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.

13 of 91 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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!
    2. 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.

  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: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.