Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

100 US Mayors Sign Pledge To Defend Net Neutrality Against Crooked ISPs (gizmodo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the checks-and-balances dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: More than 100 U.S. mayors have signed a pledge to hold internet service providers accountable for net neutrality violations, despite the FCC's vote to repeal the regulations late last year. The pledge, initiated by Mayors Bill de Blasio of New York City, Steve Adler of Austin, and Ted Wheeler of Portland, promises that cities will refuse to do business with ISPs that violate net neutrality standards. The mayors, brought together by a coalition of open internet advocates, including Free Press, Demand Progress, and Daily Kos, have accused FCC Chairman Ajit Pai of caving to corporate interests by giving companies such as AT&T and Verizon the power to "block, throttle and slow access to sites and services at will." A complete list of the cities taking the pledge is available on the campaign's website. At time of writing, nearly 80,000 letters have been sent urging mayors across the country to participate.

91 comments

  1. And probably not a single one... by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has pledged to open up their jurisdiction to unlimited local competition. They'll grant the franchises and then "hold them accountable" instead of giving the people a chance to vote with their feet and easily switch to a competitor.

    1. Re:And probably not a single one... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      I see you waving that red herring.

      Local jurisdictions grant monopoly franchises because corporations insist upon them. The (land) phone lines, electricity, water, sewer, natural gas, roads/sidewalks and cable TV connections to YOUR house (and everybody else's) are Natural Monopolies, where the capital costs are so high for last-mile coverage that "easily switching to a competitor" isn't possible because there aren't any and never will be. A corporation isn't going to wire every house in a city on the off chance that they might eventually get half of them as customers, but only after they engage in a price war with their entrenched competitor who already has 100% coverage.

      Taking a look at the clusterfuck that is the overlapping cell phone networks shows you how your idea works, and an individual cell phone tower covers the entire last mile, not just a single location.

      Tell us another free-market libertarian fairy story.

    2. Re:And probably not a single one... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      They love the money they get from the cable franchise monopoly rights too much. Signing a meaningless pledge costs them nothing.

    3. Re:And probably not a single one... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Sounds good in theory. But there are some areas where these local governments are begging for anyone to provide services to their area. The United States has a lot of low populations towns, even in States Like New York, you go past New York City, Some towns are just farm communities. These communities need High Speed internet to do their business, and stay connected to the world, but ISP don't want want to lay miles of cables just to support dozens of customers, if these dozens of customers can pick and choose, it wouldn't be profitable for these ISP's to even try to compete. So what is better having an ISP Monopoly in your area, or no ISP at all?
      Other then the idea of a government controlled ISP (Which these rural areas (even in blue states) are very conservative, and will reject) can work. But I think the better solution is to disconnect the ISP from the wire. Meaning you will need to pay two bills, one for the Infrastructure, Cable/Fiber/Land Telephone. And one for the ISP. The Infrastructure Company needs to be highly regulated, while the ISP(s) you should be able to pick and choose from a wide verity, where market can choose, and are less dependent on location.
      This was how ISPs worked in the Dialup days, You can go with a Big Name such as AOL, but you could go to a local small business ISP, back in the day I used a Hobby BBS turned ISP, And paid under $10.00 a month for Internet Access (it was based on usage, so some month I paid only a few bucks). But I also had to pay for the phone line, that costed me roughly $20.00 a month. While I no choice on the phone line, I could at least pick an ISP, based on factors at the time, as phone variability (lack of busy signals), maximum modem speed, Connection Quality, Do I get an email account, do they support SLIP and PPP, and Pre NN days, some sites did throttle and give fast lanes to sites and services, which meant I could determine if it was worth it or not.
      The flaw in dummy Pai logic is the fact we do not have competition with high speed ISP. And most of America cannot have competition in their area.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:And probably not a single one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has pledged to open up their jurisdiction to unlimited local competition. They'll grant the franchises and then "hold them accountable" instead of giving the people a chance to vote with their feet and easily switch to a competitor.

      There has to be an ability for these progressive mayors to profit from corruption and graft. Why would you deny them that?

    5. Re:And probably not a single one... by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The (land) phone lines, electricity, water, sewer, natural gas, roads/sidewalks and cable TV connections to YOUR house (and everybody else's) are Natural Monopolies [wikipedia.org], where the capital costs are so high for last-mile coverage that "easily switching to a competitor" isn't possible because there aren't any and never will be.

      I can choose between half dozen ADSL ISPs, and about the same number of electricity providers, despite only having a single fixed line for either.

    6. Re:And probably not a single one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has pledged to open up their jurisdiction to unlimited local competition.

      You are right, none of them did. Because that's already the law. Its been federal law since 1992 when the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act outlawed the granting of exclusive franchises.

      The problem isn't with the government (sorry delusional libertarians!) its with natural monopolies caused by high costs to enter the market (a cable planet is expensive AF) and collusion between competitors who have secret agreements to stay out of each other's territories. - sometimes they don't even bother to keep it a secret.

    7. Re:And probably not a single one... by umghhh · · Score: 1

      There are known solutions to this problem - gosh they have been used to enable competition on other markets with natural monopolies. The only thing one has to do is to have government fixing access to the last mile - in case of internet it is even easier than with power lines or water as you can have one tower delivering microwave etc links to many farms decreasing costs. There are problems with freeing access to last mile but they can be resolved.The problems USians have are with law and not with technology or economy. Whether this initiative will help well I do not think so but you can have hope.

    8. Re:And probably not a single one... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Some governments think it is their duty to step in if the market fails. For instance: when our state-owned PTT went private, they were forced to open up their last mile to competitors for a fixed fee. At first they didn't like it and there was some sabotage of colocated equipment, and access badges of competitors' repairmen mysteriously breaking, that sort of thing. But in the end everyone got used to the situation, and we had some seriously healthy competition. Of course in the end the big fish ISPs just bought the smaller ones, but still. I still have about a dozen ISPs to choose from, and I pay around €50 a month for 500Mb fiber, basic cable, and a VOIP land line with unlimited national calls. Thanks not to government subsidies or rules restricting commerce, but to competition and rules that make competition possible.

      Now that the country is left with only a single cable TV provider owning all of the last miles of coax, we'll see new regulation to force them to open up to competitors as well. Which will be great: since fiber isn't anywhere near ubiquitous, coax is the more popular method of obtaining broadband internet, but currently only that one company is in a position to offer it.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:And probably not a single one... by umghhh · · Score: 2

      Again - this problem has been resolved in many countries. It is true the last mile constitutes natural monopoly but state can tell the companies to rent them for a fair price to whoever wants to rent. Gosh the last mile can be even built by city councils or groups of citizens and connected to the grid in one point - this of course will not work in US for some reason. So coming back to main point - yes there are countries where I can as a consumer switch between suppliers in such natural monopoly markets like water, electricity etc. I was allowed to because for instance the mains were owned by municipal company and that is probably contrary to what CETA etc allows to operate such vital infrastructure - OTOH it was EU (a monster that it is) that was forcing opening of the markets in these areas. Be as it may - we had such solutions in place for decades now. So the q. why USians cannot do it is a valid one.

    10. Re:And probably not a single one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes there are solutions. But you can't start on them when you still have lots of people like deplorable screaming and yelling about problems that do not even exist.

    11. Re:And probably not a single one... by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, most of the US does not have such a model, and tends to have duopoly competition between [monopoly phone company] and [monopoly cable company].

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:And probably not a single one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [And probably not a single one... ] Has pledged to open up their jurisdiction to unlimited local competition. They'll grant the franchises and then "hold them accountable" instead of giving the people a chance to vote with their feet and easily switch to a competitor.

      Put last-mile infrastructure under local service area co-op control. Much like opening an account at a private depositor-owned credit union that still operates under Federal regulation, you're buying in to the infrastructure and ir's maintenance when you pay to receive service.

    13. Re:And probably not a single one... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I'm rural (Canadian, but not much different then the US), and locally at the best had perhaps 3 dial-up providers, all charging about the same price, to choose from. At the end of my dial-up days, there was only the phone company providing it and the price was $45 a month (plus the phone line that was officially $20 but seemed to have crept up to $40) for unlimited.
      The phone company finally built a cell tower (and layed fibre over much of the town) but as they didn't want to update the lines where I am, they have a deal for an LTE connection. 250GB limit for about $100 a month, which gives me about 10-15 Mb down and 1-3 Mb up.
      It is one way to handle the last mile but takes government pressure (and probably subsidies though it is hard to find out if so).

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    14. Re: And probably not a single one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.
      Franchise agreements exist so that the sky isn't blocked out by a maze of wiring from dozens of companies.

    15. Re:And probably not a single one... by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      They'll grant the franchises and then "hold them accountable" instead of giving the people a chance to vote with their feet and easily switch to a competitor.

      Invest a fortune in infrastructure, and then attempt to gain market-share by undercutting the competition in a saturated market? Thing is, at some point you'll want to make your investment back, and a profit on top of that.

      Why go through all that expense and trouble, when you can just sit back and start a nice easy cryptocoin ICO?

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    16. Re:And probably not a single one... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Just how does a farmer or the owner of a general store need high speed internet?

      Alternately, if you accept the fantasy that high speed internet is a necessity, there's HughesNet. It's available anywhere there is sky.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    17. Re:And probably not a single one... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The last mile is NOT a natural monopoly. Think cell phone technology.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    18. Re:And probably not a single one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're bound by existing agreements put in place when the cables and/or fiber were originally laid. If you're old enough, you'll remember there was a distinct lack of clamor for taxes to be raised to pay for that to happen out of public money, and so instead cities did deals with cable companies to make it happen.

      The monopolies are the price you're all paying for those deals. Net neutrality is an advanced case of buyers' remorse.

    19. Re:And probably not a single one... by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      I see the big ISPs putting up a dirty fight. How long before they start charging everyone more, and call attention to it as *additional mandatory local regulatory requirements fees, while simultaneously slandering the officials that are costing them more on their monthly cable bills.

      FAQ:
      Q: Why are there changes to my bill / plan?

      A: We'd love to give you more affordable internet packages, but unfortunately the political climate in your area prevents us from being able to give you a custom tailored plan that is more aligned with your usage.

      Recent regional mandates have required us to update the services offered in your area, and unfortunately the package that you currently enjoy can no longer be offered. This is not the desire of BigTelCo, but we will continue to provide you with the most affordable service available that meets your local requirements.

      It is important to note that not all customers in all areas will see changes to their bill, and changes will vary depending on the current local requirements at your specific location.

    20. Re: And probably not a single one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole concept of natural monopoly is invalid. Even electricity or water doesn't have to transferred by a local (non)monopoly.

    21. Re:And probably not a single one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, Sherlock :-) How else do you expect them to generate gifts, favors, bribes, and campaign contributions if not thru a little honest extortion? ;-)

    22. Re:And probably not a single one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno where you are, but here I can choose between Comcast and Verizon FIOS. Several years ago a third cable provider signed a letter of intent with the town but then backed out.

      If I had to guess, I'd say the lack of competition is more due to companies don't want to have to compete with an incumbent.

      And even though there is "competition" here, neither company seems to be interested in undercutting the other, Go figure.

      But I win because I bought from a reseller back when my state required it and I'm grandfathered in at a low rate. At least the speed on that grandfathered service is more than adequate for my needs.

      Some day there will be competition. I'm not holding my breath.

    23. Re:And probably not a single one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's in it for them? They aren't going to give that away for free!

  2. 100 mayors out of 20000 cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That'll show'em!

    1. Re:100 mayors out of 20000 cities by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well here is the thing. By ending NN, what is happening is exactly what I though would happen. By ending a relatively simple and uniform set of rules. That can be applied across the country, it we now have a set of rules and laws all slightly different and ever changing, across different states, and communities in the states. In essence making it difficult and expensive to follow a policy, and be compliment in all customer bases.

      So we have 100 mayors, so they are two cities/towns for each state (on average) that are demanding different sets of rules. If you are running an ISP, you want to run your organization the same across all your customers. An ISP will often cover multiple towns, My ISP covers nearly a 50 mile radius, spanning dozens of towns. Having that one town who plays by a different set of rules is tough, if they are multiple towns demanding NN they may want a slightly different version of what they think NN is.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Sigh by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    More political grandstanding. DeBlasio and the others know the FCC regulations and Federal law in general supersedes any and all State and local laws. As soon as some local or State court rules against some ISP on local/State "NN" laws or regs, the first Federal court they appeal it to will dismiss it rule the laws/regs in question as not within State or local powers.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re: Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that the federal government under the control of Republicans is going to impose an authoritarian top-down mandate to forbid the principles of net neutrality being a requirement for muncipalites making decisions as to who they will do business with? What would be the purpose of such a tyrannical usurpation of the freedom of local government to participate in the free market?

      Strat

    2. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They're not charging them with a crime, they simply won't do business with them. Happened in Glasgow Kentucky about 40 years ago. Local provider was price gouging. Local utility had set up monitoring system for power. Someone noticed that it had the bandwidth to handle cable, so the utility erected a headend. Provider sued, claiming an exclusive contract. Utility countersued, Federal court, claiming interference in interstate commerce. Guess who won? Electric Plant Board still operating, with better prices than all the competing options.

    3. Re: Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked also when Obama went after Arizona because it tried to protect it's citizens from criminal illegal aliens because the Federal government refused to properly enforce immigration law and border security as they are mandated to do as part of their sworn duty.

    4. Re:Sigh by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      As soon as some local or State court rules against some ISP on local/State "NN" laws or regs, the first Federal court they appeal it to will dismiss it rule the laws/regs in question as not within State or local powers.

      OK, and?

      Why the fuck is it that every time some politicians say they're going to do something to help X, people immediately come out of the woodwork to act as if they're going to pass laws to ban "Not X".

      There's plenty of things politicians can do to help network neutrality, from not doing business with companies that don't practice it, to encouraging competitors and making it difficult for incumbents if the incumbents have anti-NN policies.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re: Sigh by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Citation needed

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re: Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Worked also when Obama went after Arizona because it tried to protect it's citizens from criminal illegal aliens because the Federal government refused to properly enforce immigration law and border security as they are mandated to do as part of their sworn duty.

      Constitutionally, Arizona has no authority over immigration law, it can't arrest anybody for simply being in the state, that's entirely a federal matter as even Scalia and Thomas admitted (they merely asserted that there was no conflict, so wanted to dismiss the case on those grounds), so you'd really have to work hard to assert otherwise.

      Given that Obama also, as even Trump admitted, deported millions, it's hard to argue that there wasn't a proper enforcement of immigration law or a lack of border security that resulted from his administration, and if they had any legitimate complaints, they had representation in Congress to argue for their needs, as well as the right to petition the federal government.

      Can you produce records of such petitions with any complaints that were not properly and duly addressed? Did their representatives fail them? If so, which ones and how?

    7. Re: Sigh by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It is not uncommon for a Senator or Representative to give a speech in an almost empty house. Complaints are routinely ignored.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re: Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not uncommon for a Senator or Representative to give a speech in an almost empty house.

      Irrelevant. With the widespread access to media, physical presence is not meaningful and the performance of speeches in the halls of Congress is an inconsequential step in law-making anyway, you may have watched too many Mel Gibson movies so you don't know how reality works.

      Complaints are routinely ignored.

      Yes, and? Many complaints are facetious and inconsequential, for example, to wit, all the complaints about the Obama administration not deporting anybody, which turned out to be hysteria, not reality.

      So again, I ask for records of such petitions with any complaints that were not properly and duly addressed? Did their representatives fail them? If so, which ones and how?

      You don't have any records, do you? That's the problem with zealots such as yourself, you forget that people have access to facts, not your hardcore dogma, so we know things like how the United States was recognized as sovereign in the Treaty of Paris (1783), and that the Articles of Confederation existed prior to the Constitution, and well, a lot of things that prove to be full of bullshit.

  4. We need global dark fiber. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish the United States had a healthy government.

    1. Re:We need global dark fiber. by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wish the United States had a healthy government.

      You have the best government that money can buy.

    2. Re:We need global dark fiber. by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Just like you have the best healthcare system that money can buy. If only more Americans could afford it!

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    3. Re:We need global dark fiber. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we have the option of buying, unlike a certain set of parents in the UK.

      It's one thing to pull on your jackboots and goosestep in front of providing care because MUH MATH. It's another thing entirely to forbid people from seeking care outside your fucked up little shithole of a country.

    4. Re:We need global dark fiber. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet NOBODY in the UK would switch their system for ours.
      They're so unenlightened!

    5. Re:We need global dark fiber. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At least we have the option of buying, unlike a certain set of parents in the UK.

      There was nothing worth buying, nobody could offer any effective treatment or cure.

      It's one thing to pull on your jackboots and goosestep in front of providing care because MUH MATH. It's another thing entirely to forbid people from seeking care outside your fucked up little shithole of a country.

      It's one thing to want the best for your children, it's another thing to go into debt providing useless treatment that only prolongs an agonizing death, and then being unable to pay for it, induce the rest of us to compensate those individuals who took advantage of you by providing an ineffective service that is simply exploiting your own naivete.

      Frankly, the Vatican should be billed for the excess costs and burden to the UK legal system that their stunt imposed.

    6. Re:We need global dark fiber. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It's amazing, the excuses people can find for slavery.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    7. Re:We need global dark fiber. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing, the excuses people can find for slavery.

      Yep, forcing people to suffer for your political stunts is a common one. Remember when it was Terri Schiavo they were trying to use? Or Marlise Muñoz? Or Savita Halappanavar and the unnamed former woman in PP v. HSE? It's like the right-wing still hasn't learn that people aren't pawns to be exploited, not even the ones who can't speak up and refuse.

      Doesn't matter who you are, or what you want, they'll put you to work to advance their authoritarian agenda. And make the rest of us pay for it!

      Slavery might be a bit too much of a word, but it's not far off, they're really quite tyrannical in their abuses, cruel and despotic. It's no surprise they also resort to outright violence upon the innocent, let alone those who oppose their cruelty.

  5. So I take it by melted · · Score: 1

    So I take it itâ(TM)s not ok to ban conservatives anymore? Great!

    1. Re: So I take it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think forcing them to live by the rules they inflict upon the rest of us would be good enough.

    2. Re:So I take it by PPH · · Score: 1

      not ok to ban conservatives

      That's backwards. It is now OK to ban them. Or anyone else. And all other aspects of Net Neutrality aside, I think I'm going to enjoy all the GOP and evangelical fund raising web sites being blocked.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:So I take it by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Huh? They have the money to pay for their sites not to be blocked and to block other sites.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    4. Re: So I take it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think forcing them to live by the rules they inflict upon the rest of us would be good enough.

      Yes, it's Conservatives who shouldn't be forced to obey the inconvenient and petty laws that they use to subjugate the peasantry, aka, anybody not wealthy and powerful.

      Freedom for the People that matter!

    5. Re:So I take it by PPH · · Score: 1

      They have the money to pay for their sites not to be blocked

      Fine. Pay up.

      and to block other sites.

      I don't think any sane CEO would expose their company to the legal fallout from antitrust and restraint of trade suits.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:So I take it by dryeo · · Score: 1

      When was the last time that the American government used antitrust or restraint of trade against an American business?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  6. Small, Minority or women owned shell companies by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The ISPs will just set up partner relationship with local companies that will preferred for govt bussiness, such as the carve outs for supporting local, small, minority or women owned bussness many cogt have. Those shell companies will not violate net neutrality but their only customers will be the local govt. They will only have one peer and that will be verizon or whomever.

    problem soved for ISP, and govt' gets to claim success too.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Small, Minority or women owned shell companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you bother to read the pledge? Because what you wrote doesn't even apply.

      Here it is:

      Net Neutrality
      I will support legislation and measures that ensure the protection of net neutrality principles and that remove any registration or other restrictive requirements on the provisioning of Internet content or services.

      Ethical Campaign Donations
      I will never accept campaign contributions from any company or individual that has lobbied for the removal of net neutrality regulations or for restrictions on municipalities to create broadband networks.

      Municipal Broadband
      I will support legislation and measures to create publicly-owned and managed municipal fiber networks, built to serve the residents and businesses of my community.

      Government Transparency
      I will support legislation and measures that promote the availability of government data to residents, as well as the usage of open formats and open standards in government.

      Open Access to Knowledge
      I will advocate for freedom of communication and access to knowledge, and I will support initiatives to ensure that publicly-funded intellectual property is made available in the public domain.

      Freedom from Surveillance
      I will not support any proposal for storage or surveillance of communications data that has not been subjected to credible, independent assessment for necessity and proportionality or that is not subject to regular review to ensure compliance with these criteria.

      User Privacy and Data Protection
      I will support legislation and measures that promote and protect the fundamental right of individuals to privacy and data protection, and the use of encryption and other privacy-enhancing technologies.

    2. Re:Small, Minority or women owned shell companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ISPs will just set up partner relationship with local companies that will preferred for govt bussiness

      Good thing that there is no telecommunication legislation to deal with then.. ;)

  7. socialize it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Honestly telecomm infrastructure is a near textbook ideal example of a "natural monopoly", i.e., something where it is totally essential to have unfettered access for all and benefits most from having a single standard implementation.

    If "the people" owned all the pipes and they were used in a fair manner to provide service to all, then we could sidestep all these concerns. The gov't could charge for access based on usage to everyone to make it self-supporting.

    1. Re:socialize it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck that shit, we'd all still be on dialup.

    2. Re: socialize it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOT a natural monopoly. Bell and Rogers duke it out in Ontario and while both are sleazy, cable and DSL each have their advantages and disadvantages, including how bandwidth is charged. You can also get various, true independent third party internet service over each carrier. A government board (CRTC) sets the wholesale rate.

    3. Re:socialize it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Lordy, someone read Marx and thinks she has all the answers.

      Been tried, many many times and it fails every time. Socialism does not work. Communism does not work. There is no version that will work. Stop fantasizing that you can control everything. Progress is made by individuals and small groups of talented people working in a free market, not the masses and not government. The way to complete failure is to let government regulators take over.

    4. Re:socialize it by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If the goal is to impoverish the general public, socialism and communism work just fine.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  8. what if the feds make a law by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and NOBODY obeys it, not even the armed forces, then all it is going to be is a handfull of crony fascist politicians in washington trying to brow beat the nation with paperwork,

    this needs to happen more often and to more unjust laws and policies the federal government impose on the nation

    Stop the Machine
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:what if the feds make a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like state legalized pot.

    2. Re: what if the feds make a law by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, you lost everyone with the "fascist" slur. It just shows people you aren't serious.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:what if the feds make a law by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      and NOBODY obeys it

      Don't be naive; less-stupid sociopaths will always be able to find more-stupid sociopaths to enforce unpopular, unjust and illegal laws.

    4. Re:what if the feds make a law by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      If nobody obeys some particular law, then the people in power can selectively persecute those they don't like.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  9. Re:Lol "crooked" ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, we're not blaming Nazis, White Supremacists, AGW, and the Patriarchy this week...?

  10. At best, it's symbolic by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    What happens if the only ISP in town is one of the duopoly which violates the net neutrality pledge? Will city government just go completely dark and off the internet? No, that probably won't happen. So this is just symbolic, at best. At worst, it's a waste of time and the mayors should probably go back to doing real work to help better their constituents.

  11. straw men by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    That a straw man argument.... pure posturing for political points.
    * Being net neutrally is dead, there are no laws, rules or regulations that bind any ISP to any standard. Thus there's no rule to enforce or law broken. Municipalities can not enforce non-existent regulations.
    * So they "promise" not do business with ISP's who violate non existent standards... who's left to do business with? nobody. every single ISP does it. All the big ones anyway, and they are ultimately the ones who supply all up stream connectivity. This stupid "municipal broadband" nonsense fails to understand where the data comes from. Municipalities don't just pull it from the air, it comes from an upstream ISP, that ultimately is one of the cabal who is blocking, throttling, and deprioritizing data to businesses and end accounts that are not part of their pay to play group.
    * Most ISP cross state lines which is out of the jurisdiction and thus regulation of any municipality. Interstate commerce by law is regulated at the Federal lever.
    Lastly - Funny how the author wrote "Pai caved to corporate interests"... Pai was a lawyer and lobbyist for the communications cabal prior to his appointment by Humpty-Trumpty. This was NOT a 'cave', it was THE GOAL - deliberate and premeditated. .

    1. Re:straw men by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      In the interest of full transparency.
      "Lastly - Funny how the author wrote "Pai caved to corporate interests"... Pai was a lawyer and lobbyist for the communications cabal prior to his appointment by Humpty-Trumpty. This was NOT a 'cave', it was THE GOAL - deliberate and premeditated. ."

      He was first appointed to the FCC by then-President Obama in May of 2012 and received unanimous consent in the US Senate..
      He was made chairmen of the FCC in Jan 2017 by President Trump.

      Just my 2 cents ;)

  12. Who will defend us from crooked government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government is the only real monopoly.

    1. Re: Who will defend us from crooked government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is true. Even here in Finland, the last mile has no "natural" monopoly. We regularly have three cable ISP's per home, two 4G operators and countless of virtual operators.
      We dont have crooked enterprices, they are prosecuted, not regulated (except for ECB of course... - that's FED for americans)

  13. Since were on anecdotal evidence trumping all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have lived in six different states and two other countries and have never had an 'option' with my electricity provider.

  14. And who believes by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    these 2 faced Mayors and City Councils. These are the same individuals who sold monopoly rights to the same companies for campaign contributions.

    Now they distract and confuse everything, saying oh we will fight for you, Right!

    How do you know you should not trust a government bureaucrat or politician? Their lips are moving.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  15. Re: Lol "crooked" ISPs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what about CROOKED Hillary, and Ben Gazi? Ben is a real bad guy. And the private email servers... Pathetic.

    Sad!

  16. Metro Area 5+M, but not in a city by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in a metro area 5+M, but don't live in a city. I'm 20 min from downtown, so not far out either.

    No chance the local county govt will give in to AT&T/Comcast/Cox. They haven't all the years with the PUC.

    I would run for PUC, but I cannot be elected and certainly couldn't take the pay cut.

  17. Ever heard of Negro time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look it up. My knee grows.

  18. Re:wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, how fast can *you* run with the waistband of your pants down under your butt-cheeks while being high as fuck?

  19. NN would go in the amended franchise agreement by tepples · · Score: 1

    Such an ISP would stand to lose its franchise with the city come renewal time, and the city would instead switch to a competitor that agrees to refrain from abusive routing.

    1. Re:NN would go in the amended franchise agreement by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      And here's the critical point. You assert that Net Neutrality is the opposite of abusive routing, when in fact Net Neutrality is an attempt to prevent cost recovery of abusive bandwidth hogging.

      The effect of Net Neutrality is to discourage ISPs from expanding and improving their networks.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  20. Re:Since were on anecdotal evidence trumping all.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My gas and electricity are split into provider and distributor. The distributor is a monopoly. I can choose different providers.

  21. Re:Since were on anecdotal evidence trumping all.. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    If you aren't restricted by government zoning regulations or property owners association rules, you can put up a solar array or a windmill. Or a diesel generator.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  22. City level corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another great example of how cities are full of liberal leftist anti-free market corruption.

  23. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... hold internet service providers accountable ...

    How? These councils can't walk down the the street and buy data services from the competition. I like their loyalty but without economic power, it's meaningless. I'd like to see the law promising exclusive access to US tel-cos: The lack of regulation on data services may also mean a lack of monopoly rights.

  24. As long as traffic is traffic, a cap is neutral by tepples · · Score: 1

    Penalize bandwidth hogs for hogging bandwidth, not for accessing servers that happen not to have signed a zero-rating agreement with a particular ISP, and not for using dispreferred application protocols. An all-encompassing monthly cap that covers all traffic, as commonly implemented by satellite ISPs, is net neutral.

  25. Well meaning, *maybe*, but flawed by jbdigriz · · Score: 1

    The pledge really bears commenting on, point by point:

    > Net Neutrality
    > I will support legislation and measures that ensure the protection of net neutrality principles and that remove any registration or other restrictive
    > requirements on the provisioning of Internet content or services.

    Now, this is a fine-sounding statement, and it's something that even the top execs at the biggest ISPs could support sincerely, without so much as a twinge of conscience, or concern for the next stockholder's meeting. It is also meaningless without a concrete definition. The FCC attempt in 2015 to define net neutrality was less about ensuring competition and free access than entrenching monopolies, mediating corporate turf wars, advancing censorship, and establishing a new bureaucracy for the new era upon us wherein everything, including POTS, is digital. If that's really what anyone wants, get Congress to have the balls to make it law instead of passing the buck. It could, of course, be that this pledge is intended to filter up to that level and provide our selfless, noble legislators with the cover they need to regulate content, ie. speech, or to import concepts like "social credit" to promote political hygiene, but it still doesn't define anything in any way that anyone could be held to.

    > Ethical Campaign Donations
    > I will never accept campaign contributions from any company or individual that has lobbied for the removal of net neutrality regulations or for
    > restrictions on municipalities to create broadband networks.

    Oh, this is choice. Conflating ethics with politics. Why not add "I will never pander to a constituency" while you're at it. By the way, do you really think Big Telecom, Big Cable, or Big Content, were any of them actually AGAINST "Net Neutrality". Well, think again. At most, their bases are covered both ways.

    > Municipal Broadband
    > I will support legislation and measures to create publicly-owned and managed municipal fiber networks, built to serve the residents and businesses
    > of my community.

    Why, who could be against serving residents and businesses of the community? That is the main excuse...er, reason, for our municipal charter, to begin with. Why, we could even support legislation and measures to eventually ensure that all housing and all food production is publicly owned and managed too, while we're at it.

    Look, if you really want socialism, please just do a Bernie and come out and say it. On the other hand, you want the city to be a business, why not be honest, issue voting shares, and be done with the pretense of government as opposed to management of a corporate monopoly. It might be easier to follow the money at least, and maybe get dividends from all the tax-farming.

    > Government Transparency
    > I will support legislation and measures that promote the availability of government data to residents, as well as the usage of open formats and open
    > standards in government.

    This sounds good, and it should be common sense, but realize that the same manager or purchasing agent that owes his or her job to industry trade councils behind the municipal government associations and suchlike that provide template ordinances for such things, recommended bidding practices, IT guidance, etc. is not particularly likely to go beyond them, and especially not against them, if it impedes getting their job done, whatever the high-sounding, but essentially meaningless platitudes that are espoused. And like all politicians, mayors and council members are past masters at saying one thing but doing another.

    Or is this a setup for the template providers to circulate an official approved policy on this matter, that otherwise might be a hard sell, like the model zoning ordinances that expand city rights on private property? I really do wonder.

    > Open Access To Knowledge
    > I will advocate for freedom of communication and access to knowledge, and I will support initiatives to ensure that publicl