Appeals Court Decision Kills North Carolina Town's Gigabit Internet (hothardware.com)

MojoKid writes: In early August, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the FCC had no authority to prevent states from imposing restrictions on municipal internet. This was a result of the FCC stepping in last year in an effort to "remove barriers to broadband investment and competition." However, the courts sided with the states, which said that the FCC's order impeded on state rights. In the end, this ruling clearly favored firmly entrenched big brand operators like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and ATT, which lobbied hard to keep competition at bay. The federal ruling specifically barred municipal internet providers from offering service outside of their city limits, denying them from providing service to under-served communities. The fallout from the federal court's rejection of the FCC order to extend a lifeline to municipal internet providers has claimed another victim. The small community of Pinetops, North Carolina -- population 1,300 -- will soon have its gigabit internet connection shut off. Pinetops has been the recipient of Greenlight internet service, which is provided by the neighboring town of Wilson. The town of Wilson has been providing electric power to Pinetops for the past 40 years, and had already deployed fiber through the town in order to bolster its smart grid initiative. What's infuriating to the Wilson City Council and to the Pinetop residents that will lose their high-speed service is that the connections are already in place. There's no logical reason why they should be cut off, but state laws and the lobbyists supporting those laws have deemed what Greenlight is doing illegal. Provide power to a neighboring town -- sure that's OK. Provide better internet to a neighboring town -- lawsuit

Comments

Right.

[EzInKy]

Just like States can impose restrictions on where you pee.

Re:Right.

[philip456]

Don't blame the states, blame the big corporations and blame us for looking the other way while we got to the situation, where $2.6 billion of reported lobbying (bribery) donations are given to the House and Senate every year.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah let's turn this into an LGBT issue, that'll make things more progressive.

Re:Right.

[ravenshrike]

Ironically, given the nature of the business of the corporations in question and the internet in particular, this is actually a situation where an originalist reading of the commerce clause would give the feds carte blanche. The one time the courts fucking should apply it, they don't.

Re: Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is easy to do to the electorate.

Another example would be that regardless of anyone's promises, the H1-b program will never end because as soon as any Congressman makes noises about it, the tech industry's lobbyists are putting a kibosh f any repeal.

Re:Right.

[dmbasso]

http://wolf-pac.com/

Please, do something if you can.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame "us" why? You say to blame "us" like we could do something about it. What would you have "us" do other than read news articles and say how bad it is? There is literally nothing "the People" can do about this kind of injustice. American democracy is a sick joke.

Re:Right.

[currently_awake]

Blame the politicians for taking bribes, or being influenced by deep pocket corporations. People can demand these monopoly laws be removed, the voting record of the state politicians is a matter of public record so you know who to blame. Politicians only get away with this corruption because the voters don't care. Also spin off the municipal broadband as a private corporation and they can keep it running.

Re:Right.

[dkone]

How in the fcuk did this comment get modded as insightful? Out of the three you got 1 right.

Don't blame the States - Wrong, blame the States, it is the States (as through it's elected officials) that is taking the bribes (meaning the 'legal' lobbying).
Blame the big corporation - Correct.
Blame us- Wrong. The corruption of politics is so complete that if you believe your vote counts for anything then you are delusional.

Re:Right.

[Applehu Akbar]

Blame "us" why? You say to blame "us" like we could do something about it. What would you have "us" do other than read news articles and say how bad it is? There is literally nothing "the People" can do about this kind of injustice. American democracy is a sick joke.

Precisely why the overwhelming public perception right now is that the only fix to vote for an outsider candidate and blow it the hell up.

Re:Right.

[Applehu Akbar]

Yeah let's turn this into an LGBT issue, that'll make things more progressive.

You may actually be onto something here. If we can somehow define municipal broadband as an LGBT right, no court can stop it.

Re:Right.

[RatPh!nk]

I'm a doctor - MD type. I can't take a pen or a lunch without being accused of having a terrible bias and being "on the take" with "big Pharma" but politicians can literally take tens or even hundreds of thousands actual US dollars (maybe millions) then write (or have written for them) clearly bribed legislation and this is normal. Hmmmm.....

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely why the overwhelming public perception right now is that the only fix to vote for an outsider candidate and blow it the hell up.

Then, in typical dumbass kneejerk fashion, the worst possible "outsider" is picked as the purported "campion": an individual who has made his billions doing precisely the actions he will supposedly save the people from.

In comparison, Bernie the Commie looks outright awesome (even though he wouldn't deliver either).

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

You statists take the blame. Without you, the congress and state assemblies would have no power.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame us- Wrong. The corruption of politics is so complete that if you believe your vote counts for anything then you are delusional.

Your influence in government is increased the more local that government is. Your vote may not count much (if at all) at a federal level, but it does at the state level.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, according to most voters, this double standard is normal, and even highly desirable. I doubt any voter can explain why they believe it so overwhelmingly passionately, but every other November they prove that it really is one of the most important issues to them.

Re:Right.

[dingleberrie]

I think it's because doctors don't approve laws for doctors, but politicians approve laws for politicians.

Re: Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you more likely to prescribe a new medication when an older cheaper medication will do? If so then yes you are on the take. Just like if I were to push unessarry upgrades as an IT. The general rule of thumb is, who are you benefiting with your decision, yourself of the patient/consumer.

As for legislators, yes they are on the take. They get paid to push laws for their intrest groups. There is no other way to look at it. Rent seeking is a drain on us the people, and needs to be eliminated. But since that is the only paycheck legislators get, good luck getting that to pass.

Re:Right.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I'm assuming you've never heard of ACCE, the American City County Exchange (for corporate dollars). It's the "local" version of ALEC, so they can control even your city council, local school boards, etc. "ACCE brings together local elected officials, leading industry experts and policy analysts" to compute the most effective exploitation system of citizen-based resources, tax deferments, multi-state corporate agendas, etc. ACCE is the "snake in the garden", reporting on local council meetings so they can "advise" state-level "elected officials" to pass laws and stop community-level actions before the cities can even manage to get it on to a ballot.

Re:Right.

[cellocgw]

[snip]American democracy is a sick joke

Certainly one of the sickest parts of the joke is "States' Rights." It's absolutely batshit crazy to have something be legal for your pal a mile away (next state over) which would throw you in jail in your state. Drug use, marriage age, sexual positions or partners are obvious examples. Or slavery, of course, if you go back a couple years.
The sad fact is that we're nowhere near being "One country," (under $DEITY or not). Only a heavily duck-taped illusion of a Federal gov't is keeping the US from becoming a dozen or so separate republics with radically different ideas about everything from gun ownership to religious rights.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians only get away with this corruption because the voters don't care.

Politicians get away with this corruption because the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times lately that corruption is legal. Like that recent case where the governor of Virginia was caught taking $177,000 in bribes from a wealthy Richmond businessman seeking political favors. Governor Robert McDonnell was convicted of 11 corruption counts including bribery, conspiracy and extortion for taking the money in exchange for promoting a dietary supplement made by the businessman's company. Virginia was going to throw this corrupt asshat in prison for two years, but the Supreme's unanimous threw out the conviction because taking bribes to use the governor's position to set up meetings, call public officials, and host events somehow does not qualify as an official act of the governor.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely why the overwhelming public perception right now is that the only fix to vote for an outsider candidate and blow it the hell up.

If by "overwhelming" you mean "maybe somewhere around half."

Re: Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Implying the power wouldn't just be in the form of a market cartel.

The market pays people to undermine market freedom.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! As a devoutly religious Binarian, also disabled, veteran, gay, trans-human cyborg, with ADHD & living below the poverty level, (as I only receive one dollar a year from my multi-million nonprofit), I will henceforth demand this service to be a right on all those levels and pursue such legislation with gusto & verve the likes of which no average person has seen before! (can someone puch my wheelchair there? My battery has run low).

Re:Right.

[networkBoy]

Only a heavily duck-taped illusion of a Federal gov't is keeping the US from becoming a dozen or so separate republics with radically different ideas about everything from gun ownership to religious rights.

not the worst idea...

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is to set aside $5,000,000,000 for ALL federal elections and ban any donations to ANY organization remotely affiliated with ANY politician. Then index that $5B to inflation (we'd see real inflation rates again vs. the tweaked numbers reported today, but that's another story).

That way, Congressmen don't spend half of every work day in a call center, making phone calls for money for their party's candidates. They can actually READ legislation they're working on.

The cons argument of, "It squelches free speech," is countered by the fact that our representatives WE CHOSE voted to pay for all elections. That is our free speech - who we vote for... Besides, not ALL free speech is healthy/allowed in a free society - and the dirty, financial side of "free speech" in the form of lobbying/corruption is definitely bad for the country as a whole. Yes, corporations and lobbyists should be able to make their arguments, but not with a side of green to tip the scales in their favor.

Re:Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

[snip]American democracy is a sick joke

Certainly one of the sickest parts of the joke is "States' Rights." It's absolutely batshit crazy to have something be legal for your pal a mile away (next state over) which would throw you in jail in your state. Drug use, marriage age, sexual positions or partners are obvious examples. Or slavery, of course, if you go back a couple years.
The sad fact is that we're nowhere near being "One country," (under $DEITY or not). Only a heavily duck-taped illusion of a Federal gov't is keeping the US from becoming a dozen or so separate republics with radically different ideas about everything from gun ownership to religious rights.

No you're thinking of it all wrong.

Why states rights are important is so you can sandbox the crazy in smaller areas. That way when some relatively powerful people decide they want to outlaw blowjobs, they have to do it in every state (or more likely give up and declare victory after they get their home state) rather than being able to sneak it into one "continue to not euthanize orphans" bill and have it affect the whole country.

Re:Right.

[bane2571]

I'm from Australia and here the idea that a state can set laws like drug use or marriage age seems crazy though we do have somewhat of the same style, particularly when it comes to bureaucratic things like street signage.

I've always been confused by the idea that the US is some monolithic entity when it seems to my view to be structured more like the European Union - a group of separate entities with different overarching beliefs (compare California to Texas), different laws (Colorado) and probably many other differences an outsider isn't too aware of.

Re:Right.

[orgelspieler]

No raindrop thinks it is responsible for the flood.

Re:Right.

[erapert]

Stop voting for more government power for starters.

Just keep it running.

[Z80a]

Arrest anyone that tries to shut it off.

Re:Just keep it running.

[sg_oneill]

Arrest anyone that tries to shut it off.

That would be contempt of court, and the arresting officer would be facing potentially serious jail time if coupled with deprivation of liberty charges.

Unfortunately big business has trampled roughshod over citizens rights, yet again.

Re:Just keep it running.

[umghhh]

If you arrest all of them for traffic violation there will be no contempt. You just have to be as creative as the lawsters.

Re: Just keep it running.

[Anonymous Coward]

We must accept that some religions are inherently dangerous and should be banned. Islam should be banned because the terrorists believe they need to kill anyone who doesn't accept their religion. Likewise, Judaism is dangerous because corporations get loaded up with Jewish executives who screw everyone over. The only good thing to come from kikes was the invention of copper wire, which was discovered accidentally because of two kikes fighting over a penny. These cable companies have to be run by kikes, considering how nasty they are to the people they're supposed to be serving. Get the kikes out of the boardroom and companies like Time Warner and Comcast are far more likely to provide affordable internet service with higher speeds, thus eliminating the need for municipal broadband.

Re: Just keep it running.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to your debate prep, Donald. Make America white again!

Re: Just keep it running.

[Z80a]

Banning any sort of speech is very dangerous because all you accomplish is to sweep the thing under the rug, where less people have the opportunity to point out the flaws.
If you want to kill islam, you should be fighting for the right of criticizing it, rather than trying to "just to the same thing, but for the "right side" (tm)".

Re:Just keep it running.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Arrest anyone that tries to shut it off.

Anarchy -- now that's the spirit. The country may go up in flames as more and more people model your example and just "take what's theirs," but thank heavens 1300 people will have a fast pipe to read about it.

Re:Just keep it running.

[Grishnakh]

Who's going to jail the arresting officer? What if the entire city's police department joins him? Are they going to send in the state police and have a war between them? That'd be interesting to see, actually.

Re:Just keep it running.

[Z80a]

If everything becomes anarchy, yes.
But it is a good tool to have on your belt when everything else fails, kinda like having a picklock for when you lose your keys.

Re:Just keep it running.

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Sorry, bro -- you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on whether the prospect of losing a fiber internet connection is an "everything else fails" situation that calls for an uprising against the government. Talk about first world problems.

Re:Just keep it running.

[Z80a]

Well, it's not about losing a fiber internet connection, it's about letting companies buy the death of the competition.
A future where you're forbidden to compete on anything is basically something like communism but even worse, as they don't even need to pretend that they care about you.

Re:Just keep it running.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's going to jail the arresting officer? What if the entire city's police department joins him? Are they going to send in the state police and have a war between them? That'd be interesting to see, actually.

Yes. Maybe you remember the desegregation of the South and federal troops being called to protect blacks. Or maybe you remember the US Civil War.

Having a city openly rebel against a state is a very bad precedent to have set, and I'm sure the state would want to avoid that.

Re:Just keep it running.

[LynnwoodRooster]

City police? County sheriff. Sheriff? State troopers. There you go.

Re:Just keep it running.

[Grishnakh]

If the city police are united, the state troopers are the only ones who can do anything. County sheriffs have no power at all. And most states don't have that many state policepeople.

So again, I ask: who's going to jail the arresting officer?

Re:Just keep it running.

[Grishnakh]

There's a difference here. With desegregation, the States weren't following *Federal* law, so of course federal troops had to be sent in.

In this hypothetical scenario, there's a city that is refusing to follow *State* law, not federal. So why would the federal government bother sending troops in to enforce a state law?

Yes, I'm sure the state would want to avoid this, but I don't think the federal government is obligated to step in here. However, now that I think about it, the states all do have National Guard units, which they'd probably call up.

Still, I do think it'd be funny to see a city openly rebel against its state over internet access, and then request federal assistance and maybe even attempt to secede and join a neighboring state. West Virginia did it, after all.

Re: Just keep it running.

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, the governor of a state could request aid for a domestic insurrection, as was done in Los Angeles after the riots.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Third_day_.28Friday.2C_May_1.29

Re:Just keep it running.

[LynnwoodRooster]

County Sheriffs don't have any power? In most States, they supercede city police... At least that's the way it is out West, in CA, OR, WA, NV, AZ, MT, ID, UT, etc.

Re:Just keep it running.

[Grishnakh]

The county sheriff is one guy with a pistol. No, he has no power over an entire municipal police department. Even in Maricopa County (which is giant), Sheriff Joe and his deputies are a tiny number of people compared to the combined forces of Phoenix, Tempe, Chandler, Scottsdale, etc. And no, they don't really supercede the city cops to my knowledge, there's some kind of legal system there where the county police have jurisdiction over parts not claimed by any cities, or over cities which outsource their policing to the county (Guadalupe did that for a while because their own cops were too problematic so they disbanded them), but no, they can't just come in and start doing speed patrols and such in the cities. In the eastern states like NC (where this story takes place), counties are tiny and county sheriffs, where city cops exist, don't do much besides serve warrants.

Re: Just keep it running.

[Grishnakh]

Good point. It'd be interesting though if the federal government refused, because the President sided with the city over the state. After all, riots are a rather different matter than a city refusing to enforce state laws, and then using their cops to harass and falsely arrest outsiders attempting to cut their internet service.

Re:Just keep it running.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say setup a non-profit company and give it to them under the charter that they run and maintain the internet for the city but are barred from ever hosting their own content through it and have it funded by the users of the internet.

Then the city wouldn't own it, the non-profit would, then the non-profit follows its charter does does what should be done with an ISP. And when it comes time to upgrade it, they can always petition the city for the funds to build it which the city would most likely agree to if within reason.

Re:Just keep it running.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yes, because that sheriff never has deputies, right? The size of county sheriff forces tends to be quite large, and they have authority over violations outside of cities, and can assume jurisdiction in cities as well for specific issues. To dismiss sheriffs is pretty stupid.

Re:Just keep it running.

[Grishnakh]

To assume that the size of a sheriff force in an east coast county that has a city with its own municipal police will be larger than that municipal police force seems to be a bad assumption to me.

Bribery wins again

[Dog-Cow]

At the very least, service should keep running until someone else provides service. It's not as if Comcast is going to provide service within anyone's lifetime just because Greenlight stops.

Re:Bribery wins again

[Anonymous Coward]

So the big ISPs bought another decision that eliminates any competition! They will do anything to keep their monopolies going, and keep massively gouging customers for capped Internet service. And there are no real reasons for the data caps except to try to keep people from getting rid of the massively overpriced cable TV, and keep on massively price gouging customers for both Internet and cable TV.

Re:Bribery wins again

[Anonymous Coward]

No one will provide service as long as Greenlight is there. What people can't seem to grasp is that nobody can make money when there are multiple service providers because no single provider can get enough customers to be profitable. People complain about monopolies, but the fact is that due to the immense cost of the infrastructure, this is a natural monopoly and should be treated as such.

Re:Bribery wins again

[Anonymous Coward]

It needs a Colorado Amendment 64-style law.

Re:Bribery wins again

[dyslexicbunny]

the fact is that due to the immense cost of the infrastructure, this is a natural monopoly and should be treated as such.

The infrastructure is. One company runs the infrastructure and it's regulated. Like phone, gas, whatever. The service does not have to be.

Re:Bribery wins again

[dgatwood]

Correct. And this town's response should be to lease access to an ISP (ideally owned by a local) under the condition that they provide service under the same terms as the municipal service for at least 3 years, and with the condition that their exclusive access to the lines ends at the end of those three years.

Sorry for the people in NC

[Crashmarik]

Have to hope it motivates them to do something about the legislators that did this.

Kind of happy though, good to see the courts get a Constitutional issue right. They have been pulling far too much out of their ass in the name of making feel good lately.

Work around?

[flex941]

An European here cannot comprehend what's preventing creating a Pinetop Municipal Broadband Company which will provide the connection to locals and contractually buying bandwidth/network and other related services from the Wilson guys?

Re:Work around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps since it is a "small community" its not a city, but an unincorporated area

Re:Work around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sell the fiber network to Pinetops for $1 and then they can hire Wilson to run the net.

Re:Work around?

[Anonymous Coward]

i would be surprised if they weren't already working out the details on something like this... a nice big 'haha, fuck you' to the big isps, their lobbyist army, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians.

Re:Work around?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I as a European don't understand is how it can be that the state can enforce an ISP monopoly. In the United States of Frothing Freemarketia no less.

Re:Work around?

[Darinbob]

Because that too would be disallowed under state law. The locals have no political power. None of this has anything to do with any legal theory or ideal regarding state's rights, it's all about campaign donations. Oh sure, there's some frantic handwaving about how all government is evil and so a municipal government can't tax citizens to provide basic services, even if the citizens voted for it, so therefore there must be an even bigger government to stop that with an iron fist. But no one seriously believes that without being a wearer of tin foil hats. Pure and simple it's all about getting re-elected, which means getting big companies to give you money, and only picking on people that the average voter won't know or care about.

Re:Work around?

[Calydor]

Another European here going WTF at the implication that cities are considered corporations?

Re:Work around?

[houghi]

Capitalism trumps Free Market.

Re:Work around?

[tburkhol]

Incorporation is just a legal framework for people to work together. It doesn't force that organization to have a business plan, to be for-profit, or to seek venture captial and a path to IPO.

Re:Work around?

[dwillden]

Not corporations in the sense that we think of most large businesses with shares and stockholders, but incorporated entities established under the laws of the state to provide for authority to levy taxes and provide services. An unicorporated community has no ability to levy taxes or provide services because it's just a grouping of houses that someone has applied a name to, it has less legal authority than a HOA does.

Re:Work around?

[WolphFang]

We don't have capatilism here, we have a Mercantilistic flavour of Corportism. Followers of true capatilism with open competition need not apply.

Re:Work around?

[Fjandr]

What the US has is crony capitalism. All of the drawbacks of socialism with none of the benefits. It doesn't help that people use terms interchangeably that mean vastly different things. There is a revolving door between big business and the government, so risks are nationalized while the rewards are pocketed. The entire system is fundamentally at odds with laissez faire capitalism, so when people yell that this is what happens in a free market those who actually care what words mean discount them as the ignorant buffoons they are.

Re:Work around?

[dbIII]

This thing is not only neither but blatantly anti-capitalistic.
It's saying you can't sell stuff because the government is saying you cannot.

We put up with that sort of obstruction to capitalism when the stuff is dangerous, but when it's this arbitrary it's behaving like a communist or other authoritarian government.

Re:Work around?

[swillden]

Yeah, sell the fiber network to Pinetops for $1 and then they can hire Wilson to run the net.

That would require that there be a legally entity "Pinetops" to do the buying. If it's an unincorporated area, there isn't. Of course, the residents of Pinetops could create a corporation "Pinetops Internet", or something, and have it buy the fiber network. Assuming the state law doesn't prevent that somehow.

Re:Work around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll.

Your nationality has no bearing on your question, you just had to throw it in there.

Re:Work around?

[Applehu Akbar]

Perhaps since it is a "small community" its not a city, but an unincorporated area

Betcha that Pinetop will shortly incorporate just so it can keep and operate its part of the network.

Re:Work around?

[frank_adrian314159]

Laissez faire capitalism also results in organizations large enough to buy elections and stand against governments with impunity. There must be limits.

Re:Work around?

[Fjandr]

In terms of the US, only if you ignore that legal fictions are constituted completely under the powers reserved by the States. Regulation of legal fictions is completely within the power of the several States as outlined by the 10th Amendment. We have the problems we do now because people have been complacent regarding the use of expedient, but patently unconstitutional, shortcuts to get the results they desire faster. The electorate is ultimately to blame, because people are greedy and self-serving when it comes to anonymously (from a functional societal standpoint) helping themselves to public resources.

Re:Work around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simples, just shoot any farmers big enough to own their own land. I mean, this worked for the Soviets with the Czechs.

Re:Work around?

[BigT]

Assuming the state law doesn't prevent that somehow.

If it doesn't now, it will as soon as Comcast/Time Warner/etc gets out their checkbook.

Re:Work around?

[Hognoxious]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Work around?

[mrchaotica]

Another European here going WTF at the implication that cities are considered corporations?

American here going WTF at the implication that Europeans still consider the alternative -- establishment by royal charter -- to be a good thing.

(FYI, a "municipal corporation" just means that the town was established by the free association of the people who live in it. The concept exists in parts of Europe too, by the way.)

Re:Work around?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Capitalism trumps Free Market.

Using the power of government to take taxes, then create competition, is the exact opposite of Free Market.

All competitors must rely on service quality and cost to convince free people to prefer their product. A government does not, and can force you to pay for the service whether you want it or not.

As added insult to injury, the company will pay taxes to support this "competitor".

Re:Work around?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

We don't have capatilism here, we have a Mercantilistic flavour of Corportism. Followers of true capatilism with open competition need not apply.

If you speak of crony capitalism and rent seeking, you have a sympathetic ear.

If you speak of government taxing and creating a competing "product", that is neither capitalism nor free market.

In any case, this isn't about that. It's about the federal government (and an unelected regulatory agency at that) pulling out of its ass it gets to tell states what laws it may permit localities to pass. Localities are creatures of the several states, and this would be an unconstitutional intrusion on the sovereign power of states to create their localities.

The judge even points out there is nothing in the law that clearly authorizes the FCC this power, so he doesn't even bother with the larger constitutional issue. But at a minimum, for the feds to assert this, Congress should be loud and clear about it. Then we'll talk.

Re:Work around?

[cdrudge]

The state isn't enforcing an ISP monopoly. The state is just preventing the local government from getting into the ISP business, that's all. It's a completely different issue that in no way enforces an ISPs monopoly. Nope. None at all. Completely different.

Re:Work around?

[networkBoy]

that's the in!
They need to create an HOA who's sole item is broadband internet.

That *should* work for the end-run of it not being run by an external municipality, and the target area being unincorporated.
-nb

Re:Work around?

[sims 2]

Reminds me of what the city does here AOG would like to run gas lines by the new apartment complexes and homes here but the city prefers that they get paid for electricity via electric heat instead so no gas lines. (Since the city sells water/sewer/garbage collection/electric/cable/phone/internet)

But the city does not sell gas.

Forget to pay your cable bill they shut your electric off.

Re:Work around?

[Anonymous Coward]

The European cities and towns are so old that most are established by a royal at some point or another. The new cities may have been formed from two previous cities by agreement by two sets local elected authorities with the permission of the interior minister or larger local administrative area, for example. Corporation word is therefore never (as in "never have I heard") used in association with a city, but only for those companies and corporations formed by a city or other administrative area to provide services to the inhabitants. This might be the source of cross-Atlantic confusion.

Re:Work around?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is a textbook example of capitalism - the corporation is writing the rules for the benefit of the corporation. The corporation's power lies in the ownership of capital. The government is acting as the enforcement arm of the corporation instead of attempting to regulate that power. This is the libertarian capitalist ideal. And yes, authoritarianism is a facet of any such corporatist system (see WW2 axis powers, Franco's Spain, various others to this day in the developing world - there are always corporations receiving preferential treatment from the state, wielding power over legislation, profiting from the authoritarianism and perpetuating it).

Re:Work around?

[guruevi]

This decision was basically saying that the federal government can't just meddle in state business. That's a good thing. The problem is that the corrupt state leaders have decided that in their state providing certain services is illegal. The town should go to it's courts and have them decide whether or not their state can make such laws or whether it's valid. In many states, it's illegal for the government to compete with a business (for good reason) except for utilities. They could probably legally sell the system for a dollar to a true business or a non profit using the same tricks the big telcos use elsewhere (100 year exclusivity; using language that excludes all other bidders etc)

Re:Work around?

[dbIII]

The word you are looking for is "Oligarchy". Perhaps look it up instead of twisting the meaning of something else to match it.

Re:Work around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, great, discount them. You have made your point, scored your victory. Now about changing something about the current situation, instead of feeling you have 'won'.
Take some action, if only to make an informed choice in the next election, or even better, outright starting a new political movement.
Keep in mind that the only reason there is a two party system in the US is because everyone excepts that there is. That, and the crummy 'winner takes all' setup of the election system.

Re:Work around?

[Anonymous Coward]

You very much cannot sell things the government doesn't want you to.

Well, not without assuming a risk of going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

Gov't has 1,000,000 enlisted men (hyperbole, don't fact-check) and you've got at most 15-20 people willing to actually put up rather than shut up. How will you do anything they don't LET you?

Call a spade a spade

[Anonymous Coward]

In the end, this ruling clearly favored firmly entrenched big brand operators like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and ATT, which lobbied hard to keep competition at bay.

Can we just call a spade a spade, and treat "lobbying" as a bribe? I'm getting sick of seeing this blatant corruption.

Re:Call a spade a spade

[TimSSG]

Depending on what you mean by "lobbying" it is NOT always a bribe; it many cases it is instead protection money.
Tim S.

In the end, this ruling clearly favored firmly entrenched big brand operators like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and ATT, which lobbied hard to keep competition at bay.

Can we just call a spade a spade, and treat "lobbying" as a bribe? I'm getting sick of seeing this blatant corruption.

Re:Call a spade a spade

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is protection money, and it is being paid by (large) corporations then they should be prosecuted under RICO. Also any public servant (which includes legislators) who accept bribes or give in and pay protection money should be banned from public office for life.

Re:Call a spade a spade

[v1]

Can we just call a spade a spade, and treat "lobbying" as a bribe? I'm getting sick of seeing this blatant corruption.

Lets not forget these laws were passed by elected officials. When you "follow the money" you find that interests find pairs of politicians competing for office where one of then tends to vote for the company's interests, and the other does not. They shower the one that does with political donations. That money goes toward advertising during the next election. Remember, it's still the people that vote him back in. They're just biased due to the unequal campaign funding going on. But they're still uninformed voters doing a bad job at voting.

As much as people hate on the companies and the politicians. it's the dumb voters that make it all work. The politicians are motivated by greed, and you can't fix that. (you really can't even blame them for being greedy - it's a pretty universal thing, and you certainly can't outlaw greed) The only thing you really can try to fix are the voters. Educate the public, fix the voters, and the laws will fix themselves once the process starts working as designed.

Until then, complaining about how greedy people are raining on your parade is about as useful as pissing into the wind.

Re:Call a spade a spade

[Anonymous Coward]

You did that thing where you assign the blame to a diffuse group of nameless, faceless people, and suggest we effectively ignore the problem.

It's like arguing "Well, if everyone would just be nice to each other, we wouldn't need speed limits or regulation or government at all!" Yeah, and if pigs could fly, bacon would be really expensive. But discourse must be based on reality, not fantasy.

Re:Call a spade a spade

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb voters are a thing.

When this country was founded, not everyone could vote. It wasn't so much hating on women or poor people or racism or whatever (though it's easily and often spun that way), as much as it was an attempt to reduce the amount of uninformed voting going on.

You might say "but then who protects the interests of the poor, etc etc etc, when they cannot vote themselves?" Well - how's that working out for you right now, 21st century? There are a lot of people in the US, probably the majority, that simply don't have the time/energy/motive to be informed before they vote. Giving them the ability to vote doesn't make their vote useful, especially in the first-past-the-post voting system that we have today. It makes the vote *controlled*. Those who spend their money littering eyeballs with attack ads win. We have successfully dumbed political campaigning down to "but you hate the other person more."

Re:Call a spade a spade

[will_die]

So according to you people do not have the right to petition their government. Instead we should just accept whatever is forced on us!

Re:Call a spade a spade

[Anonymous Coward]

The right to petition the government is not supposed to depend on how much money you have. The actual people in this town should also have this right, not just Comcast (treating a corporation as a legal person is bullshit anyway)

Don't blame the courts.

[Spazmania]

Blame North Carolina for passing a bad law. The courts did no more than affirm the states' right to regulate their municipalities.

While you're at it, blame Wilson for overreaching. They could have made a case for installing basic infrastructure (fiber optic cable, no different than roads) and then leasing it by the strand to individuals and businesses to connect to the Internet provider of their choice. And invited providers to enter the market and compete, now with the ease-of-entry facilitated by last-mile infrastructure. Instead they made the same bad decision most municipalities make: run a municipal Internet service with no direct access to the cable for other purposes.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Darinbob]

Good news it can now go to the supreme court. Then let's see if they find that "state's rights" trump the rights of local municipalities or not. State's rights is pure hypocrisy, whining that the feds have too much power while turning around and exerting undue power over it's own citizens, all for no rational legal purpose than to get campaign funds from donors, while the rights of the people are ignored. Libertarians are probably in a tizzy over this; support small government, or support their traditional allies the big corporations.

Re: Don't blame the courts.

[johnsmithperson123]

Basic fibre internet is the rural electrification of the 21st century.

Re: Don't blame the courts.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you thini there's somehow a natural right for some private entity to be given access to infrastructure they did not build so they can make a profit because...I can't even make up a because here.

There is no right of privitization. Despite what conservatives think, capitalism is not enshrined in our Constitution and if we the people decide we want to provide something absent some fatcats making money off of it then that is our right.

I'll grant that shouldn't be done in haste, but no justification is needed. In this case there's plenty of justification. Cable and telecomm companies these days do nothing but engage in rent seeking behavior and holding back progress.

North Carolina is wrong and the court is wrong. In all the furor over states' rights everyone is forgetting peoples' rights.

Now, in a large screw you gesture to the vastly corrupt and totally owned by corporate interests North Carolina state government, what ought to happen here is that the people in these towns should form a non profit company in which they all own equal shares. They can elect a board to run it, get tax rebates and gifts from their governments for startup money just like billionaire sports team owners get who don't want to pay their own business expenses, and run the thing the way it's being run right now. Of course the company would have in its charter a prohibition on ever being sold to a for profit entity.

Re: Don't blame the courts.

[Vulch]

So you thini there's somehow a natural right for some private entity to be given access to infrastructure they did not build so they can make a profit because...I can't even make up a because here.

Who's *giving* them anything? They can *buy* access, and the entity that installed the infrastructure can then recoup their costs and maintain it. Seems to work perfectly well in the UK.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[dwillden]

You don't understand what you are ranting about. When the Constitution was established the government was seen as two key entities, the States which are under local control and the Federal Government. Municipalities are entities of the state and are subordinate to it. States rights are a legitimate check on Federal power. The States are supposed to have greater power to influence events and actions entirely internal to the state.

I don't agree with this ruling as broadband should be treated as a utility allowing local governments to aid the implementation of it as they have with rural electrification and telephone services before MA Bell took over everything.

I think overall this ruling is wrong in how it looks at internet service. If treated as a utility then the FCC should have say. Particularly if the was no effort by any broadband provider to push fiber into that town. On the states rights issue, NC does have some validity but in this case it is being used to maintain a bad law that only hurts the citizens of the state to the benefit of corporations.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Anonymous Coward]

... leasing it by the strand to individuals and businesses ...

Councils don't build roads and then lease them to toll operators; they don't install mains water pipes and lease them to a 'water operator': Operating the whole service is the point of council: There are 2 exceptions for civil infrastructure; electricity and communications. Electricity isn't so bad since it is tightly regulated once it leaves the provider's sub-station. In hindsight, it was wrong of councils to outsource communication infrastructure, which has created the very mess councils are now mired in. Modern communications is a shit-can where the provider can install, or not, what they want, charge what they like, then pay protection money to state politicians for reduced competition.

... impeded on state rights ...

Meaning the states can forbid councils from building roads or installing mains water services. Either companies sue for privatization of these services, or councils sue for giving communication providers preferential treatment.

Re: Don't blame the courts.

[Bert64]

The entity that installed the infrastructure in the UK was the government, who then sold off the infrastructure to a private company.
This private company has only upgraded the infrastructure in areas that would be profitable, or when the government has further subsidised the upgrades.
Commercial entities have installed their own infrastructure too, but only in certain profitable areas, other areas are left in the dark.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Fjandr]

This is long-settled law. The Constitution of a State always trumps municipal powers, because all municipal powers ultimately depend on devolution from the State Constitution.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Constitution was established the government was seen as two key entities, the States which are under local control and the Federal Government which prosecutes the victims. Here are their stories. DUM DUM.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[currently_awake]

Municipal broadband affects the inter-state commerce of internet service, it changes the price in the national market. This means the federal government can use the inter-state commerce law to regulate it (this is the same reasoning they used to regulate people growing marijuana for personal use)..

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[khallow]

I work for a concessionaire who specializes in operating recreational facilities built by someone else, usually governments. So yes, it happens all the time.

Re: Don't blame the courts.

[Spazmania]

Municipal governments don't have rights, they have responsibilities and areas of authority as assigned by the state governments. To misunderstand that is to grossly misunderstand basic civics in the United States.

You also misunderstood what I wrote if you think I made any sort of claim that there's "right for some private entity to be given access to infrastructure they did not build."

I spoke to the smart plan, not any kind of rightful one. The smart plan is to build roads and let private enterprise build cars. The smart plan is to build last-mile fiber and let private enterprise build services like Internet access.

I would support laws against municipalities building cars were any hair-brained enough to try.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Spazmania]

the states can forbid councils from building roads or installing mains water services.

This is common. For example, in Virginia incorporated cities are required to maintain their own roads (and may collect taxes for the same) while county roads are maintained by the state and the county governments are generally forbidden to do roadwork.

The state government decides what subordinate governments are allowed to do and what activities are reserved to the state government. This is long, long settled law.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. State's rights is a GOOD thing.

What's BAD, is that apparently, NC has a bad law, favoring the hell out of the big providers. The moral of this story is to figure out who authored this law + who voted for it, and have the good people of NC vote their corrupt hides out of office. Tar + Feathers would be optional.

Re: Don't blame the courts.

[Cajun Hell]

There is no right of privitization. Despite what conservatives think, capitalism is not enshrined in our Constitution and if we the people decide we want to provide something absent some fatcats making money off of it then that is our right.
..
In all the furor over states' rights everyone is forgetting peoples' rights.

If I were a federal judge, I would that we the people decided to not provide the something. This has nothing to do with conservatism or capitalism. It's a result of a state law, passed ostensibly by the will of the people. Upholding states rights which conflict with unelected federal regulator is seen as respecting peoples' rights.

Yes, duh, I get it: everyone knows that it's not really true. The state's legislators and governor (unless he vetod and was overridden) were actually trying to work against the will of the people. But a judge will never say that. Democracy is always presumed to exist. (And that's actually the best presumption; I would never want to change that.)

Repeal the ridiculous law, and you solve the problem. Vote out the people who got caught enacting that law.

Yes, it's easier said than done. But if you can't do it, then you have no reason to expect courts and judges to uphold the will of the people either.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[bigpat]

Blame North Carolina for passing a bad law. The courts did no more than affirm the states' right to regulate their municipalities.

While you're at it, blame Wilson for overreaching. They could have made a case for installing basic infrastructure (fiber optic cable, no different than roads) and then leasing it by the strand to individuals and businesses to connect to the Internet provider of their choice. And invited providers to enter the market and compete, now with the ease-of-entry facilitated by last-mile infrastructure. Instead they made the same bad decision most municipalities make: run a municipal Internet service with no direct access to the cable for other purposes.

Yes, this was a technical decision about the ability of states to tell municipalities what they could and could not do... Courts basically treat municipalities of a subdivision of the states, so state law and state regulations always take precedence. It is a legal no-brainer.

But for every bureaucratic decision there is usually some other bureaucratic way around it. For municipalities trying to promote local Internet Service there seem like a dozen different ways to do it. Just set up a non-profit, give it some grants to get started, loan guarantees, etc. Then it is no longer a municipal utility, but a private corporation with all the rights that have been won through the lobbying of the big private corporations.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[oh_my_080980980]

But they are causing harm to the citizens ass-hole. Like the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court took into consideration the effects of over turning the law and the effect it would have on people. The Federal circuit could have done the same thing. Since the connection was in place, they could leave it but prohibit new connections. Bottom line the State is overriding the will of the people in that municipality.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[oh_my_080980980]

Hate to break it to you moron but cities existed before states. So no municipalities are not entities of the state. State government has jurisdiction over cities in so much as that is allowed. State government does not control all aspects of cities.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[oh_my_080980980]

No it doesn't. Power of city government is derived from the people. Period. It's what the people want. State government has certain authority over cities but that is not absolute, nor permanent.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[oh_my_080980980]

EXACTLY!!! FCC should appeal because the inter-state commerce act comes into play here.

Re: Don't blame the courts.

[oh_my_080980980]

No it is not. City government gains it's power from the people. Cities existed before States. Any authority that state government has over city can be challenged and changed.

Re: Don't blame the courts.

[jittles]

Basic fibre internet is the rural electrification of the 21st century.

Yes but someone told the NC State Legislature that this municipality was going to allow transgendered people onto the exact same internet as everyone else and they freaked out.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Local municipalities have no rights but what their state legislators and state constitution give them.

They are creations of the state, and not of the federal government.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Danathar]

Libertarians are against Crony Capitalism.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Darinbob]

However there's a federal constitution as well, which says that the federal government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The state would be forbidden to prevent Comcast from doing business in the state for example. It would seem to follow that the state therefore can not forbid local entities from competing with the out of state companies.

Which is why the supporters of bans on local governments doing this is not based on interstate commerce but on "omg, government run services are communist tools!" It's true we don't normally want governments to compete in the economic arena as it's unfair. However we generally allow this for essential services (sewage, fire, police, schools). In this particular case however there is NO competition, the broadband companies are not providing this service at any price to this town. The municipalities are filling a void in other words. The reason big broadband companies don't want this is because it makes them look bad when it turns out they charge more and provide less service than a small town can can provide.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Darinbob]

For one counter example, the state government is absolutely prohibited from abridging the free speech of their citizens, which includes the rights of municipalities to speak out as well. The states are not given free reign to be despots, they are not autonomous nation states. We even fought a war over this point.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Darinbob]

In theory this is true. Until one of them is elected to political office and becomes dependent upon campaign donations to keep his or her way of life intact.

Re: Don't blame the courts.

[Anonymous Coward]

In principle, anyway.

Re: Don't blame the courts.

[LynnwoodRooster]

See Dillon's Rule. States power overrides that of their cities/towns and counties. And this is pretty much always codified in the State's constitution as well - that the State retains the right to set laws and dictates within its borders, that municipalities are under the governance of the State.

Re:Don't blame the courts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Municipal broadband affects the inter-state commerce of internet service, it changes the price in the national market. This means the federal government can use the inter-state commerce law to regulate it (this is the same reasoning they used to regulate people growing marijuana for personal use)..

It's bogus reasoning, and it has always represented a violation of the right to ethical practice of law. Since the practice of law in the USA is so massively unethical, of course, the mere fact that the government is violating the highest law in the land isn't sufficient to stop the illegal conduct - the lawyers are happy to make money off that conduct instead.

The federal government can ONLY apply the commerce clause when doing so does not otherwise violate the Bill of Rights - since the people, as a matter of ethical practice of law, have the right to consider the Bill of Rights the highest law in the land (hence superseding EVERYTHING in the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution).

Historically, marijuana was originally outlawed during the Great Depression, in an attempt to force laborers of Mexican descent - who tended to use marijuana - to leave, thus freeing up jobs. It was a blatantly illegal abuse of government authority, but unfortunately that kind of thing was and still is commonplace. The fact that people in several states have voted to legalize marijuana is more than sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a 9th Amendment right - even one person asserting such a right is sufficient, if their reasoning is good - but the federal government and many state governments still continue to enforce illegal laws regarding marijuana in the violation of the highest law in the land.

Unfortunately, both the politicians and the legal profession have a vested interest in selecting judges that are unwilling to recognize the right to ethical practice of law. What we're experiencing today is not all that different - in terms of the mechanisms by which government abuse happens - from the situation that led to the continuation of slavery in a nation founded to protect the rights of man. Then, as now, government did something that any rational person could tell was wrong (as Morris so clearly pointed out at the Constitutional Convention) and the lawyers are happy to aid and abet the government in unethical (and hence illegal) conduct (so long as it creates greater long term demand for the services of their profession).

With respect to the municipal broadband issue, government at all levels is required to bend over backwards to demonstrate that their policies are consistent with the right to ethical government (a 9th Amendment), and hence no reasonable person should be able to interpret those policies as representing the result of bribery (whether or not it is disguised as "lobbying").

What happened to the market .....

[Barsteward]

So much for the Free Market Economy.........

Re:What happened to the market .....

[Darinbob]

Essentially you can not become a politician without also being a hypocrite, no matter what political party it is.

Re:What happened to the market .....

[Fjandr]

The US has never, for a second, had a free market economy any larger than a farmer's market.

Re:What happened to the market .....

[Anonymous Coward]

The Free Market Economy that consists of a municipality taxing its residents to provide them Internet service?

Confused

[stealth_finger]

Is this basically the state saying to its people "fuck you, you can't have good internet because it's not sold by our buddies who would rip you off if they could be bothered, but they can't. So again, fuck you"?

Re:Confused

[BitZtream]

Yes

Re:Confused

[houghi]

Was that an example of a rhetorical question?

Re:Confused

[Big Hairy Ian]

Surely "Is this an example of a rhetorical question?"

Re:Confused

[stealth_finger]

Kinda, I'm not American so I'm not used to the powers that be shitting on us in quite such a blatant manner. Ours are usually more subtle and dubious screwings. I suppose it's kind of refreshing they're so up front about it.

Re:Confused

[Cajun Hell]

Yes. "Oh, and also, please re-elect me."

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

Re:Confused

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

There are people still alive in Europe who remember government shitting on people, and executing them for being the wrong sort, and burying them in mass graves.

I will take our system of a government created with limited powers, and no more, than one that responds with unlimited power to the whims of the people, which has considerably less confidence-building, historical success.

Re:Confused

[stealth_finger]

How is the power limited when they can not only stop companies from doing things but retroactively have services removed? Any way, at least we get decent internet at decent prices.

Doesn't North Carolina have better stuff to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why is North Carolina busy shutting off municipal broadband? Aren't there better things to do in that state? It's truly offensive that North Carolina is busy restricting municipal broadband and transgender rights, but can't solve the problems going on in Charlotte right now. There's a massive outbreak of nigger crime in Charlotte, but the state is busy doing things that are clearly harmful to the residents. The courts should be busy prosecuting all the crimes being committed by niggers. It's truly offensive to me that Colin Kaepernick feels the need to sit during the national anthem because of a few unjust killings of niggers by white police but doesn't seem too bothered by the massive amount of nigger crime against white people. Besides, the police wouldn't kill as many niggers if they weren't committing so many crimes. Divert the resources away from pandering to the Jews running the cable and telecom companies and focus on stopping the nigger crime.

Re:Doesn't North Carolina have better stuff to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

And there it is the usual racist bigotry from a dumbfuck.

Re:Doesn't North Carolina have better stuff to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why is North Carolina busy shutting off municipal broadband? Aren't there better things to do in that state? It's truly offensive that North Carolina is busy restricting municipal broadband and transgender rights, but can't solve the problems going on in Charlotte right now. There's a massive outbreak of redneck crime in Charlotte, but the state is busy doing things that are clearly harmful to the residents. The courts should be busy prosecuting all the crimes being committed by rednecks. It's truly offensive to me that Colin Kaepernick feels the need to sit during the national anthem because of a few unjust killings of rednecks by white police but doesn't seem too bothered by the massive amount of redneck crime against educated people. Besides, the police wouldn't kill as many rednecks if they weren't committing so many crimes. Divert the resources away from pandering to the inbred mountain folks running the cable and telecom companies and focus on stopping the redneck crime.

Re:Doesn't North Carolina have better stuff to do?

[BitZtream]

You don't know what happened in Charolette. You know whats been sensationalized on the news. Beyond that, you have no clue.

You also have no clue what about the transgender law or 'red neck crime' other than what you heard on the news and read on the Internet, which has been sensationalized and blown out of proportion in all cases.

You've also showed your own ignorance and prejudice. You want to pretend to be all uppity and cultured and like you care about the rights of those people in charolette or transgenders ... and then you follow it up showing your just as prejudice as the next guy when you start saying stupid shit like 'red neck' crime.

You're nothing more than an ignorant hypocrite who thinks its okay to be prejudice against certain classes of people ... as long as you pretend to be a moral crusader against those who might be offensive towards groups you choose to pretend to defend.

Re:Doesn't North Carolina have better stuff to do?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream, the autism-hating moronic Slashdot troll!

North Caroliners

[umghhh]

voted their own representatives in the office. They can vote them out if these are so corrupt as to hinder them in access to basic service. If not maybe they should form a well organized militia and hand them bastards. I can imagine this right cannot be argued away by the individual state.

Re:North Caroliners

[Darinbob]

Except that the typical voter doesn't know this is happening or doesn't care. There's also a big notion in the south that the courts must not get involved in politics, while at the same time politics ensures that bad laws can never be overturned. US Congress could act here, as this is basically interstate commerce that's involved. But they're bought and paid for just as much as the South Carolina legislators.

Re:North Caroliners

[fnj]

You can IMAGINE whatever you want. As to voting out their legislators, consider that this is one single issue, and not one that is very prominent on the radar of most of the state's voters. As far as I can see, it only affects a very small number of citizens in one single town.

It's the same principle as the US Congress. Anyone with two brain cells to connect together knows that on the whole they are a bunch of rat bastards, but hardly anyone has a problem with HIS OWN PARTICULAR representative.

Re:North Caroliners

[Anonymous Coward]

voted their own representatives in the office. They can vote them out if these are so corrupt as to hinder them in access to basic service

Vote Kodos!

Re: North Caroliners

[Anonymous Coward]

I have plenty of problems with my own particular representative thank you very much. My whole life I've been 'represented' by corporate friendly religious pandering stooges whose opinions for the most part couldn't be more opposite to my own.

Every time a bad law is debated or one of these corporate giveaways like TPP comes up, I already know how my particular useless waste of flesh will vote on it without even looking. I just ask myself what vote would be in favor of actual human citizens and sure enough he'll vote the opposite.

Re:North Caroliners

[tburkhol]

North Caroliners voted their own representatives in the office. They can vote them out if these are so corrupt as to hinder them in access to basic service.

What's happening in North Carolina is that the local efforts of pockets of liberalism are being over-ruled by the state-wide, gerrymandered conservative majority. That same state-wide majority is strongly opposed to imposition of regulation or intervention from other-party-dominated federal agencies. The two party system results in politicians supporting the scale of government where their party dominates. Local, but not too local.

Re:North Caroliners

[Cajun Hell]

As to voting out their legislators, consider that this is one single issue

The "one single issue" is corruption, not Internet access. Corrupt legislators affect everyone in the state. Whatever you happen to catch them on (today, it's this), is just going to be the tip of the iceberg.

not one that is .. on the radar of most of the state's voters.

Of course you're right about that. Hence the story and public discussion: to help get it on peoples' radar. Now, it's the job of any NC nerds reading this on Slashdot, to tell NC non-nerds about it, so that it'll be on all the right radars.

Vested interests

[MrKaos]

That goodness there is a lobby group available to protect big business and their right to gouge profit from every community around.

not profitable

[mrlibertarian]

Mr. Goings went even further, talking about the bigger picture when it comes to “lighting up” poor and underserved areas of our country: This is bigger than Wilson. This is about the rural areas, particularly in eastern North Carolina, because the majority of the area does not present enough profitability to attract the private-sector investment

In other words, what Mr. Goings is saying is that it would be an act of charity to serve rural areas. The problem that I have with this situation is that Greenlight is not charitable organization that runs on donations; it is a government entity that collects revenue through taxation (i.e. coercion). This situation is being presented as if the people of Pinetops are having their rights violated; in reality, it is the taxpayers in Wilson who are being forced to subsidize a neighboring community.

The solution to this problem seems simple enough: Greenlight should be privatized. After that, if Greenlight would like to support neighboring towns, then it should solicit donations. If Greenlight is not able to collect enough money to fund service for Pinetops, then that dose not prove the market failed; instead, it proves that the residents of Wilson, when presented with an honest choice, do not want to subsidize their neighbors.

Re: not profitable

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of libertarian infantile bullshit, starting with the 'taxes are coercion' crap and ending with the usual selfish 'it's being spent on something I personally disapprove of and therefore is morally wrong because reasons' type argument.

First off, jackass, people form governments to, you know, govern. Providing essential services has been a government function since before the founding of this country even though libertarians love to rewrite history in their deluded brains to pretend it isn't.

One really can't function economically without Internet access in today's society. The corporate monopolists you seem to have no issue with can't be bothered to even go rip these people off, but they bought a law to make people solving their own problems in a clever manner illegal because they're afraid that people in areas that they do rip off will get ideas.

Where I live I have one cable company to 'choose' from. I also get natural gas from a city owned utility. Guess which entity provides responsive service at a reasonable price? If the gas utility were private, the only thing that would change is my prices would go up because of profits and my service would go down, kind of like what happened when our electric utility which had been owned by a reasonably small company got bought out by an aggressive rent seeking corporation. Their behavior of course is to raise prices and defer maintenance such that when we had a minor brush with the edge of a hurricane recently there were massive outages that went on for days as their crumbling ill maintained infrastructure couldn't handle it.

You want coercion, it's being forced to pay money to monopolists and oligarchs. Some businesses have competition, none of them welcome it. All of them do whatever they can to be rid of it. At least with government I get a vote.

Re:not profitable

[squiggleslash]

Leaving aside the "OH NOES! TAXES!" BS, the statement you quote never suggests that supplying Internet access is "charitable" or "unprofitable". It says "the majority of the area does not present enough profitability to attract the private-sector investment", not "the majority of the area does not present profit to attract the private-sector investment".

The private sector generally doesn't invest in projects to make small amounts of profit, especially if they're expensive. There are many, many, examples of projects that would more than pay for themselves that you'll never see the private sector take an interest in, because the promise of a 10% return here for a medium risk is unattractive compared to the promise of 100% there, for little or no risk.

As for taxes, I personally like paying taxes. As a wise man once said, in return I get civilization.

Re:not profitable

[dwillden]

Based on that flawed logic, most of the rural US would still be lacking power and phone service. Rural communities using taxes to establish essential utilities is a long standing tradition in this nation and is a big part of what has made this country so strong.. Libertarians have some great ideas but usually take them too far.

Re:not profitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians actually don't have some great ideas. It is the ideology of the two digit IQs.

Re: not profitable

[Fjandr]

As an actual libertarian, and not the OP, first off: fuck you and your broad brush assumptions. Second, under the laws of the State (and without the unnecessary moralizing from the OP), privatization is probably the only answer that stands a chance in hell of succeeding. That said, libertarians aren't anarchists. Anarchists are anarchists. Privatization, by and large, is pushed by crony capitalists who call themselves libertarian because libertarians are the next-strongest party they have yet to co-opt completely. There is no conflict at all in allowing a legally constituted municipality from extending service to their borders. It becomes problematic when they reach beyond, because they will always have their powers limited by the laws of the State that grants them their very power to exist /at all/. Ultimately, the best thing that could happen is a peering agreement and setting up a legal entity, of whatever stripe necessary, within Pinewood in order to administer the portion of the service in operation outside of the jurisdiction of the county. Jurisdiction is of great importance in US law, and is certainly a significant part of this ruling. It is almost unheard of for a legally-constituted arm of government to operate outside of its jurisdiction. It requires utmost adherence to all applicable laws, and is even then undertaken with kid gloves for the most part.

Re:not profitable

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

As for taxes, I personally like paying taxes. As a wise man once said, in return I get civilization.

I always feel like that saying misses out the middle step. In reality, in return for taxation you get authorities with more power than you individually have. How much civilization you get depends on the nature of those authorities and how they wield that power, hence another old saying about accepting no taxation without representation.

Getting back to the matter at hand, apparently this is a silly situation that is against the interests of the local residents and yet benefits no-one. On the other hand, the principle of protecting states' rights that seems to have been behind the court decision here is a reasonable one.

If it's also the case that the service here is funded by local government from tax money but is offering its services to those who aren't local voters/taxpayers, then the principle that the locals shouldn't be required to subsidise it through their own taxation isn't entirely unreasonable either. However, this argument seems much more shaky if those local authorities do in fact have the support of their electorate/taxpayers. After all, our national governments typically make international aid payments or use national resources to send assistance to other parts of the world after natural disasters, and a lot of us have no problem with that even though it's (a tiny part of) our tax money that is funding it. We feel like helping others in these situations is simply the right thing to do, and our governments are better able to do it than individual citizens.

That aside, is there a better way to set up this local Internet access, legally speaking, so that a useful practical arrangement can continue without risking a conflict with any fundamental principles of how the government is constituted?

Re:not profitable

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally like paying taxes. As a wise man once said, in return I get civilization.

That's a matter of perspective. All I get in return is a bunch of headless chicken erratically getting in the way.

Re:not profitable

[mrlibertarian]

If something is not profitable enough, then that is still a form of charity. For example, suppose that my market rate is $50/hour. An organization tells me that they could really use my services, but all they can afford to pay me is $10/hour. If I accept their offer, then I am essentially giving them the equivalent of $40/hour in charity.

Anyway, let's assume that you're correct and you can earn a nice 10% return by taking a moderate risk. Why not start this company yourself? The private sector is open to everyone. If people want your service badly enough, and they trust you to provide that service, then you should be able to raise the money.

Even if you like to pay taxes, would you be willing to acknowledge that taxes are, at best, a necessary evil, and the use of coercion should be minimized? As an analogy, suppose that you have a police officer who is legally justified in killing a threatening man, but this police officer believes he can safely de-escalate the situation. Would you like the officer to minimize his use of force? If so, then you should also wish to keep the use of taxation to a minimum.

Re:not profitable

[mrlibertarian]

Based on that flawed logic, most of the rural US would still be lacking power and phone service.

My guess is that rural communities would simply pay a premium for those services. Morally, that seems perfectly acceptable, because more resources are required per customer to service rural communities.

But even if I'm wrong, I still don't see what the problem is. If your hypothetical scenario came to pass, that would mean the urban residents refused to provide the rural communities with charity. Now, if the urban residents are perfectly content with the suffering of the rural residents, then who am I to judge? But if the urban residents are angered by the living conditions of the rural residents, then that would mean the urban residents are complaining about the conditions of the very people that those urban residents chose not to help with charity. In that case, I must confess that I really don't care what some hypocrites think of my policies.

Re:not profitable

[mrlibertarian]

We feel like helping others in these situations is simply the right thing to do, and our governments are better able to do it than individual citizens.

I would argue that the government is not better able to provide charity than individual citizens. For example, the Zika funding bill was voted down, because members of congress disagreed with each other. If Zika funding was provided through voluntary means, then we would not have these stalemates and delays. I won't say that private charities are perfect, but at least you can choose the private charity that you want to donate to; when it comes to government, you only get a "choice" every couple of years, and it's usually not much of a choice.

Re:not profitable

[josquin9]

If something is not profitable enough, then that is still a form of charity. For example, suppose that my market rate is $50/hour. An organization tells me that they could really use my services, but all they can afford to pay me is $10/hour. If I accept their offer, then I am essentially giving them the equivalent of $40/hour in charity.

Based on your first example, I don't think you understand what "charity" means. It's not an imposition, as you imply. If you lowered your price it would mean that you took $40 of value in some form other than immediate monetary compensation. Whether it's a public relations coup that you think you will benefit from at a later date, a warm fuzzy feeling inside, or the reduction in stress from knowing that you won't be inconvenienced while checking out with a credit card because of slow internet, you will have found some offsetting value.

If it's just a reduction of value imposed by the government, it a tax, a fee, or "taking". Charity is not coerced.

Re:not profitable

[Anonymous Coward]

As for taxes, I personally like paying taxes. As a wise man once said, in return I get civilization.

And an even wiser man said that no tax has ever been enacted for the benefit of the people being taxed.

Re:not profitable

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Just to be clear, I have absolutely nothing against individuals and private charities doing good work. I donate to some of those charities myself, and long may they continue.

But equally, as a taxpayer, I have nothing against my government using (for example) military personnel and equipment who are trained and able to operate in harsh environments to support rescue and relief operations in areas hit by natural disasters. There is little that I personally can contribute in such an environment other than financial and moral support, because I don't personally own any large transport aircraft or have enough first aid skills to treat seriously injured people with minimal resources for an extended period because the real hospital just got knocked down by a tsunami. If my own friends or family were in such a situation, I would be grateful to anyone else who offered emergency aid, and so I am happy that the resources I contribute to through taxes can sometimes do that for others.

Re:not profitable

[Anonymous Coward]

What a witless and heartless sentiment.

Re:not profitable

[jeff4747]

You don't need to guess. We have actual history. Rural communities did not pay a premium. They got no service.

And like virtually everyone on your side of these arguments, you are pretending that history never took place. Because if you acknowledge what actually happened, your argument would be nonsensical.

Ahhh

[Anonymous Coward]

The American "Free Market" at its finest.

Re:Ahhh

[Fjandr]

Yes, that thing that has never existed, but is routinely blamed by the intellectually dishonest (whether they're pro or anti).

This reminds me of the old USSR

[johanw]

Ideology over common sense (in this case the ideology is that private free market is the highest goal). We all know how well this ended for the USSR.

Re:This reminds me of the old USSR

[WolphFang]

Preventing competition via laws/government/regulations is not a free market. It is Mercantilism/Corporitism.

Re:This reminds me of the old USSR

[Anonymous Coward]

Free market with American characteristics

Re:This reminds me of the old USSR

[cellocgw]

But, remember...

You don't know how lucky you are boys, back in the USSR!

Re: Doesn't North Carolina have better stuff to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh

Probably because of how the law is written

[Anonymous Coward]

Many state anti-municipal broadband laws are written to prevent public agencies from spending their own money to build their own, and/or operate, broadband network. What would be legal, is that some people pool their money together to buy the fiber, and operate the ISP themselves.

I think the people on slashdot are different from the normal populace, and want very high speed internet. The average person will just tolerate slow internet, and not have to deal with all that technical stuff.

Re: Doesn't North Carolina have better stuff to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a "super woosh" or something? Cuz that might have knocked a satellite out of orbit while going over his head.

Land of the free...

[griffo]

Free to trample on each other, freedom to bribe, freedom to have lots of guns available so accidents happen more often...

Cannot grok it.

At one point in life...

[Anonymous Coward]

... you will have to choose between the Law and Morals.

I have a friend who gets very angry when he talks about Morals; he has no qualms about the concept that the Law must followed however terrible the consequences. He's otherwise a very balanced person.

IMHO the Law is a tool which we produced to help us live in harmony; if it is used to damage the interests of the people, one has to question if that tool is working well according to the original intent (aka the "Spirit of the Law") -- reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law .

NC is Not in the 6th Circuit

[JenovaSynthesis]

This court decision is not binding on the state of North Carolina. The Sixth Circuit covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. North Carolina is in the Fourth Circuit. Decisions in other circuits are merely persuasive authority, not binding. Only the Supreme Court can do that.

Split the company

[Anonymous Coward]

Each municipality should have an independent company that works in partnership with the other. With a minimal of overhead, they will be able to sidestep state law.

Re:Split the company

[Fjandr]

Too bad you posted Anon. First rational answer here.

Riot! Burn down AT&T and Comcast infrastructur

[jfdavis668]

The National Guard is busy in Charlotte, there will be no one around to stop the riot!

Americ land of zero capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

(cue Nelson) "Ha ha". America the land that endlessly champs on about capitalism and freedom but has absolutely ZERO free capitalism on show.

Seriously your telecommunications industry is worse than the ones they had in Stalinist Russia or East Germany.

Capitalism my ass.

All they have to do is

[Grand Facade]

Privatize the fiber, call it a Co-Op

There all fixed, next injustice please.

Local Govt should not be in ISP business

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks: This is a MAJOR win for private enterprise.. Local Govt is established to bring regulated services to its tax base; not to provide market place business that directly competes against private business. I stand firmly behind this decision as a private rural city and understand and fought 100% against the NC Rural Broadband initiative into which these services were provided... All the town will need to do, is sell the services to private enterprise; and all should be well. But that will not happen... Bottom line here is that Govt should not be in business against private business... Its truly unfair... I am sorry my fellow neighbors are going to lose their connection; but truthfully, it should have never been put in place to begin with. Or at the very least, the towns should have partnered with private equity to see that local zoning laws and redtape were minimized to ensure services were delivered; not to deliver this service itself.

I understand both sides of this coin very well; and today think the NC Broadband Authority should be shutdown... The govt is not here to provide non regulated services that are readily available in the open market. Im in Washington, NC which is 20 miles from Pinetops and 50 miles from Wilson; and saw this coming when it was first adopted and have been very vocal about this for years!

Pat McCrory is a crook

[L. J. Beauregard]

First the coddling of Duke Energy, then HB2 and now this. But go on voting Republican because zOMG SOCIALISM! or you hates them feelthy preverts.

Re:Pat McCrory is a crook

[will_die]

Unlike the Democrats and they goosing stepping minions and shutting down speech the Republican party is a wide open to a variety of people and beliefs. Unfortunately this means you get some people who do things like this.
Another difference is that you have Republicans that are fighting this law and under the Democrats it is accept it or else.

Re:Pat McCrory is a crook

[Anonymous Coward]

the Republican party is a wide open to a variety of people and beliefs.

They sure are. Hell, they don't care if you're rich or a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, white, Christian, or just plain don't like Certain Folk. They'll spread their arms wide open for you, if you can spread wide open for their corporate sponsors.

Another difference is that you have Republicans that are fighting this law and under the Democrats it is accept it or else.

You mean this law, HB 129 (2011), that not a single Republican voted against? Does "fighting" mean the same as "deepthroating" where you're from?

Re:Pat McCrory is a crook

[L. J. Beauregard]

Democrats goose-stepping? You ask five Democrats a question on any topic and you'll get at least seven different answers. And since your Presidential nominee is an outright Fascist, you guys can STFU about goose-stepping.

Democrats have no say in the governing of this state. None. The sweetheart deals with Duke Energy, the giveaway to big business and big Bible that is Pat's Potty Panic and now this sellout to Big Telecom are a Republican project and no one else's.

It is high time for the "party of personal responsibility" to start showing some.

going to Carolina in my mind

[PopeRatzo]

To be fair, North Carolina was worried that there would be transsexuals in their gigabit.

Knowledge is power...

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowledge is power; good luck with snatching a means to information from the powerful. But power... Power just keeps the lights on and the aircon running for those deprived of the information to weild it any more effectively.

Re:Riot! Burn down AT&T and Comcast infrastruc

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Guard is busy in Charlotte, there will be no one around to stop the riot!

I took your comment as humor, but believe it or not, that is actually one of the only valid strategies for citizens to combat an over-reaching police-state. Distract, over-extend their resources, and coordinate civil disobedience such that the ruling class really can't stop it no matter how many armored personnel carriers and grenade launchers they buy for the local stazi^^^^^police.

I happen to disagree that burning down infrastructure is a good idea. While it would make a point in the short-term, it would be a net loss to any citizen-based peaceful revolution. People would need communication availability in order to coordinate this type of massively parallel protests.

Note that I said "peaceful". As much as I might personally want to see the greedy scum sort of people swing from their necks, (especially the ones that have been getting away with so much lately without ever spending a day inside a cell), we should all learn from both the French revolution and the example set by Gandhi. To win a country worth having we must not become what we wish to remove.

Well of course.

[hey!]

Because of all the situations in which the Interstate Commerce Clause has been stretched to extend Federal authority, Internet access isn't one of them.

The difference between lobbying and bribery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Inquiring minds want to know...

I don't see the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. A government entity can't offer service outside it's geographic boundaries. So, why not spin off a private entity? If the money is already spent there are laws that support governments investing and spending with little or no oversight. They can turn this into a Million dollar lemonade stand just by offering to "finance" a startup company to provide internet service... Make sure to include Billion dollar poison pills to keep somebody from coming along and upsetting the apple cart. (or in this case Lemonade Stand)

Partly Sunny, and occasional coastal thunderstorms by the Beach

Judicial discretion

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how "state rights" suddenly matter when a telecom profits are at risk but they don't matter in droves of other cases (Medical Marijuana, firearm rights, etc). I wonder if courts privately acknowledge the massive contradictions in their decisions or if they're so far gone that it all seems perfectly justified to them.

Create a Foundation

[Anonymous Coward]

Construct a private foundation to which the municipal resources are transferred. Call it The Exorcising the Communist Evils from States project and hide the transfer with a a help of a professional lobbier. Let the foundation serve the public as a bright light of a decommunisted State.

North Carolina is odious

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps not Mississippi at the height of Jim Crow odious, but pretty odious, and working their way up the list.

Welcome to Pinetop-Wilson City!

[EnOne]

Merge the towns, if the barrier to having broadband is the name of your town then merge them. Soon all communities in North Carolina will be called Wilson City.

Re:Welcome to Pinetop-Wilson City!

[Anonymous Coward]

That was my thought too. Just expand the city lines and take over Pinetop. Or make it a suburb of Wilson City.

Simple Solution

[KingMotley]

Pinetops should just announce that they are now merging with the town of Wilson. No more issues.

Free Market My Ass

[Wokan]

There's no free market. There's only whoever makes the largest bribe-ish contribution to the politicians.

WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

What the...? Please, anyone who reads this, the parent oh_my_080980980 is completely wrong.

There are two "Sovereigns" in the United States -- the Federal Government and the State Government -- and no others. How long a city has existed is completely irrelevant; the root of all title and power resides in the State within which the city exists. Subdivisions of the state -- counties, townships, cities, etc -- have the power to enact local ordinances which do not conflict with existing state law and which are annulled and abrogated if and when the state decides to legislate in that area. To reiterate, the state has complete and plenary power over all of its subdivisions; it merely delegates responsibility to those subdivisions for administrative purposes.

While it is rarely done, the State even has the power to revoke a city's charter, dissolve its local government, and make it no-longer-a-city.

Source: Basic civics class. Also IAAL.

Re:WRONG

[Darinbob]

The federal government is granted the ability to override the state government with regards to interstate commerce. The federal constitution also forbids the states from denying certain rights to its citizens (though not clearly spelled out, this has two hundred years of precedence behind it).

Re: WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two "Sovereigns" in the United States -- the Federal Government and the State Government -- and no others.,

Tribal governments also retain sovereignty.

Re:WRONG

[LynnwoodRooster]

The federal government is granted the ability to override the state government with regards to interstate commerce.

Well, regulate interstate commerce, not override it. And how does Internet sold from one city in the State to another city in the State become interstate commerce? The data may be interstate, but unless that fiber crosses a State boundary - it's intrastate and the Federal Government is not supposed to have overriding jurisdiction there.

Re: WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. Tribal governments are a special case that co-exist with state governments in a limited number of locations. Interesting area of the law, in fact.

Another interesting tidbit is that the United States has never signed a treaty with the Seminole; we are technically still in a state of hostility.

Re:WRONG

[Darinbob]

It's interstate commerce because are out-of state broadband suppliers who are the competition here. This is how it works with telephone service.

Time for a revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, the government can take our money, decide what we can put in our bodies, or tell us whom we can or can't marry; but when they come for our internet, it's time to go down shooting!

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The absolute biggest hypocrisy that I see in these "states-rights" in initiatives, and which should disqualify them from even being seen as anything but power grabs to serve their corporate masters:

"We don't want the big bad federal guvmint interfering in our interference of counties' affairs..."

Their entire "reasoning" versus the feds could (and really should) be used verbatim by the so affected counties to tell their state pols to go back and spend more time with the hookers and booze so generously provided by Business Inc.

Crony Capitalism

[Danathar]

Is not just the corporation's fault. It's government's fault as well. It takes TWO to tango.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid hicks. Had a good idea, but stupid rules the South.

apple are selfish greedy niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

they prefer working child slave labor to death in china, many jump out of windows and kill themselves

apple are evil greedy niggers, never ever ever ever ever ever give them money

Easy fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Pinetop agrees to be annexed by Wilson. Wilson municipality expanded. Problem solved.

Feeding on the carcass

[siamesevodka]

The way our "democracy" works now is we are the carcass the lions [big corporations] feed upon. Any interference is dealt with by the politicians [jackals] who get the leavings. In countries where there are no "democracies" or less desirable forms of government or outright socialism the internet is regulated as a utility and is not metered out for so many bucks a megabite. Wonder who is more corrupt. Nothing term limits can't fix. It's a better alternative to artificially controlled resources being doled out at higher and higher rates. Examples : internet, medicine, food, health care housing. See a pattern here? Do nothing about term limits, see you at the food riots

Thank Captialism for Capitalist failures

[AutodidactLabrat]

While Libertarians repeat their Ayn Rand mantras, reality intrudes
Without government, Captialism will always seek monopoly control, either natural or political.
Creating corporate persons accelerated this process
And now, our political bodies are for sale to the highest bidders
Thus, monopolies.
Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him?