Slashdot Mirror
As Big As Net Neutrality? FCC Kills State-Imposed Internet Monopolies
tedlistens writes: On Thursday, before it voted in favor of "net neutrality," the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to override state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that have barred local governments and public utilities from offering broadband outside the areas where they have traditionally sold electricity. Christopher Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance said the move was as important for internet competition as net neutrality: "Preventing big Internet Service Providers from unfairly discriminating against content online is a victory, but allowing communities to be the owners and stewards of their own broadband networks is a watershed moment that will serve as a check against the worst abuses of the cable monopoly for decades to come." The laws, like those in over a dozen other states, are often created under pressure from large private Internet providers like Comcast and Verizon, who consequently control monopolies or duopolies over high-speed internet in these places.
Good on you FCC!
when we all found out who was taking over the FCC, I was terrified. Former cable lobbyist, now in charge of the group intended to regulate the same people. But it really looks like wheeler may be the right man for the job
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Up with service! Down with monopolies! Up with net neutrality! Down with regulation! Up with Pluto! Down with Kim Dotcom!
Wait a minute - Today's stories leave me feeling edgy and confused.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
actually, one word is impossible due to the lameness filter
Maybe we can get the FCC to take that on next!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm still dubious about the end effect of net neutrality regulations being passed (remember that none of us have seen the actual regulations to take effect, and none will until they are finalized).
That said, the real road to true Net Neutrality is and always will be in allowing real competition for your ISP provider, and that's the kind of thing that this allows for. If a community cannot be well served by a "real" networking company it makes no sense to block them from taking matters into their own hands.
So I applaud this action, I just wish they would be open in other regards rather than limiting.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As far as I know, Systemd has no capacity to think and therefore has no opinion on net neutrality.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Myth: Anyone gives a damn about factually dubious rants.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The irony of your post vs your sig is delicious. Meanwhile, I can't help wondering how long it will take some future Republican administration to unroll this, so the big ISPs can go back to rent-seeking.
Speaking of roads and public schools...
The biggest wastes of money when it comes to roads and public schools is the enrichment of private entities who have found a way to get themselves access to the public purse.
Same with the corrections industry.
I can't help wondering how long it will take some future Republican administration to unroll this, so the big ISPs can go back to rent-seeking.
That is unlikely. There is rarely a ground swell of support for anti-monopoly actions, such as NN and this ban on bans, because the public is not aware of how much they are harmed by rigged markets. But once the monopoly is broken, people will be much more opposed to reinstating it.
One sentence: Now you actually have a chance to have a decent internet service without massively overpaying for it in US.
It's going to be interesting to see how quickly municipal internet in US can actually challenge incumbent monopolies and force them to compete on quality and price.
The net neutrality vote gets a lot more attention, but this is even more important IMHO. Net neutrality wouldn't even need to be enforced by the FCC if there were sufficient competiton.
Not really. I'm from a socialist country, and on of the key aspects to our prosperity and competitiveness is enabling private entities to get to compete for and win profitable infrastructure contracts.
This is because private contractors bring significant amount of expertise and capability that government would have to build from ground up without them, as well as force costs down through competition. Problems only arise when said private contractors become big and powerful enough to corrupt those making decisions behind these projects to favour them in various ways.
It's another one of those "capitalism works really well as long as it is properly managed and doesn't get big enough to corrupt powerful entities" moments.
Does the FCC even have the authority to do that? Under what legal theory does an unelected federal regulatory commission have the authority to overrule state government laws on matters of state government interest? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see such laws go, as they're a major competition inhibitor, but how does the FCC have any authority in this?
Congress has clear authority to regulate interstate commerce, under the Constitution. Unlike some other things Congress has tried to regulate, it is very clear that the Internet is interstate commerce.
Having said that, the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy. The correct answer to that question is probably no. But I know there are many people who would argue that point.
The last time the courts ruled on this, the ruling was that the FCC had ceded power and couldn't claim it back without the will of god. Or Congress, or something.
Not even close. The Supreme Court ruled that the FCC could not impose the rules it had tried to impose, BECAUSE it had not classified internet companies as Title II common carrier communications companies. So what the FCC did here, quite properly (if you accept that they have any authority to do it at all), was to re-classify internet providers as Title II common carriers.
There are many implications to this that people haven't been discussing much. It depends on the exact language of the rules when they go into effect. But the OLD rules for Title II common carriers stipulated that your communications can't be legally "intercepted" without a warrant. So deep packet inspection by ISPs is probably out the window.
Nah. Lots of corporate campaign contributions, a few Federal lawsuits, and then there'll be a lot of sound bites about "getting the government off our backs" and "deregulation" and "states rights" and hey presto! we'll be back to monopolistic rent-seeking before you know it.
Municipal electric utilities have sprung up for some time, but they're still relatively uncommon despite the benefits. I suspect it will be similar for internet utilities.
And of course, if Comcast charges $75/month and the city charges only $25, some people will still whine about it because it's the evil government charging the $25.
Yeah -- subpar. Every time I ask FedEx or UPS to mail a letter for me for less than 50c, they laugh.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Given the 8-1 decision in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League in 2004, it's essentially certain that this FCC action will be overturned by the courts. The FCC doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that federal law did not and could not preempt a Missouri state law that prohibited municipalities from providing Internet service. Of the eight-member majority in that case, five (Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Scalia, and Thomas) are still on the court.
the question that remains is whether Congress can delegate their lawmaking authority to some government bureaucracy. The correct answer to that question is probably no.
If that were true the Treasury (part of the Executive branch) wouldn't be able to issue debt. Up until WWI Congress decided how much debt to issue. During WWI a lot of expenses started adding up (tanks, planes, etc) and Congress found debating how sell bonds to be boring. So they gave that responsibility over to the Treasury and said "If we've made it part of a law and it requires money, issue as much debt as needed to pay for it". Later, they imposed a "debt limit", but it's odd to impose the debt limit on the Treasury given the fact that the Treasury is only finding ways to fill in the funding gaps laid out by Congresses budget.
once again: you are wrong about independent agencies.
we've been through this at least a dozen times.
Congress absolutely has the power the to delegate, the same as the President does.
Just as no one could ever reasonably the President to personally oversee the enforcement of the entire body of law without delegation, no one could ever expect the Congress, 535 people, to personally be experts at every single topic and perform all necessary oversight. It take an entire agency to keep an eye on Wall Street, the SEC. It takes an entire agency to study the environment we live in and forge compromises between the needs of the public and the needs of industry, the EPA. I could run through the entire list, but there should be no need.
The only people who argue the point are unreasonable people who think a return to the agrarian society run by educated scholarly farmers envisioned by Jefferson is still a real possibility, ignoring all else that has happened in the past 200 years. The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that Congress can delegate, but it doesnt explicitily state a lot of things that we take for granted. The Founders were a lot of things, and varied a lot in ideology and opinion on strong or weak the government should be. But one thing they were not was stupid. And the idea that they expected us to adhere to the document like a holy writ verbatim for eternity was not part of the plan, as evidenced by the many clauses and phrases that are vague generalities and obviously exist solely for the purpose of expanding on the parts that are spelled out.
Parts like (and this is not an exhaustive list) the 9th Amendment, the process for amending the document, and most relevant to this topic, the Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the "basket clause". Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18:
p>The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
IE, whatever it takes to run the country and enact the peoples will, they can do. Case closed.
And there was a case, and it wasn't recent. McCulloch v Maryland, in 1819, a time when many of the Founders were themselves still alive, if not for much longer. And in that case the Courts established quite clearly that:
"First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government."
as indeed it must. Explicit powers are no good if they cannot be implemented due to the technicality that the prerequisites were not also explicitly stated. Again: the Founders were not stupid, but to take the opposite interpretation, an interpretation you seem to believe, is to imply that the Founders were in fact stupid.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If access to the World Wide Web and Internet doesn't qualify as interstate commerce then nothing does.
FedEx et al would undercut the prices and only take the bigger cities where it costs less on average to post a letter. USPS cannot refuse to take a letter for the same price from Podunk to Notown all the way across the country. So if the private industry want to play, they'd need to be forced to offer a universal postal service just like USPS. Which would be decried by you and the one you quoted as "bad government regulation interfering with private industry!". But without that, either
a) you have no postal service in smaller towns (no demand on USPS to offer a service)
or
b) no genuine market rate for delivery, since it won't include costs of universal postal service amortization.
the first is unfair on the people, the second is not proving that private industry has any ability to offer a cheaper and more efficient service, since they can avoid some of the costs of service when compared to the governmental service, which is unfair on the government. Remember, governments are made of people working there too, you know, just like corporations.
Allowing the FCC to nullify state law sounds pretty damn outrageous. I.E. it has Barack Obama's fingerprints all over it and deserves to go down in flames in the courts. As for allowing towns to set up their own ISP's, I don't see a problem with it as long as the town citizenry gets a vote and they don't go deep into debt and ask to get bailed out by the state later. What towns ought to do though is make it possible for companies to build or improve their networks, something the FCC can't pretend to have any control over.
Actually the FCC is preventing states from nullifying the will of municipalities.
Make no mistake, these laws, no matter what rationales are offered, are only about protecting outfits like Comcast and Time Warner Cable from competition, and keeping certain areas reserved for them until they feel like getting around to providing service in them.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Even if it is interstate commerce, the constitution says congress has the power to regulate it not some extra legislative commit or department. It doesn't resolve the need for an act of congress to create the regulation or even pass the standards for the regulation to a department created for that reason. And there lays the problem, the FCC has openly and often admitted that congress never intended the FCC to regulate the internet in the ways it is trying to do. Congress has never given the FCC the power to create laws or rules for existing laws that would allow this to survive a constitutional challenge in court.