Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Internet United States Your Rights Online

FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike 338

tlhIngan writes Municipal broadband is in the news again — this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks and warned the (Democrat-led) FCC to not do anything that a future Republican led FCC would dislike. The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike

Comments Filter:
  • By that logic... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 21, 2014 @07:16PM (#47724757)

    A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.

  • Re:In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VTBlue ( 600055 ) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @10:04PM (#47725645)

    As a Texan, one thing that most Texans don't recognize is that Texas had a shit economy and was severely in debt, in terms of real goods. It had little productive capacity. The decision to join the union was a economic necessity at the time. Most people unfortunately lose this narrative and supplant it with this patriotic theme which is less than accurate.

  • Re: yeah (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @11:34PM (#47726129)

    It's about "state's rights". We used to think it was about local control, the small state versus the big federal government. Now we learn it's about removing all control from things smaller than the state as well. State's rights means they don't want a government with power higher up on the food chain than they are, and no government with power lower on the food chain either.

  • Re:Correction: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Thursday August 21, 2014 @11:35PM (#47726137) Homepage Journal

    Sorry, but if all sides are gigantic, lying pricks, I honestly don't care to stand around dicksizing just so I can declare THE most gigantic, lying prick.

    I want them gone. All of them. GONE.

    The fact that you're still willing to weigh them against one another shows that you still have some growing to do and some brainwashing to flush out.

  • Re:Correction: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Friday August 22, 2014 @12:04AM (#47726247)

    Subsidy? The USPS is a part of the government, why should they pay taxes? Do they pay the tax to themself? And yet they are self funding, which I would think is some that normally people opposed to government waste would support. Except that it embarrasses the people trying to push the story that all government is inept and incompetent.

    Sure it may not be a level playing field with UPS or Fedex, but so what? If we could force those commercial players to lower their rates to USPS rates and to provide universal service, then I'd be more inclined to follow your line of reasoning. When it comes to internet providers the corporations have clearly shown that they have no interest whatsoever in providing universal or reasonable service, which is why municipalities feel the need to have their own service.

  • Re:In other words... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22, 2014 @12:48AM (#47726357)

    10th amendment is an throw away amendment that holds no legal meaning or legal standard. It's used today to galvanize the states rights / confederate base but there is no sound legal jurisprudence that has ever been accepted by the Supreme Court.

    Isn't that basically OP's point? That the 10th amendment makes clear the intent to limit the power of the fed, but that it's been ignored? The meaning of the amendments doesn't change just because the courts have decided to pretend they don't mean what they say they do. Does the 1st Amendment not protect a man handing out leaflets in opposition to the draft? SCOTUS unanimously said it didn't in Schenck v. US in 1919. Then fifty years later, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, SCOTUS determined that it actually does. Even Oliver Wendell Holmes jr himself, author of the Schenck opinion outlining the "clear and present danger" test, later admitted that the decision was wrong.

    Basically, what it comes down to is that you're arguing about jurisprudence, he's arguing about what it ought to be. Either position has the potential to be wrong. Arguing that your position is correct because the courts said so ignores the fact that courts are not infallible and do, in fact, reverse themselves.

  • by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Friday August 22, 2014 @01:09AM (#47726421)

    These fanatics would make the same arguments for public roads, public right of way, water, power, sewer, heating gas and highway system. They do in fact and have made great headway into those areas, it is to the point where serious discussions happen on the privatization of the air happen without laughter at how ridiculous it is.

    It's like pyromaniacs have been given influence over fire safety... not all fire is good, they don't realize it because they are mentally ill. One has to wonder about these fanatic capitalists...

  • Re:Correction: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Friday August 22, 2014 @04:44AM (#47727125) Homepage Journal

    I'm not all that fond of either one, but sitting out here in 3rd party territory, the Ds seem to be less packed with idiots and crooks.

  • Re: yeah (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Friday August 22, 2014 @10:21AM (#47728955) Homepage

    This is existing corporate giants, which have government granted monopolies in many areas (the polar opposite of free marketism), using their political muscle to block competition from new "utility" companies who would be stealing their business.

    Even worse, this is often corporate giants, which have government granted monopolies in some areas, using their political muscle to block new "utility" companies from serving areas where the corporate giants have refused to serve but want to keep their options open to decide to serve (sans competition) at some unspecified point in the future.

    In other words, how dare Random Township try to set up a municipal broadband network to serve their citizens! They should sit back and wait with dial-up only until Comcast, Charter, etc decides they are worthy (read: profitable) enough to get broadband service!

Nothing is finished until the paperwork is done.