- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,794
- 568
- 126
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...aws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/
FCC overturns state laws that protect ISPs from local competition
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
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.
.....
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 cant say youre for broadband and then turn around and endorse limits on who can offer it, Wheeler said today. You cant say, I want to follow the explicit instructions of Congress to remove barriers to infrastructure investment,' but endorse barriers on infrastructure investment. You cant say youre 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.
.....
Last edited: