FCC overrules B.S. bureaucratic Red Tape on expanding local municipal broadband.

[blankslate]

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...aws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/

FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition

Nineteen states have such laws, often passed at the behest of private Internet service providers that didn't want to face competition. Communities in two of the states asked the FCC to take action. The City of Wilson, North Carolina and the Electric Power Board (EPB) of Chattanooga, Tennessee filed the petitions that led to today's FCC action. Each offers broadband service to residents and received requests for service from people in nearby towns, but they alleged that state laws made it difficult or impossible for them to expand.

“You can’t say you’re for broadband and then turn around and endorse limits on who can offer it,” Wheeler said today. “You can’t say, ‘I want to follow the explicit instructions of Congress to remove barriers to infrastructure investment,' but endorse barriers on infrastructure investment. You can’t say you’re for competition but deny local elected officials the right to offer competitive choices."

In my opinion this is a good thing. If ISPs decide that a community isn't profitable enough to service with fast connections then that community should be able build its own network to provide broadband to its citizens.

It's bullshit when a community asks a large ISP to provide connection to their citizens and are turned down... then when that community votes to raise funding to provide a service they want for their citizens the large ISPs spend money on lobbyists to prevent the municipal networks

Republican commissioner Michael O'Rielly called it "arrogance" to rewrite state laws.

"It is not the government's role to offer services instead of or in competition with private actors," O'Rielly said. Today's order relies on an "illogical and tortured" reading of Section 706, he said.

It would be hilarious, if it weren't so insulting, that bought and paid for ISP schills have the gall to talk about competition when the ISP's didn't want to even provide anything more than dial-up or slower DSL connections to a community... If the ISPs decline and there's enough demand that the community votes to provide public funding to have broadband connections available to its constituency that's the ISP's fault for miscalculating the local demand for fast connections.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/08/29/1528230/how-big-telecom-smothers-municipal-broadband

If the ISPs decide not to provide a service to a community then the community should be allowed build their own network.



.....

 

[rudeguy]

I'm all in favor of creating as much competition as possible with ISPs. There isn't nearly enough and the ISPs know it.

Google Fiber COME TO GRAND RAPIDS!!!!!

 

[smackababy]

I'm all in favor of creating as much competition as possible with ISPs. There isn't nearly enough and the ISPs know it.

Google Fiber COME TO CHICAGO!!!!!

ftfy

 

[Kadarin]

At this rate, Wheeler's going to lose that cushy job at Comcast after his tenure at the FCC is over.

 

[K1052]

How will the companies protect customers from actual competition now? Think of the children.

 

[dank69]

At this rate, Wheeler's going to lose that cushy job at Comcast after his tenure at the FCC is over.

It's literally impossible for any government agent to have your best interests in mind, isn't it?

 

[Jhhnn]

It's one thing for ISP's to serve only markets they see as profitable. It's entirely another for them to reserve markets for future expansion in return for nothing.

The whining about unfair government competition is doublespeak in light of the usual claims that private actors can always do it better & cheaper.

 

[MustISO]

I'll believe it when I see it. It took YEARS for our county to allow Verizon in. Now Verizon and Comcast are here and they raise rates twice a year every year. Supposed to be improving our services with that money yet nothing ever changes. Wonder where that money really goes.

 

[Jhhnn]

At this rate, Wheeler's going to lose that cushy job at Comcast after his tenure at the FCC is over.

Integrity has its price. Sometimes a person needs to sacrifice to keep it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Think of the all the blocked porn by the local ISP`s......lol

 

[K1052]

Incidentally Wheeler is pretty much killing it on the FCC live stream. Obviously doesn't care if he works in the industry ever again.

 

[dainthomas]

Incidentally Wheeler is pretty much killing it on the FCC live stream. Obviously doesn't care if he works in the industry ever again.

I wonder if Google would hire him?

 

[K1052]

Commission just voted in favor of regulation under Title II.

 

[Atreus21]

Since the OP saw fit to exclude Pai's objection:

Republican Ajit Pai dissented, pointing out that the laws in the two states were passed by legislatures controlled by Democrats and are now being overturned by unelected officials.

"I do not believe this agency has the legal power to preempt," Pai said.

Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the FCC to encourage the deployment of broadband to all Americans by using "measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment." The ability to remove barriers is what Wheeler is using to preempt the state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee.

Pai pointed out that Section 706 includes no specific language on preempting state laws. According to Pai, Democrats conceded that the FCC can't overturn total state bans on municipal broadband; rather, they argue only that they can lift restrictions that limit rather than ban the municipal networks, he said. In North Carolina and Tennessee, the providers are being prevented from expanding their service territory, but aren't banned from offering the service within their territory.

"This yields an exceptionally strange result," Pai said. "While a state would be free to ban municipal broadband projects outright, it would be forbidden from imposing more modest restrictions on such projects. In other words, the most severe state law restrictions on municipal broadband projects, prohibitions, could not be preempted, but less stringent restrictions could be preempted." This could lead states to impose complete bans rather than limited restrictions, he said.

 

[HumblePie]

Since the OP saw fit to exclude Pai's objection:

Uhh and he's delusional in his thinking of what the word ban means. A ban is a limit.

 

[Subyman]

Very nice. Didn't expect "Wheeler and Dealer" to come through. Comcast stock is down, netflix stock is up, all is good in the world. I don't see ISPs having a legal footing here. They'd have to argue they aren't a communications service and therefore shouldn't be considered until Title II. Not going to happen, especially after the Verizon court ruling that gave the FCC a roadmap for their regulations.

Fox New's article is hilarious and completely bias:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ernet-regulation-plan-obama-accused-meddling/

On its surface, the plan is aimed at barring providers from creating paid "fast lanes" on the Internet, which consumer advocates and Internet companies worry would edge out cash-strapped startups and smaller Internet-based businesses. Chairman Tom Wheeler said it would ensure an "open, unfettered network."

But the rules, more broadly, would put the Internet in the same regulatory camp as the telephone by classifying it like a public utility, meaning they'd have to act in the "public interest" when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone.

Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai, who delivered some of the most scathing criticism of the plan Thursday, warned the policy represents a "monumental shift" to "government control of the Internet."

"Public interest" in quotations lol, like that is a bad thing. Surprised they didn't try to tie it to NSA spying lol.

 

[rudeguy]

Holy shit guys....

Did we just find an issue that we all agree on?


This thread needs to be immortalized in bronze or something.

 

[Slew Foot]

the only person who doesnt want net neutrality is some Comcast shareholder. Anyone see Spidey?

 

[brycejones]

The government just took over the entire telecom industry just like healthcare. The commies have won. All bow down before the great dictator obummer. /s

Seriously though this is a very positive step forward and it will be interesting to see how the legislative branch reacts.

 

[brycejones]

Holy shit guys....

Did we just find an issue that we all agree on?


This thread needs to be immortalized in bronze or something.

I agree, someone will come along and screw it up though.

Paging Mr. Spidey, Paging Mr. Spidey please pick up the white troll telephone.

 

[TheSlamma]

I'm all in favor of creating as much competition as possible with ISPs. There isn't nearly enough and the ISPs know it.

Google Fiber COME TO GRAND RAPIDS!!!!!

Don't buy into the hype.. look at the cities it's already in.. hardly anything for coverage. Typical Google, start something and then never finish

 

[Newell Steamer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...c-set-to-approve-strong-net-neutrality-rules/

No, really,.. both sides are 'just as bad';

They were adopted by a 3-to-2 margin with the commission's Republican members voting against them.

,.. holy crap guys.

 

[dank69]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...c-set-to-approve-strong-net-neutrality-rules/

And, the GOP shows us all once again, who they are really fighting for;

The parties are the same!

 

[Jhhnn]

Since the OP saw fit to exclude Pai's objection:

The politics behind regulations having what may be unintended consequences are entirely different that a state wide ban.

 

[blake0812]

Holy shit guys....

Did we just find an issue that we all agree on?


This thread needs to be immortalized in bronze or something.

How else will we tell each other that they're wrong?