Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Loses Court Battle To Let Cities Build their Own Broadband (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the audible-sigh dept.

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.

11 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. While It Sucks... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.
    1. Re:While It Sucks... by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      not allow the Federal Government to intrude in State Business

      Many of the arguments that apply with federal government meddling in state business also would apply to state governments meddling in local business...especially when companies fail to deliver adequate services.

    2. Re:While It Sucks... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...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.

      So why is it bad when the Federal Government tells a State what to do, but it's a-okay when the State tells a City what to do?

      You do realize that the Federal Government is perfectly authorized to regulate interstate commerce, right?

      By the way, it's also not so easy to simply elect officials based on a single issue, on any level except the local, unless you manage to make that issue a single hot-button, which really only occurs for a very few number of sparing things. Furthermore, it's not always simply the case of "enforced monopoly", because in many cases the amount of investment needed to wire a city in competition with an established provider is very large, and the expected rate of return just doesn't justify a second private company making it, so passing a community bond issue is really your only option short of praying to Google to come to your town.

    3. Re:While It Sucks... by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many of the arguments that apply with federal government meddling in state business also would apply to state governments meddling in local business

      The same arguments do apply, but it's irrelevant in this case.

      The FCC doesn't make laws, that's Congress' job. They were trying to override the state laws without the authority to do so.

    4. Re:While It Sucks... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, and the government needs to push back like it did for 55 mph speed limits nationwide.

      Cut Federal Funding until the states comply with the directive.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    5. Re:While It Sucks... by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The internet is hardly "within its own borders". The states can't regulate which trucking companies operate on the interstate highways either. Why should we let them regulate this? This is precisely one of those things we need the feds for.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:While It Sucks... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cut Federal Funding until the states comply with the directive.

      The Constitution places restrictions on what the federal government can do. It is an abuse of its taxing authority to use it to impose otherwise unconstitutional demands on the states. Municipal broadband has mostly worked well, and IMO should be allowed, but if you allow the federal bureaucrats to bend the states to their will on this, then the door is open to federal impositions on many other issues that you may not like so much.

      The bottom line, is that if we want better government, then we should vote for it.

    7. Re:While It Sucks... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think the nationwide 55 was a good idea?

      You want to increase the power of Imperial Washington?

      The one clear check and balance on Imperial Washington are the states. If you're not happy about the Patriot Act, NSA over reaching then maybe, just maybe, you ought to be wary about other over reaches (even if the particular instance leads to a desired result).

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    8. Re:While It Sucks... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, 55 mph was a stupid idea.

      And them repeating the tactic isn't growing anything. An example of this has happened, and can happen again anytime.

      You are arguing "Black or White" , I am saying this is (not 50) "shades of grey" .

      There is a clear abuse going on between comcast and state government. I have absolutely no issue with the government stepping in with the retraction of federal funding to crush that.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    9. Re:While It Sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...that Providers enjoy a monopoly, they do so because the elected officials provided it.

      Not necessarily, and as a matter of actual legislative decision, those kinds of franchise agreements are now banned.

      By the United States Congress. Who did it over 2 decades ago. So stop blaming that.

      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 it in other things that you decidedly don't want.

      Except as mentioned above, there are no such monopolies granted by state or local authority, rather the problem here is banning local governments from engaging in a service to their public by the state governments.

      So your premise seems to be flawed. Not to mention how you seem to be operating under the assumption that Federal intervention is a bad thing, however that is not borne out by experience. State governments have been consistently negligent when it comes to securing rights, or downright oppressive, and the Federal practice of holding off has caused more harm by inaction than any demonstrated oppression by the Federal Government.

      Sorry, but that's just history for you. State sovereignty has not been a kind and beneficent force, but rather abuse and neglect. The libertarian mindset has not lead to more freedom, but strictly speaking, less, and more suffering. That's why it keeps getting rejected, as it fails to accomplish what it purports to do. Your religion is a sham, a false philosophy that deserves scorn.

      Even in this instance, you have neglected to identify a federal action that has caused a problem, while the state governments have been the ones who have engaged in the reprehensible conduct, namely forbidding their local institutions from taking action that their people want.

      Given how many state governments are demonstrably gerrymandered, perhaps the Feds need to intervene even more than they did with Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr.

      Of course, to do that, we'd need the Feds to exercise the will of the people, and they're unfortunately compromised as well. That's why they've been able to do nothing for the past few sessions, even trumpeting their victories as a vote to repeal the ACA dozens of times...uh-what? That's supposed to sound good? Are they that dumb, or are people dumb enough to believe it?

      You can find a lot of flaws in government, that's true, but your objections are based on shallow examinations, and instead of thorough consideration, you're just relying on principles you purport to believe in, without adding an element of comprehension and articulation.

  2. Re:Government regulation preventing real competiti by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?