FCC Asked to Bypass State Laws Banning Municipal Fiber Internet

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
It’s only two cities at this point in time and not very big cities at that, but it’s a start in the right direction. Chattanooga, TN and Wilson, NC both have petitioned the FCC for help in bypassing the laws in place concerning community owned high speed Internet.

Communities should have the right, at the local level, to determine their broadband futures.
Click to expand...
 
Although their heart is in the right place on this one there is definitely a question of federalism here ... in theory (for good or bad) regulating the internet providers within a state is a function of the state and not the feds ... I think this question might end up in front of SCOTUS to resolve
 
ofc the question is why on earth there are state laws banning municipal fiber in the first place as long as the municipalities have the money to support the infrastructure what does it hurt ?
 
kinjo said:
ofc the question is why on earth there are state laws banning municipal fiber in the first place as long as the municipalities have the money to support the infrastructure what does it hurt ?
Click to expand...
my thoughts exactly

anti-competitive laws should be outlawed. ;)
 
Chattanooga, TN has one of the highest public internet speeds with the EPB (1gb), it only costs 70 bucks a month (I pay 73 a month for 50mbps).

There are a ton of people around the area that would LOVE to be able to get on to this speed but htey can't because of htese laws, they are only allowed to stay in their service area and can't branch out or anything.

I think anything that offers competition (Cities should be able to make na dprovide their own internet services) however the laws should also NOT allow them to stop anyone else from also providing it.

Basically it needs to allow for both the cities and privately owned companies to both compete with each other and no one have a "right" to do while someone else can't.
 
I agree with Stiler, I also live in/around Chattanooga, TN and the internet speed + cost is fantastic. Very Few if anyone actually sustains circuit utilization at the high levels available here but when you hit the right server and see a 60mb file come down in a second. Its awesome.
 
If you're asking why this is banned in many states, ask your local members of state and federal government whom have been taking campaign donations from cable & telco's to help them write laws that hurt competition.

Crony capitalism at its finest.
 
kbrickley said:
Although their heart is in the right place on this one there is definitely a question of federalism here ... in theory (for good or bad) regulating the internet providers within a state is a function of the state and not the feds ... I think this question might end up in front of SCOTUS to resolve
Click to expand...

They said the same thing about segregation and slavery.

States don't have rights. People have rights.
 
damicatz said:
They said the same thing about segregation and slavery.

States don't have rights. People have rights.
Click to expand...

Well, the internet is not a "right" regardless of how some people have attempted to make it so ... and according to 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.", the States do have some rights

I don't agree with the strategies that these states have used, however, it should be up to the local residents of the state to vote out the politicians with ones who would change this rule ... although the commerce clause of the Constitution "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" does give the government jurisdiction in questions like Net Neutrality and general internet policies that affect interaction between the states, it doesn't appear to give the federal government jurisdiction to regulate individual internet providers (and their contracts) within the state
 
kbrickley said:
Well, the internet is not a "right" regardless of how some people have attempted to make it so ... and according to 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.", the States do have some rights

I don't agree with the strategies that these states have used, however, it should be up to the local residents of the state to vote out the politicians with ones who would change this rule ... although the commerce clause of the Constitution "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" does give the government jurisdiction in questions like Net Neutrality and general internet policies that affect interaction between the states, it doesn't appear to give the federal government jurisdiction to regulate individual internet providers (and their contracts) within the state
Click to expand...

In my state, both parties are in the pockets of big business and the telcos/cable companies. Regardless of if you vote R or D, you will get screwed and restrictive ballot access laws prevent any third parties from having a chance. It is, at best, laughable to call the society we live in a "democracy" (representative or otherwise) because the truth is, your vote doesn't matter and even if it did, you can only, in true Soviet style, vote for approved candidates.
 
The states are capable of more corruption than the feds. The Muni's are more corrupt than the states.

This isn't an FCC issue it should be addressed by existing anti-trust/anti-competitive laws in existence (which I'm pretty sure likely exist for this issue but are being consciously ignored) or Congress.

We shouldn't just bless any government bureaucracy with any powers to tackle the issue of the day.
 
Corporations can handle these rights, communities can't.

A community pooling it's resources to accomplish something is collectivism. Collectivism is baby communism and that leads us to the only question that matters.

Why do these people hate America so much?
 
kbrickley said:
Well, the internet is not a "right" regardless of how some people have attempted to make it so ... and according to 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.", the States do have some rights
Click to expand...
However the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits "anti-competitive" acts, and it seems like state laws that will not allow localities to "add competition" would in fact violate that.

So where's left at an impasse, state rights to violate laws? or states are exempt from certain laws?
 
kbrickley said:
Well, the internet is not a "right" regardless of how some people have attempted to make it so ... and according to 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.", the States do have some rights

I don't agree with the strategies that these states have used, however, it should be up to the local residents of the state to vote out the politicians with ones who would change this rule ... although the commerce clause of the Constitution "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" does give the government jurisdiction in questions like Net Neutrality and general internet policies that affect interaction between the states, it doesn't appear to give the federal government jurisdiction to regulate individual internet providers (and their contracts) within the state
Click to expand...

I always love the "vote them out" responses. It makes me wonder where the heck you guys are living, because it sure isn't the real world. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. All different labels for the exact same thing. Voting out corrupt politicians and replacing them with new corrupt politicians doesn't change anything.
 
Having family that live in rural areas, I can support this. You want to talk about class separation, rural areas are taking the greatest hit in the information age. A fair amount of my family live outside isp range and satellite connection is slow and expensive that have daily caps of 200 to 500mb a day. The isp's were giving subsidies to help with this, but we all know how that went.
 
kbrickley said:
Although their heart is in the right place on this one there is definitely a question of federalism here ... in theory (for good or bad) regulating the internet providers within a state is a function of the state and not the feds ... I think this question might end up in front of SCOTUS to resolve
Click to expand...

If you think decisions like this are better decided on a local level, then it makes every sense in the world that a community/city should be able to decide on it's own without say from the state. If you think decisions like this should be decided by people who aren't in your city - then it makes every sense in the world that the federal government should be the one to decide. No matter how you stand - should the people deciding on municipal internet be local or not - the state is the worst way to handle it.
 
Koolthulu said:
I always love the "vote them out" responses. It makes me wonder where the heck you guys are living, because it sure isn't the real world. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. All different labels for the exact same thing. Voting out corrupt politicians and replacing them with new corrupt politicians doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...

This is a cop out though ... all the parties are corrupt because that's ultimately what people vote into office ... politicians that tell people the truth or don't promise them the moon don't get elected ... you can blame the corrupt politician or you can blame the voters who use their choice to keep establishing the same corrupt infrastructure they then complain about ... however, the bottom line is they do have a choice that they refuse to use
 
sfsuphysics said:
However the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits "anti-competitive" acts, and it seems like state laws that will not allow localities to "add competition" would in fact violate that.

So where's left at an impasse, state rights to violate laws? or states are exempt from certain laws?
Click to expand...

I am fairly certain that the Sherman Act only applies to companies and not the States ... that doesn't mean that Congress couldn't amend it to prevent these Anti-competitive laws from being passed at the local and state level
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Corporations can handle these rights, communities can't.

A community pooling it's resources to accomplish something is collectivism. Collectivism is baby communism and that leads us to the only question that matters.

Why do these people hate America so much?
Click to expand...

McCarthy, How has it been? Why do people with beliefs like the one you posted hate America so much? Who do they constantly limit competition and control what a local community is allowed to do.

Many posters here would give up a lot to have Google Fiber in their neighborhood but they fail to realize that every neighborhood could have better service than Google Fiber just like Chattanooga does.
 
kbrickley said:
This is a cop out though ... all the parties are corrupt because that's ultimately what people vote into office ... politicians that tell people the truth or don't promise them the moon don't get elected ... you can blame the corrupt politician or you can blame the voters who use their choice to keep establishing the same corrupt infrastructure they then complain about ... however, the bottom line is they do have a choice that they refuse to use
Click to expand...

People have no choice because access to the ballot is strictly controlled.

In my state I have exactly three choices :
Democrat, Republican, Libertarian

The democrats and the republicans are the same. The Libertarian Party ends up having to spend all their money just fighting to stay on the ballot (we have some of the strictest ballot access laws of any state) and don't have any left over to campaign. You can't vote for the other parties because they aren't "approved"; even write-in votes aren't counted.

That's not a democracy. That's a farce.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Corporations can handle these rights, communities can't.

A community pooling it's resources to accomplish something is collectivism. Collectivism is baby communism and that leads us to the only question that matters.

Why do these people hate America so much?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming most of that was sarcasm.

There's a community in San Fran that banded together to create their own bank to take on the predatorial paycheck cash places. It's like a credit union, just for your own neighborhood and ran by that neighborhood members. Iirc, the money is pooled (although your account balance is there for withdrawals) and if a member needs a loan, it gets approved by the neighborhood and pulled from the pool. Any proceeds go to buffer accounts and better interest rates.

It's essentially what the banks do, without the fees to cover the million dollar bonus executives and overhead.

There's another community that banded together to build small 200sqft houses. The "village" is self governed and for people down on their luck and homeless. People pitch in and run the daily activities. Theirs a community kitchen and bathroom facilities. It provides counseling, education, and job training. Any trouble makers are asked to leave the community.

People can call that communism-esque. I call it humanism. People willing to help others without greed rearing it's head. Doesn't work on a large scale, but can work on a small community scale (of a few hundred or so). Nonprofit community outfits, if ran without corruption, can bring needed competition to a marketplace.

There's a health clinic place downtown Las Vegas ran by a couple forward thinking doctors. It's a large facility. Each member pays $70-$100 a month like a gym membership. That gets them the ability swing in and talk to a doctor or get a check up. Interesting take on healthcare.
 
kbrickley said:
I am fairly certain that the Sherman Act only applies to companies and not the States ... that doesn't mean that Congress couldn't amend it to prevent these Anti-competitive laws from being passed at the local and state level
Click to expand...

I dunno, as written
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
Click to expand...
Does not actually specify that it is a company that does it, just some "contract" i.e. written form (law does seem to fall under that). And as we all have heard in the news recently with the the way things are written with the ACA with regards to getting tax breaks, every word does count :)

Later amendments do specifically point out exclusivity deals as being illegal as well. And if corporations are people, and local governments are the will of the people, these laws should damn well be beholden to them as well.
 
I don't think anyone should be "forbidden" from adding to the Internet. That's the whole point of the Internet. If local governments want to build fiber connections for the Internet then that's a good thing for everyone involved.

I say let them do it, but not allowing them to bypass the law I think the law should be rewritten to not ban it.
 
In 2008, the town of Wilson, North Carolina got sick of paying a high price for low-speed broadband and limited cable service from Time Warner Cable (TWC), so they founded a community-owned ISP based on optical-fiber networks running to the front door called Greenlight. Currently it is North Carolina’s only all fiber optic network with Internet speeds up to 1 Gbps, the fastest speeds in North Carolina.

What was Time Warner Cable's response to Greenlight.. did it drop prices and offering great incentives to tempt customers back? Nope. Instead the company lobbied the North Carolina government to outlaw community ISPs on the grounds that it can't compete. The argument was that TWC couldn't turn a profit and compete against a community-owned enterprise that essentially sells service for cost. TWC probably also didn't like the fact that money was staying local and that technical support was from right there in Wilson, NC. TWC didn't want this concept growing to other North Carolina towns so had the practice banished.

wilson_gig_nc.jpg
 
Think of how bad cable companies have gotten when even local government could do a better job.
 
BladeVenom said:
Think of how bad cable companies have gotten when even local government could do a better job.
Click to expand...

Think of how bad cable companies have gotten when we're praying for Google to come install fiber, and they sell every bit of personal data on us they can get!
We'd give up our PRIVACY in order to have decent internet!
 
This is fucking RETARDED. Those "State Laws" are Unconstitutional on their face .... violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. End of story.

Just do it, and sue the fuck out of the state when they try to stop you.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Corporations can handle these rights, communities can't.

A community pooling it's resources to accomplish something is collectivism. Collectivism is baby communism and that leads us to the only question that matters.

Why do these people hate America so much?
Click to expand...
Monopolies are little slices of communism. The only difference is the monopoly has a limited scope. But if you want a job in that field, there's only one organization to work for and if you want what they make, there's only one organization to get it from. 19th century isolated towns where everyone pretty much worked for the same company and bought from the company store are shining examples of communism.

In this case a collective decision plays nicely for a monopoly. Pour yourself a cup of WTFU and realize what you consider a solution is actually what is wrong about the current situation.
 
jpm100 said:
Monopolies are little slices of communism. The only difference is the monopoly has a limited scope. But if you want a job in that field, there's only one organization to work for and if you want what they make, there's only one organization to get it from. 19th century isolated towns where everyone pretty much worked for the same company and bought from the company store are shining examples of communism.

In this case a collective decision plays nicely for a monopoly. Pour yourself a cup of WTFU and realize what you consider a solution is actually what is wrong about the current situation.
Click to expand...

In some cases though personal freedoms (like property rights) interfere with competition ... A city has the benefit that it can appropriate property needed for high speed internet or better cell coverage through eminent domain ... a corporation doesn't have this right unfortunately ... as long as people are willing to take the good with the bad on city owned internet I agree that it should be ultimately up to the local population and not the state government (or federal)
 
SGA76 said:
Think of how bad cable companies have gotten when we're praying for Google to come install fiber, and they sell every bit of personal data on us they can get!
We'd give up our PRIVACY in order to have decent internet!
Click to expand...

And the thing is, Google often isn't installing that much fiber, the basic infrastructure is often there, the city (for whatever reasons) just decided not to connect to the people.
 
kbrickley said:
In some cases though personal freedoms (like property rights) interfere with competition ... A city has the benefit that it can appropriate property needed for high speed internet or better cell coverage through eminent domain ... a corporation doesn't have this right unfortunately ... as long as people are willing to take the good with the bad on city owned internet I agree that it should be ultimately up to the local population and not the state government (or federal)
Click to expand...

Private utilities appropriate property all the time.
 
damicatz said:
Private utilities appropriate property all the time.
Click to expand...

Utilities are usually controlled monopolies in most states so they have a lot of special capabilities ... however, companies like AT&T and Verizon don't have those same abilities which caused so many problems with cell phone coverage in San Francisco when obstinate residents kept objecting to new cell towers in their area ... sometimes because they didn't want it on their property and other times because they were insane and objecting to cell phone signals in general ... the ability to lay fiber or copper lines needed for internet sometimes runs into the same NIMBY objections ... a city can bypass these by forcing residents to comply but private companies have to negotiate ... this is one of the biggest advantages of city internet is they can force people to do what is right for the community ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top