SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the about-headlines:-don't-use-no-double-negatives dept.
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: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:54PM
Well, the FCC operates under the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution so I agree, the court got it wrong. But then, it's an appeals court, not SCOTUS. This sounds like when SCOTUS defined the word "limited" to mean whatever Congress says it means.
As to whether a state can ban a city from municipal ISP, that would depend on that state's own constitution.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:19PM
Well, the FCC operates under the "interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution
What doesn't operate under the "interstate commerce" clause? According to our insane courts, the federal government can arrest someone selling drugs entirely in a single state because it might conceivably affect interstate commerce. In reality, the commerce clause was only meant to apply to cases where something is actually interstate and commerce; it can't be just one or neither.
The interstate commerce clause is just a way for judges to justify giving the federal government powers the constitution simply does not grant it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:23PM
And yet when the judiciary does exercise some restraint with the application, it's all corruption and dystopia.
Make up your fucking minds.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:33PM
Different people have different opinions. What a shocker. You can't use a faceless horde of people to pretend as if individuals are contradicting themselves.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:54PM
I use my ISP to connect to websites outside my state to buy things.
My ISP sells internet connectivity in multiple states.
How the hell is this not covered by the interstate commerce law?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday August 12 2016, @01:40AM
"As to whether a state can ban a city from municipal ISP, that would depend on that state's own constitution."
Except, I'm not aware of any cases in which a community run ISP was beaten down based on some vague constitutional issue. Each and every case of which I'm aware is based on the vague idea that the community run ISP would compete, that is, threaten the profits of, some corporation. In fact, most of those community run ISP's are LESS cutthroat than the corporate counterpart. The city's ISP is more than happy to finance fiber into the city, then lease service to smaller players, which then act as ISP's for smaller areas of the county/city/town.
The only cases in which corporations should have any standing to even challenge the city, is when those corporations are actually serving customers that the municipal authority hopes to serve. If there is no fiber in my area, and the county is considering running fiber, then no corporation has standing to even consider filing a suit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Friday August 12 2016, @04:27PM
I agree with you. I think ALL services like water, sewer, gas, electric, should be run by the city or county. Here in Springfield the city owns the electric company, and we have the best uptime and lowest rates in Illinois. Electric rates go up or dependability or customer service goes down, the Mayor loses his job.
If we were stuck with Amerin we would have no say, only Amerin's stockholders and state government do.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Friday August 12 2016, @03:38AM
In recent years the 6th Circuit has been overturned by SCOTUS more than any other district. "Decisions issued by the Sixth Circuit were reversed by the United States Supreme Court 24 out of the 25 times they were reviewed in the five annual terms starting in October 2008 and ending in June 2013 — a higher frequency than any other federal appellate court during that time period." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit [wikipedia.org]
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--