Slashdot Mirror
North Carolina Still Wants To Block Municipal Broadband
An anonymous reader writes: In February, when the FCC rolled out its net neutrality rules, it also voted to override state laws that let Texas and North Carolina block ISPs created by local governments and public utilities. These laws frequently leave citizens facing a monopoly or duopoly with no recourse, so the FCC abolished them. Now, North Carolina has sued the FCC to get them back. State Attorney General Roy Cooper claims, "the FCC unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State's political subdivisions." He adds that the new rule is "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; and is otherwise contrary to law."
Because FUCK YOU , that's why.
it hurts the kickbacks that Roy Cooper gets!
While it seems like the federal government is out of line taking the right to govern away from the states, in reality it is the states that are taking away the right to govern from local governments that ACTUALLY WANT municipal broadband.
Ensuring that municipalities maintain their rights to roll out local broadband isn't a perversion of states rights, its preventing states rights from perverting local rights.
I really don't understand it either. If the government entity receives no unfair treatment and has to play by the same rules as every other company, there's no reason why a local municipality shouldn't be able to collectively decide that they want to take a crack at creating something better.
It seems that some people are more anti-government than they are pro-market or have become so accustomed to making the same argument that they're not even bothering to look at the issue at hand.
At least it makes sense for the politicians to oppose it. They probably get all kinds of brib^H^H^H^Hcontributions from the companies that are paying for these monopoly rights.
You people don't understand because you seem to be working under the assumption that politicians are out to serve the public, and that this is somehow an ideological issue. If you look at it instead as "scumbag politicians, acting purely in their own self-interest, soliciting big campaign donations from cablecos/telcos" it makes a lot more sense, doesn't it?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner Cable say "It's nice to find some politician that actually stay paid off and don't want to rock the boat"
Well, there is the argument that no matter how many rules you make, the municipality automatically has an unfair advantage. And this is true. The municipality gets to set the rules, by definition they have a better position than the telcos. If TWC wants to run cable, they need to raise money from existing customers or investors, get permits and approval from the municipality, buy property or usage rights and then maintain a customer base to pay for maintenance.
If the municipality wants to run cable, they can (in order from least to most likely to piss people off) float a bond, raid the educational funds or simply hike taxes, they can then run cable wherever they want, citing "public good" for the taking of private land or the usage of private land, and then they can simply tax the populous to fund and maintain, even if there are no customers.
Muni broadband may or may not be a good thing, and the exclusive monopoly contracts a mostly a bad thing, but that doesn't mean that muni and commercial broadband could ever be considered to operate on an equal playing field.
It was Virginia's AG that did not do his job.
They swore an oath to uphold the state's constitution and their laws regardless of their personal beliefs. Virginia's AG usurped the authority given to the state legislature and failed to act on their behalf. His job is to represent law makers to the state supreme court and higher.
I don't agree with the ban but you can't overlook someone's failing as an AG simply because the outcome was favorable to your side. Roy Cooper was correct, since in my state the AG would face impeachment for refusing to act on behalf of the legislature.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
If you want to believe that politicians aren't just a bunch of amoral, self-serving scumbags, you go right on ahead.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Ignoring your double negative, it's because the town doesn't want to pay obscene 90+% profit margins that leave the town and don't help its economy. They want to pay the upfront costs using a bond, then run the broadband service at cost.
Private companies know they can't compete with a service run at cost, and that's why they lobby to ban them outright.
The people of the town can elect or depose the leaders of city hall.
What do you mean?