's endorsed the right of the people in each state to get bent over by massively-corrupt telcos with their monopolistic behaviors - by reinforcing their monopolies - all in the name of a free market (despite the fact that it's anything but).

FTFY.

Re:Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, he's being a Republican.

Re:Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: Republicans don't just do this with the telco industry.

And yes, they are far worse than the Dems. Grow up.

Re: Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you get to vote in or out the Comcast ceo like you get to do with the city mayor ?

Re: Correction:

[bobbied]

Do you get to vote in or out the Comcast ceo like you get to do with the city mayor ?

You can, if you own enough stock.

Re:Correction:

[Chas]

In other words, he's being a Republican.

No you jackass. He's being a politician.

Republican, Democrat, WHATEVER, they're all saying the same thing to you (whatever they think will make you vote for them) now, and doing whatever the fuck they can to maximize benefit to their personal pocket book later.

If you think this is somehow mitigated by party affiliation, you REALLY need to stop abusing your prescriptions and hike your way out of fantasy land.

Re:Correction:

[Trailer Trash]

this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks

He's endorsed the right of the people in each state to get bent over by massively-corrupt telcos with their monopolistic behaviors - by reinforcing their monopolies - all in the name of a free market (despite the fact that it's anything but).

FTFY.

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town. If the city comes in and serves only the tightly packed businesses, they can easily offer the service at a lower price and still make money or break even, and the telco ends up losing their profitable customers and therefore their ability to offset their losses elsewhere.

I'm not against "municipal broadband", but they need to be held to the exact same standard as all other carriers in the same area. That might well mean offering service to out of town customers, also.

I didn't understand the fuss until last time this came up and someone in the industry explained it quite clearly in a +5 post.

Re: Correction:

[Calavar]

If you're one of the select few that are so wealthy that you own enough stock to be able to vote out an unpopular CEO (or block a grassroots shareholder movement to do the same), you're either the CEO or his yachting buddy.

Re:Correction:

[NatasRevol]

Republicans are just a bit more blatant about it because it appeals to their idiot constituency.

Re:Correction:

[NatasRevol]

I'll take bad over horrible every day, and twice on the second Tuesday in November.

Re:Correction:

[redeIm]

I'd feel like vomiting if I voted for an evil scumbag. That's why I vote based on my principles, and not just on who is 'less evil.' Productive or not, I refuse to support evil scumbags that the democrats and republicans put forth.

Re:Correction:

[sumdumass]

Do you just not understand what you are saying or are you somehow brainwashed?

You just said that republican politicians are open about lining their pockets while democrats hide it because it's what their voters want. This is the same as saying the republican voters know what they are voting for and democrat voters keep getting the misled in order to vote democrat and you think the republican voters are the idiots?

It seems like you should have another word in there or direct your comment towards another group of people.

Re:Correction:

[mbone]

If you think this is somehow mitigated by party affiliation, you REALLY need to stop abusing your prescriptions and hike your way out of fantasy land.

If you truly believe that, you have seriously not been paying attention these last 45 years.

Re:Correction:

[silfen]

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town.

It's turtles corrupt regulations all the way down! One corrupt regulation begets another!

Re:Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the exact problem with the USPS - they are delivering to all the not-so-profitable rural areas for UPS, FedEx and DHL. The USPS doesn't have a choice in the matter and to boot are forced to fund their things into the future no private company could or would ever fund.

Business people don't have a problem with the USPS arrangement. But now they have a problem when the same rules may apply to them in a negative way?

Please.

People argue that the reason the USPS thing is different is because 'my taxes pay for the USPS!'. No, they don't. The USPS is funded entirely on it's product sales and services.

CAPCHA: dueling

Re:Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town.

That is simply not true. Just look at all the places where verizon has done piss-poor job of rolling out FIOS. All the ISP's have cherry-picked their neighborhoods. DSL even inherently varies in service quality based on the distance to the CO but they still charge customers the same price because they price the service in maximum bitrates not minimum guaranteed bitrates.

Re:Correction:

[Ichijo]

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town.

Subsidies like this for suburban and rural residents is why we have sprawl.

I wouldn't mind paying $10 per gallon of milk in exchange for lower taxes and lower utility costs. (Especially because I'm lactose intolerant!)

Re: Correction:

[theophilosophilus]

A government telco isn't a monopoly?

Re:Correction:

[lgw]

Both parties have, as their first priority, protecting the financial interests of their largest (usually corporate) donors. Both parties lie about this to their voters, claiming to be the party of the common man. The only difference is that some donors don't give to both parties, and so different donors get favored depending on who's in power.

I cant speak for 45 years, but it's been this way for at least 25. Do you disagree?

Re:Correction:

[mellon]

What? No they aren't. This isn't telephone service—it's internet service. There are no regulations requiring them to provide service out in the boondocks. Indeed, Verizon and AT&T received massive government subsidies to expand broadband service to rural customers, and then just decided not to do it and kept the money.

When I lived in rural southeastern Arizona, I got my DSL service from Valley Telecom, a local customer-owned cooperative that provides internet service, telephone and cellular to the poorly served areas of that rather sparsely populated corner of the state. I had 1.5mbps DSL in 2006 10 miles up a dirt road outside of Bowie, Arizona, pop. 300, for a very reasonable price, and VTC was doing just fine financially. It was a bit cheaper than my current service from Comcast, but that's precisely because Comcast only serves the areas where it can make a profit.

Meanwhile, back in Verizon territory, my mom, who is on the selectboard of her town (pop. 1200, small but much more dense than Bowie) could not get any kind of broadband in 2006, and the town wound up having to set up their own municipal broadband wireless service using Motorola Canopy radios and a microwave link to Mt. Tom because that's the only way they could avoid a massive drop in property values due to the lack of this essential service in the town, despite the fact that Verizon had been receiving money to pay for installing broadband to towns just like hers for the previous decade.

So maybe some shill from a cable company told you all about how supporting rural customers is why their service is so expensive, but that's a complete load of bullshit. Local and state governments don't currently have authority to impose regulations of this type on ISPs.

Re:Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price

There's something fishy about this, because every time a story comes up on /. about a telco trying to block a municipality from rolling its own fiber, you can always track the municipality's decision back to the telco refusing to roll out fiber themselves.

Re: Correction:

[Algae_94]

Most companies do not have direct elections for CEO. They have elections for the board of directors and then the board chooses the CEO.

Regardless, you are correct, with enough stock you can vote in your preferred board which would select your preferred CEO.

Re:Correction:

[ColdWetDog]

It's been this way for at least 650 years.

-- Enoch Root

Re:Correction:

[Algae_94]

As sad as it is, the reality in America is that one of the two parties' guys will be the one elected in most races. If you don't like either option, what's so wrong with picking the less bad one?

Re:Correction:

[whistlingtony]

How do you fight a corporation? I'm very curious... :D

I'm very involved in local politics. I've met my state reps, several times. You CAN fight city hall, you just need enough people.

I'm pretty sure that if you posted nasty things about your local government, the cops would not actually beat you and put you in jail. That's a big bit of hyperbole you have there. Corps don't have armies? Ever heard of the Pinkertons? They did a LOT of head busting back in the day. Well, union busting. :D

I guess the point here is that you CAN change an organization if you get enough people, if you organize, and hurt them (either votes or money) until they do what you want. At the heart of it both my city government and a corporation are just large organizations.... But the corporation's bottom line is Profit, and the Government's bottom line is Services Delivered. Both have all the benefits of large organizations (economy of scale, etc) and the drawbacks (corruption, slowness, etc)

Re:Correction:

[Razed By TV]

One counter argument would be the small municipalities who don't get get broadband at all, despite already having the wire/fiber running through their town.

Another counter argument would be the lack of infrastructure upgrades, combined with overselling bandwidth, combined with Verizon not playing fair with Netflix.

As for offering service to out of towners - if a neighboring town wanted to buy service from my municipal broadband, and they were willing to create their own infrastructure to connect with mine, it doesn't sound too unreasonable.

Re:Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Democraps(tm) and Republicants(tm) are two edges to the same sword that is being used to murder the Constitution and America as a country.

Neither party give a damn about anyone or anything except for the top .01% (yes, top 1/100th of the top 1 percent) and Corporations that can line their wallets.

Corporations are not people.

Money is not speech.

It's time for the ass clowns in office to be audited down to the penny, that would include family and friends for the entirety of their lives before office and ever after office. Any kind of link between a government official and a corporation that was impacted by any change in policy, law, etc during that officials tenure will be grounds for immediate incarceration in Gitmo for the rest of their lives with all of their assets, the official, and the corporation being siezed and liquidated and placed in the social security fund, which will now be protected from the general budget under penalty of death.

End the revolving door between lobbyist/government official/corporations.

Re: Correction:

[Ixpath]

This is just intellectually lazy. Both parties are never equally beholden to their wealthiest at any given time. In 2008 the democrats had the majority of large donors. In 2012, for whatever reason large donors overwhelmingly backed Romney. Right now republicans still rely on large donors more heavily. This may change when clinton runs.

Re:Correction:

[VTBlue]

At least you can fight a corporation. You can't fight city hall. I can post negative things about Comcast and try to get the PUC to force them to fix their problems, but if I do that to the city if they owned the fiber, I would be beaten by their thugs in blue and put in jail. It's much better for a private corporation to provide Internet access than someone that has their own army.

main()
{

If(sar_casm) { return ":)"}

else

return ("wtf are you smoking")

Re: Correction:

[VTBlue]

Anyone who has studied corporate shareholder agreements i.e. Lawyers, MBAs, finances ppl, knows that shareholder voting is a joke. Shareholders are not even legally "owners" of the company. This is a myth perpetuated by Friedman and other Chicago school economists. Shareholders are known as "residual claimants" with very limited and restricted rights, and a far far cry from 'owners' in the traditional sense of the word.

Re:Correction:

[VTBlue]

They are monopolies in most cases and oligopolies in the rest. There is no rationale to justify the current broadband build strategy for the US other than monopolistic and abusive.

As for rural broadband initiative, it's not expensive at all. The fact that it was successful speaks more to the political will to deficit spend (which this country badly needs to increase.) Our political class has got it into their heads that federal appropriations need to be paid for in the same way that state gov, local gov, private businesses, and households do. This is FALSE.

Federal taxes do not pay for federal appropriations. "Taxes for revenue is a myth."

Re:Correction:

[VTBlue]

Correction - "wasn't successful"

Re:Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you just not understand what you are saying or are you somehow brainwashed?

You just said that republican politicians are open about lining their pockets while democrats hide it because it's what their voters want. This is the same as saying the republican voters know what they are voting for and democrat voters keep getting the misled in order to vote democrat and you think the republican voters are the idiots?

It seems like you should have another word in there or direct your comment towards another group of people.

It sounded to me like he said no more than that people who vote Republican are bigger ididots than the ones who vote Democrat. Feel free to agree or disagree him but that's what he said.

Re:Correction:

[redeIm]

I vote for people who haven't proven themselves to be evil scumbags, at least.

Re:Correction:

[ukemike]

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town. If the city comes in and serves only the tightly packed businesses, they can easily offer the service at a lower price and still make money or break even, and the telco ends up losing their profitable customers and therefore their ability to offset their losses elsewhere.

I'm not against "municipal broadband", but they need to be held to the exact same standard as all other carriers in the same area. That might well mean offering service to out of town customers, also.

I didn't understand the fuss until last time this came up and someone in the industry explained it quite clearly in a +5 post.

Okay... BUT internet providers are not regulated like the telcos. None of them are forced to provide service to the boonies. So it seems you are arguing that a non-existent present against the possible municipal broadband future.

Re:Correction:

[iluvcapra]

They don't claim their party has anything good about it - it's just "better than Republicans".

In the US we have first-past-the-post plurality voting, in single-seat winnner-take-all elections; "better than the alternative" is all that is required. You don't have to be faster than the bear, just the other guy.

Re:Correction:

[iluvcapra]

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town.

Even granting all of this is correct, this doesn't mean that municipal broadband should be forbidden, it simply means they're competing interests, between a city to offer broadband as a public amenity, versus a franchise to offer it commercially. Maybe it's up to the people of the city to decide which they'd prefer. The market is whatever we make it, even if the incumbent telco market is "free," that doesn't mean that it's "good" or "effective," or that it "does what we want" (perish the thought). Maybe they don't care if they make it hard for local telcos to compete -- municipal water makes it hard for Vivendi to sell water as a profitable enterprise, but no one in the US calls this socialism.

Re:Correction:

[josquin9]

But . . . witih a government run utility, the "shareholders" (i.e. - voters) have interests that generally align with my own (quality of service, cost of service, etc.) because they benefit from the same outcome as I do (better, cheaper service.) With a corporation, shareholders are interested in maximizing the amount of money they take from me, while minimizing the amount of money they spend to provide service.

I'm not saying that government officials and special interests can't get in the way of optimal service, but at least my interests are not in direct opposition to the people who ultimately get to decide what is done.

Re:Correction:

[Coolhand2120]

People argue that the reason the USPS thing is different is because 'my taxes pay for the USPS!'. No, they don't. The USPS is funded entirely on it's product sales and services.

Actually, allowing the USPS to avoid paying taxes of any sort is really a huge subsidy from taxpayers. And that's just the tip of a huge iceberg of benefits that the USPS sucks from the taxpayer's teet.

The USPS doesn't have a choice in the matter and to boot are forced to fund their things into the future no private company could or would ever fund.

Actually, unlike government entities, all private companies are compelled by rule of law to not spend pension funds on their business. The government has never been shy about misappropriating pension funds, just look at how more than 50% of all social security is "borrowed" by the general fund, so much that over 60 TRILLION has been borrowed. If a private company did anything like that the execs would be serving very long prison sentences. But hey! It's the government! So it's all good!

This is the exact problem with the USPS - they are delivering to all the not-so-profitable rural areas for UPS, FedEx and DHL

And nobody likes it. Because USPS service is as slow as any government entity and terrible - and that's not just "my opinion" that's when compared to any other service by any measure including cost. People that live in not so profitable areas need to pay more for living there, not offset the cost on other customers that have done nothing to deserve it. People should pay for the services they get and shouldn't have to pay for someone else. UPS, FedEx or DHL would certainly deliver to these places if the price was right, they just find it more profitable to basically have their delivery service subsidized by taxpayers. And why would you blame them? If someone was walking around handing out $100 bills would you say no?

And despite all of that USPS is still failing. Just shows that you can't run a private company like a government bureaucracy even if you don't have to pay taxes. No wonder everyone avoids USPS like it was the plague. The only way people want to deal with USPS is if there's some money in it for them and that money eventually comes out of the taxpayer's backside.

The government breaks your legs and then gives you a crutch and says "See! If not for the government you wouldn't be able to walk!"

Re: Correction:

[josquin9]

I suspect that he's referring to the idea that a lot of people can't shake that stockhoder voting correlates to the voting booth. In fact, corporations tend to be structured so that one person, or a few "like-minded" people maintain sufficient power that no number of new voters will change the direction of the company, since no newly issued stock goes out without existing shareholders having the ability to buy sufficient shares to maintain their majority status. Companies only change when there are tender offers and the majority shares change hand, being purchased by a new, small cadre of like-minded people. Not because a lot of small shareholders ban together to vote a different way. Individual votes are less meaningful than in a general election.

Re:Correction:

[josquin9]

Just because I know I won't get what I want, doesn't mean I can't vote to make my life less miserable. I hope one day to vote for what I think is right. I've so far only been able to be a thorn in the side of the greater of two evils.

Re:Correction:

[TubeSteak]

What? No they aren't. This isn't telephone serviceâ"it's internet service. There are no regulations requiring them to provide service out in the boondocks.

Cable tv/internet franchises almost always come with a build out requirement,
or the cable companies would never do more than cherry pick profitable areas and build there.

Re:Correction:

[Chas]

Sorry, but if all sides are gigantic, lying pricks, I honestly don't care to stand around dicksizing just so I can declare THE most gigantic, lying prick.

I want them gone. All of them. GONE.

The fact that you're still willing to weigh them against one another shows that you still have some growing to do and some brainwashing to flush out.

Re:Correction:

[Chas]

I bet...

Lemme guess, you play the lottery too.
Did you play Powerball this week? Did you win the jackpot?

Man, your streak is just taking you NOPLACE.

Re:Correction:

[Darinbob]

City hall doesn't have their own army. Mayors get voted out of office every election, some go to jail, they absolutely do not have the dictatorial powers you seem to imply. And the municipalities will get private corporations to run the networks, it's just that these won't be Comcast. If you hate elected politicians so much then why are you so quick to believe what the state level party mouthpieces are saying?

Municipal utilities have been tested and they do work out well. Guess what the PUC does in California, it's best friends with PG&E and other big utilities. That's not the entity you look towards to fix up corruption.

Re:Correction:

[Darinbob]

Subsidy? The USPS is a part of the government, why should they pay taxes? Do they pay the tax to themself? And yet they are self funding, which I would think is some that normally people opposed to government waste would support. Except that it embarrasses the people trying to push the story that all government is inept and incompetent.

Sure it may not be a level playing field with UPS or Fedex, but so what? If we could force those commercial players to lower their rates to USPS rates and to provide universal service, then I'd be more inclined to follow your line of reasoning. When it comes to internet providers the corporations have clearly shown that they have no interest whatsoever in providing universal or reasonable service, which is why municipalities feel the need to have their own service.

Re:Correction:

[Darinbob]

Talk like your could hurt profits.

Re:Correction:

[redeIm]

A thorn? They love you. They know that one of the two will always win, and both parties will have quite a bit of power no matter what. That's a win-win situation for them.

Re:Correction:

[Darinbob]

Ah but here's the snag. The current federal administration is Democrat. This means that the Republican politicians must naturally oppose everything they do. So this means that the FCC is the enemy of the Republican politicians. If the FCC says they're thinking about municipal broadband, well then standard political logic says that Republicans will oppose it.

And besides the current crop of Republicans are opposed to government doing anything at any level, even at the municipal level, even if it was democratically voted on. Especially if it invoves the word "tax".

The math isn't hard:
      Tax goes to government, which goes to small ISP, which gives good service: bad.
      Fees goes to big ISP, most of which goes to profits, which leads to neglected service: good.

Re:Correction:

[Darinbob]

Actually there are some idiots who do call it socialism...

Re:Correction:

[geekoid]

Nope.
Over the last 14 years, the Pubs have been bent on openly doing anything they can to hand everything over to larger corporation. It really start with Reagan, but this millennium they just blatantly lie, and when they get called out their media machine just spreads more lies until people with believe it or the next artificial pub 'controversy' comes up.

Don't talk about the dems as if it's balances. Both have issues, but the pubs have become far worse. The are basically extremist at this point.

You have bought into the the trap the pubs have created. 'Both do the same thing to the same degree therefor it doesn't matter.'

And don't even try to guess how I vote. OTOH, I actual watch CSPAN, read bills, and find the context for any statement a politician make that is reported in the media.
Sound bite manipulation needs to stop.

Re:Correction:

[geekoid]

If you solution is get rid of them all, then you are looking for a silver bullet and are to lazy to think about actually fixing the problem. That tells everyone you need to grow up.

Re:Correction:

[crbowman]

Yes, but remember broadband isn't regulated like telecom. That's part of the whole fight over reclassifying broadband as common carriers so that they would have to comply with net neutrality. True the telecom services (phones but not voip phones) are regulated the way you say, and anything that cherry picks the profitable areas impacts the ability to subsidize the unprofitable ones. But broadband isn't classified in the same way and so I don't think you can say that they are required to offer the services everywhere. Certainly where I live, I'd like to get ATT UVerse which they offer in other part of my Silicon Valley town but not where I live (close to Stanford). I've been asking for it for years and I'd really love to hear that they are obligated to provided it but, clearly, they don't think they are.

Re:Correction:

[geekoid]

I would bet he is a lazy do nothing whiner who hasn't even bother to talk to his representative about anything.

Re:Correction:

[geekoid]

That';s exactly backwards.

", I would be beaten by their thugs in blue and put in jail."
You're a loon.

Re:Correction:

[geekoid]

False.
Dems, as sloppy as they do it, try to build a society of individuals. Pubs has turned to trying to create a society of consumers.

You should take of your 'there all bad, no matter what' hat and really pay attention.
Can you name the last thing any of you representatives have voted on? which way they voted? Their records? have you ever talked to one?
If you are't paying attention to what they are actually doing, not just media sound bites, then you don't know squat, your opinion is worthless baseless tripe, and you should shut up and pay attention.

Re:Correction:

[geekoid]

You are the problem. You are narrow minded, have wildly inaccurate problems and don't do anything.
I've seen citizens affect change far to often.

Re:Correction:

[geekoid]

The USOS has been under attack by the Pubs since the 70s.
It used to be btaz supported, then in 1970 is was changed to break even.
In 1982 stamps stopped being a tax, and became a postal product.
Mean while unusually hire bars keep being put in place and the point to as a 'failure' by pubs.

This is classic for the pubs.
Cut it, give more responsibility, point to it as a failure, try to give the work to private corporations.
You see it over and over again.

The try it with SS. They keep lying that it's broke. It is not.Not even close, but that keep lying until every one believes them, then they will gut it and we will be screwed.
  Last year, the program ran a $32 billion surplus, adding to its $2.7 trillion trust fund. That’s not what I’d call “going broke.” But they raid it when ever they can and then blame it.

They have moved so far away from being fiscal conservative and social moderates to fiscally stupid and ultra conservative socially.

Re:Correction:

[redeIm]

I participate in protests, vote for third parties, write to my so-called "representatives," and encourage others to do the same. I'm no MLK, but I assure you that I am not the cause of this two party shithole.

Re:Correction:

[geekoid]

What are you tlaking about. It ran it's course and then ended when it was designed to. It didn't fail

Re: Correction:

[geekoid]

No, not necessarily.

Re: Correction:

[DamnOregonian]

With enough energy, we could fly to Alpha Centauri A in 1 minute and 15 seconds.
I'm glad we did this exercise.

Re:Correction:

[sjames]

If you think USPS is slow, you must have been in a coma for 20-30 years. They aren't overnight, but they don't charge overnight prices either. Express really moves right along and at a good price.

Re:Correction:

[sjames]

That only applies to telephone service and they are well paid for it.

Most of the municipal internet has come about when the telcos flatly refused to service the area. Because they are the greedy bastards they are, they fought the municipal deployments anyway. They wanted to keep their options open even at the cost of leaving people using dialup and smoke signals.

It's funny, the Rs want to wield federal power to prevent people from banding together and agreeing to stand up a broadband ISP for themselves through the most natural vehicle for providing a public service. How is that at all compatible with the claimed desire to keep the government from interfering with people's lives

Re:Correction:

[sjames]

I'm not all that fond of either one, but sitting out here in 3rd party territory, the Ds seem to be less packed with idiots and crooks.

Re:Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, the last couple packages that I had shipped USPS arrived here several days before the estimate suggested they would.

The only reason why the USPS has budget problems is that they're now required to fund their retirement commitments 100%, typically a responsible business will only fund it to like 80%, the move was done by legislators specifically to put the USPS in this sort of position.

Postal inefficiency hasn't existed on a large scale in the US for many years now. The rate of stamp increases hasn't been keeping up with inflation for some time now and they would be in the black if not for the onerous requirements that legislators put in to protect private sector shipping companies.

Re:Correction:

[Aqualung812]

People that live in not so profitable areas need to pay more for living there, not offset the cost on other customers that have done nothing to deserve it.

Many of those people live in not so profitable areas because they are growing food for people in the profitable areas. Not everyone in a rural area is there to get away from it all.
Also, there are many young people that would LOVE to move away from the sticks, but without access to the Internet at a young age, they'll be stuck on the farm, at Walmart or in the energy business.

Re:Correction:

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps. Or, it just might be, that trickling in freshman congressmen and senators a few at a time is a futile effort because they are essentially powerless unless they 'play ball' with the incumbents who themselves were forced into the same position when they entered. In that situation, wholesale replacement is the best option. Sure there will be growing pains, but for real change to occur, there's going to be.

Re:Correction:

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Cable tv/internet franchises almost always come with a build out requirement

That are then ignored without consequence.

For example a decade ago some company wanted to put fiber (I think it was Verizon) in the new developments across the street from my mom's house where there expensive $750,000+ houses were going in. It was stipulated that they also had to roll out fiber to the rest of the city if they wanted to install in the new developments. 10 years on there still isn't fiber outside of the new developments, and there aren't any plans to install it either.

Re:Correction:

[ultranova]

Republican, Democrat, WHATEVER, they're all saying the same thing to you (whatever they think will make you vote for them) now, and doing whatever the fuck they can to maximize benefit to their personal pocket book later.

It occurs to me that this is precisely what a corrupt politician would say to paralyze the public with hopelessness, so they won't be voted out. It's also what a lay Republican party member would use to excuse their support of a hopelessly corrupt and outright evil organization.

Re: Correction:

[bobbied]

Well, I admit that practically that's how it seems to work, but in reality that's not exactly true.

Generally, you have a number of major stock holders who are individuals, or holding companies like mutual funds or retirement plans. This group usually holds enough stock to form alliances and pack the board of directors with their people. These people then pack the executive management with their people who hire their people and so on. However, it is totally possible for companies to be controlled by a single share holder or group of individuals choosing to vote together. Just buy or control the votes of enough shares and you too can run with the big boys of wall street.

It never happens (or rarely happens) because it can cost you millions of dollars to buy and hold a large portion of a company. But in reality, you can do it with enough cash.

Re:Correction:

[ottothecow]

I think the above poster forgets that there are a number of issues at stake.

If I think that both of them have terrible and misguided ideas when it comes to fiscal issues and corporate regulations, but one of them is a fundamentalist who thinks that gays should be sent to brainwashing camps...I am going to vote for the guy who treats people like people. Things like internet regulations will be so tainted by lobbying that it probably doesn't really matter which congressman you elect--once the winner is decided, the corporate dollars going towards his opponent's campaign will start going towards lobbying the victor. And at least with complex issues, they tend to lean on advisers and experts--often actual bills that get introduced are far less crazy than what was proposed during a campaign because their advisers tell them that their ideas were out of line (not to say the advisers can't be hired by lobbyists too...but at least they know that the internet is not made up of tubes)

Unfortunately, It is much easier to rile up the populace on hot button social issues. Fiscal policy and corporate regulation can be complex and slow moving; it is hard to sway voters based on a 5 year plan that may not ever come to fruition and definitely won't see results during your first term (especially in the House). Much easier to scream about "Ban This" "Legalize That" "Repeal X" and figure out where to draw the line on your "beliefs" such that you get a little more than half of your local population to vote for you.

Re: Correction:

[bobbied]

Oh please. This is exactly how it happens today. The only reason you cannot see it is that much stock is held by institutions (mutual funds, retirement funds, other companies) and not individuals so it's not easy to see who's pulling the strings, but if you start looking at who or what company owns what stock, and start tracing who is getting elected to which companies board of directors it's pretty easy to connect the dots and find out who's pulling the strings.

Come on, all this is public record for the most part. Dig a bit.

Re:Correction:

[Ioldanach]

Cable tv/internet franchises almost always come with a build out requirement, or the cable companies would never do more than cherry pick profitable areas and build there.

Verizon received $23 Billion over 6 years to finance the build-out of FiOS. Their construction budget didn't change from what it would have been without the grant, they built FiOS out in highly profitable areas and then stopped, not completing the project and shifting their focus to wireless. Then they managed to get a roughly $2 rate hike in some places to offset their claimed capital expenditure cost. (which was supposed to come from that grant that didn't appear to change the construction budget)

And all of this was rubber stamped.

So tell me again how they have a build out requirement?

Re:Correction:

[ottothecow]

People who complain about going to the post office have clearly never been to the UPS warehouse.

The few I have been to are pretty depressing and the service makes the USPS clerks look attentive. They are located either in particularly bad parts of town, or in industrial wastelands, unlike the post office which is usually just minutes away. They keep limited hours (and unlike the post office, you can't just drop in at lunchtime because you are probably not anywhere near the UPS warehouse).

Unfortunately, unlike FedEx or USPS, they don't offer free package pickup at your neighborhood location. If you want to re-route a package to a UPS store, you have to pay $5 for the privilege of them not having to bring it to your door.

Re:Correction:

[jandrese]

Sure you can fight city hall: you can vote them out. Try voting out the head of Comcast next time he comes up for an election.

Re:Correction:

[ottothecow]

You don't *really* want U-Verse though, do you?

Half-assed fiber-to-the-node that can't provide anywhere near the speeds that fiber-to-the-home or even a decent cable loop can provide.

Re:Correction:

[TemporalBeing]

I'm not all that fond of either one, but sitting out here in 3rd party territory, the Ds seem to be less packed with idiots and crooks.

Have you looked at Medicare, Medicaide, Welfare, or ObamaCare? Full of crooks. All programs by the Dems.

Re:Correction:

[sjames]

I have and they remain not as bad as snookering the country into a war based on fabricated evidence. Even some of the R's supporters have come to realize that.

Re:Correction:

[NatasRevol]

Seems most everyone disagrees with you.

Re:Correction:

[NatasRevol]

That's the joke, son.

Re: Correction:

[david_thornley]

You can dodge a company,

Really? I'd love to know how to get a low-latency and reasonably reliable net connection over 6Mb/s without involving Comcast.

Re:Correction:

[TemporalBeing]

I have and they remain not as bad as snookering the country into a war based on fabricated evidence. Even some of the R's supporters have come to realize that.

If you're talking about Iraq (which I assume you are), then we were already in an approved war - one that started in the 1990's. Very similar to how we are still technically at war with North Korea (since the 1950's) just have a cease-fire in play. Any how...regarding Iraq - all the intelligence suggested there were WMDs from numerous sources and both parties believed it, not just the Republicans. It wasn't helped at all by Sadam's secrecy and lack of letting the UN see what was going on, which only furthered people believing he actually had WMDs and was hiding them. It wasn't until they were actually able to see things that they could tell the intelligence was bad. No falsication happened; just the inability of intelligence to get at the truth due to the circumstances - like things both US and Russia did during the Cold War to throw the other off, only in Sadam's case it probably had to do more with regional politics than anything else.

Hindsight, as they say, is always 20/20. And as I noted, both sides of the aisle agreed on the intelligence and what it meant.

Re:Correction:

[Coolhand2120]

If you're a farmer and you're getting charged more for deliveries you either get fewer deliveries or you charge more for your food. Either way the flow of resources is sane, that is, people pay for the services they receive and nobody pays for someone else. Once you start making arbitrary judgments that "these" people need subsidies you run the risk of massive abuse, which is what we undeniably have today. Nobody is wise or fair enough to compel other people to give up a portion of their wealth, which is the same as your time and therefore your life, to someone else.

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.

-Abraham Lincoln

Re:Correction:

[sjames]

It is widely understood that the various intelligence sources were INSTRUCTED to get evidence for WMDs if it existed or not.

What hindsight? I predicted that Bush would drag us back into Iraq before he was even elected. He seemed to believe it would stimulate the economy.

The U.N. inspectors were stating plainly at the time that there was no credible evidence for WMDs in Iraq, but they were shouted down.

So yes, there was a hell of a lot of falsification going on and the cost was trillions of dollars, over half a million dead (counting secondary effects), our international reputation in the toilet.

Re:Correction:

[chihowa]

Somehow I'm not surprised.
Asperae facetiae, ubi nimis ex vero traxere, acrem sui memoriam relinquunt.

Re:Correction:

[Chas]

No.

This is surgery. In some cases, with a wound, you can clean it out and it'll heal up nicely.

But, sometimes, it's bad enough that you basically just need to excise the whole thing, till you have nothing but healthy tissue.

That's what needs to happen here.

They all need to go. All the game-players, and special-interest pork farmers. ALL OF THEM.

You don't leave any behind to reinfect the wound.

We can then drop in an entire group new guys and be EXPLICIT about why they now have their jobs and the the other guys are now holding "Will legislate 4 food" signs.

You MIGHT have to do it a couple times. And yeah, it'd be disruptive as hell. But, eventually, the message would be gotten.

Re:Correction:

[Chas]

Sorry, but they're two sides of the same shaved coin.

They talk a good game of bullshit so you actually think there's significant differences.

But the fact is, the US has a one-party system with two marginally differentiated factions who bicker over trivialities whilst selling the country to the highest bidder.

Re:Correction:

[Chas]

Fortunately, in this case, it's what someone who's sick of BOTH "parties" is saying because he wants the entire group of game-players, pork farmers and pretty much ANYONE deeply entrenched in the political process stripped of their job, and have the jobs handed to people who actually want to do the damn job the way it's supposed to be done.

We might have to go through several ENTIRE crops of candidates and basically cripple the government for a few years, but, in the end, the message is sends is this.

"The party's over. Get back to fucking work."

In other words...

[jtgd]

"Don't you dare serve the people, you shall only serve the corporations!"

Re:In other words...

[Ol Olsoc]

You think we should serve Soylent Green instead?

As long as it is done by free market principles (read that, the corporation that pays me the most baksheesh.

Re:In other words...

[sumdumass]

That's exactly right. The federal government is not sovereign over everything in the US. The entire concept was that it was supposed to be spelled out in the constitution and the states which were separate countries only gave up or surrendered the amount of sovereignty to the federal government that was in the US constitution. This is fifth grade history BTW. Over the years, the federal government has been granted more powers by the expansion of several elements within the US constitution by the courts. This expansion is in ways not originally foreseen by the founders or the interpretations of the constitution until it happened. FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes came at a constitutional impasse in which his new deal legislation was deemed unconstitutional and he basically said "so what, I'm the executive and I can enforce it" while the democrat congress threatened to expand the supreme court seats until they could pack enough party supporters in that they had a majority. The end result, before everything blew apart, the Supreme Court ended up allowing the New Deal provisions as a means of the interstate commerce clause. This is why things like the federal minimum wage doesn't apply to companies with less than a certain amount of revenue or some other substantial impact on interstate commerce and will default to whatever the state minimum wage is.

  Bravo indeed. That was what made America the finest in the world at one time. We have lost that position and lost the constitutional separations.

Re:In other words...

[mellon]

You're thinking of the Articles of Confederacy, which preceded the Constitution. Study your history.

Re:In other words...

[sumdumass]

Nope, I'm thinking the US constitution that replaced the articles of confederacy. Like I said, this is fifth grade history.

What do you think this is for?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/con...

Re:In other words...

[Zordak]

You're thinking of the Articles of Confederacy, which preceded the Constitution. Study your history.

No, you're thinking of some government that you just made up. Go read the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment. The states wanted to make it very clear that they were giving the federal government only specific, enumerated powers. Then FDR told the court where it could stick its Constitution (as the GP said) and told them that if they didn't back down, he would stack the court with yes-men who would give him his way. The court backed down, and the result was 75 years of the federal government encroaching into everyday life until you couldn't buy a shower head without Uncle Sam's permission, and people like you who don't even realize anymore that it was supposed to be a government of specific, enumerated powers.

Re:In other words...

[dryeo]

I'm not even American and even I know that only Texas and Hawaii were ever separate countries that gave up their sovereignty to join the USA. It can be said that the original 13 colonies had a choice between signing the articles of confederation or being sovereign countries after the war of separation but as far as I know all 13 signed the articles of confederation and later the constitution.
Seems most of the rest were conquered or purchased territory rather then sovereign independent states that decided to join the USA. At that even some of the original 13 had to be reconquered and forced back into the union, which shows how much sovereignty they actually had.
As for expansion of federal power, its been ongoing ever since 1776 with notable events being the US Constitution, written up by a bunch of guys at the pub who didn't have a mandate to write a constitution (at least the 13 voluntarily signed it), Andrew Jackson who ignored the judiciary branch as he practiced genocide to add States to the USA, and the big one, Lincoln and the new Republican party who actually went to war to push the Federal agenda and after the war, occupied State Legislatures and forced them to pass amendments at gunpoint.

Re:In other words...

[Obfuscant]

"Don't you dare serve the people, you shall only serve the corporations!"

No, in other words, don't assume the right to preempt state regulation because you want to force the states to allow something, based on your interpretation of a law controlling the FCC, because the next group in power will use the precedent YOU created to preempt other state regulations that you might not want preempted. That's a pretty simple, clear message.

If you actually read the article, you'll see THAT is the message he's sending. If you manage to use an interpretation of current laws regarding the FCC such that the FCC can preempt state controls on intrastate matters, then you've just opened the door to many other uses by people you don't want doing the same kind of thing in ways you don't like. I think the phrase "don't be a hypocrite" would apply.

I said it was a clear message, and it is a shame it has to be spoken. It is a shot across the bow, so to speak, for people who support the current FCC attempts to preempt state bans on municipal ISPs, so they'll know that the argument "you aren't authorized to do that" won't apply when the FCC under a potential different political control acts to preempt state regulation of other matters using the same law as justification.

Re:In other words...

[sumdumass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Even Wikipedia gets it right. Sigh..
Perhaps you should explore the articles of confederation and why it was replaced by the US constitution before trying to give a history lesson.

As for expansion of federal power, its been ongoing ever since 1776 with notable events being the US Constitution,

I think I know where you are going wrong here. Either you have no reading comprehension, English is not your first language, or you are intentionally ignoring what was said in order to inject some comment as if you had meaning and insight. What part of "FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes" is so difficult to understand? I guess it would be the words modern and day when put together.

Just because Jackson ignored the Supreme court doesn't really have much to do with the modern day unless you somehow construe it to be the reasoning for FDR's actions involving the SCOTUS.

Re:In other words...

[VTBlue]

You're thinking of the Articles of Confederacy, which preceded the Constitution. Study your history.

No, you're thinking of some government that you just made up. Go read the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment. The states wanted to make it very clear that they were giving the federal government only specific, enumerated powers. Then FDR told the court where it could stick its Constitution (as the GP said) and told them that if they didn't back down, he would stack the court with yes-men who would give him his way. The court backed down, and the result was 75 years of the federal government encroaching into everyday life until you couldn't buy a shower head without Uncle Sam's permission, and people like you who don't even realize anymore that it was supposed to be a government of specific, enumerated powers.

You'd fail law school. 10th amendment is an throw away amendment that holds no legal meaning or legal standard. It's used today to galvanize the states rights / confederate base but there is no sound legal jurisprudence that has ever been accepted by the Supreme Court.

Re:In other words...

[VTBlue]

As a Texan, one thing that most Texans don't recognize is that Texas had a shit economy and was severely in debt, in terms of real goods. It had little productive capacity. The decision to join the union was a economic necessity at the time. Most people unfortunately lose this narrative and supplant it with this patriotic theme which is less than accurate.

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Coward]

10th amendment is an throw away amendment that holds no legal meaning or legal standard. It's used today to galvanize the states rights / confederate base but there is no sound legal jurisprudence that has ever been accepted by the Supreme Court.

Isn't that basically OP's point? That the 10th amendment makes clear the intent to limit the power of the fed, but that it's been ignored? The meaning of the amendments doesn't change just because the courts have decided to pretend they don't mean what they say they do. Does the 1st Amendment not protect a man handing out leaflets in opposition to the draft? SCOTUS unanimously said it didn't in Schenck v. US in 1919. Then fifty years later, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, SCOTUS determined that it actually does. Even Oliver Wendell Holmes jr himself, author of the Schenck opinion outlining the "clear and present danger" test, later admitted that the decision was wrong.

Basically, what it comes down to is that you're arguing about jurisprudence, he's arguing about what it ought to be. Either position has the potential to be wrong. Arguing that your position is correct because the courts said so ignores the fact that courts are not infallible and do, in fact, reverse themselves.

Re:In other words...

[geekoid]

"What part of "FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes" is so difficult to understand?"
the part where it's factually wrong.

Re:In other words...

[sumdumass]

The you should discard your made up facts and get some real ones. FDR was the reason for the expansion of the interstate commerce clause which has been taken to extremes today in government. No one disputes that who knows what they are talking about.

Re:In other words...

[dywolf]

Once again you are posting BS.

It's called the Supremacy Clause.
And it invalidates everything you said.

Re:In other words...

[dywolf]

Again you post BS.

Supremacy Clause.
Article 6, Clause 2.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Re:In other words...

[dywolf]

No. In fact the wording of the constitution itself, and it's drafters' papers, make it quite clear the intent of creating the creating the Constitution, of essentially crating a brand new Government 2.0, was specifically that a STRONGER government was needed precisely because the Government 1.0 under the Articles of Confederation was too weak and powerless to be effective and the young nation was on the brink of dissolving into 13 seperate smaller nations.

When Libertarians talk about the government, and small government, and the ideals of the Constitution, they arent really talking about a return to "strict interpretation", but a return to the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution does put limits on the governmental branches, to keep them going round and round in the "checks and balances" concept, and the states should have jurisdiction where it's logical to do so, but as a whole the Federal Government is intended to be the ultimate law of the land and be able to leverage its greater "economies of scale" (for lack of a better phrase).

Re:In other words...

[sumdumass]

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Read what you just copy and pasted. It says made in pursuance thereof. It does not in any way shape or form say the feds can do anything they want- it says inly laws made in accordance with the constitution are supreme laws of the land.

Re:In other words...

[sumdumass]

Do you guys go to some seminar to get things so clearly wrong? The supremacy clause does not invalidate anything i said. It even specifically requires the acts of government to be in accourdance with the constitution in order to be the dupreme law if the land.

The supremacy clause does not in any way give the feds carte blache over the country.

Wow.. this is simple highschool civics. Even directly reading the supremacy clause would have given you a clue.

Re:In other words...

[Zordak]

You'd fail law school. 10th amendment is an throw away amendment that holds no legal meaning or legal standard. It's used today to galvanize the states rights / confederate base but there is no sound legal jurisprudence that has ever been accepted by the Supreme Court.

I have a JD and a Texas bar card that say otherwise.

Re:In other words...

[Zordak]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, the Constitution was supposed to be stronger than the Articles of Confederation. That is not synonymous with unlimited and all-powerful.

Re:In other words...

[VTBlue]

You'd fail law school. 10th amendment is an throw away amendment that holds no legal meaning or legal standard. It's used today to galvanize the states rights / confederate base but there is no sound legal jurisprudence that has ever been accepted by the Supreme Court.

I have a JD and a Texas bar card that say otherwise.

I'm pretty sure the bar card phrasing makes for a convincing argument in court lol. I'd also wager that the Texas bar doesn't align with the crazy 10th amendment rhetoric in Rick Perry's book, which, if were being honest, is where the current 10th amendment advocacy and thought leadership is at the moment.

Re:In other words...

[Zordak]

The Supremacy Clause does not trump Article 1, Section 8 where the powers of the federal government are specifically enumerated, or the Bill of Rights, which was passed to capture the votes of anti-federalists who feared that the new government would get too powerful if there were not explicit checks placed on its power. Seriously, just read even the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment. This is not some novel, controversial issue to people who have a clue what they're talking about.

Re:In other words...

[sumdumass]

Good start. Now, recall that the constitution granted power over navigable waterways, post offices,
and post roads, to the federal government. In other words, ALL telecommunication (known in
the eighteenth century) was to be managed by Congress, which can (and probably should)
defer details to one or more semiautonomous agencies: thus, the FCC.

Well, for the post offices and post roads, it specifically gives the federal government the ability or authority to create them but does not in any way give them the ultimate authority over all forms of them. If that was the case, the streets running to and from the post office and your house would be owned, maintained, and controlled by the federal government and not your local municipality or state government where applicable. Also, competitors to the post office wouldn't be around so FedEx, UPS, DHL and the likes would not be possible independent of the government.

As for waterways, that's actually an extraction of the interstate commerce clause and not specifically in the US constitution. I believe it was around 1824 when a conflict over licensing or registration requirements came into effect and the supreme court sided with the federal government due to the interstate commerce clause. So I'm not sure that is a real strong argument but I won't dispute it in practice.

But the big problem with all this is the semi-autonomous agencies or to be more precise, unelected political appointments not in the judicial branch but in agencies with the power to alter, create, and enforce and/or punish regulations which become laws or have the effect of laws instead of congress actually following the constitutionally provided method of creating federal laws.

Alas, Congress isn't totally clear in their guidance to the FCC (which is limited by the statutes that
created it), and the FCC has too much history to sort through, and too few options that can be swiftly
invoked. Getting the states to stop prohibiting telecommunications is very much in the
public interest, and isn't at all contrary to the Constitution.

It very much is contrary to the US Constitution. If congress has the power to act, then congress itself should act. What you are advocating for is a political appointee, independent of the US constitution and with the stroke of a pen, altering, removing, or negating state and local laws that it does not like and that you do not like without regard to any reason the state or local laws were put in place or the wished of the electorate within those jurisdictions.

If and as Congress clearly decides that e-mail (the kind of mail everyone uses nowadays)
is a 'post roads and post offices' function, they can bypass any state or even municipal
attempt to monopolize/throttle. It can also be treated as 'interstate commerce', which has
a good size body of settled law, of course, and also supports federal primacy.

If they so choose, then they should do so. The problem is, they are not doing so which is why the warning was made. It's basically saying what you do is not set in stone and can be undone just as easily so make sure you have good enough reasoning that any political appointee in the future would also support the move.

Re:In other words...

[Zordak]

Please, go read even the Wikipedia article on the Tenth Amendment. You are embarrassing yourself. (And perhaps you could explain why my bar card would not be persuasive evidence in your fantasy land where somebody accuses me in court of failing law school.)

Re:In other words...

[jwhitener]

that it was supposed to be a government of specific, enumerated powers.

One thing that I see time and time again in this debate about the power of the Federal Gov. is the assumption that things are somehow worse off with our current court rulings and precedence.

federal government encroaching into everyday life until you couldn't buy a shower head

You are making an assumption, a gut feeling assumption, that this is a bad thing. Has your lack of freedom to purchase un-regulated shower heads caused more harm than the good that came from regulating water flow, in say, drought stricken states? Has your lack of freedom to purchase un-regulated shower heads caused more harm than the good that mandated backflow preventers caused?

I have no idea. I do know that 99% of the people on both sides of this Fed vs State power debate are probably just making gut feeling assumptions about what is the right amount of 'power' for each level of government.

Infurstuctsure

[pellik]

While they're at it state and federal funded roads compete unfairly with privately funded toll roads. Better do something about that.

Re:Infurstuctsure

[dpilot]

Maybe there's another reason that our infrastructure is crumbling...

(Line up the conspiracy theories.)

Re:Infurstuctsure

[Anonymous Coward]

removing funding and then say it doesn't work then turn it over to corporations.
It's not a conspiracy when there are a myriad examples of pubs doing it.

Choking the beast.

Re: Infurstuctsure

[nickmalthus]

In Texas they already are. All new highways in Texas will be toll roads. TXDOT is making sweetheart public private partnerships (read fascist) with construction companies like cintra with half century long long land leases and government bailouts for guaranteed profit! People in my area are going to freak out when they receive their flex rate toll bills for all of the new roads they are building.

Re: Infurstuctsure

[Harlequin80]

In principal there is nothing wrong with a PPP (public, private, partnership) structure to build infrastructure. It is a way for a government to get infrastructure built that it otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. But the devil is in the detail. Why would there be a government guarantee of profitability is a big question. Right to toll is a pretty standard option for a long period of time 20 - 50 years. But if you screw up your traffic forecasts or you go over budget on the build well that is your problem, not the Governments. If you want to see a pretty spectacular example of that in Australia have a look at the North South Bypass Tunnel (Clem 7) which went bankrupt 11 months after the tunnel opened because traffic was only 30% of the projected flow.

Also if they are done well the ownership rights should return to the government after a period of time. At that stage the government can decide if they want to sell that asset for a cash injection or remove the toll. Usually they choose to resell the tolling rights but I have seen them remove tolls as well.

Re:Infurstuctsure

[sumdumass]

You mean the one thing the federal government does that it is constitutionally empowered to do is the one thing you are wanting to single out as your example?

Wow..

Re: Infurstuctsure

[VTBlue]

I have specialized in PPP deals in my masters program. The deals in the US are all disasters for the public. They are backdoor taxes by the states. Regulatory and long-run fiscal outlooks for all the bond deals are piss poor and a net loss for the local and state governments. On top of this, there are horrible financial implications for the public if the private bonds default. The states should not be the ones paying for roads in the first place, especially during the economic conditions of the past 25 years. The federal government should be appropriating block grants for roads.

Re:Infurstuctsure

[Darinbob]

I blame that raging socialist Eisenhower for the freeways!

Re:Infurstuctsure

[dywolf]

that's exactly what it is.

the HTF is funded solely by the gas tax.
there's not enough money in the HTF cause they regularly steal frm it to pay for other things.
of course, as it also happens, even if they totally stopped raiding the fund, it is STILL insufficient to meet needs.
thus due to insufficienct funds basic maintenance, let alone new construction, is underfunded and underperformed.
the only solution is to increase the funding available.
but they flatly refuse to stop raiding the fund.
and they flatly refuse to increase the funding mechanism, ie, the gas tax.

right before they adjourned for their vacation a couple weeks ago, they did pass a new "infrastructure bill"...that puts a small amount of money into the fund temporarily.
the problem is, its not coming form taxes. its not coming from other funds.
its a loan from certain private businesses.
which will be repaid to those businesses in a few years time. with interest.
so they literally get to increase their profits with tax dollars paid directly to them by the government.

Thus Congress managed to both kick the can down the road, and make their corporate sponsors richer in the process.

By that logic...

[Anonymous Coward]

A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.

Re:By that logic...

[hey!]

A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.

And your point would be?

Re:By that logic...

[Tablizer]

Unless they enjoy being hypocrites

It certainly seems they do. At least they are rarely punished for it such that the penalty is not a dis-incentive.

Re:By that logic...

[__aanbvm4272]

Don't do anything that will upset the stock price of the telco internet companies. We know how much they are wringing out of us MONTHLY. Pay no attention to the ads on TV about passing legislation limiting FREE TV. It's just the telco companies saying they don't want to have to pay a fee for content they are using.. I say let the bastards pay for free TV. We know how much they are making EVERY FUCKING MONTH!

Re:By that logic...

[bobbied]

A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.

What ever the democratic appointees do, they do. They got appointed, it's their call. If they want to be partisan, so be it.

The really sad thing is that the FCC commissioners used to be about sensible regulation and doing what's right for all, now it's who's paying who under the table and which campaign got money from which company.

Have we learned nothing from the Light Squared debacle? That whole thing was such a boondoggle technically, but no, the FCC had to string all that along. Stuff like that needs to stop and this is just the latest example. Come on folks, THINK about it and do the right thing for the PEOPLE you serve, not because it makes you or your party the most cash.

Re:By that logic...

[Livius]

They enjoy being hypocrites.

Re:By that logic...

[aeschinesthesocratic]

I think that everybody thinks they do what's right for all. We just can't agree on exactly what that entails.

Re:By that logic...

[bobbied]

Which is why we have elections and why we discuss what they do.

I'm personally tired of all the acrimony over political appointees doing what they do by the opposition. My party isn't in power right now, but my attitude is "The other side won the election so they get to do what they want."

That doesn't mean I don't turn a critical eye on their choices, but I'm am not going to just hit the default "They're democrats so it's a bad choice" setting. I'm an equal opportunity criticizer, so if you are a republican and you advance something I think is daft and stupid, I'm going to say so.

Problem is, it seems that the default setting for a lot of this has become more about party affiliation and less about right and wrong so we get this kind of "you better not make this choice because the other party will change it when we get into power" tripe. It's not helpful to anybody and only leads to the making of even worse decisions for the people.

One wonders where this mentality comes from though.... I have my theories (ok I think I know) but I'll keep it to myself because most would consider what I had to say about that hyper partisan.

Re:By that logic...

[catprog]

Was that the company that brought near GPS spectrum despite it being regulated for something different then what they wanted and then the FCC would not change it too what they wanted?

Re:By that logic...

[bobbied]

Yes, that's the company.

The FCC could have easily ruled on this company's request instead of spending years stringing the whole scheme along. But some campaign contributor got their panties in a wad and the full commission agreed to hear their appeal. That caused a lot of investment to be made in Light Squared that simply shouldn't have happened and it happened for political reasons. It was very clear from the start that if Light Squared was allowed to proceed, GPS in the USA would have been rendered unusable, there was no need to waste all the time and money on the question.

Light Squared is just the well known case of this, there have been others.

Compromise? Never heard of it!

[Mystiq]

So according to this guy, we should never make laws or decisions that don't have complete bi-partisan support because the other side will try to repeal it. How would anything get done? At that, we wouldn't have any laws at all. Did he even listen to what he said?

I swear, man. Congresscritters sound more like whiny children every day. This is the epitome of politicians' refusal to compromise on anything. The general intelligence of people in politics must steadily be dropping. They better stay where they are because they sure can't do anything else.

Re:Compromise? Never heard of it!

[silfen]

So according to this guy, we should never make laws or decisions that don't have complete bi-partisan support

If it was Congress voting on it, that would be fine. But isn't about lawmaking, it's about the FCC using its regulatory powers to limit what laws states can pass, laws that have little to do with the FCC's original mission. Yes, regulatory agencies overriding state legislatures is a serious problem.

And this warning may not be just a warning to undo FCC regulations. At some point, Congress and voters may get fed up with federal abuse of regulatory powers and severely curb them.

Re:Compromise? Never heard of it!

[sumdumass]

So according to this guy, we should never make laws or decisions that don't have complete bi-partisan support because the other side will try to repeal it. How would anything get done? At that, we wouldn't have any laws at all. Did he even listen to what he said?

Well, no. The FCC does not make laws, it makes regulation with the force of laws without congress voting on all the regulations. What he is saying is that whatever they do, a republican chairperson can undo. Don't bother with extreme partisan hacks because it will not last when another party is in charge of the FCC. That is sort of the challenge of having regulatory bodies appointed with the power of law, they need to have sound enough reasoning for all their actions in order to prevent the next appointment from undoing them. That is all he is saying.

I swear, man. Congresscritters sound more like whiny children every day. This is the epitome of politicians' refusal to compromise on anything. The general intelligence of people in politics must steadily be dropping. They better stay where they are because they sure can't do anything else.

I do not think I can disagree with that.

Re:Compromise? Never heard of it!

[silfen]

Actually, the 'congress-critters' are quite happy with the current deadlock

So are many voters, actually.

Re:Compromise? Never heard of it!

[Mystiq]

While I would believe this is true, I don't think it's entirely intentional. Both sides are fighting like toddlers, beholden to their bribery donations, to keep their briberies coming.

It's funny. The company I work for has yearly training. One of them is Ethics, which they make a big deal out of. Conflicts of interest, bribery, accepting gifts/donations, etc. are especially frowned upon. It's drilled home so finely that even the stupidest idiot can understand the concepts given by the examples, videos and explanatory text in the training curriculum. So it's illegal for most companies but for government it's perfectly legal. I just did my Ethics training today. I take it back -- it's not funny, it's fucking sad.

What a massive ass

[Rigel47]

"It’s not hard, then, to imagine a future FCC concluding that taxpayer-funded, municipal broadband projects themselves are barriers to infrastructure investment.

Right, because we've all done so well under the monopoly of Comcast et al. If the private sector can't compete (*cough*strong arm a monopoly*cough*) versus a municipal project then golly-gee maybe there's a lesson to be learned. Not that I expect an evidently corrupt bureaucrat to fathom said lesson.

Full of it

[Anonymous Coward]

"The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment."

"Private investment", notably the quite-intentional lack of it, was the barrier to future infrastructure investment, hence the entire raison d'être of municipal broadband in the first place.

Bitch and moan about the stifling of private business opportunities when you actually have a business plan concerning that locale beyond "avoid until February 31st".

Cable companies: begging for cake, (not) choosing it, having it, and eating it all at once.

Re:Full of it

[UnderCoverPenguin]

The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment.

What do they think tax credits are? Before either the telco or the cable company would expand broadband service into the outer neighborhoods where I live, the city had to give the telco and cable companies a huge, many year tax credit - many times what the companies own people claimed the cost of equipment upgrades.

Re:Full of it

[Harlequin80]

I also don't really understand the thought process as to how it would be a barrier to infrastructure. I kinda thought a major part of a governments role was to build infrastructure the private sector wasn't. If there is a push for a municipal level rollout then the private sector has failed in that case. Surely the logical thing is for the municipal to roll out the fibre and then, once in place, sell it to the private sector. That way you get your infrastructure, you get a ROI, you get competition for services and government stays out of providing random services.

Re:Full of it

[sumdumass]

Ok, I will try to explain this a simple as I can in order to keep it short.

The cable and telcos have to offer service to unprofitable areas as well as the profitable areas and charge the same rates for both. This is part of their ability to have a monopoly in the area. Now, in some areas, there is competition but not because the infrastructure was duplicated but because they had to lease it to the competition at costs of operating it and also serve those not profitable areas.

So a municipality steps up and uses tax dollars to build out new infrastructure that competes with these other setups. They then go into direct competition with them and suck up the profitable areas leaving the cable and telcos with only the unprofitable areas and a few stragglers in the profitable areas.

The end result is, or could very well be, that not enough profit is left available for the telcos and cable companies to do upgrades in those areas. And before you think they are rich companies over flowing with cash, first, they typically segregate their areas of operations where time warner of Atlanta might be a different company from time warner of Columbus Ohio but owned by a parent company. Each area would be separate as far as financials go. Second, if their cash cows disappear, they will likely no longer be overflowing with cash.

Also the municipal only doing the infrastructure is not really what is being considered here. What is being considered is the municipality selling off their excess bandwidth and purchasing more in order to go into direct competition with the cable and telcos. Some of the plans I have seen deliver the product free of monthly charge and is based on taxes paid. This is like the cable and telcos being able to charge each and every citizen of an area whether they have the service or not.

But I like your idea of the municipality owning and providing infrastructure that others lease until another recession hits and they neglect it because revenue is down or some loon gets elected mayor and decides to divert the funding for it to something else he things is more important like flags and colored lights lining the main street going through town or a brick crosswalk on one of the busiest intersections that has regular truck traffic (Yes, both have happened in my town- had to put a levee on the ballot in order to fix potholes because they spent that money on other shit) in order to enhance curb appeal.

Re:Full of it

[VTBlue]

Nice explanation in theory. Unfortunately the infrastructure equation and values change when an infrastructure classes moves from being "new capacity" to "mission-critical." Today our politicians are treating mission-critical US broadband infrastructure as a cute side project, when it reality the internet has become a vital and essential part of our societal fabric. You can literally slice America in half between the haves and have nots. The poor, rural, and uneducated, homeless, the low income, all have a more difficult time functioning in today's internet driven economy than if they were living in the 70's and 80's. Broadband accessibility literally is a proxy for the new racial and classist divide.

Re:Full of it

[sumdumass]

Sigh.. just because you cannot live without facebook does not mean the internet or even access faster than dial up is a vital or essential part of anything.

And if you think the poor and minority class is under served, it can be remedied by mandating access without putting the government into direct competition with the private sector.

Re:Full of it

[VTBlue]

You live in a fantasy world if you think the internet usage scenarios I'm referring to are Facebook and social media. I'm talking about the ability to actually live a respectable life that resembles modern society. Today the private sector directly and indirectly cut off services because there is an expectation that people can just use the internet. Banking is a huge example here where the poor are literally off the grid, which hurts them and us in the process.

Susan Crawford's book sums it up quite nicely.

As for your direct competition, municipal broadband is not direct competition, because that would require comparative services with what the private sector offers. I for one am quite happy with USPS, Medicare, Social Security, DoT, and host of other public services that used to be private. UK provides a great broadband model where wholesale capacity is public and service setup, internal performance and sales is privatized. Today in the US, you have 4 giant telecoms controlling the Tier 1 back haul capacity and the residential and commercial endpoints. It's the same shit AT&T was doing prior to the Ma Bell breakup.

Re:Full of it

[Harlequin80]

The Universal Service Principal is hardly a common concept yet there is the capability of other countries to allow competition both at an infrastructure and access level. I think you will also find that there is absolutely no USP for internet access above an abysmally low level.

More fundamentally though I do not understand why you feel there should be no competition at a municipal level. A township has no requirement, legally or morally, to support a different township through subsidisation. And that is exactly what you are arguing by saying the cash cows need to exist to fund other areas. If a local government feels that its population is being inadequately served then it actually HAS the moral imperative to fix that if it can. Now if it invests in infrastructure which it then operates itself or sells to a private entity and as a result improves the standards for its constituents it has done EXACTLY what it exists to do.

The fact that there is corruption in any organisation, or that the decision on what to build may not have been your choice is a completely different argument all together.

 

Re:Full of it

[sumdumass]

The Universal Service Principal is hardly a common concept yet there is the capability of other countries to allow competition both at an infrastructure and access level. I think you will also find that there is absolutely no USP for internet access above an abysmally low level.

I'm not even sure how this is relevant. In other countries, they throw acid in the face of women who do not cover their face and execute gays. What do we learn from this? Other countries do things differently and some things may pass as appropriate but it doesn't mean it will here.

And no, I'm not comparing torturing women or killing gays to giving away the internet, I'm saying that their structures are different, their governments are different, so what they do doesn't always line up with ours.

More fundamentally though I do not understand why you feel there should be no competition at a municipal level. A township has no requirement, legally or morally, to support a different township through subsidisation. And that is exactly what you are arguing by saying the cash cows need to exist to fund other areas. If a local government feels that its population is being inadequately served then it actually HAS the moral imperative to fix that if it can. Now if it invests in infrastructure which it then operates itself or sells to a private entity and as a result improves the standards for its constituents it has done EXACTLY what it exists to do.

Wrong.. The federal government as well as the local government have given these companies monopolies specifically in order to support different townships. It is all regulated at a government level and these companies have published rates on file at their state public utilities commission.

Now, by fixing it, you are correct. It is the duty of the local governments to impose rules that fix the broken monopolies and force them to invest in new infrastructure is that is necessary. And when they do, there is usually a rider placed on the bills like when one city decides that all their utility lines must be moved under ground (which is becoming a common occurrence today). So the city, and/or townships (in my state, they are two different things) can and should fix the problems. They just don't need to have the government competing with an entity it already controls and taking the low hanging fruits and sticking those entities with the more expensive clients.

Imagine if you owned a business that sold gasoline. You have a cost you have to recover. Now imagine the city stepping in and underselling you and using tax payer funds in order to do so. But while the city is not subject to it's own taxes, you are and while the city doesn't have to jump through regulatory hoops, you do. So what would you think about the city all the sudden driving you out of business with tax payer funds?

Re:Full of it

[Harlequin80]

The Universal Service Principal is hardly a common concept yet there is the capability of other countries to allow competition both at an infrastructure and access level. I think you will also find that there is absolutely no USP for internet access above an abysmally low level.

I'm not even sure how this is relevant. In other countries, they throw acid in the face of women who do not cover their face and execute gays. What do we learn from this? Other countries do things differently and some things may pass as appropriate but it doesn't mean it will here.

And no, I'm not comparing torturing women or killing gays to giving away the internet, I'm saying that their structures are different, their governments are different, so what they do doesn't always line up with ours.

Are you serious? This is the stupidest most arrogant statement I have read in a long time. If you are too myopic to see that things can be learnt from countries outside of the USA then there is no helping you. There are many many things that I look at in the USA and say "I cannot believe they do that, it's barbaric" it doesn't however mean I decide nothing can be learnt from there.

Re:Full of it

[Harlequin80]

And I am not in Europe.

Re:Pub wants to

[gstoddart]

That's been shown to be false over and over again. Why do these people get away with a provable false statement.

Uncritical audiences who want these statements to be true because it aligns with their ideology?

If you can equate it with socialism, you can count on a chunk of people agreeing with you even if it's a lie. It doesn't have to be true if the people who vote for you don't care if it's true, and don't want to know or believe it isn't.

This is just about entrenching the notion of corporate profits, and ensuring they never really have to work for it ... because, stock holders. It doesn't matter if people get good service of it they're introducing state granted monopolies ... they must be good.

Increasingly, politicians are entirely in the back pockets of corporations, and will simply not do anything which goes against that.

The oligarchy at this point is pretty much inevitable. Because they can bribe the politicians to do their bidding.

Reality

[TubeSteak]

[March 2014] Speaking at the Deutsche Bank Media, Internet & Telecom Conference, [Verizon CFO] Shammo said the company would not consider other markets until it generates more cash within the wireline business.

"I am not going to build beyond the current LSAs (local service acquisitions) that we have built out," Shammo said. "We have to generate more cash within the wireline business and once we do that and I feel that FiOS has returned its cost of capital, then we can look at expansion, but at this point we're happy with what we have."

These are the same people that are allowing their copper network to rot out in order to push people onto FiOS.

Why should we-the-people have to wait for a conglomerate to make the business case for bringing service to our communities?
Especially if we can do it now.

Re:Reality

[gstoddart]

Why should we-the-people have to wait for a conglomerate to make the business case for bringing service to our communities?

Dear god, man, are you suggesting a consortium of taxpayers decide to compete with a corporation, and take away stock holder value and threaten executive bonuses in order to get better service and introduce competition is a good thing??

Are you some kind of communist bastard?

The corporations are entitled to ridiculous profits without having to work to preserve market share, to suggest anything else is un-American.

Why, corporations are people, and they're entitled to all the speech they can afford. People don't know what they want, it's up to corporations to tell them.

OK, seriously, I don't believe any of that drivel.

But there are a huge amount of people who believe that corporate profits is a moral imperative, and that they should be protected from being undercut by new entrants to the market, and that if it's tax-payer funded it's practically communism.

Those people are, of course, idiots. And they're the ones making damned sure existing corporations get more protection in law, and everyone else gets screwed.

American Democracy has largely become something which is in service of corporate goals.

Re:Reality

[the eric conspiracy]

The rotting out of Verizon's wires is much more likely to push people to non-Verizon services given how little of the US FIOS covers.

For me all it did was cause me to drop Verizon completely and switch to T Mobile.

FCC should laugh at him

[gurps_npc]

And simply say "For us to be concerned about a Republican FCC, we would need to believe that it is possible for a Republican to win a presidential election. Given the current climate, that won't happen in your lifetime, Senator"

Re:FCC should laugh at him

[bobbied]

And simply say "For us to be concerned about a Republican FCC, we would need to believe that it is possible for a Republican to win a presidential election. Given the current climate, that won't happen in your lifetime, Senator"

Don't know if I'm willing to say that yet. The current election cycle seems to be sliding towards the R side taking over the Senate, and there is little chance of them loosing seats in the house. Of course this is the out year of a lame duck president, which generally slides away from the white house's party, but the complexion of what happens totally changes if the Republicans take control in the senate.

How that plays out in 2016 is anybodies guess, except I can tell you that the president and his party will be out of control of more of the optics in Washington, which means that the republicans will control what gets discussed and what issues they deal with. Remember the Democrats invoked the "Nuclear option" and changed the long standing senate rules so the republicans will be able to get bills on the presidents desk, any bill they choose, and strong arm him into making a very public veto or striking concessions. He will either play ball and alienate the Democratic base, or mess things up so badly signing that veto line over and over that the middle will abandon droves. Either way, the next two years won't go well for the democrats. My guess is he will just play golf for the next three years, which will be really bad for his party and alienate the majority the 20 somethings that voted for him. But all this is if the republicans take the senate which is not a foregone conclusion, yet..

You only hope for 2016, is that the Senate doesn't slip away, or that the republicans mess it up so badly nominating their candidate in 2 years that even I won't vote for them. Your only real chance is slipping away so you better hold onto that senate.

Re:FCC should laugh at him

[gurps_npc]

The Republicans can not win a Presidential election over the next 3 years. It's not about their politics, it's about their core philosophy. They did it to themselves.

Over the past 10 years they decided to make themselves a rural party sustained in large part by gerrymandering.

By doing this, they have created a situation where the majority of their congressmen are elected in 'no lose districts'. They can't lose the general election. As such, the primary became all important - and only the republicans could vote there. This pushed their core political philosophy FAR to the right of where most Americans are.

Eventually they realized their problem and started rejecting their most extreme people, the Tea Party. But they still lean right even within their own party - it is the only way for a Republican to win a primary and they don't care about the general elections in the majority of their districts.

Simultaneously, the Democrats were moving to the center. Hillary Clinton and President Obama are both far more conservative than the majority of democrats.

What happens in the Senate and the House can only make it worse for the Republicans in the Presidential election. If they lose, then the Democrats gain power. If they win the Senate and the House, they will just be embolden again and make the same mistakes they made in 2008 and 20012.

The Republicans Congressmen are so coddled by the gerrymandering that they simply have no idea of how badly they anger the majority of Americans. The Senators and Governors don't have this problem, but are seriously are outnumbered by the Congressmen insisting on appealing to the base.

Re:FCC should laugh at him

[bobbied]

Actually, if you look at the demographics of the last presidential election, it's not all roses for the democrats. I'd not be so sure about your party being "kind of the hill" for all that long. You see, if you look at voters over 30 years old, they voted for the republican more often than not. What got Obama in office was the under 30 demographic, which where only starting to become aware of politics. Now they went for Obama in a big way, but in the end, the margins where usually pretty close.

Now Obama isn't running for office ever again, so you need to start thinking about what got the under 30's to vote for him in such unusually large numbers? Neither you nor I know that answer, but we do know that true to history, Obama's approval ratings have dropped well below those of any president in recent history (even the last Bush). The question is, will the under 30's show up for the next democratic nominee like they did for Obama? You better be careful on that front with who you nominate because I don't think your obvious choice is going to appeal to this demographic and I'm betting that as these people get older, they are going to realize they've been played. ObamaCare and other social programs are not selling well with this group, and as they get older it will only play worse.

But the real problem for your side is that Hillary and Obama only "play" conservative. They are not really. They still are classic "tax and spend" (or more to the truth "just spend") liberals. Spending is a short term strategy, and unless you don't grow the GDP or raise taxes really bad things are going to happen and the 30 somethings are *really* going to be in a pickle financially. I"m sure the puppy love for the democrats will start to look like a bad idea to at least some of them. The fact that democrats are beholden to large corporate interests and use power as a money grab for their friends is going to start becoming known, that they are just politicians is apparent and that they just tell you what you want to hear to advance their own ends will drive down both turnout and percentages voting democrat in this demographic.

This is not to say the republicans don't have issues. They do the "just spend" thing way too much themselves. Plus they have a woeful lack of PR skills at times. But I actually see that improving. There are times when you just sit back and shut up because there's nothing you can say that's going to help you. Republicans have been in such a position with Obama since he took office, yet they kept babbling in front of the press. They are learning to just shut-up and let the issue die when there isn't anything they can do. If they take the senate, that will give them a lot more control of what issues come up, they will be able to drive the national debate a whole lot more. I expect them to use that to their advantage because they can wrap this "do nothing" mantel on democrats who seem to know how to keep their traps shut when they are in no-win situations (best case for you) or if they choose to talk the republicans can wrap them in knots by picking the issues everybody gets to talk about.

So, I'd be careful making confident claims about democrats being in power forever. Being overconfident is not a good policy. You may be winning right now, but the competition is snapping at your heels. Don't forget that.

Give it up ...

[CaptainDork]

We've seen this with water, gas, and electricity.

Just run the damn wire.

Re:Bullshit ...

[Mystiq]

These days I've been questioning the motives of the "Repulicunts". Free market principles seem to go out the window with big "donations". Is it just me or would this proposed move from the FCC be exactly in line with what the Republican party stands for? Granted, the net neutrality proposal would be against it but I don't see how removing a barrier to competition would be against the Republican's principles. It should be the Democrats complaining.

Like Freedom?

[WillAffleckUW]

Yeah, cause they want us to be serfs in a backwards nation where people can't even run at 1 GB/s while the other first world nations run at 100 GB/s.

Yeah, that works.

Not.

Lord, save us from corporatists

[PopeRatzo]

Why do they play and say talk about a "Republican led FCC" instead of just saying they don't want the FCC to do anything that might mean the least inconvenience for Comcast and AT&T's complete takeover of the Internet?

I mean, for chrissake, Barack Obama, the marxest marxist who ever marxed, appointed goddamn Tom Wheeler, a former cable executive to be chairman of the FCC. Are they disappointed that the chairman of the FCC isn't just Brian Roberts, the CEO of Comcast?

Fucking corporatists. They're not even trying to hide their evil agenda any more. We need another president like Taft or Teddy Roosevelt to just scare the living shit out of big corporations. It's the only way to make them behave. The Clayton Act and other anti-trust legislation ushered in the most productive and prosperous era in US history, and now these sleazy fucks want to take us all the way back to the age of robber barons where young women got burned up in shirt factory fires. Now we've got pussy-ass Barack Obama and Eric Holder who shake with fear every time a CEO so much as looks cross at them. Now, a company breaks the law and the justice department fines them with one hand and passes them the money to pay the fine with the other hand (Citicorp, Goldman Sachs, et al). Two parties, one is completely terrified of the corporatists and the other's got their nose up the corporatists ass. No, they're not the same, but the outcome is the same.

Seriously, there needs to be a goddamn revolution in this country. I'll get behind it 100% as long as it's finished by the start of football season because I'm totally gonna take my fantasy league this year. Or maybe we can just not have the revolution on Sundays or Monday nights. Didn't they used to do that in wars? Take Sunday morning off so everyone could go to church and pray that God help them butcher the other side? Something's got to be done, I tell you. Start the revolution right now while it's still pre-season.

At least, thank god, we get another chance in 2016. Yeah, I know, anybody who gets the nomination from either party is going to be a corporatist, but if I don't hold out some faint hope that something will change, I'll just go shoot myself, and I can't do that because, like I said, I'm going to own fantasy football this year. But, (and thank God for small favors) I won't be enriching Comcast while I do it.

Re:Lord, save us from corporatists

[inode_buddha]

FFS where's the "like" button when I need one? Sire, your post just made my day, I thought I was the only one who thought that way...

Re:Lord, save us from corporatists

[mbkennel]

| Are they disappointed that the chairman of the FCC isn't just Brian Roberts, the CEO of Comcast?

Yes.

In fact, they are disappointed that the FCC exists as a nominally independent government institution. That they have to seduce potentially reluctant regulators, instead of the regulators sucking their cable ports with enthusiasm.

Re:Lord, save us from corporatists

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah, that's what I want. Politicians who are so worried about what the other side might do in the future that they sit on their hands while a handful of powerful elite simply loot the country and peoples' wealth.

This is has been the operative policy for so long - both parties - that it's' become clear that's the plan.

Republican / Democrat is a false dichotomy.

[Anonymous Coward]

By framing the narrative this way the public can be polarized around trivial issues; divide and conquer.

Implying that a a left-wing or democrat controlled FCC would behave differently is misleading -- they are all beholden to the same powerful business interests who play both sides so that they are certain to have the winner in their pocket.

Warning the FCC to not do anything 'anti-republican' is just re-enforcing the imaginary division between left and right in our minds. It doesn't exist. There are only global supra-national corporations and people. Everything else is an intentional distraction.

Besides the corrupt global monetary system, the single most important issue that has allowed us to be reduced to abject serfdom is that corporations are considered persons under the law, which is a development of the last 125 years in the US. This allows management and ownership to escape personal liability for any actions of the organization under his or her control.

Because corps are able to vote with their huge dollars your small dollars are irrelevant -- as are your wants and needs.

Focus on that. Thinking Left/Right is just wasting your time.

Re:Republican / Democrat is a false dichotomy.

[preaction]

This and only this kind of thinking will get us out of our current, sustained political quagmire.

Re:Pub wants to

[TapeCutter]

It's the same argument that Rupert Murdoch keeps peddling against public broadcasters such as the BBC and ABC, fortunately UK and Oz governments of all colours haven't bought it and probably never will.

Slashdot liberal propaganda keeps rolling

[Anonymous Coward]

I see Slashdot is going the way of Digg and being taken over as a liberal propaganda blog.

This information is 100% fabricated. The FCC panel is headed by hardcore progressive liberals.

Re:Ignore it

[bobbied]

R house? Sure. R senate? Maybe. R president? Not before the currency collapse.

That soon? Wow.

Linkbaiting + selective exposure + illiteracy FTW

[Marble68]

Jesus - the hyperbolic circle jerking.. sigh.. Could we get any more f#cking stupid here?

His point is that this should be viewed as beyond the authority of the FCC by both sides; that a bureaucratic panel doesn't have the power to tell individual states how to regulate themselves; and doing so will open a Pandora's box. He illustrates his point by citing SCOTUS precedence, and hypothesizes what sort of dramatic swings would be possible with that power.

Everyone loves HHS - but they forget (let me make his point in a different way) the HHS could effectively slash Abortion coverage at will by simply saying Insurance can't cover it. That's what it's dangerous to give so much power to one position; especially a politically appointed one.

Christ - His biggest mistake, apparently, is forgetting to dumb down his point and talk like everyone is 12.

IMHO, the FCC should just declare ISPs common carriers as a start; then recommend to Congress a law that says the individual citizens have a right to assembly, even in the form of a municipality, and establish publicly held utility services.

Then, it could go back to SCOTUS or whatever.

another political story

[Anonymous Coward]

/. is becoming reddit.

I am tired of the stories with comments that follow astroturfed political scripts

Re:another political story

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

If you remember the good old days of a non-political slashdot, why not log in and show us your single-digit ID?

chutzpah, meet hypocrisy!

[mbkennel]

chutzpah and hypocrisy, go together like a horse

*) Federal government regulating over the desires of State legislatures: Evil! Evil! Evil!
*) State government regulating over the desires of municipal legislatures: Motherhood, Apple Pie and the American Way!

Re:chutzpah, meet hypocrisy!

[whistlingtony]

Eh. Your statement is ignoring the very real difference between national and state level politics. Many people believe that more power should to go the states and cities, because those representatives are closer and hence more respondent to their constituents. I've met with my state reps several times. They're nice folks doing a hard job. They listened to me, and there's a very real possibility that my resolution will pass in 2015. National level? Not a chance in hell.

double reverse ungood

[Strange Ranger]

"that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment."
 
Yes everyone can compete in the free market,
except for groups of geographically related people cooperating with their tax dollars. Can't have them competing.
 
That's the last thing we want for our infrastructure. People cooperating with their votes and tax dollars.

Re:double reverse ungood

[silfen]

Yes everyone can compete in the free market, except for groups of geographically related people cooperating with their tax dollars. Can't have them competing.

You don't quite understand what a "free market" means. A "free market" means that I choose who I give my money to for services I want to receive; companies that treat me badly don't get my money. A "free market" is not a municipal government taking my money through taxation, handing it to their business cronies, and then providing shitty service.

And if you say that it's a "democratically elected government" and at least it's what the majority wants, let me point out that you could say the same thing about another municipal service provider: police. Apparently, Democrats believe that the same city government that is incapable of producing anything other than (according to them) a militarized, corrupt, and racist police department will suddenly manage to provide terrific telecom services.

Re:double reverse ungood

[NotSanguine]

Yes everyone can compete in the free market, except for groups of geographically related people cooperating with their tax dollars. Can't have them competing.

You don't quite understand what a "free market" means. A "free market" means that I choose who I give my money to for services I want to receive; companies that treat me badly don't get my money. A "free market" is not a municipal government taking my money through taxation, handing it to their business cronies, and then providing shitty service.

And if you say that it's a "democratically elected government" and at least it's what the majority wants, let me point out that you could say the same thing about another municipal service provider: police. Apparently, Democrats believe that the same city government that is incapable of producing anything other than (according to them) a militarized, corrupt, and racist police department will suddenly manage to provide terrific telecom services.

You said:

A "free market" means that I choose who I give my money to for services I want to receive; companies that treat me badly don't get my money.

Please tell me where in the US there are such "free markets" in Internet access? I'd like to move there.

Re:double reverse ungood

[silfen]

Please tell me where in the US there are such "free markets" in Internet access? I'd like to move there.

I'm not aware where they don't exist. Competition may be limited in most markets (mostly due to government regulations), but you still have a choice whether you give money to telecoms or not. With municipal telecom services, your taxes will be used to pay for part of the service, whether you want to or not.

Re:double reverse ungood

[NotSanguine]

Please tell me where in the US there are such "free markets" in Internet access? I'd like to move there.

I'm not aware where they don't exist. Competition may be limited in most markets (mostly due to government regulations), but you still have a choice whether you give money to telecoms or not. With municipal telecom services, your taxes will be used to pay for part of the service, whether you want to or not.

Really? The choices I have (and yes, I do have a few) include a service that will not provide me with really high speed access, but will not block my traffic and gives me static IP addresses. The ones that will give me reasonably high speed access will arbitrarily block my traffic and will not provide me with static IP addresses. Yes, I can choose between different *crappy* services, but that's not really competition, because local government has given franchise rights and access to rights-of-way and chosen the winners for me. And I live in one of the most densely populated places in the US.

You are correct (as I implied above) that competition is often stifled by local governments, but that's more often due to regulatory capture and corruption, than regulation itself.

You do realize that even if local governments were to open it all up and say, "have at it boys! Set up your last mile services wherever you like, we want a 'free market'!" that having a half dozen or more companies putting in their own infrastructure (underground and pole mounted cables/fiber, head-end substations, etc, etc, etc) we'd have complete chaos with respect to tearing up the streets, selling rights-of-way, etc. And with all these companies putting in new infrastructure, there invariably will be "accidents" (of the unintentional and intentional types) which will interrupt service for their competition, as well as other unrelated services which share the same rights-of-way. I could go on, but I'm hoping you're starting to get the picture.

Real competition would come from a single, solid, redundant infrastructure providing high speed access to the last mile, with any ISP that wants to provide service to customers paying for access to the last mile and competing on price and features.

You're making the assumption that tax dollars will be used to pay to provide service. With the scenario above, ISP access fees could pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the last mile network, which would include a premium to pay the interest/principal on municipal bonds issued to build out the infrastructure. As time goes by part of that premium can be used for upgrades and enhancements. Given the amount of money the cable companies, LECs and other last mile providers are making, this is completely viable and only those who use the infrastructure would have to pay for it. That would be a free market solution.

Oh, and in case you've been living under a rock for the past 100 years or so, that's (municipal bonds with user fees to cover repayment, maintenance and upgrades) how large public works projects have been successfully done over and over again.

So, Are you a shill for the cable industry, a Grover Norquist lackey, or just uninformed?

Re:double reverse ungood

[silfen]

Really? The choices I have (and yes, I do have a few) include a service that will not provide me with really high speed access, but will not block my traffic and gives me static IP addresses.

And how does that contradict what I said? "Competition may be limited in most markets (mostly due to government regulations), but you still have a choice whether you give money to telecoms or not."

You're making the assumption that tax dollars will be used to pay to provide service.

You bet I am. That's the only reason for making these services public.

Oh, and in case you've been living under a rock for the past 100 years or so, that's (municipal bonds with user fees to cover repayment, maintenance and upgrades) how large public works projects have been successfully done over and over again.

Oh, sure! That's why we totally don't have a municipal debt crisis!

Tell you what: your town can have municipal broadband if it shows it can actually handle its finances by having a budget surplus and no debt. How about it.

You know what else discourages investment....

[Radical Moderate]

in broadband communications? Hoarding profits to buy out competitors, NBC, and politicians. Why invest in improving service for your captive customers when you can invest in takeovers and bribes?

That's his point. Don't let the FCC ban/require

[raymorris]

You seem to have completely missed his point, so let me break that long sentence into four short sentences for you:

The is FCC deciding if it has the (unconstitutional) power to decide whether or not municipal broadband is built, disregarding state law.
If the FCC assumes that power, a future FCC chairman would therefore have the power to ban municipal broadband.
That would be bad.
Therefore, don't assume new powers that you wouldn't want your successor to have.

I'm not sure if I agree in this case. I do agree with the general principle- if you acquiesce to Obama assuming new powers, president Jeb Bush will inherit those new powers in a couple years.

Municipal ISP Cable Company

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Republican and normally I don't like the government things that private businesses can. Except, in this case ISPs are utilities and monopolies, the free market does not work with monopolies. Municipal ISPs are a bad idea, but giant cable monopolies is a worse idea. Cities are good at running utilities, either let them become ISPs or find a way to ensure competition and low barriers to new entries to the market.

Say what?!

[meerling]

"The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment."

Wait, you mean that someone else doing the exact thing that the corporations have refused to do would 'discourage' the corporations from doing that very thing they've already declared they don't want to do?
You are such a fucking ignorant tool Mr. Berry.

LOL; Utah and Google anybody?

[WindBourne]

Because a city in Utah had already started a system and had it in place, they were able to lease it to Google, which Google did.
If anything, that shows that gov. helping its citizens, and then working businesses, goes MUCH FURTHER, than allowing large business monopolies.

no, he said don't take NEW powers if your successo

[raymorris]

No, he didn't say everything needs to have bipartisan support. He said that if the FCC assumes a NEW power, the power to override state law and ban or require municipal broadband, the FCC will still have that power when Jeb Bush is president. If you decide that the FCC can choose whether or not muni is built, a different FCC chairman would inherit that power and could ban municipal broadband. Don't assume new powers for yourself if you don't want your successor to have the same power.

That's something I keep in mind. If Palin were president, would I want her administration running the health care industry? If not, I should oppose government run healthcare because we WILL have a president as bad as Palin at some point. Maybe in 2016, maybe in teo years, maybe in six years, maybe in ten years. We will have a horrible president. How much control do I want that crappy president to have over my life?

Re: Bullshit ...

[brianerst]

You do realize that Obama's hand picked FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, is a long time cable and cellular lobbyist so beloved by the industry that he's the only man in both The Cable and Wireless Hall of Fames? A man dedicated to gutting net neutrality?

If the Dems are any more friendly to municipal broadband, it's just as part of a different payoff (unions or a different set of corporatations).

Yes. That's what republicans have said for years.

[raymorris]

When it comes to granting new powers to the government , that's exactly right. Republicans have been saying tat for decades and Bysh Jr was criticized for taking on new powers, because any new power he assumed would be inherited by Obama or whoever came next.

Looking at poll numbers, Jeb Bush us likely to be elected president in two years. How much power do you want Jeb Bush to have? Any powers you grant Obama will be inherited by J Bush.

Um

[cascadingstylesheet]

So now Slashbots are hyperventilating with hatred at hypothetical Republicans?

You really need to get a life.

Three Can Play That Game

[JimSadler]

So now the democrats need to warn the FCC not to take actions that might offend future democrats. After that the very, very pissed off left might want to warn the FCC that if anything is done that they don't like they will eat your babies for breakfast from the skulls of republicans. Threats should not exist at any level regardless of how quietly they are made.

Apparently he read the Constitution

[tomhath]

In a speech in front of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Berry endorsed states' rights

Inflammatory headline aside, that's pretty much the way Republicans think the country should be run. Let States govern themselves, Fed should stay out unless the issue crosses state lines.

Chattanooga

[Xian97]

I don't understand why the Republican would be against municipal broadband. Aren't they always talking about job creation? Chattanooga has added hundreds of jobs, had a huge increase in start-up companies, and attracted a lot of industry to the area since they deployed a municipal gigabit broadband network, so why oppose it? The only explanation I can possibly think of is that they are too cozy with the cable and telecomm monopolies.

Re:Chattanooga

[tomhath]

They're not necessarily against municipal broadband. The headline and summary are very misleading; what he actually said is:

the basic concept is this: city governments are appendages of state government, but state governments most definitely are not appendages of the national government.

Re:Chattanooga

[CronoCloud]

but state governments most definitely are not appendages of the national government.

They should be, considering how much of their infrastructure is paid for by federal dollars. You can't run a nation of over 300 million people like a confederacy..

E pluribus unum, from many... ONE.

Re: Bullshit ...

[Mystiq]

Yes, I did know that. It used to be that some of the things he said would make me happy but his lack of action on any of it means that happiness is only fleeting. Lately, even the best things that he says are starting to have no effect on me, though.

We've had just such an FCC ....

[PPH]

... and no investments were made. Business had its chance to shit or get off the pot. And we didn't get shit. So now it looks like municipal investment or nothing.

If the GOP is intent on stopping that, then I guess we should say that the GOP is a barrier to future infrastructure investment. And the solution is to prevent a Republican led anything.

Freedom of Choice in the U.S.A.

[eyepeepackets]

So, where is the freedom? Where is the choice? I can choose between Corporate Person A or Corporate Person B but not a Citizen Cooperative (government)? I thought these Corporate Person types loved Freedom and Choice. These Corporate Personages are crooks who lie like the politicians they buy -- and their products generally suck.

So, by your reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

"good" is defined as the federal government "investing" in whatever you want no matter what the citizens of any state want???

The guy was arguing against the federal government forcing its will onto the people of all 50 states. He (rightly) points out that if you inject the federal government into some area of the economy, it has distorting effects on the markets that can lead to less dynamism and less free-market investment and innovation. All the innovation of the internet that has happened so far has happened in the absense of these new proposed regulations, which is PROOF that these regs are not needed to get the level of service and freedom we have. This is a FACT which you big government guys want everybody to ignore in your push to use things like "net neutrality" as a wedge to inject government regulation into the internet. Federal policy that helps in New York just might not work well for the people of New Mexico or Montana.

Rejection of one-size-fits-all government regulation is the traditional and constitutional norm in the United States and that sort of Washington-DC-centric policy making is really only a post-1930's idea. Incidentally, MOST of the nation's infrastructure was built by the states, local governments, and corporations not by the federal government making "investments". When you have problems with your streets, water, electricity, etc do you prefer to deal with locals, or the county or the state........ or do you REALLY want to go contact your congressman and hassle with the federal government? Do you really want all your consumer issues to become federal government issues? Why are some people so damned determined to jam the federal government into every single aspect of their lives?

Re:So, by your reasoning

[PPH]

do you prefer to deal with locals, or the county or the state........ or do you REALLY want to go contact your congressman and hassle with the federal government?

I want the federal government to step in and protect my city or county's ability to build the infrastructure that the people want. That means (in this case) the FCC stepping in and throwing out state regulations prohibiting municipal broadband.

What we want in Seattle should not be dictated by a New York corporation.

The important bit

[BillX]

This has nothing to do with "banning municipal broadband" today, and everything to do with not granting a power at the Fed level that would let a future FCC in 1-2 election cycles do exactly that.

FTFA:

"If the history of American politics teaches us anything, it is that one political party will not remain in power for perpetuity. At some point, to quote Sam Cooke, 'a change is gonna come,'" Berry said. "And that change could come a little more than two years from now. So those who are potential supporters of the current FCC interpreting Section 706 [of the Telecommunications Act] to give the Commission the authority to preempt state laws about municipal broadband should think long and hard about what a future FCC might do with that power."

Arguing that municipal broadband networks could discourage investment by private companies, Berry said, "Itâ(TM)s not hard, then, to imagine a future FCC concluding that taxpayer-funded, municipal broadband projects themselves are barriers to infrastructure investment. So if the current FCC were successful in preempting state and local laws under Section 706, what would stop a future FCC from using Section 706 to forbid states and localities from constructing any future broadband projects? Nothing that I can see."

If there were competition

[rossz]

If there were competition, the broadband companies would be going out of their way to roll out something bigger and better than the next guy. Except, all too often, a broadband company gets a monopoly in a city, raise their prices while cutting their services. They have zero incentive to roll out any improvements. They rarely even bother with doing basic maintenance. Upgrades and repairs cost money, that cuts into profits. It's not like the market has anywhere else to go.

A taxpayer funded project isn't a barrier to future infrastructure improvements. Monopolies are a barrier to future infrastructure improvements.

Disagree Slightly

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, both parties are the same in that they pretend to serve a democratic republic rather than the reality of serving a corporatocracy oligarchy.

Now here's the difference, and it's only really superficial:

-Republicans want to restrain individuals while giving business free reign to do anything that they want.
-Democrats want to restrain business while giving individuals free reign to do anything that they want.

Why are they complaining?

[boojumbadger]

They ought to know that after it has all been built out they can just install their friends into the city councils to privatize it all for peanuts.

Fanatics in the religion of capitalism

[bussdriver]

These fanatics would make the same arguments for public roads, public right of way, water, power, sewer, heating gas and highway system. They do in fact and have made great headway into those areas, it is to the point where serious discussions happen on the privatization of the air happen without laughter at how ridiculous it is.

It's like pyromaniacs have been given influence over fire safety... not all fire is good, they don't realize it because they are mentally ill. One has to wonder about these fanatic capitalists...

future infrastructure investment

[ThatsNotPudding]

Future infrastructure investment so far in the future, they cannot be seen without a time machine.

Why not municipal broadband ?

[Pop69]

Surely municipal broadband would establish a basic minimum level of service. After that private companies just have to compete in the market based on speed, price and a better service.

Sorry, can't say that last bit with a straight face....

Crybaby tactics....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

warned the (Democrat-led) FCC to not do anything that a future Republican led FCC would dislike

Part of being the party in power is that you get to do shit that the other party doesn't like. You seriously think when Republicans were in power that they would have done the same? I think not......

Mental image

[paiute]

I see John Cleese as Tim saying, "Look! I'm warning you!".

It is...

[MitchDev]

Long past time to stamp out these corporate virtual "monopolies" that keep cable and internet access prices so high.

Fuck the republicans on this (the democrats are just as bad, but this is such a specific example of the GoP focus on the wealthy over the actual majority of American CITIZENS...)

Re: yeah, Straw Men!

[bbsalem]

Talk about straw men, a market "free" of regulation is a Wild West Free-For-All in which the biggest conglomerate eventually wins by leveraging control and being able to charge according to how much he controls it and what he has to charge to recover his investment. It makes no difference if a corporation seeking access to a market with limited resources, that must be regulated so that the competitors don't stomp on one another's bandwidth, goes to a duopoly-run Congress and seeks favors to cover up-front risk and then passes his costs to consumers. The result is exactly the same, a cartel, which isn't broken until there is creative destruction. Business people will hold on to even an outmoded infrastructure for as long as they can to recover the capital investment and garner profits. They have to be forced by competition to reinvest in newer technology. Places starting out have the luxury of not having to pay off the sunk cost of managing an existing infrastructure. It doesn't matter if companies seek help from the government to defray their costs or if they arrive at their costs through market maturity, the effect is the same and the players end up behaving in the same way. The political rhetoric hides the universal tendency of human behavior to resist change especially if it devalues an investment, It doesn't matter if the price was set by government or by investors. The result is the same. Someone has to pay.

How is this anything but terrorism?

[vemene]

Threatening public servant for seeking to act reasonably and conscientiously in accord with lawful principles that have a democratic mandate, simply because it is disagreeable to your own politics?

Can we get a drone strike on this obvious terrorist supporter, Ajit Pai, please? Or at least get him a visit and a rendition from the DHS?

Let's privatize the roads too!

[Phil Karn]

Yeah, and we should also ban municipalities from building roads because they discourage private investment in toll roads. All the roads, including the street in front of your house, ought to be sold to UPS. You'd have to get their permission to drive your car on their roads. Since they'd be private property, they'd be within their rights to make any arbitrary rules they wanted. They could ban certain makes or kinds or colors of cars. They could allow you to drive only to certain pre-approved destinations. And don't even think about trying to create a package delivery service to compete with them.