Slashdot Mirror
FCC Loses Court Battle To Let Cities Build their Own Broadband (theverge.com)
Jacob Kastrenakes, writing for The Verge: The Federal Communications Commission's plan to let cities build their own broadband networks hit a major roadblock today, as a federal appellate court ruled that the commission was overstepping its authority. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said today that the FCC is not able to, essentially, remove state laws that prevent the construction of municipal broadband networks, as it attempted to do in Wilson, North Carolina and Chattanooga, Tennessee last year. Both Wilson and Chattanooga had petitioned the FCC for permission to build out their own broadband networks -- a measure some cities are turning to in order to increase competition among internet providers, who often hold regional monopolies and more or less refuse to compete. State laws, however, prevented them from doing so; that's the case in 19 states in total, all of which could have been affected by future FCC orders had the court ruled in its favor.Ars Technica has more details.
...that Providers enjoy a monopoly, they do so because the elected officials provided it.
The proper solution is through electing officials that will revoke the monopolies, not allow the Federal Government to intrude in State Business because once you allow that, you are likely to see i in other things that you decidedly don't want.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Sounds like 19 states + their broadband service provider cronies need to be brought up on racketeering charges.
As long as it means no competition for our big telecoms!
7th circuit, baby!
Give us that high high speed!
I feel the need, the need to slurp up Gigabit plus speeds!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The FCC has no power to control state law.
That's government today for you.
when the federal government stands in the way of even local governments being able to do what they want in their own cities.
State government, not federal.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
How funny that in a recent thread someone was trying to claim it was a fantasy that government regulation had no effect on ISP choice, when the federal government stands in the way of even local governments being able to do what they want in their own cities.
State laws, however, prevented them from doing so; ...
Are you being sarcastic? It's the Federal government that is trying to create more competition but STATE governments are stopping it.
If we don't stand up to big government to protect the interests of innovaters like Comcst and AT&T, who will?
next states will race to have the lowest min wage
How funny that in a recent thread someone was trying to claim it was a fantasy that government regulation had no effect on ISP choice, when the federal government stands in the way of even local governments being able to do what they want in their own cities.
Keep hittin the glass pipe Ken!
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
If you're not busy finding alternatives to incumbent representatives at all levels you're doing it wrong. If your current sheriff/mayor/representative ain't catching hell for revolutionary behavior, vote 'em out. Look for candidates the MSM is ignoring or trashing and give 'em a job. We can swap 'em out again in 2-6 years if they don't get the message. The 'establishment', and all connected to it, have got to be thrown out of power ASAP because they're busy as beavers tooling the system to make it impossible to fight them.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
The major providers are extremely rich, so they can afford legislation that will protect their monopoly.
The FCC does not have equivalently-wealthy backers, and as such is much weaker legally.
If you want this changed, voting for a rep that promises this might help. But the REAL victory will be won by a lobbyist. Your most effective means of making this happen is to find that lobby, and fund it.
Municipal broadband is something that needs to happen sooner or later, preferably sooner, and ISPs know this, which is why they're fighting against it so hard right now. For good or for ill, Internet access has become a necessity, not a luxury, in the United States; try finding a job in 2016 without the Internet, or try having school-age, or even college-age kids, without Internet access; in both cases, you're at a severe disadvantage, and are likely to be left behind. The sooner the majority of voting-age U.S. citizens get together and demand of Congress that broadband become a public utility and made available to every American at a reasonable price (or free, ala-'Universal Lifeline' telephone service), the better for everyone. Probably the best way to implement it would be wirelessly.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
State's rights are a good thing. If the electorate of those 19 states don't like it, it's their job to change it.
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
However you might feel about people like "The Donald" keep in mind that he has not been bought and paid for by the cable industry. http://www.fiercecable.com/cab... Or the banks http://www.salon.com/2016/05/0... Or even the Russians http://www.nytimes.com/interac... She is just one candidate that you could choose not to support, I'm not suggesting you vote for "The Donald" but at least you're not voting for a criminal. Additionally look at where the vast majority of political contributions flow to and from before you cast your next vote for your local city and state officials. Tired of the government fucking you over? Stop asking them to do so with your votes. And yes, on this site, I expect this comment to be removed completely or down modded into oblivion because diversity of thought is not allowed.
The republicans must be up in arms over this ruling, not to mention these anti-free enterprise laws passed by democratic state legislatures. Right?
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Netizens of those states, bend over, apply ample lube and spread wide.
... are going to do it anyway. Jus' sayin'.
I guess when you worship an ideology, things like the details of your argument are unimportant (hint: this was the Federal government trying to let cities to do what they want).
The republicans must be up in arms over this ruling, not to mention these anti-free enterprise laws passed by democratic state legislatures. Right?
And those Democrats! Why - we've even got a Democratic president, for gosh's sake. What does he say?
I'll bet if the Democrats and Republicans wanted to, they could pass a law that would have bipartisan support, and then the Democratic president could sign it into office.
Hah hah hah! I'm kidding.
Obama (the Democrat in charge) gave the telecoms immunity in return for campaign donations.
There's no reason to believe that he wouldn't veto the bill in return for more campaign donations... to Hillary, for instance.
Cities are becoming MUCH more important than the states they reside in. Time to give them extra representation.
To all you power users (most of us on Slashdot). If an ISP becomes a utility (municipal or not) it will be pay-for-what-you-use the same as water or electricity. Keep that in mind before you start jumping on the utility bandwagon. ;) Telecoms that offer blanket packages are in our best interest because we consume far more bandwidth than the average user. ISP as a utility would kill a lot of internet based companies & severely limit our use of the internet compared to current standards. In my opinion everyone should be against ISP as a utility concept.
Honestly I'm surprised ISP's are against it. Perhaps they realize with lower use it would cease to become an important part of our lives and they would actually lose money in the long run? ISP as utility seems like it would kill the internet and leave access and hosting only to the major corporations... essentially becoming TV all over again. The divide between low income and high income families would become greater as low income families would not be able to afford access.
So next time you hear about ISP as a utility please consider the implications of what that really means, pay-for-what-you-consume. A scary thought for most geeks.
State are defined in the US Constitution, and everything else falls below that into a different category. Cursory history lessons prove you wrong. Nothing like progressive trolling I guess.
Do the municipalities have standing to sue the states? I'd take it all the way to SCOTUS. IMHO, we have a right not to have our state government taken over by private corporations. That's probably too radical an idea for the men and women in black robes; but the way I see it that's what happened--the legislators of those states have utterly failed to protect the rights of their citizens. It's a civil rights violation the way I see it.
If Congress doesn't make a stupid law, the President will arrogantly dictate the stupidity.
If the Congress and the President don't do it, the Supreme Court will make up some bullshit.
If the feds don't do it, the states will - corrupt legislatures, tyrannical governors, and crappy state supreme courts.
If the states don't do it, the counties will.
If the counties don't do it, the cities and towns will.
The whole lot of them are a bunch of vile, corrupt pigs.
You naive fool. This is all about getting more control into the hands of the government. You don't need a wiretap when you own the wire. You don't need censorship when mommies demand you block evil porn. Just sad that Bernies website showed up on the porn list accidentally.
That's not hyperbole. That's business as usual in banana republics.
No, the proper solution is for all of us to take a break and have a sit-down and talk about what form of government we think we might really like to have and work through all the Hobbes/Hamilton brainwashing we're all being put through. To that end, I have created The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party Facebook group and I recommend all interested to join.
They already do. Several cities have passed laws to increase their minimum wage only to have their states pass legislation forbidding any municipality to increase their minimum wage.
However you might feel about people like "The Donald" keep in mind that he has not been bought and paid for by the cable industry.
The cable industry isn't dumb enough to buy and pay for a Donald. They've made fistfuls of cash for the past year just by giving him free airtime.
So, here we go again.
Just like with the establishment of telephone service lines.
Just like with privately held public transit systems.
Just like with privately owned bridges goin into and out of major cities, where monopolies were created.
Just like with the railroads.
Look at history. This will not be a short fight. But, internet service is a UTILITY.
Well, it looks (based on a scan of the ruling) that if the US Congress gave the FCC that power, then they would. However, the Congress has not done so, and so the FCC doesn't have it.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
We'll wait for you to admit you were wrong. I suspect it may be a while.
I really just don't get it...
Pass a municipal law mandating the use of a municipal ISP for local government.
Setup/Create the ISP.... creating local jobs.
Get a deal from the major ISP players for consolidated local traffic.
ISP's can afford the cash to lobby a few key officials in Washington.
But can they afford to lobby several local municipalities or states ?
Lots more interested parties... Lots more cash needed for that.
If enough localities start pressing, the ISPs will concede since the cost of numerous local lobbying will outweigh the cost of backing down.
Am I wrong?