The Register has a story about a court ruling that possibly puts one nail in the coffin of the attempt by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) to prevent states from banning municipal ISPs.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday [PDF] that the American regulator lacks the authority to overrule state laws that prevent cities from operating their own ISPs.
Last year, the watchdog declared it was unfair of North Carolina and Tennessee to block community-run broadband. Now an appeals court has said the FCC overstepped the mark by trying to undo that block with a preemptive order. In other words, in this case, the US states can't be pushed around and overruled by the communications regulator as it lacks the clear authority to do so.
"This preemption by the FCC of the allocation of power between a state and its subdivisions requires at least a clear statement in the authorizing federal legislation," the judges noted.
"The FCC relies upon S706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the authority to preempt in this case, but that statute falls far short of such a clear statement. The preemption order must accordingly be reversed."
We obviously have not seen the last of this, especially since the amateur lawyer in me believes the court decision was in error.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:33PM
Sounds like a cheap workaround of the constitution, and that same workaround has been used to force all kinds of draconian policies on states.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:38PM
Sounds like a cheap workaround of the constitution, and that same workaround has been used to force all kinds of draconian policies on states.
Please, name three of those "draconian policies." Just three, as I don't want to tax your limited resources too much.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:41PM
Double nickle. Title 9. NCLB.
Oh and fuck off.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:19PM
And that's what you consider draconian [dictionary.com]? I'd hate to be the guy who puts too much milk in your coffee.
You are so very sweet. Thank you!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 12 2016, @06:07PM
The legislation took a “carrot and stick” approach. For the “stick,” it required withholding a portion of federal highway funds from states that by 1987 had not enacted laws prohibiting the purchase or possession of alcohol by persons under the age of 21. The “carrot” provided financial incentives for states to institute mandatory minimum sentences for drunken drivers.
Highway Funds Requirements [cqpress.com]
That's pretty much the definition of draconian...
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday August 12 2016, @07:23PM
Really?
Raising the drinking age was "rigorous; unusually severe or cruel?"
Love that registration required link too. Thanks!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr