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.
Correction: (Score:5, Informative)
this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks
He's endorsed the right of the people in each state to get bent over by massively-corrupt telcos with their monopolistic behaviors - by reinforcing their monopolies - all in the name of a free market (despite the fact that it's anything but).
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, he's being a Republican.
Re:Correction: (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, he's being a Republican.
No you jackass. He's being a politician.
Republican, Democrat, WHATEVER, they're all saying the same thing to you (whatever they think will make you vote for them) now, and doing whatever the fuck they can to maximize benefit to their personal pocket book later.
If you think this is somehow mitigated by party affiliation, you REALLY need to stop abusing your prescriptions and hike your way out of fantasy land.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans are just a bit more blatant about it because it appeals to their idiot constituency.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
If you think this is somehow mitigated by party affiliation, you REALLY need to stop abusing your prescriptions and hike your way out of fantasy land.
If you truly believe that, you have seriously not been paying attention these last 45 years.
Re:Correction: (Score:5, Insightful)
Both parties have, as their first priority, protecting the financial interests of their largest (usually corporate) donors. Both parties lie about this to their voters, claiming to be the party of the common man. The only difference is that some donors don't give to both parties, and so different donors get favored depending on who's in power.
I cant speak for 45 years, but it's been this way for at least 25. Do you disagree?
Re:Correction: (Score:4, Funny)
It's been this way for at least 650 years.
-- Enoch Root
Re:Correction: (Score:5, Informative)
Nope.
Over the last 14 years, the Pubs have been bent on openly doing anything they can to hand everything over to larger corporation. It really start with Reagan, but this millennium they just blatantly lie, and when they get called out their media machine just spreads more lies until people with believe it or the next artificial pub 'controversy' comes up.
Don't talk about the dems as if it's balances. Both have issues, but the pubs have become far worse. The are basically extremist at this point.
You have bought into the the trap the pubs have created. 'Both do the same thing to the same degree therefor it doesn't matter.'
And don't even try to guess how I vote. OTOH, I actual watch CSPAN, read bills, and find the context for any statement a politician make that is reported in the media.
Sound bite manipulation needs to stop.
Re:Correction: (Score:4, Interesting)
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, Insightful)
If you solution is get rid of them all, then you are looking for a silver bullet and are to lazy to think about actually fixing the problem. That tells everyone you need to grow up.
Re:Correction: (Score:4, Insightful)
this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks
He's endorsed the right of the people in each state to get bent over by massively-corrupt telcos with their monopolistic behaviors - by reinforcing their monopolies - all in the name of a free market (despite the fact that it's anything but).
FTFY.
Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town. If the city comes in and serves only the tightly packed businesses, they can easily offer the service at a lower price and still make money or break even, and the telco ends up losing their profitable customers and therefore their ability to offset their losses elsewhere.
I'm not against "municipal broadband", but they need to be held to the exact same standard as all other carriers in the same area. That might well mean offering service to out of town customers, also.
I didn't understand the fuss until last time this came up and someone in the industry explained it quite clearly in a +5 post.
Re: (Score:2)
It's turtles corrupt regulations all the way down! One corrupt regulation begets another!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is the exact problem with the USPS - they are delivering to all the not-so-profitable rural areas for UPS, FedEx and DHL. The USPS doesn't have a choice in the matter and to boot are forced to fund their things into the future no private company could or would ever fund.
Business people don't have a problem with the USPS arrangement. But now they have a problem when the same rules may apply to them in a negative way?
Please.
People argue that the reason the USPS thing is different is because 'my taxes p
Re:Correction: (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town.
That is simply not true. Just look at all the places where verizon has done piss-poor job of rolling out FIOS. All the ISP's have cherry-picked their neighborhoods. DSL even inherently varies in service quality based on the distance to the CO but they still charge customers the same price because they price the service in maximum bitrates not minimum guaranteed bitrates.
Re: (Score:2)
Subsidies like this for suburban and rural residents is why we have sprawl.
I wouldn't mind paying $10 per gallon of milk in exchange for lower taxes and lower utility costs. (Especially because I'm lactose intolerant!)
Re:Correction: (Score:5, Informative)
What? No they aren't. This isn't telephone service—it's internet service. There are no regulations requiring them to provide service out in the boondocks. Indeed, Verizon and AT&T received massive government subsidies to expand broadband service to rural customers, and then just decided not to do it and kept the money.
When I lived in rural southeastern Arizona, I got my DSL service from Valley Telecom, a local customer-owned cooperative that provides internet service, telephone and cellular to the poorly served areas of that rather sparsely populated corner of the state. I had 1.5mbps DSL in 2006 10 miles up a dirt road outside of Bowie, Arizona, pop. 300, for a very reasonable price, and VTC was doing just fine financially. It was a bit cheaper than my current service from Comcast, but that's precisely because Comcast only serves the areas where it can make a profit.
Meanwhile, back in Verizon territory, my mom, who is on the selectboard of her town (pop. 1200, small but much more dense than Bowie) could not get any kind of broadband in 2006, and the town wound up having to set up their own municipal broadband wireless service using Motorola Canopy radios and a microwave link to Mt. Tom because that's the only way they could avoid a massive drop in property values due to the lack of this essential service in the town, despite the fact that Verizon had been receiving money to pay for installing broadband to towns just like hers for the previous decade.
So maybe some shill from a cable company told you all about how supporting rural customers is why their service is so expensive, but that's a complete load of bullshit. Local and state governments don't currently have authority to impose regulations of this type on ISPs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price
There's something fishy about this, because every time a story comes up on /. about a telco trying to block a municipality from rolling its own fiber, you can always track the municipality's decision back to the telco refusing to roll out fiber themselves.
Re: Correction: (Score:2)
Re: Correction: (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you get to vote in or out the Comcast ceo like you get to do with the city mayor ?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you get to vote in or out the Comcast ceo like you get to do with the city mayor ?
You can, if you own enough stock.
Re: Correction: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone who has studied corporate shareholder agreements i.e. Lawyers, MBAs, finances ppl, knows that shareholder voting is a joke. Shareholders are not even legally "owners" of the company. This is a myth perpetuated by Friedman and other Chicago school economists. Shareholders are known as "residual claimants" with very limited and restricted rights, and a far far cry from 'owners' in the traditional sense of the word.
Re: Correction: (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect that he's referring to the idea that a lot of people can't shake that stockhoder voting correlates to the voting booth. In fact, corporations tend to be structured so that one person, or a few "like-minded" people maintain sufficient power that no number of new voters will change the direction of the company, since no newly issued stock goes out without existing shareholders having the ability to buy sufficient shares to maintain their majority status. Companies only change when there are tender offers and the majority shares change hand, being purchased by a new, small cadre of like-minded people. Not because a lot of small shareholders ban together to vote a different way. Individual votes are less meaningful than in a general election.
Re:Correction: (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you fight a corporation? I'm very curious... :D
I'm very involved in local politics. I've met my state reps, several times. You CAN fight city hall, you just need enough people.
I'm pretty sure that if you posted nasty things about your local government, the cops would not actually beat you and put you in jail. That's a big bit of hyperbole you have there. Corps don't have armies? Ever heard of the Pinkertons? They did a LOT of head busting back in the day. Well, union busting. :D
I guess the point here is that you CAN change an organization if you get enough people, if you organize, and hurt them (either votes or money) until they do what you want. At the heart of it both my city government and a corporation are just large organizations.... But the corporation's bottom line is Profit, and the Government's bottom line is Services Delivered. Both have all the benefits of large organizations (economy of scale, etc) and the drawbacks (corruption, slowness, etc)
Re: (Score:3)
But . . . witih a government run utility, the "shareholders" (i.e. - voters) have interests that generally align with my own (quality of service, cost of service, etc.) because they benefit from the same outcome as I do (better, cheaper service.) With a corporation, shareholders are interested in maximizing the amount of money they take from me, while minimizing the amount of money they spend to provide service.
I'm not saying that government officials and special interests can't get in the way of optimal
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take bad over horrible every day, and twice on the second Tuesday in November.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'd feel like vomiting if I voted for an evil scumbag. That's why I vote based on my principles, and not just on who is 'less evil.' Productive or not, I refuse to support evil scumbags that the democrats and republicans put forth.
Re: (Score:3)
False.
Dems, as sloppy as they do it, try to build a society of individuals. Pubs has turned to trying to create a society of consumers.
You should take of your 'there all bad, no matter what' hat and really pay attention.
Can you name the last thing any of you representatives have voted on? which way they voted? Their records? have you ever talked to one?
If you are't paying attention to what they are actually doing, not just media sound bites, then you don't know squat, your opinion is worthless baseless trip
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You think we should serve Soylent Green instead?
As long as it is done by free market principles (read that, the corporation that pays me the most baksheesh.
chutzpah, meet hypocrisy! (Score:3)
*) Federal government regulating over the desires of State legislatures: Evil! Evil! Evil!
*) State government regulating over the desires of municipal legislatures: Motherhood, Apple Pie and the American Way!
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's exactly right. The federal government is not sovereign over everything in the US. The entire concept was that it was supposed to be spelled out in the constitution and the states which were separate countries only gave up or surrendered the amount of sovereignty to the federal government that was in the US constitution. This is fifth grade history BTW. Over the years, the federal government has been granted more powers by the expansion of several elements within the US constitution by the courts. This expansion is in ways not originally foreseen by the founders or the interpretations of the constitution until it happened. FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes came at a constitutional impasse in which his new deal legislation was deemed unconstitutional and he basically said "so what, I'm the executive and I can enforce it" while the democrat congress threatened to expand the supreme court seats until they could pack enough party supporters in that they had a majority. The end result, before everything blew apart, the Supreme Court ended up allowing the New Deal provisions as a means of the interstate commerce clause. This is why things like the federal minimum wage doesn't apply to companies with less than a certain amount of revenue or some other substantial impact on interstate commerce and will default to whatever the state minimum wage is.
Bravo indeed. That was what made America the finest in the world at one time. We have lost that position and lost the constitutional separations.
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of the Articles of Confederacy, which preceded the Constitution. Study your history.
Re:In other words... (Score:4)
You're thinking of the Articles of Confederacy, which preceded the Constitution. Study your history.
No, you're thinking of some government that you just made up. Go read the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment. The states wanted to make it very clear that they were giving the federal government only specific, enumerated powers. Then FDR told the court where it could stick its Constitution (as the GP said) and told them that if they didn't back down, he would stack the court with yes-men who would give him his way. The court backed down, and the result was 75 years of the federal government encroaching into everyday life until you couldn't buy a shower head without Uncle Sam's permission, and people like you who don't even realize anymore that it was supposed to be a government of specific, enumerated powers.
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Infurstuctsure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there's another reason that our infrastructure is crumbling...
(Line up the conspiracy theories.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
removing funding and then say it doesn't work then turn it over to corporations.
It's not a conspiracy when there are a myriad examples of pubs doing it.
Choking the beast.
Re: Infurstuctsure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In principal there is nothing wrong with a PPP (public, private, partnership) structure to build infrastructure. It is a way for a government to get infrastructure built that it otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. But the devil is in the detail. Why would there be a government guarantee of profitability is a big question. Right to toll is a pretty standard option for a long period of time 20 - 50 years. But if you screw up your traffic forecasts or you go over budget on the build well that is your pr
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the one thing the federal government does that it is constitutionally empowered to do is the one thing you are wanting to single out as your example?
Wow..
By that logic... (Score:3, Interesting)
A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.
Re: (Score:2)
A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.
And your point would be?
Re: (Score:2)
A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.
What ever the democratic appointees do, they do. They got appointed, it's their call. If they want to be partisan, so be it.
The really sad thing is that the FCC commissioners used to be about sensible regulation and doing what's right for all, now it's who's paying who under the table and which campaign got money from which company.
Have we learned nothing from the Light Squared debacle? That whole thing was such a boondoggle technically, but no, the FCC had to string all that along. Stuff like that need
Re: (Score:2)
They enjoy being hypocrites.
Yes. That's what republicans have said for years. (Score:3)
When it comes to granting new powers to the government , that's exactly right. Republicans have been saying tat for decades and Bysh Jr was criticized for taking on new powers, because any new power he assumed would be inherited by Obama or whoever came next.
Looking at poll numbers, Jeb Bush us likely to be elected president in two years. How much power do you want Jeb Bush to have? Any powers you grant Obama will be inherited by J Bush.
Compromise? Never heard of it! (Score:5, Insightful)
I swear, man. Congresscritters sound more like whiny children every day. This is the epitome of politicians' refusal to compromise on anything. The general intelligence of people in politics must steadily be dropping. They better stay where they are because they sure can't do anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was Congress voting on it, that would be fine. But isn't about lawmaking, it's about the FCC using its regulatory powers to limit what laws states can pass, laws that have little to do with the FCC's original mission. Yes, regulatory agencies overriding state legislatures is a serious problem.
And this warning may not be just a warning to undo FCC regulations. At some point, Congress and voters
no, he said don't take NEW powers if your successo (Score:4, Informative)
No, he didn't say everything needs to have bipartisan support. He said that if the FCC assumes a NEW power, the power to override state law and ban or require municipal broadband, the FCC will still have that power when Jeb Bush is president. If you decide that the FCC can choose whether or not muni is built, a different FCC chairman would inherit that power and could ban municipal broadband. Don't assume new powers for yourself if you don't want your successor to have the same power.
That's something I keep in mind. If Palin were president, would I want her administration running the health care industry? If not, I should oppose government run healthcare because we WILL have a president as bad as Palin at some point. Maybe in 2016, maybe in teo years, maybe in six years, maybe in ten years. We will have a horrible president. How much control do I want that crappy president to have over my life?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. The FCC does not make laws, it makes regulation with the force of laws without congress voting on all the regulations. What he is saying is that whatever they do, a republican chairperson can undo. Don't bother with extreme partisan hacks
Re: (Score:3)
So are many voters, actually.
What a massive ass (Score:3)
"It’s not hard, then, to imagine a future FCC concluding that taxpayer-funded, municipal broadband projects themselves are barriers to infrastructure investment.
Right, because we've all done so well under the monopoly of Comcast et al. If the private sector can't compete (*cough*strong arm a monopoly*cough*) versus a municipal project then golly-gee maybe there's a lesson to be learned. Not that I expect an evidently corrupt bureaucrat to fathom said lesson.
That's his point. Don't let the FCC ban/require (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to have completely missed his point, so let me break that long sentence into four short sentences for you:
The is FCC deciding if it has the (unconstitutional) power to decide whether or not municipal broadband is built, disregarding state law.
If the FCC assumes that power, a future FCC chairman would therefore have the power to ban municipal broadband.
That would be bad.
Therefore, don't assume new powers that you wouldn't want your successor to have.
I'm not sure if I agree in this case. I do agree with the general principle- if you acquiesce to Obama assuming new powers, president Jeb Bush will inherit those new powers in a couple years.
Full of it (Score:2, Insightful)
"The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment."
"Private investment", notably the quite-intentional lack of it, was the barrier to future infrastructure investment, hence the entire raison d'être of municipal broadband in the first place.
Bitch and moan about the stifling of private business opportunities when you actually have a business plan concerning that locale beyon
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment.
What do they think tax credits are? Before either the telco or the cable company would expand broadband service into the outer neighborhoods where I live, the city had to give the telco and cable companies a huge, many year tax credit - many times what the companies own people claimed the cost of equipment upgrades.
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't really understand the thought process as to how it would be a barrier to infrastructure. I kinda thought a major part of a governments role was to build infrastructure the private sector wasn't. If there is a push for a municipal level rollout then the private sector has failed in that case. Surely the logical thing is for the municipal to roll out the fibre and then, once in place, sell it to the private sector. That way you get your infrastructure, you get a ROI, you get competition for s
You know what else discourages investment.... (Score:2)
Reality (Score:2)
[March 2014] Speaking at the Deutsche Bank Media, Internet & Telecom Conference, [Verizon CFO] Shammo said the company would not consider other markets until it generates more cash within the wireline business.
"I am not going to build beyond the current LSAs (local service acquisitions) that we have built out," Shammo said. "We have to generate more cash within the wireline business and once we do that and I feel that FiOS has returned its cost of capital, then we can look at expansion, but at this point we're happy with what we have."
These are the same people that are allowing their copper network to rot out in order to push people onto FiOS.
Why should we-the-people have to wait for a conglomerate to make the business case for bringing service to our communities?
Especially if we can do it now.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear god, man, are you suggesting a consortium of taxpayers decide to compete with a corporation, and take away stock holder value and threaten executive bonuses in order to get better service and introduce competition is a good thing??
Are you some kind of communist bastard?
The corporations are entitled to ridiculous profits without having to work to preserve market share, to suggest an
Re: (Score:2)
The rotting out of Verizon's wires is much more likely to push people to non-Verizon services given how little of the US FIOS covers.
For me all it did was cause me to drop Verizon completely and switch to T Mobile.
FCC should laugh at him (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And simply say "For us to be concerned about a Republican FCC, we would need to believe that it is possible for a Republican to win a presidential election. Given the current climate, that won't happen in your lifetime, Senator"
Don't know if I'm willing to say that yet. The current election cycle seems to be sliding towards the R side taking over the Senate, and there is little chance of them loosing seats in the house. Of course this is the out year of a lame duck president, which generally slides away from the white house's party, but the complexion of what happens totally changes if the Republicans take control in the senate.
How that plays out in 2016 is anybodies guess, except I can tell you that the president and his party
Give it up ... (Score:2)
We've seen this with water, gas, and electricity.
Just run the damn wire.
Lord, save us from corporatists (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they play and say talk about a "Republican led FCC" instead of just saying they don't want the FCC to do anything that might mean the least inconvenience for Comcast and AT&T's complete takeover of the Internet?
I mean, for chrissake, Barack Obama, the marxest marxist who ever marxed, appointed goddamn Tom Wheeler, a former cable executive to be chairman of the FCC. Are they disappointed that the chairman of the FCC isn't just Brian Roberts, the CEO of Comcast?
Fucking corporatists. They're not even trying to hide their evil agenda any more. We need another president like Taft or Teddy Roosevelt to just scare the living shit out of big corporations. It's the only way to make them behave. The Clayton Act and other anti-trust legislation ushered in the most productive and prosperous era in US history, and now these sleazy fucks want to take us all the way back to the age of robber barons where young women got burned up in shirt factory fires. Now we've got pussy-ass Barack Obama and Eric Holder who shake with fear every time a CEO so much as looks cross at them. Now, a company breaks the law and the justice department fines them with one hand and passes them the money to pay the fine with the other hand (Citicorp, Goldman Sachs, et al). Two parties, one is completely terrified of the corporatists and the other's got their nose up the corporatists ass. No, they're not the same, but the outcome is the same.
Seriously, there needs to be a goddamn revolution in this country. I'll get behind it 100% as long as it's finished by the start of football season because I'm totally gonna take my fantasy league this year. Or maybe we can just not have the revolution on Sundays or Monday nights. Didn't they used to do that in wars? Take Sunday morning off so everyone could go to church and pray that God help them butcher the other side? Something's got to be done, I tell you. Start the revolution right now while it's still pre-season.
At least, thank god, we get another chance in 2016. Yeah, I know, anybody who gets the nomination from either party is going to be a corporatist, but if I don't hold out some faint hope that something will change, I'll just go shoot myself, and I can't do that because, like I said, I'm going to own fantasy football this year. But, (and thank God for small favors) I won't be enriching Comcast while I do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
In fact, they are disappointed that the FCC exists as a nominally independent government institution. That they have to seduce potentially reluctant regulators, instead of the regulators sucking their cable ports with enthusiasm.
Republican / Democrat is a false dichotomy. (Score:5, Insightful)
By framing the narrative this way the public can be polarized around trivial issues; divide and conquer.
Implying that a a left-wing or democrat controlled FCC would behave differently is misleading -- they are all beholden to the same powerful business interests who play both sides so that they are certain to have the winner in their pocket.
Warning the FCC to not do anything 'anti-republican' is just re-enforcing the imaginary division between left and right in our minds. It doesn't exist. There are only global supra-national corporations and people. Everything else is an intentional distraction.
Besides the corrupt global monetary system, the single most important issue that has allowed us to be reduced to abject serfdom is that corporations are considered persons under the law, which is a development of the last 125 years in the US. This allows management and ownership to escape personal liability for any actions of the organization under his or her control.
Because corps are able to vote with their huge dollars your small dollars are irrelevant -- as are your wants and needs.
Focus on that. Thinking Left/Right is just wasting your time.
Re: (Score:2)
This and only this kind of thinking will get us out of our current, sustained political quagmire.
Linkbaiting + selective exposure + illiteracy FTW (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus - the hyperbolic circle jerking.. sigh.. Could we get any more f#cking stupid here?
His point is that this should be viewed as beyond the authority of the FCC by both sides; that a bureaucratic panel doesn't have the power to tell individual states how to regulate themselves; and doing so will open a Pandora's box. He illustrates his point by citing SCOTUS precedence, and hypothesizes what sort of dramatic swings would be possible with that power.
Everyone loves HHS - but they forget (let me make his point in a different way) the HHS could effectively slash Abortion coverage at will by simply saying Insurance can't cover it. That's what it's dangerous to give so much power to one position; especially a politically appointed one.
Christ - His biggest mistake, apparently, is forgetting to dumb down his point and talk like everyone is 12.
IMHO, the FCC should just declare ISPs common carriers as a start; then recommend to Congress a law that says the individual citizens have a right to assembly, even in the form of a municipality, and establish publicly held utility services.
Then, it could go back to SCOTUS or whatever.
double reverse ungood (Score:2)
"that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment."
Yes everyone can compete in the free market,
except for groups of geographically related people cooperating with their tax dollars. Can't have them competing.
That's the last thing we want for our infrastructure. People cooperating with their votes and tax dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't quite understand what a "free market" means. A "free market" means that I choose who I give my money to for services I want to receive; companies that treat me badly don't get my money. A "free market" is not a municipal government taking my money through taxation, handing it to their business cronies, and then providing shitty service.
And if
Say what?! (Score:2)
Wait, you mean that someone else doing the exact thing that the corporations have refused to do would 'discourage' the corporations from doing that very thing they've already declared they don't want to do?
You are such a fucking ignorant tool Mr. Berry.
LOL; Utah and Google anybody? (Score:4, Informative)
If anything, that shows that gov. helping its citizens, and then working businesses, goes MUCH FURTHER, than allowing large business monopolies.
Um (Score:2)
So now Slashbots are hyperventilating with hatred at hypothetical Republicans?
You really need to get a life.
Three Can Play That Game (Score:2)
Apparently he read the Constitution (Score:3)
In a speech in front of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Berry endorsed states' rights
Inflammatory headline aside, that's pretty much the way Republicans think the country should be run. Let States govern themselves, Fed should stay out unless the issue crosses state lines.
We've had just such an FCC .... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the GOP is intent on stopping that, then I guess we should say that the GOP is a barrier to future infrastructure investment. And the solution is to prevent a Republican led anything.
Re: (Score:3)
do you prefer to deal with locals, or the county or the state........ or do you REALLY want to go contact your congressman and hassle with the federal government?
I want the federal government to step in and protect my city or county's ability to build the infrastructure that the people want. That means (in this case) the FCC stepping in and throwing out state regulations prohibiting municipal broadband.
What we want in Seattle should not be dictated by a New York corporation.
The important bit (Score:5, Informative)
This has nothing to do with "banning municipal broadband" today, and everything to do with not granting a power at the Fed level that would let a future FCC in 1-2 election cycles do exactly that.
FTFA:
"If the history of American politics teaches us anything, it is that one political party will not remain in power for perpetuity. At some point, to quote Sam Cooke, 'a change is gonna come,'" Berry said. "And that change could come a little more than two years from now. So those who are potential supporters of the current FCC interpreting Section 706 [of the Telecommunications Act] to give the Commission the authority to preempt state laws about municipal broadband should think long and hard about what a future FCC might do with that power."
Arguing that municipal broadband networks could discourage investment by private companies, Berry said, "Itâ(TM)s not hard, then, to imagine a future FCC concluding that taxpayer-funded, municipal broadband projects themselves are barriers to infrastructure investment. So if the current FCC were successful in preempting state and local laws under Section 706, what would stop a future FCC from using Section 706 to forbid states and localities from constructing any future broadband projects? Nothing that I can see."
Re: (Score:2)
Uncritical audiences who want these statements to be true because it aligns with their ideology?
If you can equate it with socialism, you can count on a chunk of people agreeing with you even if it's a lie. It doesn't have to be true if the people who vote for you don't care if it's true, and don't want to know or believe it isn't.
This is just about entrenching the notion of corporate profits, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
R house? Sure. R senate? Maybe. R president? Not before the currency collapse.
That soon? Wow.
Re: Bullshit ... (Score:2)
You do realize that Obama's hand picked FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, is a long time cable and cellular lobbyist so beloved by the industry that he's the only man in both The Cable and Wireless Hall of Fames? A man dedicated to gutting net neutrality?
If the Dems are any more friendly to municipal broadband, it's just as part of a different payoff (unions or a different set of corporatations).
Re: (Score:3)
The sheer brass balls of his arrogance astounds me.
Re: yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Free marketism. It's a fundamentalist religion.
In other news Matthew Berry announced that he was looking forward to taking a highly paid position as VP for Media Obfuscation with a nationwide cable company in the near future.
Re: yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with "free marketism", unless you're in the market for strawmen. This is the opposite.
Do you think most towns can just stand up a muni broadband network on their own? No - they're going to hire some company to build and run their MAN, just the way that many utilities work.
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.
Re: yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with "free marketism", unless you're in the market for strawmen. This is the opposite.
The problem is that the term "free market" is used to mean two completely different things. It is used by economists to mean a market free of barriers to competition. But the same term is often used by others to mean a market free of regulation, which is often the opposite. In this case, the Republicans are opposed to regulations that would make the market more competitive, so they are using free market rhetoric to oppose free market competition. This is a shameful stance for them to take, and goes against the very principles they claim to stand for.
Re: yeah (Score:5, Informative)
But the same term is often used by others to mean a market free of regulation, which is often the opposite.
Not quite. Regulations currently forbid a free market in this case. What they're proposing is regulation to remove regulation, which is a good thing in my opinion (and yes, I'm one of those evil free market libertarians.)
In my opinion, regulation is perhaps the biggest barrier to faster internet connectivity. Not regulation by the federal government, but regulation by the smaller governments. To include but not limited to regulation that forbids community broadband, regulation that says they have to pay absurdly high lease rates to run cabling through conduit, etc.
Don't ever allow the Republicans to say they are opposed to regulation. Quite the opposite; they love regulation.
Re: yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm one of those stupid free market libertarians.
FIFY
Whole history of corporate abuse without regulation and you ignore it.
"In my opinion, regulation is perhaps the biggest barrier to faster internet connectivity"
Your opinion is based on what facts? Every high speed internet service in every other country has as much or more regulation then the US.
Re: yeah (Score:5, Informative)
I live in the heavily regulated UK and I have a choice of cable from one provider at 152Mbps, FTTC at 78Mbps from about 6 others or normal ADSL2 at around 17Mbps from about 40 others. The infrastructure (with the exception of cable) is run by the former government monopoly which is required by law to sell access to its network to other providers. The barrier to entry is the expense of creating the infrastructure in the first place which would exist even if there was no regulation.
Re: yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: yeah (Score:4, Informative)
Do you think most towns can just stand up a muni broadband network on their own? No - they're going to hire some company to build and run their MAN, just the way that many utilities work.
I and a friend, ie. 2 people have built 4 municipal broadband networks on our own for 4 separate townships in New Zealand.
So, no, building broadband networks is not difficult and it's not particularly expensive. The hardest part, in New Zealand, at least, is arranging suitable backhaul connections for the networks. Everything else is just leg work and gumboots.
Re: yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument can be read as both in favor of the ban on municipal broadband as well as opposed to the ban on municipal broadband. It depends on who you think the "government granted monopolies" are, the ones dominating most of the state where no free market exists or the one at the municipal level brought in as a balance of power.
Municipalities should absolutely have the right to do this. This is the local citizen standing up to the status quo of monopolies. The republicans should be the ones backing this since they often are the ones claiming to support individual freedoms and local control rather than a distant out of touch government.
There are municipal run power and water utilities which very often are cheaper than the big boy competitors and much more reponsive to local needs. The same should be true of municipal cable and broadband. It's either that or a country with no choice but Comcast.
Re: yeah (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
Re: yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Free marketism. It's a fundamentalist religion.
He's not advocating for a free market. A free market would allow municipal broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
If you remember the good old days of a non-political slashdot, why not log in and show us your single-digit ID?
Re: (Score:3)
the basic concept is this: city governments are appendages of state government, but state governments most definitely are not appendages of the national government.
Fanatics in the religion of capitalism (Score:4, Interesting)
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...