SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Senators, including Republican Presidential candidate Marco Rubio, have signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission opposing municipal broadband:
In a rare senatorial act, full-time Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio joined with a handful of fellow legislators on Friday in an attempt to block local municipalities from undercutting big telecom companies by providing cheap, fast internet service.
Rubio, who is raising campaign cash from the telecom industry for his presidential campaign, fired off a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking the agency to allow states to block municipal broadband services. The letter was the latest salvo in a long-running effort by the major telecom companies to outlaw municipal broadband programs that have taken off in cities such as Lafayette, Louisiana, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, because they pose a threat to a business model that calls for slow, expensive internet access without competition.
In Chattanooga, for instance, city officials set up a service known as "The Gig," a municipal broadband network that provides data transfers at one gigabit per second for less than $70 a month — a rate that is 50 times faster than the average speed American customers have available through private broadband networks.
AT&T, Cox Communications, Comcast, and other broadband providers, fearing competition, have used their influence in state government to make an end-run around local municipalities. Through surrogates like the American Legislative Exchange Council, the industry gets states to pass laws that ban municipal broadband networks, despite the obvious benefits to both the municipalities and their residents.
[...] Rubio's presidential campaign has relied heavily on AT&T lobbyist Scott Weaver, the public policy co-chair of Wiley Rein, a law firm that also is helping to litigate against the FCC's effort to help municipal broadband. As one of Rubio's three lobbyist-bundlers, Weaver raised $33,324 for Rubio's presidential campaign, according to disclosures. Rubio's campaign fundraising apparatus is also managed in part by Cesar Conda, a lobbyist who previously served as Rubio's chief of staff. Registration documents show that Conda now represents AT&T.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:11AM
I looked, but couldn't find a single word about fiber and packets or bits in the constitution.
And while you think the first Amendment allows all speech, (even when you KNOW damn well it does not), it does not compel the government, at any level to carry that speech.
You do not have a constitutional right to tell local government, or the federal government, or any private company that they MUST CARRY your speech. If you did have such a right, you could demand free internet, because providing you anything less would be censorship. Must carry is fiction.
As for the private companies tiering and all their other evils, competition, will certainly help. They get away with it now, because they have the only wire coming into your house. One third of households have exactly one internet provider. Another third have one fast but expensive choice and one slow but cheaper source. (For some values of "fast, cheap, expensive". It really isn't until you get to three choices [bgr.com] where competition has a chance.
The problem is that cities handed out many exclusive franchises beginning in the 60s when they were in bed with big cable and telcos, and nobody wants to trench through every neighborhood in the country yet again.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:23AM
And while you think the first Amendment allows all speech, (even when you KNOW damn well it does not)
I don't know any such thing. There is a difference between authoritarian judges ignoring the constitution and the first amendment not allowing certain speech.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 16 2015, @05:00AM
From where I sit, there isn't much difference.
The constitution set up the judges, and unless someone is willing to find a way to impeach them, they have control of the constitution.
This is why we have laws against hate speech. Because to get rid of such nonsense, you have to tear down the entire government.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:00PM
The constitution set up the judges, and unless someone is willing to find a way to impeach them, they have control of the constitution.
No, they have some amount of legal power, and the apparent ability to create legal fictions. This doesn't translate into them having the ability to alter reality.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 16 2015, @06:15PM
No, they have some amount of legal power, and the apparent ability to create legal fictions. This doesn't translate into them having the ability to alter reality.
Tell yourself that as you sit in a jail cell convicted of hate speech.
"It isn't reality, and you are able to walk right through those bars, bullets, barbwire, and walls and have a picnic by the babbling brook."
Apparently in your mind, "reality" is a mind game you play with yourself.
The Constitution hasn't been in force for a long time.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday December 16 2015, @06:40PM
The Constitution hasn't been in force for a long time.
That was kind of my point, though I would argue that it was *never* in force. I wasn't arguing that the government doesn't/can't ignore the constitution, just that many of their actions do violate the constitution and their attempts to claim otherwise are false.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday December 16 2015, @12:36AM
You missed my point: IF the govt is your ISP, then they shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
I can't force the govt to lay down a fiber to carry my speech, but if I pay them to as my ISP, they don't have the right to choose which speech I, or the companies sending me data, will make them carry (usual limitations to free speech, per SCOTUS rulings, do apply)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:57AM
No, I think I pretty well understood this to be your point. And I don't think we are all that far apart. You just trust government a bit more than I do.
But I'll be more convinced the day the SCOTUS declares there is no such thing as Hate Speech, and strikes down all the laws forbidding it.
In the mean time, I still worry quite a bit about government deciding what can and can not be said in public ALREADY, let alone what they might decide when they can pull the cable at your house, and have a legislated monopoly over the last mile with which to enforce it. Or when your local city council decides to block all porn or "violent first person shooter games".
I suppose there are routes to that even with a paid content providers, but they are less likely to cut you off and suffer the financial gain than a government that is funding the cable plant with tax money that you can't refuse to pay.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.