Cities Across US Oppose Trump FCC Plan to Preempt Local Broadband Rules (arstechnica.com) 82
Ars Technica reports:
Cities and counties around the U.S. are angry at the Trump administration over a proposal to override local rules that govern the deployment of wired broadband networks... The Federal Communications Commission [FCC] argues that too many local governments "excessively delay approvals and seek to extract exorbitant sums from providers, resulting in costs that render some deployments infeasible." The FCC plan is supported by broadband providers, but local governments told the FCC that it would override rules that protect public safety.
Local governments say the plan is illegal and that the FCC should instead focus on how Internet providers thwart competition with permit-hoarding and other tactics that prevent competitors from deploying networks... They object to FCC plans to impose a 120-day deadline for processing permits and to proposed limits on fees and compensation that local governments can require from providers... Another filing submitted by the League of California Cities said the FCC has no authority to adopt the proposal. "Federal preemption of traditional state and local authority over public property, construction, public safety, permitting, and rights-of-way management should rest on clear congressional authorization," the filing said. "The commission should not infer broad preemptive authority where Congress did not expressly provide it...."
A filing by Minnesota cities said the current FCC is making the same mistake it made during the first Trump administration, when its attempt to preempt state net neutrality laws was blocked in court... If the FCC finalizes its new preemption plan, city and state governments could sue and ask a court to rule that the agency exceeded its authority...
Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez approved the step of asking the public for input but signaled she would vote against the final proposal. "I am dubious about the commission's authority under Section 253 to use rulemaking to preempt states and localities when it comes to their management of rights of way and fees charged to providers," she said.
Local governments say the plan is illegal and that the FCC should instead focus on how Internet providers thwart competition with permit-hoarding and other tactics that prevent competitors from deploying networks... They object to FCC plans to impose a 120-day deadline for processing permits and to proposed limits on fees and compensation that local governments can require from providers... Another filing submitted by the League of California Cities said the FCC has no authority to adopt the proposal. "Federal preemption of traditional state and local authority over public property, construction, public safety, permitting, and rights-of-way management should rest on clear congressional authorization," the filing said. "The commission should not infer broad preemptive authority where Congress did not expressly provide it...."
A filing by Minnesota cities said the current FCC is making the same mistake it made during the first Trump administration, when its attempt to preempt state net neutrality laws was blocked in court... If the FCC finalizes its new preemption plan, city and state governments could sue and ask a court to rule that the agency exceeded its authority...
Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez approved the step of asking the public for input but signaled she would vote against the final proposal. "I am dubious about the commission's authority under Section 253 to use rulemaking to preempt states and localities when it comes to their management of rights of way and fees charged to providers," she said.
Trump's M.O. (Score:5, Insightful)
Always favor corporate interests over the well being and/or interests of the average citizen.
The repugnican morondus operandi* (Score:4, Insightful)
Always talk about "small government", twist the small government's hands and beat it into submission when it gets in the way of the sponsors.
I won't even mention the "deficit" or which party is the pro-deficit party.
Incidentally, counting since the Saint Ron "the Alz" Reagan times, the "market growth" is almost exactly equal to the increase in debt.
* stolen shamelessly
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing to count, anonymous hasbara coward, IRGC is now more firmly entrenched than before.
You lost the war and now China has told the orange shitgibbon to cut the crap and make a deal with Iran on Iran's terms:
““China will tell the US two things,” Wu said. “One is – do not try to sanction Chinese banks or companies for doing business with Iran secondly, forget about military solutions or economic sanctions (to end the conflict), you have to sit down to negotiate for a reasonable peace agreement.”
So, after the military loss, the moron will have to spin a political defeat too. What a loser.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
only values people as human shields and for political expedience, not as actual people.
So does the repugnican party and the trumpistani maggots.
You're the same as the putinistas in russia, chavistas in venezuela and the islamic fundamentalists.
Why are you complaining?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Trumpistan has lost. trump and the trump party are just too stupid and in denial. As long as their puppets like you keep parroting their propaganda. They'll shoot some missiles every now and then like the terrorists they are and claim victory.
Why can't they get the Iranian HEU stockpile?
Why aren't they able to destroy the remaining 70% of Iran's ballistic missile stockpile?
Why are trumpy, little marco and vajay dunce begging the mullahs for a "deal" instead of accepting Iran's unconditional surrender?
Finall
Re: (Score:2)
So, you justify our war crime of murdering 167 girls, because neither Palantir nor the DoD checked, by saying whatabout?
Re:Trump's M.O. (Score:5, Insightful)
Always favor corporate interests over the well being and/or interests of the average citizen.
I would put it another way, always favour those who will increase the wealth of Trump and his family.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Given this government, I tend to believe it. OTOH, I remember cable-TV contracts...and that makes me quite dubious. Local governments were making deals that benefited the companies and excluded competition right and left, and it sure wasn't good for the users.
All of this has happened before (Score:5, Insightful)
...all of this will be overturned by the courts again.
Taxpayers will pay for both sides of the court battles. Hurray for more debt.
Re:All of this has happened before (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Many people don't understand the logic of it. When the super-wealthy have only 1% of their income being needed to cover all of their expenses, then the rest of it is just gaining additional wealth. At that point then, the idea of a top marginal tax rate of 90% or more isn't going to affect anything other than the money "in the bank" growing slower than it currently does. Before Ronald Reagan pushed his trickle-down economics, that is how it was, a 90% or even 94% in some years top marginal tax rate, a
OH Look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
True enough - Comcast for years paid a monopoly fee on fiber and coax and passed it on to consumers, for a while it was even listed as a monopoly fee, then they changed it to a local service fee or something like that. It was basically a $5-7 a month tax for Comcast to maintain a monopoly. That all disintegrated during 5g offering competition, thankfully, but Comcast still gouges hard for business service.
Re: (Score:3)
There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides. [goodreads.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that we have Lord Snapcase instead of Lord Vetinari.
Re: (Score:2)
Another issue where there are no white knights only power vs. greed. I wish there was a good idea somewhere in here, but I'm not seeing one. I believe the local governments are squeezing on their end, but a federal answer will absolutely be overreaching. Heck the rules are so antiquated AT&T is still seen as a POTS co. and Comcast is still viewed as a cable provider.
Honestly, if you squint just a little what this story looks like is the federal government sees the local governments squeezing some pennies and decided that squeezing technique would be much better placed in their hands. It's not like we'll actually see broadband suddenly start flowing faster if this passes. The broadband companies are pushing for it? They've found a way to shuffle more taxpayer money toward their executive bonus pool. The federal government agrees because they get to siphon a little off t
Re: (Score:3)
Re:OH Look! (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with everyone having an opinion on something is that most people don't actually bother learning the details of the subject, because if they did they would know their opinion is shit and based on made up personal expectations and what some rando said on the internet - just like your opinion.
BEAD was a bi-partisan effort, it's not the "Biden broadband plan". It was built upon the BRIDGE (Building and Renewing Infrastructure for Development and Growth in Employment) act. The states that will get the most funding from BEAD happens to be red or purple and the state that get's the most is Texas with $3.38 billion. This administration fucked around with the rules who could get the money which lead to allocating $668 million to Starlink and $311 million to Amazon's Project Kuiper and about $21 billion (out of $42.5 billion) was said to be "non-deployment funds" - ie a likely scenario is that some people wanted to use that money for something else while calling it "savings". A bunch of states, including red states, made a big stink about those $21 billion and which forced NTIA to suddenly announce last week that there will now be a new round of funding for underserved areas. Texas even put a hold on the grant money because it felt that the program had been changed to benefit billionaires [texastribune.org].
Do yourself a favor, go and actually read the BEAD act and look up what fuckery this administration did to it instead of sounding like someone defensively making shit up out of thin air to score some imaginary points from likeminded people.
Not public utilities (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Obligatory "holy crap, a four-digit; who thawed you out??" ?
Also, kindly explain your position a bit more? What does "right of way" mean? How would charging corporations money help the public? In other words, what's being traded?
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory "holy crap, a four-digit; who thawed you out??" ?
There are still a few of us awake.
What does "right of way" mean?
In this context it means "agreed permission to cross someone else's property.
This can take many forms, such as "a public right of way" - a footpath across a field, or a hiking trail through a forest - meaning that the land-owner may not impede access. See also "right to roam" vs "Enclosure Act(s)" in the UK.
Or, for example, if I buy a plot of land that is surrounded by other private land, I'm legally required to be given a "right of way" to access it.
In other words, what's being traded?
In this case, access to
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, as part of the "public right of way," I forgot to mention the "1932 Kinder Scout Mass Trespass."
Re: (Score:2)
See, that's the thing. Cities often have easement and right-of-way authority, if not ownership.A city can build-out whatever they want, and rent it to whomever.
But that interferes with the cable and telco's revenue streams. Loma Linda California tried it and was fought hard.
The vendors also objected. If you make zillions of dollars selling fiber to telcos, and telcos don't want pesky municipalities getting in their way, the fiber companies will ally with the telcos. Telcos don't want to fight with two thous
Poles (Score:5, Informative)
The phone companies own all the poles. Part of their public charter for using a bunch of land and easements says they have to lease space on the poles to other companies. The cable companies pay the phone companies who pay the government. Exactly how that all works out is different nearly everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
"The phone companies own all the poles."
Actually, most (not all) poles are owned by the electrical utilities and the telco's have to rent space on them. (I work for a telco)
Renting space on a pole can range from reasonable to 'that pole looks old so you will need to pay us to completely replace it.'
Right (Score:2)
Actually, most (not all) poles are owned by the electrical utilities and the telco's have to rent space on them.
Right, I thought of that as I was pressing Submit :) Around here the towers are all owned by phone companies, as they were put up before there was widespread home distribution of electrical. In the suburbs the towers are all Edison and Consumer's, and I'd imagine that's the case in most suburbs and newer cities.
Re: (Score:2)
At least here in Boston Verizon pays rent on the land occupied by their poles, so they are paying for the right of way. Them being in arrears for said rent famously caused a catfight with the city government that delayed the rollout of FIOS for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Right of way and antiquated laws (Score:2)
I only know this as an anecdote (so would be happy if someone "in the know" can clarify more about it). But a buddy of mine was upset when he saw an AT&T worker wandering around his back yard, a while back. The guy was clearly trying to mark an area to dig, to put fiber in. My friend was mad not simply for the guy trespassing on his property, but specifically because he had a plan to pour a lot of concrete back there to expand a small back patio. He didn't want a situation where a fiber connection ran
Trump cable internet only $19.99/mo* (Score:2)
Trump cable internet only $19.99/mo*!
!for the 1st 500GB each 50GB after $4.99 maximum overage fee of $100 per month.
* does not include
mandatory modem renal $9.99/mo
tv basic 19.99/mo
local tv fee can an very from $0-$24.99/mo
taxes and fees.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not "tv basic", liebtard pinko communist, it's TRUMP TV GOLD for $19.99/mo
Re: (Score:2)
Trump Tremendous TV Gold Like Nobody's Ever Seen Before for $0.00 because we're gonna make the internet pay for it.
Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealh (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a free book [mises.org] for the politicians in DC to read to learn why central planning always fails.
I mean it's only been out 106 years, so maybe they haven't heard of it yet.
TL;DR local cities have more information about what they need.
Of course corruption happens at all levels and some folks in cities still have DSL for that reason.
Re:Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
oh word, central planning never works, is that why china is kicking our ass at everything
(China, 5 years ago) "And the best part is they'll never ban TikTok, because they'll get addicted to it too quickly. After that, we can manipulate and destroy from within."
We act like it takes psychic powers and seven crystal balls to figure out the mystery here..
Re: (Score:1)
We have over a century's worth of evidence that Socialism doesn't work. Across the 20th century, it only brought about mass slaughter and suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe not *everything*.
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Let's check in with how China's bridges are doing:
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/... [nbcnews.com]
The US has problems but let's not pretend that China has everything figured out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
GOP's sabotage to sabotage the GOP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Paradoxically, the USA needs to move many infrastructure-based decisions away from the "small" end of government, to the state or federal level.
Yes, because it's much more efficient for a company to lobby/bribe a centralised decision-maker, and much easier for that decision-maker to ignore the will of the people they putatively represent and stay lobbied/bribed.
Having to lobby/bribe the decision-makers in every podunk municipality to get what you want is much more expensive, and they have the temerity to actually not stay lobbied/bribed when the locals loudly complain!
Please, won't somebody think of the corporations?
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
In many US cities, communications corporations have monopolies on cable pit/post access: The local government enabled that. During CoViD, councils decided to allow the population to be mask-free and some, forced schools to be mask-free, contradicting a national health response. Last year was the Mystic River tragedy where the local council both allowed living quarters to be built on a flood 'plain' and refused to install flooding-event alarms. Local councils across the USA do things t
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"protect public safety"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank god (Score:2)
Attenion Trump Voters (Score:5, Insightful)
I implore you to read this paper written by the US government immediately after WW2. https://ia801608.us.archive.or... [archive.org]
Re:Attenion Trump Voters (Score:5, Interesting)
I implore you to read this paper written by the US government immediately after WW2. https://ia801608.us.archive.or... [archive.org]
Fascinating. I second that imploration.
Re: (Score:2)
Rape Trump (Score:1)
That;s like saying "Fuck Trump", but giving him the same consent he gave to E. Jean Carroll.
Republicans and state rights (Score:2)
So, Republicans only support state rights when individual states go against human decency, but then try to use the force of the federal government to push fascist policies on the rest of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet as such STARTED with the ARPAnet, which was a government provided backbone. Pushing to get EVERY home broadband isn't being fascist.
Is it true? (Score:2)
And this is all Biden's broadband push, right?
Why Cities Need To Control It (Score:2)
Both can be true (Score:1)