26 States Now Ban Or Restrict Community Broadband, Report Finds (vice.com) 202
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A new report has found that 26 states now either restrict or outright prohibit towns and cities from building their own broadband networks. Quite often the laws are directly written by the telecom sector, and in some instances ban towns and cities from building their own broadband networks -- even if the local ISP refuses to provide service. The full report by BroadbandNow, a consumer-focused company that tracks US broadband availability, indicates the total number of state restrictions on community broadband has jumped from 20 such restrictions since the group's last report in 2018.
BroadbandNow's report looks at each state's restrictions individually, and found that while some states simply banned community broadband outright (a notable assault on voters' democratic rights), others impose clever but onerous restrictions on precisely how a local network can be funded, who they can partner with, or how quickly (and where) they're allowed to grow. In Tennessee, for example, state laws allow publicly-owned electric utilities to provide broadband, "but limits that service provision to within their electric service areas." Such restrictions have made it hard for EPB -- the highest rated ISP in America last year according to Consumer Reports -- to expand service into new areas.
BroadbandNow's report looks at each state's restrictions individually, and found that while some states simply banned community broadband outright (a notable assault on voters' democratic rights), others impose clever but onerous restrictions on precisely how a local network can be funded, who they can partner with, or how quickly (and where) they're allowed to grow. In Tennessee, for example, state laws allow publicly-owned electric utilities to provide broadband, "but limits that service provision to within their electric service areas." Such restrictions have made it hard for EPB -- the highest rated ISP in America last year according to Consumer Reports -- to expand service into new areas.
Land of the free (Score:4, Funny)
Land of the free, where the government doesn't mess with your lives too much.
Re: (Score:1)
You are free,
to have corporate monopoly!
Land of the corrupt (Score:2)
Headline could truthfully be rewritten as:
Re: (Score:2)
What about the States that have good legislators, and community broadband is unrestricted, but they got listed anyways?
In your mind, apparently, selling out to the telcos, or ignoring them so completely than they engage in a bunch of FUD to slander your State, these are the same?
Re: (Score:2)
Just FIY, nobody paid me to post this information [slashdot.org].
They especially did not pay me in gold-pressed latinum.
Re: Land of the free (Score:1)
1 GB internet at launch: $350
1 GB internet now: $68
100 MB on launch: $175
100 MB now: $58
Can't find the launch TV price but it didn't get raised for the first few years and has gone up a few bucks most years since they started raising prices. The statement "EPB, like Comcast, just keeps going up on its rates, especially the TV rates" is false. Internet prices have dramatically decreased while TV prices have slightly increased.
Land of the fee (Score:3)
Where if it can be collected, it will be.
Re:Land of the free (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just one of the many proofs that in spite of what the right-wing loves to promote, the USA is not, and never has been, a free market economy. Pure capitalism is just as infeasible and mythical as pure communism as both of them are built around making assumptions about humans as a species that simply do not apply.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just one of the many proofs that in spite of what the right-wing loves to promote, the USA is not, and never has been, a free market economy. Pure capitalism is just as infeasible and mythical as pure communism as both of them are built around making assumptions about humans as a species that simply do not apply.
Creating implied opportunities to build in corruption that stymies the ability for the society to evolve systems that keep it stable. Freedom of speech, free association are the mechanisms that provide the adaptations in manageable pieces so that change isn't too painful.
Maybe people forget why those freedoms are so important because of how small they are?
Re: (Score:1)
pure Capitalism
You seem to be confusing Capitalism and Feudalism.
The underlying premise of Capitalism is that business owners are (rightfully, correctly) greedy. This leads to entrenched interests harming the market for personal benefit. If a neutral third party (aka Government) peeks over the shoulders of business, and regulates the market to ensure a level playing field for new or small market participants, then a "Free Market" can arise.
The idea that removing restrictions on entrenched business is somehow "pure capit
Re: (Score:2)
pure Capitalism
You seem to be confusing Capitalism and Feudalism.
Absolutely not!
Pure capitalism is terrifying. Feudalism is the stagnant comfort of fiefdoms and communism is a means to convert capitalism into feudalism. No economic system is perfect so freedom of speech and association are tools against the corruptions that seep into them from the accumulated imperfection of human nature.
After all, we're only human.
The idea that removing restrictions on entrenched business is somehow "pure capitalism" is about the stupidest shit you could possibly say about economics.
So where did I say that?
Maybe people forget why those freedoms are so important because of how small they are?
Q: How many people will even learn what their freedoms are, or what any of the words mean?
The ones who don't want to be slaves.
Re: (Score:1)
Just because slashdot posts an article that is full or horse-shit level lies, that doesn't imply anything happened to your freedum.
For example they list Oregon, where not only is municipal broadband legal, legit, and unrestricted! Why? They don't say, they just list "other reasons." Oh, "other reasons," gee.
Not only can communities do their own internet here, without any interference or restriction from the State, anybody can; we have good, clear laws for accessing utility poles. The poles themselves are ge
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The 'grab them by the pussy' comment was made in reference to groupies, in the time when Trump was a reality TV star. It has nothing to do with his attitude in general to women.
Now, back to our usual programming.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Let's review [youtube.com]
Trump's uncensored lewd comments about women from 2005.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn you, Archer!
Re:This is not the role of government (Score:5, Insightful)
It is, when it's common good.
Re: This is not the role of government (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is not the role of government (Score:1)
Re: giving Comcast big bags of money, they've tried that & the service didn't get any better or any cheaper or cover more people. It would seem that the USA's free market utopia has yet to deliver in this respect.
Are you an idiot? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not necessary. Many people would settle for a government that regulates common good with the purpose of protecting your constitutional rights and the basic rights that can be derived from those. "Oh, sorry, there were not enough enumerated rights there at this time in the constitution to protect, citizen. Come again after 100 years when we have a health care system or even a working sewage system". I see were the issue might be.
Re: (Score:2)
The government IS *your* business. (Score:3, Insightful)
In a free market, *you* and the rest of the people that this organization called government is owned by and consists of, can run whatever the fuck they want.
Including a business that ruins greed leeches because working together is more cost-effective than being greedy assholes to each other.
So I really wonder: Why do you hate yourself / the free market?
How did they manage to turn you this way? (Literally against yourself, and for your enemy.)
Re: (Score:2)
Define "business".
Re:This is not the role of government (Score:5, Insightful)
> Ask a veteran about government-run health care.
They do that, you know... and broadly speaking Veterans seem to be pretty positive about it;
https://www.va.gov/opa/pressre... [va.gov]
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
You are going to quote the va.gov website to claim veterans are pretty positive about VA health care?
Re:This is not the role of government (Score:5, Insightful)
How about asking people from other countries? They seem to be OK with it, especially when the alternatives are nothing, being shackled to your employer, or paying considerably more than it would have cost via taxes.
Perhaps the problem isn't government, it's your government.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is the tax laws that grant benefits to employers for offering health care for their employees.
It should be against the law for employers to offer health care as a benefit. It puts control of Health Care in the hands of the Human Resources departments.
People should always be free to choose their own health care providers. Not dependent as vassals on their employer.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay...would you offer a link to a detailed description of what you would consider an enlightened society?
Re: (Score:1)
Among first world countries the US is the one out of step. I'm about to go into hospital for a day procedure involving a surgeon, an anesthetist and theatre nurses, plus a 24 hour stay and it will cost me $0 as the public hospital is funded by the Gov. In preparation for this event I had to purchase a specific medication which was costed at $85.18 and I paid the capped prescription cost of $6.50.
If a relatively small economy like Australia can do this, surely the US can do better. It comes down to how mu
Re: (Score:2)
We voted. This whole thing is ours - we own it.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, private companies such as BP tend to have oil leaks, especially at Deepwater Horizon, in that Texas refinery, etc. That specific company is well behind the others in terms of safety.
The shape of infrastructure isn't based on whether it's public or private, it's based on having competence and willingness to fix issues. For each public-run institution or equivalent that has corruption and not willing t
Re: (Score:2)
The very best solution when it comes to utilities is the co-op.
So a separate, independent, quasi-government? Everyone pools their money together and have shared ownership and everyone has a voice in how it's run?
Re: (Score:1)
I guess the incident with Columbia Gas destroying 40 homes in the Boston area and leaving nearly 9000 customers without their heating systems for several weeks last fall was an anomaly too.
How many anomalies does it take before the anomaly becomes the norm? Obviously you and your colleagues are a bit stupid - the reason PGandE got that far out of hand is because too many people worship at the altar of unregulated capitalism, where profit is the only savior.
Re: (Score:2)
You were on course until you got to utilities. I've worked with utilities all over the South for the past 43 years. No, you don't want government-owned water, gas, phone, power, cable or internet.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a federally owned corporation in the United States created by congressional charter on May 18, 1933, to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development to the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly affected by the Great Depression.
TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia
It was the first large regional planning agency of the federal government and remains the largest. Under the leadership of David Lilienthal ("Mr. TVA"), the TVA became a model for America's efforts to help modernize agrarian societies in the developing world.
TVA is one of the largest operators of electric transmission in the US with an approximately 16,000-mile (26,000 km) corridor of transmission (13,000 miles (21,000 km) of which is greater than 161kv)
Tennessee Valley Authority [wikipedia.org]
Re:This is not the role of government (Score:5, Insightful)
Private companies pay their employees more and keep the utility's infrastructure in better shape.
I know, we've seen that too in Australia. Through an endless string of privatisation our infrastructure was excessively gold plated and our costs went through the roof while we got absolutely zero benefit in return.
Private enterprises have no business running utilities. The ability to not get sick because your sewer backlogs due to a fatberg should not depend on some profit equation.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to get the "government can do things better" idea out of your head. Ask a veteran about government-run health care.
Seems that places with government run healthcare generally receive better overall health outcomes and quality of life than those in the USA. But why are we asking vets specifically? Is there something about "government" that causes you to be dicks to one specific group of people?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, remember how great Enron was?
Re: (Score:2)
If government can’t do things better, then why are the telecoms fighting so hard to restrict or ban community broadband?
Your statement, “You have to get the ‘government can do things better’ idea out of your head,” is wrong.
In spite of some highly publicized problems, the VA overall does a good to very good job. And if you want to talk about health care, the fact is that the United States health care system with its private for-profit health insurance companies ranks at the bot
The "best" government money can buy! /s (Score:3)
n/t
There's an easy solution (Score:2)
Oh, and listen to what politicians say and ask yourself, was there any policy in that speech, or was it just flowery lan
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up a good point about PAC money!
We need stop this hiding of PAC money. The way to minimize corrupting is for Citizens to demand a open and transparent system so we can see who is attempting to buy who off. If someone or some company donates money to a single political party, then it SHOULD be SHARED equally amongst all of the remaining parties to prevent "out marketing" your opposition simply by "buying off" the public.
Until this happens, corruption in government will remain unchecked.
We also ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the problem is the face in the mirror. Citizens ignoring corporate sponsored bills isn't helping either. Didn't we just have a story were 26 states ban community broadband [slashdot.org]
Unfortunately "buying off the public" by spending more then your opponent is only one symptom of the problem.
This is far more important. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would go one step further... Dems should be passing a bill that prohibits state gov from preventing this AND levy a 5 to 10% Tax on profits/sales from for-profit broadband providers and using the tax moneys to Offer grants and funding available solely for non-profit community broadband organizations and County and Municipal governments to build and expand high-capacity municipal broadband networks to include households that currently only have options that either cost them more than $30 a month or m
Re: This is far more important. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let local communities decide when to do this. Just have to stop state govs from being bought.
I am in favor of communities deciding this; However, there is a problem of getting money for this -- in that for-profit providers have gotten into the industry first and tend to suck up the most profitable customers in the densest of areas and leave others completely unserved, therefore user fees are not
a great option for funding such projects.
The best feature of municipal broadband is they can seek to s
Re: (Score:2)
Dems worry about net neutrality. Right here is real problem. Dems should be passing a bill that prohibits state gov from preventing this.
That is exactly the opposite what the founding documents of the US allow. The Federal government has NO authority to determine what states can do within their borders. Of course, much of that is completely ignored these days and has been for a long time.
Re:This is far more important. (Score:5, Informative)
> The Federal government has NO authority to determine what states can do within their borders.
I'm afraid that this has _never_ been completely true. The US Confederacy started a civil war, and lost it, over just such states' rights. Violations of civil rights by states have repeatedly been resolved through the Supreme Court, as they were for black rights and the rights to gay marriage, and the amendments regarding prohibition were passed and enforced over the objections of many individual states.
Balancing state and local authority against federal laws always requires a balance. But please, do not pretend that there is "NO authority". History, modern law, and the Union Army have proven this claim mistaken.
Re: (Score:1)
Balancing state and local authority against federal laws always requires a balance. But please, do not pretend that there is "NO authority". History, modern law, and the Union Army have proven this claim mistaken.
It has nothing to do with the Union Army. Might does not make right. It also has nothing to do with 'modern law': the government is not allowed to violate the Bill of Rights, the highest law in the land - any law or precedent to the contrary is illegal, no matter how old or how modern it may be (and creating or upholding such a law is a violation of numerous rights, including the right to ethical practice of law).
We have to find another reason to justify the actions of the Federal government. Fortunately
Re: (Score:2)
The southern states, the members of the Confederacy, had a perceived legal right to secede from the Union. The Union begged to differ with them, considering federal unity more important than that state right. The Confederacy then lost the war, and the successful conquest by the Union Armary overruled local legal precedents. Losing a civil war means the local laws are overwhelmed by force of arms, which is always a compelling legal argument.
It was one of the most classic conflicts between state authority and
Re: (Score:1)
Losing a civil war means the local laws are overwhelmed by force of arms, which is always a compelling legal argument.
No. Might does not make right. There is nothing logically compelling about a legal argument based on force of arms - and law is supposed to be based on logic. Resort to force of arms means one has given up winning on the basis of logic or reason - it's government by a warlord, not government by consent of the governed.
The Southern States were violating fundamental rights of many people through the implementation of slavery
Not according to their state law, the precedents of federal law, and the legal history of mankind since the oldest religious writings.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and many others disagreed with you: they viewed the long term continuation of slavery as fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of th
Re: (Score:2)
I acknowledge your point about the cotton gin: I misremembered that, and appreciate the correction. The history is worth review on some other more relevant occasion.
> No. Might does not make right.
But it makes law. The enforceable rights are those decided by law, whether they exist in some abstract vision of the order of society. It's very difficult to protect rights without the courts and without legal enforcement in civil or criminal law. And these laws have been altered by superior force on numerous o
Re: (Score:1)
But it makes law. The enforceable rights are those decided by law, whether they exist in some abstract vision of the order of society. It's very difficult to protect rights without the courts and without legal enforcement in civil or criminal law. And these laws have been altered by superior force on numerous occasions in avery nation's history that I've ever heard of. Current examples in US law include the federal immigration law and drug sentencing laws, objected to by various states and objected to by my more liberal local politicians. Others include educational mandates, Title iX, abortion rights, and gay marriage, objected to by various more conservative local politicians.
All of these involve rights, including states rights versus federal law. All involve federal interference in local courts, businesses, economies, churches, and family lives. All have involved armed personnel ensuring enforcement of the rights of different people, over the objections of others, and on occasion they have used force. When the local officials lost those contests of force, they were forced to change their laws or their practice of the law.
Might does not make law. It especially can not be used as the basis for law in the USA, a nation founded by Enlightenment thinkers, a people whose thinking was shaped by the Age of Reason. The logic, or the justification, must come first - the might only comes second, and is only legitimate if the justification itself was legitimate. Otherwise one violates universal and inalienable rights, which no legitimate government can do. This concept in embodied in the Declaration of Independence, which clearly s
Re: (Score:2)
> Might does not make law.
Then I suggest you re-examine the polotical geography of Western Europe and of Israel, and the history of the American Civil War, WWI, and WWII, of Afghanistan and Iraq more recently.
> Hence, we are back to the original issue: the justification for the Union taking action against the Confederacy was based upon slavery - and the federal government was given authority by the Bill of Rights to so ac
It's conveniently self-righteous, today, to believe that was the only issue. The
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Interstate Commerce Clause appears to be written to solve this problem.
No, not how its written. Only how its badly interpreted to cover everything both interstate and intrastate.
Re: This is far more important. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since everything is in a state border, this would mean that the fed has no authority whatsoever. Yeah, right!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dems should be passing a bill that prohibits state gov from preventing this.
And bite the hand that feeds? I don't think so! Homey don't do that! [gq.com]
No it's not the problem, it's a symptom. (Score:2)
Re: This is far more important. (Score:2)
Corporations HATE the free market. (Score:1)
When they say they want a "free" market, they only mean their freedom to take other people's freedoms (and rights).
In an actually free market, people could and would also organize and make their own corporation, to balance the market. E.g. their own community's telecom. Or their own union.
They also LOVE regulation.
When they say "small government", they mean that they should be the only ones to write regulation that gives them an unfair advantage. And the power of *others*, especially the people, should be s
Re: (Score:2)
What would you do then? Go crying to the government to save you?
Some of these laws don't add up (Score:2)
or example, state laws allow publicly-owned electric utilities to provide broadband, "but limits that service provision to within their electric service areas."
How is preventing a utility from owning another utility a limitation of community broadband? Why would this not be a good thing?
Re: (Score:2)
or example, state laws allow publicly-owned electric utilities to provide broadband, "but limits that service provision to within their electric service areas."
How is preventing a utility from owning another utility a limitation of community broadband? Why would this not be a good thing?
I don't think that is what that line is saying. I think what it does is limit them to where they are already providing electric service. So if they grow out their electric service they can then provide broadband to those places where they have grown their electric service. The problem with this restriction is that electric utilities are basically limited to where they can provide electric services so they their broadband service footprint will basically be capped.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that a good thing though? If they want to provide broadband, then start another company to do that. I wouldn't want the two utilities under one corporation anyway. I don't want the electric company, telephone company, and water utility to all be one company.
How many states ban community rescue of industries (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people are being fooled (Score:4, Insightful)
Modern propaganda has been slowly destroying democracies around the world and it didn't begin with Italy and end with Germany. It's a terminal cancer that despite a majority recognizing tumors like Trump fail to remove them quick enough and far worse, they do not recognize the underlying cancer when they do.
Today you could not build a national highway system anymore than you can build a national information highway. START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES and stop just emotionally latching onto the BS. Democracy is a form of socialism and that is just for starters...
The price civilization is taxes. The higher the density and the more technology the greater the difficulty in maintaining civil society = more civilization. Regulations (aka laws) are a essential and fundamental tool; a double-edge sword that is wielded best by a democracy because it benefits the many at the expense of the few (which is the essence of socialism... the very same socialist argument used to justify capitalism; that is, for those who are not blind witless followers of the brand.)
If you are even thinking of countering by bringing up direct democracy, then you are too juvenile, grow up. You've been adding to our problems with your ignorance. We need to bring back civics and government education, it's truly getting warped into nothing but empty tribal slurs. Despotism is so close... people are beginning to see it (but only because we're boiling the frog too quickly.)
Re:How many states ban community rescue of industr (Score:5, Informative)
Genuine question (Score:1)
Let me first be clear: /. is about how evil this is, how government is interfering in something that ostensibly can bring good to many.
- I understand the meme on
- I too would love to have cheap, city provided broadband.
HOWEVER, and this is a genuine question, not an 'opinion statement hidden in a question': How far do we want/let government go in providing services to the community that could be provided by commercial entities? I mean, we all need haircuts occasionally, why not make haircutting a governme
Re:Genuine question (Score:5, Interesting)
The cable companies by & large operate GOVERNMENT-MANDATED monopolies.
I think you really need to do some research on this. Utility monopolies exist in spite of, or due to special exemptions in anti trust law. I can't think of any government that went out of their way to discourage or ban a competitor from their jurisdiction. It's usually the economics which make multiple players in one market less attractive. Or out and out price fixing and collusion to divide up a market between suppliers.
Usually, once a single provider becomes dominant in a region, local and state laws kick in to place restrictions on their practices to prevent monopolistic market abuses.
Re:Genuine question (Score:5, Insightful)
How far do we want/let government go in providing services to the community that could be provided by commercial entities?
For utilities? All the way. Your lights working, your internet running, and your toilet not flowing backwards shouldn't be part of someone's profit/loss balance sheet.
Remember, kids (Score:3)
Community has seven letters the same as communism and only two different. It's literally almost 80% evil!
..yeah, clearly and objectively bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no interest in drinking whatever Kool-Aid you're pushing on me either so don't b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the Internet keeps being more and more 'required' in order to conduct your day to day life then eventually it's going to HAVE to be ubiquitos and low-profit-margin, and right not it's the opposite, and that's bullshit that has to stop. Either that or it needs to go back to being a 'luxury' that everyone can easily live without -- which by the way is the way it's priced in the United States, there's plenty of countries w
Time for a SCOTUS constitutional test of this (Score:2)
Municipal broadband would be coercive socialism if and only if private networks were forbidden to compete with it, as with medallion cab companies. But if people in a community want to band together to install broadband that Comcast won't, shouldn't this be a protected right?
The problem with Fiber to the home (Score:1)
Take the example provider given - EPB. A quick look on their website shows that the price for an Internet only hookup is $78. That may not be too much for most people on this board but for worki
What competition really means (Score:3)
Here in the UK I have a choice of at least 40 different ISPs via DSL (actually its ADSL here) and one via cable. I use one of the DSL ISPs (aaisp.net) and get 80Mb down/20 Mb up. My key point is that with many suppliers in the market, there is room for both big companies offering standard packages for Joe Shmoe and small ISPs offering specialist options for smaller markets. I went for a smaller supplier who officially supports Linux, has first line tech support staff who know much more about networking than me and a strong commitment to internet freedoms. My mother uses a different ISP which provides the sort of simpler package which she needs. That is what choice in a market place means.
Now, how did we get the plethora of choices? Unfortunately, via the communist ideal of government control! The government forces the owners of the telephone lines (British Telecom) to give other companies access under the same terms as their own ISP division. The idea of having a "choice" of only one or two big corporate ISPs offering much the same vanilla packages sounds ghastly, but perhaps it is a price worth paying to avoid the red spectre of government interference!
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that DSL is fine for most people but over here the tech companies and their political allies have worked to eliminate DSL as a viable option. The current FCC definition of bandwidth states that it is a minimum of 25 Mbps downstream. This figure was chosen because at that
Re: (Score:1)
Can you not hook into the box at the exchange?
So 1 'company' is on the lines but as soon as you get off the lines in the exchange you have options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My understanding is their is a box at the exchange where the cable connection terminates.
At that point is where you hook the different ISPs to their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How are you getting 80/20 on ADSL?
Restrictions in NH (Score:1)
In New Hampshire, municipalities may only use public funds (e.g., float a bond) to build out service in "unserved/underserved" parts of the town. So an incumbent ISP gets all the profitable parts of the area, and lets the town government pay for the expensive parts. Pretty crafty, eh?
Coastal states more restrictive (Score:1)
New York is the exception. They seem to be community broad band.
Not surprising.
More taxpayer money for Comcast and Verizon (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
or to the people
Which people are these? The residents of a local community. Or the investors that own shares of private enterprises. Because I think the trend lately has been to grant more power to the latter at the expense of the former. Even when those investors largely don't live within the community, the state or even the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Federal Government only has authority granted to it by the states via the constitution. EVERYTHING else is left to the states or to the people.
States can determine for themselves whether or not they want tax-payer funded broadband services.
Is your 10th and raise you Section I Article 8 which gives Congress the power to promote the general Welfare of the United States."
Re: (Score:2)
Are you certain that this isn't from the Rules of Acquisition? [wikipedia.org]