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.

18 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Well done FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good on you FCC!

    1. Re:Well done FCC by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a slippery slope, soon the railroad barons will have to allow anyone to transport on their tracks!

  2. cant lie by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:cant lie by Luthair · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oddly parts of his background were overlooked by everyone. He was CEO of a small ISP at one point and was involved in tech startups until the 90s.

  3. Yay! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  4. Great News by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. Re: Systemd, for or against? by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

    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)
  6. Re: 0pointer's 30 myths about systemd by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
  7. Re:One Word ... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Oh joy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:One Word ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:One Word ... by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Oh joy. by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re: Authority by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:One Word ... by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re: One Word ... by anagama · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  15. Re:One Word ... by SEE · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:One Word ... by unitron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.