Ajit Pai's New Gift To Cable Companies Would Kill Local Fees and Rules (arstechnica.com) 96
Ajit Pai is proposing a plan that would stop cities and towns from using their authority over cable TV networks to regulate internet access. His proposal, which is scheduled for a vote on August 1st, "would also limit the fees that municipalities can charge cable companies," reports Ars Technica. "Cable industry lobbyists have urged the FCC to stop cities and towns from assessing fees on the revenue cable companies make from broadband." From the report: If approved, Pai's proposal would "Prohibit LFAs [local franchising authorities] from using their video franchising authority to regulate most non-cable services, including broadband Internet service, offered over cable systems by incumbent cable operators." Pai's proposal complains that "some states and localities are purporting to assert authority" to collect fees and impose requirements that aren't explicitly allowed by Title VI, the cable-regulation section that Congress added to communications law with the Cable Act of 1984.
Despite the Oregon Supreme Court ruling against Comcast, Pai's plan says "the majority of courts... have interpreted section 622(b) to prohibit states and localities from charging fees that exceed those expressly permitted by Title VI." Section 622 prevents local authorities from collecting more than 5 percent of a cable operator's gross revenue in any 12-month period. Pai's proposal also declares that "in-kind" contributions required by local franchising authorities must count toward that 5 percent cap, "with limited exceptions, including an exemption for certain capital costs related to public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels." But does the FCC have the power to preempt these local fees and requirements? "Having classified broadband as an information service (as part of its repeal of net neutrality rules), the Commission has determined that it is an unregulated service that it lacks regulatory authority over," consumer-advocacy group Public Knowledge wrote in a November 2018 filing that urged the FCC to drop the plan. The FCC cannot regulate or preempt local regulation of "any service that does not fall within its Title II jurisdiction over common carrier services or its Title I jurisdiction over matters 'incidental' to communication by wire," the group said.
Despite the Oregon Supreme Court ruling against Comcast, Pai's plan says "the majority of courts... have interpreted section 622(b) to prohibit states and localities from charging fees that exceed those expressly permitted by Title VI." Section 622 prevents local authorities from collecting more than 5 percent of a cable operator's gross revenue in any 12-month period. Pai's proposal also declares that "in-kind" contributions required by local franchising authorities must count toward that 5 percent cap, "with limited exceptions, including an exemption for certain capital costs related to public, educational, and governmental access (PEG) channels." But does the FCC have the power to preempt these local fees and requirements? "Having classified broadband as an information service (as part of its repeal of net neutrality rules), the Commission has determined that it is an unregulated service that it lacks regulatory authority over," consumer-advocacy group Public Knowledge wrote in a November 2018 filing that urged the FCC to drop the plan. The FCC cannot regulate or preempt local regulation of "any service that does not fall within its Title II jurisdiction over common carrier services or its Title I jurisdiction over matters 'incidental' to communication by wire," the group said.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, the American right always just bends over and lubes up for its corporate rulers.
Re: (Score:2)
The last mile has generally already been installed by the government, combination of public utilities and local and FCC grants and tax deducations of various sorts to Ma Bell and every single phone and cable company since.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The new ruling does not kill local fees for use of the commons, but just caps fees at 5%. Some of the usual suspects, such as Oregon, have been eating into higher fee terrain lately.
This would be fine with me so long as municipalities are free to install their own broadband. Some entire states have cable-company laws that prevent local voters from exercising any such option.
Re: Study Karl Marx (Score:3)
Not quite. The 5% cap is already in place, the FCC is simply stating that Title VII regulations allow local authorities to collect up to 5% of the revenue generated in their municipality that are described in Title VII, and Title VII does not include broadband internet access, so municipalities canâ(TM)t claim/collect 5% of broadband revenues.
Pai's proposal complains that "some states and localities are purporting to assert authority" to collect fees and impose requirements that aren't explicitly allowed by Title VI, the cable-regulation section that Congress added to communications law with the Cable Act of 1984.
Re: Study Karl Marx (Score:2)
Sorry, Title VI, not Title VII.
No 10th Amendment thingy? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's not delegated to the feds is delegated to the states, people, dogs, cats...?
Oh well...
But there can be no doubt that Ajit Pai is a loyal servant.
Stay tuned
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but Congress must explicitely create laws. Admittedly most regulatory laws are a fearful, lazy Congress heaving it onto the executive branch in the form of a regulatory agency and telling them to do it within loose guidelines.
Here Congress defined what allows regulatory control, and Pie is trying to have his cake and eat it too by disclaiming common carrier, then regulating a different subject as if it were true.
Quite frankly, Congress should say whether it is a common carrier or not. It is cowardice,
Re: (Score:1)
All the things they should do they won't do. There is no use discussing congress until they are voted out. This one is not worth our time.
Before all the Ajit hate pours in (Score:5, Informative)
I don't have a problem with government levying taxes. But they should be up-front about it so the citizens know exactly how much their government is costing them. They shouldn't be allowed to hide the taxes by tucking them in bogus fees for services and rights, making the residents erroneously think the cost of Internet service is high, when in fact it's the government's tax which is artificially inflating the price. Utilities are regulated to limit their profit to a reasonable amount in exchange for their monopoly contract. Likewise, governments need to be limited to a reasonable administrative surcharge for things like awarding a telecom service contract.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure. Can't wait to see how this turns out for you, America
To make up for the loss of this revenue, your local governments will reduce services, further neglect infrastructure, and/or raise your taxes
And to make up for the reduction of these fees, your local cable ISP will do nothing (other than post higher profits)
Best of luck
Re: (Score:1)
And who is going to take a city job filling in pot holes in San Jose? How much would they need to pay someone to live there and do that job?
And I say that as someone who works in Santa Clara.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Before all the Ajit hate pours in (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd quote your comment, but do you think for one second that any cable customers bills will go down at \ all as a result of this?
Re: (Score:3)
do you think for one second that any cable customers bills will go down at \ all as a result of this?
Look at your bill sometime. The various fees should be individually broken out. Here's what mine looks like:
Broadcast TV Surcharge $7.99 [really?]
Regulatory Video Cost Recovery Charge $0.04
State Cost-Recovery Fee $0.58
Local Video Facilities Fee $1.42
Local Video Service Franchise Fee $7.10 [ouch!]
Given that, let's just say that an increase in the base service rate of the same amount as a previously-levied tax would be a touch hard to conceal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My point, as I said, was that governmental pass-through fees are individually broken out and thus the cynical OP shouldn't have to worry about them getting surreptitiously shifted into a different part of his bill. Not sure why you ignored that and focused on the asides. Oh wait -- this is Slashdot. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure all of these fees are actually the fee imposed by local governments and not just a way for your cable company to advertise a lower price? It is easy for the cable companies to bury increases in these line item costs. Just because they are collecting a "Broadcast TV Surcharge" of $7.99 that doesn't mean that $7.99 is going to a government entity.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/art... [vice.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is one issue to address, since after paying the city's recurring fee, corporate entitles will eventually find out whom to target to get the city to comply to their wishes.
It seems that inevitably, a few "working" for the government get kickbacks for implementting "by-laws" (or other courses) that favor corporation(s) at the expense of the citizen.
Although I do not have a problem levying taxes, I do when they do so for the sole reason of profiting a non-perso
Re: (Score:1)
The taxes are levied because the lines generally go through public land and are given right-of-way.
This is my argument in favor of net neutrality: the ISPs do not operate without taking something from the public, and as such, are subject to public rules.
The ISPs basically want to benefit from the public without having any obligation in return.
I agree that the taxes get passed on to the consumer, but the cost burden is ultimately decided by the consumer, and they do benefit from the taxes in the end.
I'm tire
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, as soon as companies like Comcast and Frontier quit charging $100+/month for 1Gbps and then force me to buy their router OR they charge me a rental fee that I can never get rid of. And as soon as companies like Comcast and Frontier begin to pay me back
Re: (Score:2)
Please try to think about this objectively. These fees are widely abused. The previous city I lived in used them to basically levy an additional tax on residents. Every house Verizon signed up for FIOS had to have an additional $10/mo fee attached to it - it was basically a kickback to the city conceded by the ISP in exchange for being allowed to roll out service. The city was effectively auctioning off its residents to the highest bidder who promised to kick the most money back to the city.
That is exactly how cable service monopolies have always worked. It is not a new thing that Ajit is fixing, but a cornerstone of how the industry worked since cable television began.
Those power line poles are owned by the electricity provider. The telephone company has an easement to use those poles (a limited and specific kind of property right) granted via the power of the state legislature.
The cable companies came around in the 70s and 80s looking to set up shop, but they needed their own easement to d
Can't have your cake and eat it (Score:5, Insightful)
Either broadband is a Title II service and the network neutrality regulation is appropriate or its Not, and the FCC has no jurisdiction to regulate in order to pre-empt state rules.
The FCC doesn't have any legal power to both cancel classifying it as Title II service and regulating AND at the same time preventing states from regulating it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In America, taxation is regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
The rules are simple (Score:3)
The FCC doesn't have authority over the internet unless the telecoms want Ajit Pai to do something for them.
so the forced rental fees are about this too? (Score:2)
I bet the bs wifi ap rent fees etc even when you're not renting are to move the revenue to a different bucket that's not shared with the municipalities?
because it's not part of the service fee, but just a device you rent, even if you don't have said device?
Cool, so our bills will decrease (Score:2)
Great (Score:3)
Don't enact that constitutional amendment (Score:2)
I will vote against the constitutional amendment to take this power away from the states and the people, giving it to the feds instead. If enough people vote with me, Pai won't obtain the constitutional basis needed for his plan.
BTW, anyone remember when Republicans were conservative? Just kidding, of course you do: whenever they were last not in power. When Republican
"Franchise agreements" need to just die. (Score:2)
The main reason Internet access lags in the US is that municipalities sell "franchises" to cablecos and telcos - one of each pays the municipality in exchange for exclusive rights to "service" the customers in the area. This means that for roughly 2/3 or Americans, we have no meaningful competition in these areas, just a government-mandated duopoly. And of course these megacorporations behave poorly - if you don't like it, tough shit. Your government sold you out (and cheaply at that - check the numbers), a
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see how you equate the left to enabling cable company franchises. More-like incompetent and corrupt local politicians looking for campaign donations or new in-ground swimming pools. Small-town corruption has no political affiliation.
Ajit Pai, The Destroyer of the Internet (Score:2)
Boycott Verison Until Ajit Pai is Removed! (Score:2)
Telecom is a government granted monopoly... (Score:2)