FCC Just Overruled State Laws That Were Blocking Municipal Broadband

chockomonkey said:
Why is the FCC even bothering with this? Allowing city run broadband isn't the answer. If they're going to vote on something which overrides state's wishes, then why not override any existing agreements prohibiting any other vendors?
Click to expand...

Probably because the FCC knows of the back-door non-compete agreements between ISPs....rather than ignoring them as you seem to have done.
 
qbert95 said:
So what can now stop municipalities from blocking private competitors from their localities after they enacted their own broadband?
Click to expand...

Most of them won't. Many cities are already building in-house fiber networks and interconnects for traffic / scada infrastructure. The smart ones are also installing extra dark fiber capacity the hopes of providing infrastructure that they can lease out in the future to ISP's (FTTP / FTTH) as a revenue generator.

Cities / muni's generally do not want to get into the business of being an ISP. That said, there are a lot of areas waking up to the fact that direct investment in building high-speed infrastructure is a great way to lure business investment and jobs into an area, or change a local demographic. If the local cable or telco monopoly doesn't care enough to provide that, there shouldn't be any reason why a municipal entity can't do it themselves if it passes a vote from elected mayor and councils..
 
XvMMvX said:
You know what is worse than Comcast?

The fucking government controlling the internet.
Click to expand...

#1. Comcast has horrible customer service, but around where I am at, that is the only option in a bunch of places because the developers signed an exclusive "agreement" with them. To get service working mostly properly, it generally takes 6+ visits before they can figure their crap out. And even then, the service is generally really spotty.

#2. If you have a problem with service, they generally have no clue what is going on.

#3. These stupid political lockouts of other companies and also municipal run services needs to stop now... actually, it never should have happened in the first place.

#4. As long as the federal government doesn't take over service, I am fine with the local cities providing service.

#5. I am not a Democrat.
 
Skripka said:
Probably because the FCC knows of the back-door non-compete agreements between ISPs....rather than ignoring them as you seem to have done.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, they have them where I am at. When I moved, Comcast sent me a letter telling me that their service was not available at my new address, and also telling me what provider was available at my new address.

If that, the very similar pricing, and the almost same exact levels of service does not alert you to the fact that it is all price fixed between the providers, then you are willingly blind to it.
 
Skripka said:
Probably because the FCC knows of the back-door non-compete agreements between ISPs....rather than ignoring them as you seem to have done.
Click to expand...

My point was that the FCC needs to squash the non-compete agreements as well as the agreements made between ISP's and cities. That would fix shit a whole lot quicker than garbage like what is referenced in the OP.
 
AT&T's prices are a great example of why allowing municipal internet is great news for anyone who wants to live in the modern age. They sell 18mbps service for $90 with 250gb cap, except in markets where Google fiber and such are competing with them, then it's $70 for 1000mbps. But somehow they have congestion issues with Netflix... go figure.
 
Wierdo said:
AT&T's prices are a great example of why allowing municipal internet is great news for anyone who wants to live in the modern age. They sell 18mbps service for $90 with 250gb cap, except in markets where Google fiber and such are competing with them, then it's $70 for 1000mbps. But somehow they have congestion issues with Netflix... go figure.
Click to expand...
AT&T and google fiber are an interesting case because iirc Austin where fiber was laid out could have been easier for google but AT&T owns something like 1/4th of utility lines in the area and when prompted by google to share the lines for a price AT&T set a price way above market price because they saw an opportunity to screw a competitor. ISPs don't get the protection a telcom would have in that situation because of their classification, At&t doesn't have to play fair with them and they don't have to play fair with At&t.
 
XvMMvX said:
Every major market has competition. Yes you can find pockets or the straight sticks that do not but now one forced you to live anywhere. Internet is not a right.
Click to expand...

*Facepalm*

You've just shown you know jack shit.

For cable, in an area, you have ONE provider.
For satellite in pretty much the US, you have ONE provider.
For DSL in the US, you pretty much have ONE provider. Sure, others can RESELL it to you. But AT&T pretty much owns all the wires. So you can buy from AT&T and pay $X. Or you can buy from a reseller and pay $X+markup

While you could argue that cable and DSL compete with one another, realistically you've got two behemoth cartels SHARING (there IS a difference) the playing field. Not competing for it.



As to your comment. Imagine trying to run a business when your competitor does not have to turn a profit and can just add taxes to other "things" to generate revenue.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand how municipal broadband projects are structured and why siphoning tax money out to pay for something like this isn't possible and wouldn't be feasible if it was.

The issues people see aren't going to happen tomorrow. It will be farther down the line with this as the catalyst for these events. Anyone ever had to be a member of an electrical CO-OP? Yeah that is an ass raping. When de-regulation for electricity came to my market there was a whole savings for the region across the board.
Click to expand...

Nobody's saying other providers can't come into an area. They simply have to be competitive.

And since AT&T and Comcast have ALREADY pretty much SAID they don't want to service Bumblefuck, USA. Why not let Bumblefuck, USA service THEMSELVES?

Seriously, you don't think AT&T is providing GIGAPOWER service in Kansas City KS, Winston-Salem NC, etc, etc out of the goodness of their hearts do you? No! They're doing it because Google is coming in and disrupting markets for them with their Google Fiber service.

And why is Time-Warner offering 25-50 megabit/sec caps in most cities. But in areas around Google Fiber, their speed offerings go UP and their prices try to undercut Google Fiber?

Don't believe me?

http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/plans-packages/internet/internet-service-plans.html

66105 for KC, KS.

85350 for Yuma, AZ

Look at the difference.

Again there were a multiple of things that could have been done to fix the issues, but trumping states rights was not one of them.
Click to expand...

When expression of states' rights stops being dictated from the coffers of large cartels, then maybe you'll have a point.
 
chockomonkey said:
My point was that the FCC needs to squash the non-compete agreements as well as the agreements made between ISP's and cities. That would fix shit a whole lot quicker than garbage like what is referenced in the OP.
Click to expand...

They also need to kibosh dark fiber agreements as well.

Major metropolitan areas out there have INSANE amounts of unlit fiber.
Most of it kept dark by agreements with providers like AT&T and Comcast.
Not only can't the people who installed it use the fiber, they can't sell/lease/auction/etc it off either.

All because some political hack got a fat bribe and the city got cheap internet for a while.
 
XvMMvX said:
I trust Comcast with motives of profit with actual competitors for me to go to than I do our criminally corrupt government.

You are a mental midget if you think Government is the answer to anything. I guess the dems have to make a living off of somebody.

There were lots of ways to help the industry but blanket taking over the internet by allowing municipalities to push out for profit companies was not one of them.
Click to expand...



^ That above = PURE theology.

There is nothing you can say or show to such a believer to change their mind. They start with the first principle that whatever government touches turns to ash compared to all other private structures, no matter what kinds of conditions they find themselves in, throughout all time and space.

It is tempting to try to argue with this type of zealous ideology but it tends to go nowhere. This is about their conception of the world, what they want to believe the world is, not what it actually is. They think their perceptions about government = the SAME THING as reality, because they think it.
 
XvMMvX said:
You know what is worse than Comcast?

The fucking government controlling the internet.
Click to expand...

Having family in chattanooga, NO, JUST NO.

Its amazing how well run EPB Fiber is. Its amazing what happens when you have a company doing the internet that's used to having to actually keep things running and working.

Everyone I know that has switched is absolutely happy with it. They make appointments and either show up early, OR call the moment there will be a delay. Want to drop service or part of a service, done! No hassles. No stupid retention.

EPB Fiber rolled out to customers faster than anyone expected. And EPB Fiber has provided community services that no non-municipal provider ever would of.

If other municipal providers work even half as well as EPB Fiber, then I'm all for municipal fiber everywhere!
 
Also it should be probably be pointed out that the epicenters for municipal broadband aren't exactly hot beds of liberal thought. Chattanooga, TN is basically the rhinestone buckle of the bible belt and Lafayette, Louisiana isn't exactly known for the progressive beliefs.

In both cases, you had the municipal powerline providers recognize an actual business opportunity and step up with a plan. And in both cases they were wildly successful with their plans and generate a significant amount of profit with their municipal broadband service, while providing better service than the incumbent providers.

And it should be pointed out that the rulings on this issue isn't one of the FCC adding regulation, but removing bought and paid for regulation. Its quite comical that the two republican members of the FCC board voted against removing regulation!
 
tybert7 said:
^ That above = PURE theology.

There is nothing you can say or show to such a believer to change their mind. They start with the first principle that whatever government touches turns to ash compared to all other private structures, no matter what kinds of conditions they find themselves in, throughout all time and space.

It is tempting to try to argue with this type of zealous ideology but it tends to go nowhere. This is about their conception of the world, what they want to believe the world is, not what it actually is. They think their perceptions about government = the SAME THING as reality, because they think it.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. They just keep tossing out their scary buzz words or do the Glenn Beck "asking questions" routine. I keep trying to convince these people to listen to reason, but it's like screaming into a hurricane. Some people base their search for facts on their opinions, not the other way around. When you've decided what you will find before you start looking, why even bother?
 
aaronspink said:
EPB Fiber rolled out to customers faster than anyone expected. And EPB Fiber has provided community services that no non-municipal provider ever would of.

If other municipal providers work even half as well as EPB Fiber, then I'm all for municipal fiber everywhere!
Click to expand...

What some people can't accept is that the ~free market~ sucks ass at some very basic things because their only motivation is ever-increasing profit.
A muni doesn't care about making profit other than to pay down debt, cover operating costs or build funds to finance other services / amenities. By the very nature of municipal services they operate for the good of the whole and not for lining investor pockets. People like to lump state and federal government in with local when they go on the whole ‘guvment stealing my money’ tirade, but they're almost polar opposites when it comes to funding, services and accountability (which if they voted or attended council meetings, would realize local officials answer directly to them).
Thankfully many cities not hamstrung by lobbyist political meddling at the state level are doing just that and building their own fiber networks, and as I stated earlier, most of the ones doing so are creating extra dark capacity to lease in the future.
The only “people” that lose when muni fiber is in the picture are the cable & telco monopoly (since corporations are people too!)
 
tybert7 said:
^ That above = PURE theology.
Click to expand...
Pretty much.

People like him pray at the alter of Econ101, which is just a introductory course to economics, and refuse to acknowledge anything more advanced.

Its pretty hilarious, but kinda sad, watching them freak out when natural monopolies are brought up. Or watch them melt down when its mentioned that the current ISP monopolies and oligopolies that we have are doing a lousy job of providing service while municipal broadband is often better for less. They can't deal with reality so they wallow in denial.

In the end the US is a representative democracy that is supposed to support the will of the people and not a theocracy a la Iran centered around a state religion of Free Market Philosopher God Kings. If the people want municipal broadband, because its cheaper and faster than what private enterprise can offer and not because of ideology, then they should be able to get it.
 
mesyn191 said:
Pretty much.

People like him pray at the alter of Econ101, which is just a introductory course to economics, and refuse to acknowledge anything more advanced.

Its pretty hilarious, but kinda sad, watching them freak out when natural monopolies are brought up. Or watch them melt down when its mentioned that the current ISP monopolies and oligopolies that we have are doing a lousy job of providing service while municipal broadband is often better for less. They can't deal with reality so they wallow in denial.

In the end the US is a representative democracy that is supposed to support the will of the people and not a theocracy a la Iran centered around a state religion of Free Market Philosopher God Kings. If the people want municipal broadband, because its cheaper and faster than what private enterprise can offer and not because of ideology, then they should be able to get it.
Click to expand...


Here is a good example of a libetarian wasps nest of anti net neutrality screed on display

http://techfreedom.org/


This type has a convenient counter to just about anything you might bring up, and if not they just deny any possibility of truth to what you say.

If you bring up ISPs being a monopoly, or a natural monopoly, they will trot out the diseased zombified carcass of the argument that GOVERNMENT was the entity that granted those monopolies in the first place. Of course, even if there is some truth to that, that state legislatures and local governments might have made deals with ISPs to grant them more exclusivity in exchange for building out networks, they pretend government in the form of the FCC trying to roll some of that blockage back is the worst thing ever. From this we can glean that it is not the monopoly that bothers them, it's the government involvement. When government gives special treatment to ISPs it's the problem, when government tries to roll those distortions back it's the problem. Government is the prime evil, the white whale of their entire being. And it frustrates me because I don't know how to crack those thick shells to break through the dogma. I should probably stop trying, but it's like seeing a piece of trash in front of your yard, you are almost impelled to pick it up. Not wanting to leave the world so mired in darkness and ignorance.

I feel like one of those disciples of Lord Gaben looking out into a sea of unwashed masses asking once again, "should we save them?"

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/508/702/812.jpg
 
Ever heard anyone complain about their municipal broadband? I haven't. In fact everything I've ever heard is praise, unlike the constant cussing I hear from Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, etc customers.
 
I find it weird that people are even against this. Unless these laws prevent corp or companies can't do business there, this should just mean more competition, does it not?

Why would you be against that?
 
I don't mind this, if the government can compete in the broadband space then the broadband space is run like shit. I'm still really worried over net neutrality, everyone is saying it does x y and z when they wont release the actual plan for 30 days. Need a constitution amendment to make all bills and regulations public 30 days prior to any vote. This shit is just nuts.
 
kbrickley said:
Lawsuit for violating the 10th amendment in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ;)

I actually think this is a good thing but the States would be fools not to take this up to SCOTUS to sort out the federal jurisdiction here
Click to expand...

Yeah I have to agree, while I support the idea behond this ruling I'm not a big fan of federal agency being about to over rule state laws.

Can the CDC arbitrarily decide that handguns are a public health concern and over rule state laws that allow possession of them?

Can the US Dept of Eductation set manditory education for states?
 
SCOTUS, even the current SCOTUS, has backed up and expanded the Commerce Clause every time which is pretty much 'Feds over rule the State govt. every time. End Discussion.'.

Since the FCC is a Federal bureau tasked with regulating telecommunications and all that goes along with it if it came to a lawsuit they'd win.

Comparisons to the CDC suddenly deciding to regulate handguns or whatever are BS cuz' they're apples to oranges at best and flat out facetious and terribly dumb at worst.
 
pothb said:
I find it weird that people are even against this. Unless these laws prevent corp or companies can't do business there, this should just mean more competition, does it not?

Why would you be against that?
Click to expand...

I think all of us oppose the state laws that restrict the cities from having their own systems (that should be up to the voters in the cities) ... however, we can oppose a federal agency interfering with state laws that should be out of their jurisdiction ... we can also be opposed to city owned systems because of the risk of a government owned utility that can leverage taxes and require voter participation (things that a private entity cannot do) ... that doesn't mean that city owned systems can't be successful or good, but they do have their own risks and considerations ;)
 
States fall under Federal jurisdiction though, there are just some things the Federal govt. doesn't regulate or operate that are ran at the state level only.

Private ISP monopolies that currently exist moot the whole 'govt. owned utility locking out competition' argument too. There is effectively no competition already.
 
kbrickley said:
we can oppose a federal agency interfering with state laws that should be out of their jurisdiction ...
Click to expand...

If a state and local government are at odds the local government has to the Federal level to seek redress. This happens ALL of the time.
 
heatlesssun said:
If a state and local government are at odds the local government has to the Federal level to seek redress. This happens ALL of the time.
Click to expand...

Two wrongs don't make a right ... it may be a necessary evil but it is still an evil ;)
 
kbrickley said:
Two wrongs don't make a right ... it may be a necessary evil but it is still an evil ;)
Click to expand...

Not sure what this has to do with good or evil, it's simply a matter of how conflicts are resolved between two different levels of government.
 
kbrickley said:
Two wrongs don't make a right ... it may be a necessary evil but it is still an evil ;)
Click to expand...
Evil has nothing to do with it. The Commerce Clause was written with addressing one of the key failures of the Articles of Confederation in mind by people who had first hand experience dealing with those failures for several years before the Constitution was written.
 
Not sure what this has to do with good or evil, it's simply a matter of how conflicts are resolved between two different levels of government.
Click to expand...

Evil has nothing to do with it. The Commerce Clause was written with addressing one of the key failures of the Articles of Confederation in mind by people who had first hand experience dealing with those failures for several years before the Constitution was written.
Click to expand...

Evil in the figurative sense ... I don't think our Founding Fathers ever envisioned a government with the size and scope that the current government has ... there are certainly problems with how the individual state governments are trying to manage their legal affairs, as there are problems with how the large multinational corporations are choosing to manage their business affairs ... pushing all of these problems up to the all encompassing bureaucracy of the Feds might be the only current solution but it is still problematic and those in favor of a smaller and less bureaucratic government can wish that there were better alternatives ;)
 
kbrickley said:
Evil in the figurative sense ... I don't think our Founding Fathers ever envisioned a government with the size and scope that the current government has
Click to expand...
Even in a figurative sense it isn't evil. The Founding Fathers also knew that govt. would need to change over time in ways they couldn't envision which was why they designed it to be flexible on purpose.

kbrickley said:
those in favor of a smaller and less bureaucratic government can wish that there were better alternatives ;)
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
XvMMvX said:
Every major market has competition. Yes you can find pockets or the straight sticks that do not but now one forced you to live anywhere. Internet is not a right.

As to your comment. Imagine trying to run a business when your competitor does not have to turn a profit and can just add taxes to other "things" to generate revenue.

The issues people see aren't going to happen tomorrow. It will be farther down the line with this as the catalyst for these events. Anyone ever had to be a member of an electrical CO-OP? Yeah that is an ass raping. When de-regulation for electricity came to my market there was a whole savings for the region across the board.

Again there were a multiple of things that could have been done to fix the issues, but trumping states rights was not one of them.
Click to expand...


I live in Los Angeles. My 2 choices are TWC and verizon DSL, which was less than 1/3 of the advertised speed. So no, this is not some issue that only affects people in the boondocks.....

This step is better than anything i've seen proposed since the arguments started, including the title 2 shit.
 
kbrickley said:
I don't think our Founding Fathers ever envisioned a government with the size and scope that the current government has
Click to expand...

While the Founders were overall great men there are many things there never envisioned. Their civilization hadn't even discovered the atom let alone split one. So if you think that modern politicians lack technical understanding the Founders would be at an even worse disadvantage.
 
heatlesssun said:
While the Founders were overall great men there are many things there never envisioned. Their civilization hadn't even discovered the atom let alone split one. So if you think that modern politicians lack technical understanding the Founders would be at an even worse disadvantage.
Click to expand...

On that I definitely agree, which is why I oppose a new constitutional convention vehemently ... and I am not an anarchist either ... I believe that representative government (a Republic) is still the best form of government, but I would prefer a better distribution of certain tasks to the local and state governments ... especially since the biggest complaint that people have (corruption) still exists at the Federal levels too (so kicking certain problems up to the Feds just moves the corruption from the local or regional level to the national level)

There is no easy fix ... in a perfect world I would like to see an industry consortium of various players (not just the ISPs but the hardware and infrastructure manufacturers and the key Enterprise customers) who could determine policies that serve the national interest of ALL the players ... I am just not convinced yet that the Feds are capable of that same level of performance
 
I just want to get this straight.

We are celebrating a 300 page regulator decision made by five government appointed bureaucrats. Of which they would not release before the decision, and as a matter of fact will not release until 30 days later. Whom the leader of was a former lobbyist for Comcast.

Net neutrality at its core (which was the buzz words they used yesterday) is good. But hueh hueh conservatism hueh hueh because we may be skeptical of "passing it to see what's in it".

Talk about living in a think tank.

Pretty much.

People like him pray at the alter of Econ101, which is just a introductory course to economics, and refuse to acknowledge anything more advanced.

Its pretty hilarious, but kinda sad, watching them freak out when natural monopolies are brought up. Or watch them melt down when its mentioned that the current ISP monopolies and oligopolies that we have are doing a lousy job of providing service while municipal broadband is often better for less. They can't deal with reality so they wallow in denial.

In the end the US is a representative democracy that is supposed to support the will of the people and not a theocracy a la Iran centered around a state religion of Free Market Philosopher God Kings. If the people want municipal broadband, because its cheaper and faster than what private enterprise can offer and not because of ideology, then they should be able to get it.
Click to expand...

The people who want it will not have to pay for the municipal broad band. Please excuse people for not wanting the government to take even more out of the ass pocket of the middle class.
 
XvMMvX said:
I just want to get this straight.

We are celebrating a 300 page regulator decision made by five government appointed bureaucrats. Of which they would not release before the decision, and as a matter of fact will not release until 30 days later. Whom the leader of was a former lobbyist for Comcast.

Net neutrality at its core (which was the buzz words they used yesterday) is good. But hueh hueh conservatism hueh hueh because we may be skeptical of "passing it to see what's in it".

Talk about living in a think tank.



The people who want it will not have to pay for the municipal broad band. Please excuse people for not wanting the government to take even more out of the ass pocket of the middle class.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The only reason municipal broadband would be cheaper is due to government being able to make everyone pay for it. Not just the "customers."

The costs just to install OSP FTTH is around $60,000/plant mile. I wonder where the money to build these systems will come from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top