Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Internet United States

FCC Loses Court Battle To Let Cities Build their Own Broadband (theverge.com) 160

Posted by msmash from the audible-sigh dept.
Jacob Kastrenakes, writing for The Verge: The Federal Communications Commission's plan to let cities build their own broadband networks hit a major roadblock today, as a federal appellate court ruled that the commission was overstepping its authority. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said today that the FCC is not able to, essentially, remove state laws that prevent the construction of municipal broadband networks, as it attempted to do in Wilson, North Carolina and Chattanooga, Tennessee last year. Both Wilson and Chattanooga had petitioned the FCC for permission to build out their own broadband networks -- a measure some cities are turning to in order to increase competition among internet providers, who often hold regional monopolies and more or less refuse to compete. State laws, however, prevented them from doing so; that's the case in 19 states in total, all of which could have been affected by future FCC orders had the court ruled in its favor.Ars Technica has more details.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Loses Court Battle To Let Cities Build their Own Broadband More

FCC Loses Court Battle To Let Cities Build their Own Broadband

Comments Filter:

  • While It Sucks... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @03:14PM (#52679713)

    ...that Providers enjoy a monopoly, they do so because the elected officials provided it.

    The proper solution is through electing officials that will revoke the monopolies, not allow the Federal Government to intrude in State Business because once you allow that, you are likely to see i in other things that you decidedly don't want.

    • Re:While It Sucks... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cdrudge ( 68377 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @03:23PM (#52679775) Homepage

      not allow the Federal Government to intrude in State Business

      Many of the arguments that apply with federal government meddling in state business also would apply to state governments meddling in local business...especially when companies fail to deliver adequate services.

      • Re:While It Sucks... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @03:36PM (#52679849)

        Many of the arguments that apply with federal government meddling in state business also would apply to state governments meddling in local business

        The same arguments do apply, but it's irrelevant in this case.

        The FCC doesn't make laws, that's Congress' job. They were trying to override the state laws without the authority to do so.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by the_Bionic_lemming ( 446569 )

          Yes, and the government needs to push back like it did for 55 mph speed limits nationwide.

          Cut Federal Funding until the states comply with the directive.

          • Re:While It Sucks... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @04:03PM (#52680011)

            Cut Federal Funding until the states comply with the directive.

            The Constitution places restrictions on what the federal government can do. It is an abuse of its taxing authority to use it to impose otherwise unconstitutional demands on the states. Municipal broadband has mostly worked well, and IMO should be allowed, but if you allow the federal bureaucrats to bend the states to their will on this, then the door is open to federal impositions on many other issues that you may not like so much.

            The bottom line, is that if we want better government, then we should vote for it.

            • Worked damn well for the nationwide 55 .They did it before and they can do it again.

              • Re:While It Sucks... (Score:5, Insightful)

                by GLMDesigns ( 2044134 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @04:23PM (#52680143)
                You think the nationwide 55 was a good idea?

                You want to increase the power of Imperial Washington?

                The one clear check and balance on Imperial Washington are the states. If you're not happy about the Patriot Act, NSA over reaching then maybe, just maybe, you ought to be wary about other over reaches (even if the particular instance leads to a desired result).

                • Re:While It Sucks... (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by the_Bionic_lemming ( 446569 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @04:33PM (#52680211)

                  No, 55 mph was a stupid idea.

                  And them repeating the tactic isn't growing anything. An example of this has happened, and can happen again anytime.

                  You are arguing "Black or White" , I am saying this is (not 50) "shades of grey" .

                  There is a clear abuse going on between comcast and state government. I have absolutely no issue with the government stepping in with the retraction of federal funding to crush that.

                  • While I'm not on the side of government - this is to be handled by the states. And yes, the states can be just as foolishly run (or corrupt) as the federal government. I don't think the FCC ought to be involved with this.

                    And, yes most things are shades of gray (like the way you phrased it :-) but this would be a horrible expansion of the federal role. (One that I think needs to be tremendously pared down.

                    • I disagree that it's an expansion as I cited an example. So I agree to disagree.

                    • I agree with the FCC's position that cities should be able to install those services, and I also agree with the ruling that it is outside their authority.

                      If any federal government authority could rule on such a matter, it should be the SEC, not the FCC. It is a matter of business practice, competition, and monopolies. It is not a matter of how communications are performed or restricted. The FCC's authority should apply equally to any provider of such services and be blind to who is providing them.
                    • Thw Hobbes Hamiltonians have us all mixed up such that we can in one moment be saying we are not for government and the next supporting the very government that has kept us all in chains since the inception of the Constitution. Yes just like everything else, the Hobbes Hamiltonians are not a monolithic group and some are seen as useful idiots by the others.
                      No this is not to be handles by the states. This is my position, but not even the states should have been given the amount of power they have. It all g

                    • Corporations already own the states because states are too small to push back. Divide and Conquer.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Snufu ( 1049644 )

                  The one clear check and balance on Imperial Washington are the states.

                  Then what is the check on state's imposing their will on municipalities?

                  • There isn't. But the concept is that an informed citizenry (as opposed to subjects who are ruled) have a greater ability to change the structure of a state government then they do the federal. Is this a cure-all. No. Of course no.
                    • Yeah, but the trick is that the Hobbes/Hamiltonians don't believe there can ever be a well-informed citizenry and do their best to undermine informing the people when it comes to matters of government and morality. Ever wonder why they don't teach how to develop your own sense of morality from even the well-established building blocks having to do with morals? Hobbesian philosophy states that the only thing the common man needs to know about morality is that absolute devotion to the state is a must and the

                    • Re: (Score:3)

                      by dryeo ( 100693 )

                      How many States routinely change their government? How often does a new party get into power in a State? From what I know about America, the States are ruled by the same party as the Federal government, a party that presents 2 faces, that disagree on minor issues but on the big issues, they agree, and they hardly ever listen to their subjects on the big issues.

                    • Practically speaking, state governments seem to screw up more than the federal government. There seem to be a greater variety of idiots on the national level who cancel each other out better.

                    • that disagree on minor issues but on the big issues, they agree

                      They disagree on THIS ISSUE. Democrats generally support municipal broadband, and Republicans generally support the right of states to ban it. Even the FCC voted along party lines.

                    • No. Not accurate at all. States do change and it historically has not been tied to how they voted in federal elections. (That's been changing rapidly over the last decade.)

                      Secondly neither party is monolithic. The Republican party is split between "establishment" which is for crony capitalism; libertarian / tea party which is greatly opposed to this and social conservatives who tend strongly to main street (as opposed to wall street) but for whom social issues is their primary concern.

                      Main Street is a
                    • Wish I could mod you up.

                • Don't say "imperial Washington". It's factually incorrect and just undermines the legitimacy of your opinions.

                  • Well. Power is centralizing at an enormous rate. (Plus add the collection of data and the increasing nannyism - not only by people in power but by voters,)

                    It isn't Imperial Washington in 2016 but what about 2036?

            • The bottom line, is that if we want better government, then we should vote for it.

              Yes, we should vote on it. But it seems that any politician that agrees with the mass's opinion on some topics, it is the opposite on other topics. So a politician that is willing to help fix things with oligopoly will probably screw things over elsewhere in society.

              ... but if you allow the federal bureaucrats to bend the states to their will on this, then the door is open to federal impositions on many other issues that you may not like so much.

              So, you're opposed to the federal government telling states to open up competition?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Snufu ( 1049644 )

              if you allow the state bureaucrats to bend the municipalities to their will on this, then the door is open to state impositions on many other issues that you may not like so much.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by uncqual ( 836337 )

                Should that happen, the voters of the state can change their state's constitution to limit the control the state has -- or, just vote in state level politicians that will eliminate laws that the state's voters find undesirable.

                Just as we could amend the United States Constitution to grant Congress the ability to enact laws that implement Social Security or Medicare or to ban people from taking medications that improve their health or save their life. Perhaps some day we will do so.

                Remember the quaint old da

            • The Constitutional limitations on federal power have never been anything more than a ruse to lull detractors of unlimited government power into a false sense of security. Look into Hobbes and Hamiltonian beliefs and you might be able to detect the real agenda, but it has been an unending shell game since at least The Federalist Papers [gutenberg.org].
              We all need to have a sit-down and talk about what form of government we all want to have. To that end, I have created The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party [gutenberg.org] Facebook group.

            • Imposing taxes would be illegal, but cutting state welfare would not. The government did the same thing to bring all the state drinking ages into line, too. "You can set your age to whatever you want, but you'll have to forgo this huge blank check for infrastructural improvements."

        • The FCC doesn't make laws, that's Congress' job. They were trying to override the state laws without the authority to do so.

          But does Congress have the authority?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dcw3 ( 649211 )

          Wrong. Try reading Title 47 of the US Code. The FCC was already given this authority by Congress.

        • RTFA.. That was not the issue here. The issue was over ruling state law, which the FCC could do if it were explicitly stated in federal law:

          "..the commission is not explicitly granted permission to overrule the states like this. And while government agencies are generally given deference to interpret their own powers where a law has left them unclear, the court determined that isn't the case in this situation. That's because it would be going so far as to overrule a state law, and that, the court said, r

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AK Marc ( 707885 )

          The FCC doesn't make laws, that's Congress' job.

          Congress made a law that the FCC can make regulations with force of law. Perfectly legal. If you don't like it, speak to your senator or representative.

      • Actually states and their relationship with the federal government are defined in US constitution. Local governments however are political subdivisions of each individual state and it is up to each state and that state's constitution as to how much autonomy local political subdivisions should have.

        So in short basically local governments, in most if not all cases, exist to keep the peace and handle more mundane matters on behalf of the state's legislature which created those local governments but a lot of pe

    • Re:While It Sucks... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Fire_Wraith ( 1460385 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @03:25PM (#52679785)

      ...that Providers enjoy a monopoly, they do so because the elected officials provided it.

      The proper solution is through electing officials that will revoke the monopolies, not allow the Federal Government to intrude in State Business because once you allow that, you are likely to see i in other things that you decidedly don't want.

      So why is it bad when the Federal Government tells a State what to do, but it's a-okay when the State tells a City what to do?

      You do realize that the Federal Government is perfectly authorized to regulate interstate commerce, right?

      By the way, it's also not so easy to simply elect officials based on a single issue, on any level except the local, unless you manage to make that issue a single hot-button, which really only occurs for a very few number of sparing things. Furthermore, it's not always simply the case of "enforced monopoly", because in many cases the amount of investment needed to wire a city in competition with an established provider is very large, and the expected rate of return just doesn't justify a second private company making it, so passing a community bond issue is really your only option short of praying to Google to come to your town.

      • Re:While It Sucks... (Score:5, Informative)

        by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @03:46PM (#52679893)

        Well, first, the relationship between the states and tghe Federal government are not the same.

        Second, A state regulating business within it's own borders is not "interstate commerce". But don't count out some tool from trying to make that argument.

        Third, it's too bad change is hard. Seems to me, it was set up that way on purpose.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sycodon ( 149926 )

          Clarifying... the relationship between State Government and Cities is not the same as the relationship between the Federal Government and Cities.

        • Re:While It Sucks... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @04:02PM (#52680005) Journal

          The internet is hardly "within its own borders". The states can't regulate which trucking companies operate on the interstate highways either. Why should we let them regulate this? This is precisely one of those things we need the feds for.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sycodon ( 149926 )

            That's precisely the fucking Bullshit thinking that has the Fed regulating every aspect of our lives.

            The fucking air I breath comes from across state lines so the Feds can regulate how I breath?

            Fuck you, asshole,.

            • The fucking air I breath comes from across state lines so the Feds can regulate how I breath? Fuck you asshole.

              WTF?

              The Feds can regulate what people in other states can force you to breathe, yeah. If a factory in one state emits pollutants that flow downwind and cause health problems for people in an adjacent state, the Feds are the only ones who can do anything about it. I didn't realize that could be hard for anyone to understand.

              (Also, why does it seem so hard for some people to understand that "breath" is a noun and "breathe" is a verb?)

            • That's precisely the fucking Bullshit thinking that has the Fed regulating every aspect of our lives.

              The fucking air I breath comes from across state lines so the Feds can regulate how I breath?

              No, but the Feds can regulate how much pollution a company can produce because it crosses state lines.

            • Fuck you, asshole,.

              :-) Cute, but that doesn't address the issue of making me breath your effluence. Or maybe you're suggesting I move upwind? Hard to tell what people are saying these days.

              And be more careful with your punctuation. Every unnecessary bit requires more storage and only contaminates the air even more. In fact, under the circumstances, powering down your computer completely, and maybe donating it to a needy kid would be of great benefit to us all.

          • The states can't regulate which trucking companies operate on the interstate highways either.

            The states definitely can regulate the trucking companies that are located within the state. This includes matters such as licensing the drivers and requiring insurance - and not allowing drivers without a license or insurance to drive on the roads, including interstate highways.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tippen ( 704534 )

        So why is it bad when the Federal Government tells a State what to do, but it's a-okay when the State tells a City what to do?

        Because of the 10th Amendment: 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.

        There's a pretty limited set of powers for the federal government enumerated in the Constitution. Probably 80% of what the Feds do isn't really allowed by the Constitution. They only get away with it because judges do their wink-wink bit and let things slide, frequently under some tortured interpretation of the comm

        • Probably 80% of what the Feds do isn't really allowed by the Constitution. They only get away with it because judges do their wink-wink bit and let things slide

          ...and because the Constitution itself dictates that the judiciary system is the sole body responsible for interpretation of the document.

      • Re:While It Sucks... (Score:5, Informative)

        by msauve ( 701917 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @03:55PM (#52679963)
        "So why is it bad when the Federal Government tells a State what to do, but it's a-okay when the State tells a City what to do?"

        Why is it bad, or why is it illegal? The federal Constitution reserves powers not granted to the feds for the states. Whether a state has power over a city is a matter of that state's Constitution. From a quick look at the NC Constitution [ncleg.net], the state General Assembly seems to have the power to enact "general laws uniformly applicable throughout the State," which seems to give them authority to preempt local laws, so long as it's done uniformly.

        "the Federal Government is perfectly authorized to regulate interstate commerce, right?"

        Even accepting that the Internet is interstate commerce, the issue is how much of that authority has Congress given the FCC. The linked article specifically mentions that - "to overrule a state law ... the court said, requires an agency's power to be clearly stated in federal law."

        • The federal constitution reserves powers not granted to the PEOPLE. Powers specifically granted go to either the states or the federal government, but that does not mean that the states get anything not granted.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by msauve ( 701917 )
            Reading comprehension fail - "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." - 10th Amendment

          • Re:While It Sucks... (Score:4, Informative)

            by fnj ( 64210 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @07:40PM (#52681283)

            The federal constitution reserves powers not granted to the PEOPLE. Powers specifically granted go to either the states or the federal government, but that does not mean that the states get anything not granted.

            You couldn't be more wrong. The US Constitution:
            1) Guarantees certain defined rights to all the people in every state.
            2) Grants certain defined powers to the Federal Government.

            All other power, without further limit, devolves to the individual states. Each of them is sovereign, and can write anything into its own constitution, subject only to the above two specific limitations.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        in many cases the amount of investment needed to wire a city in competition with an established provider is very large, and the expected rate of return just doesn't justify a second private company making it, so passing a community bond issue is really your only option short of praying to Google to come to your town.

        Why can't you require the company that owns the wires to lease it at a fair rate to other ISPs?

        Better yet, prohibit the company that owns the wires from also being an ISP.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sycodon ( 149926 )

          Why can't they require you to make your house available to some homeless dude twice a month?

      • So why is it bad when the Federal Government tells a State what to do, but it's a-okay when the State tells a City what to do?

        It is not "a-okay", but is an issue to be resolved by the voters of that state, not by federal bureaucrats.

      • So why is it bad when the Federal Government tells a State what to do, but it's a-okay when the State tells a City what to do?

        Did you skip your civics class in high school?

        States are sovereign governments, which (ignoring some bits I'm going to get to in a moment) give them unlimited power within their borders to do what they like, and the cities within them are completely subject to their will. The states entered into an agreement with the federal government when they joined the union (or when they ratified the constitution), which explicitly gives the federal government specific, limited powers over the states. Within the scop

      • How is municipal broadband interstate commerce?

    • You don't mind if I apply that to things like slavery, child labor laws, desegregation, and pollution (which doesn't respect state lines) regulation, do you?

      When the local authorities fail to protect us, sometimes it is necessary to call in the cavalry. But we are then responsible for its oversight also.

      This is just another unfortunate incident of government serving the interests of its biggest "contributors", and a submissive public that won't take the issue into the voting booth.

    • nominees for state and federal positions become pathological liars during campaign time. Once elected they follow the demands of their largest financial providers. By the time the next election comes around, the people have forgotten how much of a pathological liar the politician is and once again believe their lofty claims of utopia. Once elected, they get shit on all over again. So electing new politicians will not solve the problem.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ...that Providers enjoy a monopoly, they do so because the elected officials provided it.

      Not necessarily, and as a matter of actual legislative decision, those kinds of franchise agreements are now banned.

      By the United States Congress. Who did it over 2 decades ago. So stop blaming that.

      The proper solution is through electing officials that will revoke the monopolies, not allow the Federal Government to intrude in State Business because once you allow that, you are likely to see it in other things that you decidedly don't want.

      Except as mentioned above, there are no such monopolies granted by state or local authority, rather the problem here is banning local governments from engaging in a service to their public by the state governments.

      So your premise seems to be flawed. Not to mention how you seem to be operating under the assump

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sycodon ( 149926 )

        So...two decades ago they were banned. Yet, they still exist. So, ya, you can blame the monopoly agreements.

        The rest of your prattle is just bullshit that argues there is no reason for state to exist at all.

    • Oh that's simple, all we need to do is not get corrupt officials in. What do you propose the solution be? Right now bribery of politicians is legal with campaign contributions, but making that illegal won't be a complete fix.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sycodon ( 149926 )

        So lets just go around the system and fuck shit up directly...subject to whoever is in power are whatever level of Federal government if fucking shit up.

        Do you fucking morons even listen to what you say??

    • No, the proper solution is for all of us to take a break and have a sit-down and talk about what form of government we think we might really like to have and work through all the Hobbes/Hamilton brainwashing we're all being put through. To that end, I have created The Pirate-Ninja-Zombie Party [facebook.com] Facebook group and I recommend all interested to join.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      I'm generally as fan of states rights. However, the FCC was given this charter by federal law, which trumps state law...
      The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.

      In this case, I'd argue that we don't want 50+ different sets of rules for the internet. And, allowing individual ISPs to have singular control of an area is anti-competitive, monopolist

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Karlt1 ( 231423 )

      Yeah because we can always trust states to do the right thing without the federal government interfering especially in the Deep South.....

    • The proper solution is through electing officials that will revoke the monopolies, not allow the Federal Government to intrude in State Business

      The fact that there's a law on books that PREVENTS local governments from deploying broadband is corruption most foul that should be stopped in whatever way possible. If that means fighting fire with fire so be it.

      once you allow that, you are likely to see i in other things that you decidedly don't want.

      Ah the slippery slope argument never fails to amuse. Not me, and not most everyone else. If anything, we use previous experience to make more informed, better subsequent decisions. So yeah, if the FCC proves it can fight for consumers' rights and the technological progress of our nation, I'm on th

  • 7th circuit, baby!

    Give us that high high speed!

    I feel the need, the need to slurp up Gigabit plus speeds!

  • States rights for the win! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @03:31PM (#52679815)

    If we don't stand up to big government to protect the interests of innovaters like Comcst and AT&T, who will?

  • If you're not busy finding alternatives to incumbent representatives at all levels you're doing it wrong. If your current sheriff/mayor/representative ain't catching hell for revolutionary behavior, vote 'em out. Look for candidates the MSM is ignoring or trashing and give 'em a job. We can swap 'em out again in 2-6 years if they don't get the message. The 'establishment', and all connected to it, have got to be thrown out of power ASAP because they're busy as beavers tooling the system to make it impossibl

    • That's what I've been saying for years.

      Yes major corporations have more money to buy politicians, but at the end of the day, they can't physically vote. Only people can. I'm sure when the people start firing representatives every time they come up for election. Either the politicians or the companies will see it as a losing game at some point.

      Of course then the companies will just attempt to buy the peoples votes instead.....

  • Municipal broadband is inevitable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kheldan ( 1460303 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @03:40PM (#52679867) Journal
    Municipal broadband is something that needs to happen sooner or later, preferably sooner, and ISPs know this, which is why they're fighting against it so hard right now. For good or for ill, Internet access has become a necessity, not a luxury, in the United States; try finding a job in 2016 without the Internet, or try having school-age, or even college-age kids, without Internet access; in both cases, you're at a severe disadvantage, and are likely to be left behind. The sooner the majority of voting-age U.S. citizens get together and demand of Congress that broadband become a public utility and made available to every American at a reasonable price (or free, ala-'Universal Lifeline' telephone service), the better for everyone. Probably the best way to implement it would be wirelessly.

    • Municipal broadband is a red herring, but it is a convenient legal battleground to set precedents against any internet access not under the control of a major ISP. What we really want is a wireless mesh network where everyone acts as a repeater for everyone else, there are no points of control aside from international links, and where the network is never, ever trusted, unlike TCP/IP. This is the only way we're really going to get a free and open internet not subject to censorship or other forms of malfeasa

      • We don't want the Internet being a wireless mesh network.

        Wireless data transmission has much more stringent limits than wired data transmission. I can get 1 Gb/s connection from the phone company (although I'm not going to get it unless and until I find 40 Mb/s and then 100 Mb/s insufficient)). Getting a gigabit connection with reasonable ping time over a wireless mesh network is going to be challenging at best. If my internet connectivity goes down, I have someone to call now, rather needing to figur

  • State's rights are a good thing. If the electorate of those 19 states don't like it, it's their job to change it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      If the electorate of those 19 states don't like it, it's their job to change it.

      The problem is the big ISP's pay a lot of money to bribe politicians to keep out competition. In many states, there's not enough granularity on their ballot to weed out specific bad practices. Politicians can focus on God, Gays, Guns, and Walls to distract voters from these kinds of issues, for example.

  • Replublicans up in arms? (Score:3)

    by Macdude ( 23507 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @03:49PM (#52679915)

    The republicans must be up in arms over this ruling, not to mention these anti-free enterprise laws passed by democratic state legislatures. Right?

    • The republicans must be up in arms over this ruling, not to mention these anti-free enterprise laws passed by democratic state legislatures. Right?

      And those Democrats! Why - we've even got a Democratic president, for gosh's sake. What does he say?

      I'll bet if the Democrats and Republicans wanted to, they could pass a law that would have bipartisan support, and then the Democratic president could sign it into office.

      Hah hah hah! I'm kidding.

      Obama (the Democrat in charge) gave the telecoms immunity [politifact.com] in return for campaign donations.

      There's no reason to believe that he wouldn't veto the bill in return for more campaign donations... to Hillary, for instance

    • Please stop the "Us vs. Them" mentality. Instead, try picking on individuals based on what they support. Ignore party, and you'll be much better off.
    • Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai said that "âoerather than wasting its time on illegal efforts to intrude on the prerogatives of state governments, the FCC should focus on implementing a broadband deployment agenda to eliminate regulatory barriers that discourage those in the private sector from deploying and upgrading next-generation networks."

      USTelecom, the trade group that represents internet service providers including AT&T and Verizon Communications Inc, praised the decision as "a victo
  • Cities are becoming MUCH more important than the states they reside in. Time to give them extra representation.

  • If Congress doesn't make a stupid law, the President will arrogantly dictate the stupidity.
    If the Congress and the President don't do it, the Supreme Court will make up some bullshit.
    If the feds don't do it, the states will - corrupt legislatures, tyrannical governors, and crappy state supreme courts.
    If the states don't do it, the counties will.
    If the counties don't do it, the cities and towns will.

    The whole lot of them are a bunch of vile, corrupt pigs.

  • Here we go again (Score:3)

    by Sir Holo ( 531007 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2016 @11:39PM (#52682255)

    So, here we go again.

    Just like with the establishment of telephone service lines.

    Just like with privately held public transit systems.

    Just like with privately owned bridges goin into and out of major cities, where monopolies were created.

    Just like with the railroads.

    Look at history. This will not be a short fight. But, internet service is a UTILITY.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close