Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:49PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Town Loses Gigabit Connections after FCC Municipal Broadband Court Loss 51 comments

TechDirt reports

Wilson, North Carolina's Greenlight [publicly-owned ISP], has had to disconnect one neighboring town or face violating state law. With state leaders tone deaf to the problem of letting incumbent ISPs write such laws, and the FCC flummoxed [by a federal court] in its attempt to help, about 200 home Internet customers in [the town of] Pinetops will thus lose access to gigabit broadband service as of October 28

[...] Greenlight's fiber network provides speeds of 40Mbps to 1Gbps at prices ranging from $40 to $100 a month, service that's unheard of from any of the regional incumbent providers (AT&T, CenturyLink, Time Warner Cable) that lobbied for the protectionist law. Previously, the community of Pinetops only had access to sluggish DSL Service from CenturyLink.

Related:
Muni ISP forced to shut off fiber-to-the-home Internet after court ruling (Ars Technica)

Previous: Appeals Court Rules the FCC Cannot Override State Laws Banning Municipal ISPs


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:56PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:56PM (#386685) Journal

    I bitch a lot about the federal government assuming powers that it rightfully doesn't have. But, in this case, I see "Federal Communications Commission" and I think they have the proper authority to define who can or cannot be an ISP.

    I don't believe that any state has the authority to ban a city from creating it's own ISP.

    The bottom line is, current providers have deep pockets, and they can buy whatever laws they want. And, that is one pretty good definition of corruption.

    The federal government should step in to end corruption, when and where possible. But, the federal government declines to do so. I guess that's because the feds enjoy their own corruption.

    Where would we be if private water supply companies had blocked cities and counties from providing water to it's residents? We'd all be in a position similar to Flint, Michigan. The water might be fit to do laundry, but you wouldn't want to bathe in it. That is, if you had water.

    Still waiting for that "last mile" that our government paid for years ago . . .

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:08PM (#386691)

      I bitch a lot about the federal government assuming powers that it rightfully doesn't have. But, in this case, I see "Federal Communications Commission" and I think they have the proper authority to define who can or cannot be an ISP.

      Where in the constitution does it grant the federal government such a power?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:05PM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:05PM (#386734) Journal

        Oh that's easy. Commerce clause! Next!

        Ok, more seriously, it's right next to the part that allows it to put people in jail for growing unapproved plants or owning unapproved arms; to impose fines for claiming an unapproved substance is a medicine; to dictate educational standards; to impose fines for using unapproved radio frequencies; to promulgate dietary advice; to explore the solar system; to provide farm and other subsidies; to retard the the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for unlimited times to the corporate masters of authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; oh… to raise and support permanent armies and police actions across the globe; to create a bureaucracy that's expending to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy of social safety net programs; to regulate public bathrooms; to define marriage; to require citizens to purchase certain services; to… oh you get the idea.

        Yes, I'm sure there's case law that upholds each and every one of those. And if it ain't the commerce clause, it's the necessary and proper clause.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:31PM

          by mendax (2840) on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:31PM (#386758)

          Oh that's easy. Commerce clause! Next!

          Pretty much if it's something that crosses state (or international) boundaries, the Commerce clause is your man. That gives Congress the power to give the FCC the power to regulate phone service, the radio spectrum, and Internet service. And as I read the statute, which the court no nicely quoted in its decision, a broad reading gives the FCC the power to regulate ISPs in any manner it sees fit.

          And with regard to the long paragraph detailing various powers, features, and occasional abuses of federal power, and what you said afterward

          Yes, I'm sure there's case law that upholds each and every one of those. And if it ain't the commerce clause, it's the necessary and proper clause.

          You better believe it, although I am still unconvinced that any power granted by the federal constitution gives the feds the power to prosecute me for growing pot in my backyard, or for selling it to my friends and neighbors.

          You did miss some abuses of federal power, such as the now dead national speed limit, the Medicaid program, or the statutes that sets guidelines for sex offender registration. The government actually has no power to impose these things on the states. However, it can and does withhold federal money for programs if the states don't comply. In the case or the national speed limit, the extortion involved federal highway funds, money that all states need to keep their roads in good repair.

          --
          It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @04:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @04:30AM (#386898)

          the part that allows it to put people in jail for growing unapproved plants

          Drug prohibition is outright unconstitutional and the government knows it, thats why banning alcohol required a constitutional amendment and why they used roundabout ways like "tax stamps" to subvert the constitution. If nothing else, the very existence of the 18th and 21st amendments makes drug prohibition unconstitutional by precedent. Eventually, after subverting and undermining the constitution for many decades, they just stopped caring and the government officially went rogue.

    • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:54PM

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:54PM (#386729) Homepage Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:19PM (#386747)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:23PM (#386754)

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:33PM (#386759)

            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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:54PM (#386799)

          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

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 12 2016, @01:40AM (#386859) Journal

        "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

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday August 12 2016, @04:27PM (#387076) Homepage Journal

          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

        by captain normal (2205) on Friday August 12 2016, @03:38AM (#386888)

        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]

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by Zz9zZ on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:04PM

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:04PM (#386689)

    I'm all for State's rights and think the Feds should only step in when it is generally a constitutional matter. This usually comes down to the Feds keeping the States from restricting personal freedom of the people. So in this case, why should the states be allowed to restrict a municipality from providing internet access? If a rural town is not being served adequately by a large Telco, why not let them run their own fibre and connect up to a major hub? Oh right, corruption being used to protect a near monopoly.

    On a sidenote, I'd love to see a business whose sole -purpose is to compare two sides of a debate and come up with a clear breakdown of the relevant issues. In this case, what are the stated reasons for banning municipal ISPs? What are the pros and cons of allowing such competition?

    Sadly I can't see how such a business would make money... I think we used to call them "journalists" but now they are "bloggers" and the professional ones don't even have the value of the amateurs since they are more directly forced to create crap that gets clicks.

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:16PM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:16PM (#386699)

      bribes and kickbacks are the ONLY reason.

      no need for a 'study'. its as obvious as the noses on our faces.

      the fact that we are stuck with non-freedom based laws means we have lost the moral high ground and the prinicples the US were made on have all been sold out.

      shit like this makes me hope that there's a revolution. I honestly truly don't see us fixing ourselves the peaceful way. too many things are broken, never to be fixed, and we all suffer for it.

      analogy: would you 'fix' windows ME or windows 98 to make it better or throw it out and start over?

      we are too broken at too many deep levels. physician heal thyself does not work and it won't work here.

      and TLA, go ahead and re-add me to your watch list. I don't give a flying fuck at this point, to be honest. anyone speaking out for freedom ends up on that list, anyway, so I'll be in good company.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:28PM

        by Gravis (4596) on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:28PM (#386711)

        the fact that we are stuck with non-freedom based laws means we have lost the moral high ground and the prinicples the US were made on have all been sold out.

        absolutely.

        shit like this makes me hope that there's a revolution. I honestly truly don't see us fixing ourselves the peaceful way. too many things are broken, never to be fixed, and we all suffer for it.

        we do need a revolution but not violent one, a political revolution that more akin to the hostile takeover of a business than a civil war. while you have fallen into despair, i think people are finally seeing the problems being exposed thanks in part to the technology. a lot of people like you are pissed and they do see a possible way out, so when someone asks you to support an effort to fix this nation, don't turn them away because you think it's unfixable.

        • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:22PM

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:22PM (#386753)

          I'm too old and bitter to believe we can fix ourselves the peaceful way. things have been broken for a long time - some things have been broken nearly 100 years.

          that does not inspire me to think the system can heal itself.

          note well, I do not want a violent revolution, but I feel its necessary since there is no ability to fix the system inside itself once it has gotton to this level of self-servitude.

          those who have will not give it up. they hold tight and distract us more and more. they have a lot to lose, afterall, so they will not give in without a fight. the monied interests rule the world and to expect them to turn over a new leaf - that's bizarre thinking. show me where a system truly fixed itself once its sunk to this levels. does not happen, will not happen, this is why countries revolt. we are no different. the rulers have played us for fools and since they own and control all the wealth, the police, the laws, the supply chains, the transportation and now even the internet, how the fuck do you think the little people like you and me can fix things?

          sorry, but I don't believe that we can fix it. I SO much wish we could. but I'm a realist and I see what state things are in now and how entrenched the whole fucking place is.

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 12 2016, @12:00AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 12 2016, @12:00AM (#386831) Journal

            I'm too old and bitter to believe we can fix ourselves the peaceful way. things have been broken for a long time - some things have been broken nearly 100 years.

            Yet apparently not too old to be infatuated with the fantasy of revolution. My view here is that I don't trust anyone with revolution who can't see how to fix the current situation (presumably you're in the US). They have demonstrated that they are already thorough incompetent and blinkered.

            Further, I think many of the people who currently lust for revolution now are already responsible for a fair portion of the problems of the US, such as a lousy employment market, driving up the cost of various human needs (particularly, housing, education, retirement, and health care), contributed to the current corporatism (when one gives the federal government so much power over our lives and resources to play with, it shouldn't be a surprise when it uses it to benefit the wealthy), and help with their various loyal opponents to lower the standards of public discourse.

            Sure, the US could be better, but we need to remember that things are going pretty well right now. We still have a great deal of freedom and we have peaceful, society-preserving means for making the changes we want. How about we try to make our society better first before we go with revolution?

            • (Score: 2) by fnj on Friday August 12 2016, @12:48AM

              by fnj (1654) on Friday August 12 2016, @12:48AM (#386848)

              infatuated with the fantasy of revolution

              Wake up, chump. Revolutions happen all the time. They are hardly fantasies. Would it be presumptous of me to guess that what you really meant to say was more like "the fantasy that a revolution fixes anything more than very briefly, if at all"?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 12 2016, @02:39PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 12 2016, @02:39PM (#387032) Journal

                Revolutions happen all the time. They are hardly fantasies.

                Fantasy doesn't mean something doesn't happen. I imagine there's a lot of sex fantasies played out every day, for example.

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday August 12 2016, @12:22AM

            by edIII (791) on Friday August 12 2016, @12:22AM (#386842)

            I'm right there with you, for all the same reasons. I don't want violence... but it's the only future we have. One of great bloodshed, everywhere.

            For no other reason than people can no longer survive off a day's work. We both know the simple reasons why the bloodshed will occur; Food, shelter, entertainment.

            It was 10 fucking dollars for string cheese last night; Fuck that noise. A modest amount of fruit, that you may have found a restaurant plate 10 years ago, is now $8.99. More than the entire meal about 10 years ago. Rents in my area are up 40% in the last few years, while wages have stagnated. Disposable income has all but disappeared with people choosing between power bills, rent, OR food. The days of being able to assume you could pay all of your bills has long since past for too much of the middle class of America, and those worse off, are more materially deprived than ever. Forget about entertainment and vacations. Stay at home and leech whatever entertainment you can, for free, off the Internet. Going out for fun would require a second job and 8 more hours added to the day.

            The lies sold by the prick Obama and DipshitCare, have only resulted in the contraction of businesses, practices, and donated healthcare they USED to provide. Everyone drank the koolaid that DipshitCare must have fixed everything, but it never did. The people that were going without, are still going without, and this time with far less resources in their communities to help them. Homeless populations are growing faster than job markets. Those that depended on "handouts" from the state certainly never saw the money increase, while they've experienced drastic inflation from their perspective. Many people on disability receive less than half of a full time minimum wage job, and as a result live homeless using the money for the barest of essentials.

            People that were depending on the government to actually help them, and the people who voted for the programs to help them, have been betrayed. That money was siphoned off by corruption, excuse me, managed health care, and those people are not going to get better and back on their feet while being homeless. Yet this is our world; Our great fears expressed everyday - TO BE FORGOTTEN BY SOCIETY AND PRESSED INTO A FUTILE ATTEMPT TO GET BETTER WHILE BEING REVILED AS A LAZY WORTHLESS PERSON.

            To say that Panem Et Circenses is broken, is an understatement. Combine that with:
            - brain drain and the generally poor state of education, of which is unavoidable due to the.....
            - lack of protein in 1/5 children's brains
            - Ever increasing income inequality with 63 people holding over %90 of the wealth

            Anybody with a brain can see that is a recipe for bloody, bloody, b l o o d y, revolution. Anybody with a brain can see that politics has been wholly hijacked, and indeed, both political parties show clears signs of corruption during election times, and pretty much any ol' time. Corporations rule through "transparent & impartial" orgs like ALEC that helpfully supply our politicians with laws to be passed.

            Everything is broken, corrupt, and sliding into a literal fetid misery of pain and despair (homeless people have to go to bathroom somewhere... so in public).

            All of this creates the tinder everywhere on the forest floor so to speak. All it takes is one good man to break, start himself on fire, and establish the American Spring. Revolution here we come. Neither of us are treasonous, neither of us seek violence. Yet the future is one of violence dictated by our intellects and differing experiences. We should start selling t-shirts. At least then we can afford some beer to watch the world burn around us.

            "The world is burning!
            .....
            But I got beer and TV, no worries"

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday August 14 2016, @12:20PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday August 14 2016, @12:20PM (#387828) Homepage
            > nearly 100 years

            Over 100 years - December 23, 1913
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday August 11 2016, @08:52PM

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Thursday August 11 2016, @08:52PM (#386781)

          news just posted today:

          http://www.wusa9.com/news/dea-regularly-mines-americans-travel-records-to-seize-millions-in-cash/294994619 [wusa9.com]

          read that and tell me with a straight face that you think the system can fix itself.

          we have 'asset forfeiture' that is LITERALLY highway robbery. we have cops killing people left and right because of ... reasons!

          and this gem was recent, too:

          http://www.wftv.com/news/florida-officer-who-killed-librarian-resigned-from-another-agency/421332241 [wftv.com]

          cops do whatever the fuck they want with 'paid vacations' as rewards.

          tell me - you seriously think the system can fix itself with shit like this happening on a weekly basis?

          I have given up hope.

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @04:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @04:48AM (#386900)

          a lot of people like you are pissed and they do see a possible way out

          With nearly half the country begging for fascism and supporting a presidential candidate who's campaigning on overthrowing our constitutional form of government by subverting, undermining, and ignoring the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th amendments, I'm not sure there is an out.

          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Friday August 12 2016, @08:23AM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Friday August 12 2016, @08:23AM (#386938)

            Yeaaah, it does scare me a bit, Hitler didn't come to power as some monster but as a symbol of hope to many people. Then they realized what they brought to life... Trump shows every sign of being the same thing for the US, but I really think he's just a distraction to get Hillary in office. If he wins I think he'll just be a funny puppet show, looking at his personal history it becomes pretty clear, he's a bit too old to change tactics now. He's just another puppet in the theater. Some of the shit he says is like he's begging for people to see him as a fucking lunatic, BEGGING! Its just insane that people support him even more because of it. So either he's a clever plant, or he truly read the spirit of many americans and is riding the wave to glory....

            My anecdotal supporting evidence is the media. They played up everything he said, pushed every Trumpism as hard as possible, and now that he solidified his hold over the GOP they have done a 180 and tear him down all over. who can tell what crazy games the media plays, everything they do is batshit crazy.

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
      • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:42PM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:42PM (#386722)

        The bread and circuses works really well because there is a certain tipping point the people must reach on average before they are willing to fully invest themselves in protest. Ghandi and MLK really had the best methods, but in both cases things had gotten so bad that they had a major following. The problems in our society are so dispersed at the moment that you can't bring people together for one cause. The "Occupy" movement was the closest we've come in a while, and we all saw how that was marginalized and discounted. Too many people thought it was about lazy freeloaders, but 5 years later I think more are waking up to the reality of what Occupy was about.

        Now we have BLM which is being similarly discounted. Sure there are lots of examples of how BLM screwed up in a variety of manners, but what movement doesn't have that happen?

        I wish the powers that be would see this as a real indicator that things ARE that messed up and we need solutions NOW. When BLM started every police force should have immediately taken steps to address the grievances, but few to none did. The result was multiple shootings of police officers. Our culture has promoted violence in so many ways, and restricted the ability for people to address their grievances, so this is the result.

        For everyone on here, you may be pissed and want a revolution, but a violent path is not the way forward. That will only give the government justification to imprison masses of people and send us into a truly dystopian nightmare. Right now we are in the idyllic dystopia, where the thin veneer of freedom still exists and certain lines can not be crossed. If a segment of the general populace turns to violence then you can forget gaining enough majority support, and expect the military to step in with soldiers that think it is justified. Then the whole US will really understand what fascism is all about.

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:50PM (#386726)

          The truly sad part is you are too oblivious to reckon a portion of that revolutionary spirit is directed at your ilk.

          Comparing a lack of municipal ISPs to Occupy and Ghandi?

          Oh please.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:22PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:22PM (#386751)

            Banning municipal ISPs is one out of countless examples of widespread corruption. But it looks like you chose to be disingenuous.

            • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:34PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:34PM (#386760)

              I'm sorry, I wasn't aware they suspended elections in North Carolina and Tennessee, and that the only possible remedy to this is an appeal to the FCC to then regulate ISPs in ALL states because apparently it is too much bother to petition their local representatives.

              Which they even can, but... gasp! ...it will require, you know, due process of law.

              Maybe they should send in the national guard to bring cost effective internet service to those poor huddled masses too.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:38PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:38PM (#386761)

                I'm sorry, I wasn't aware they suspended elections in North Carolina and Tennessee, and that the only possible remedy to this is an appeal to the FCC to then regulate ISPs in ALL states because apparently it is too much bother to petition their local representatives.

                Yet again, you're being disingenuous. First you pretend that the matter is solely about the banning of municipal ISPs and not the widespread corruption that this points to, and then you change the topic to how North Carolina and Tennessee still have elections, which is completely irrelevant and doesn't prove that there isn't widespread corruption. I, at least, didn't say anything about the FCC being the only solution.

                • (Score: 2) by fnj on Friday August 12 2016, @12:54AM

                  by fnj (1654) on Friday August 12 2016, @12:54AM (#386852)

                  disingenuous

                  "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

              • (Score: 2) by fnj on Friday August 12 2016, @12:56AM

                by fnj (1654) on Friday August 12 2016, @12:56AM (#386853)

                I'm sorry, I wasn't aware they suspended elections in North Carolina and Tennessee

                Suspending elections is not the only way to subvert the electoral process.

        • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:26PM

          by TheGratefulNet (659) on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:26PM (#386757)

          clearly, it will get very very bad if we have a violent revolution.

          but I see no sign that a peaceful one that works 'inside the system' can ever work.

          I just don't see it. sorry. the system is too self-serving to fix itself any other way.

          yes, a revolution will suck and we will be far worse off for a long time. but like a forest fire, the forest regrows after such a disaster.

          it could grow into a mad-max world, its true. its a chance that we may have to take. there's the chance we can fix ourselves once we endure a huge tragedy.

          --
          "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
          • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:42PM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:42PM (#386765)

            Its not a chance we have to take, at that point it is something that will be forced upon us. The "powers that be" think they are so superior to the peons, but they can't get it through their thick skulls that the good of all spreads to themselves. Their greed has blinded "the system" and will result in the crash, where if they were truly smart then these problems would be addressed and the entire nation would prosper. Idiots, morons, troglodytes in top hats.

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:47PM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:47PM (#386769) Journal

            In a small town pushing for a muni-ISP, TheGratefulNet rouses the rabble:

            yes, a revolution will suck and we will be far worse off for a long time

            "They can take our Internets, but they canna' take, our FREEDOM!!!!"

            "Um, hey, Grate, the Pokemon are gone!"

            "What do you mean, the Pokemon are gone? How many?"

            "All of them, Grate! I was in the middle of Pokemon Go!, and suddenly they all just disappeared. It was like they were never really there at all!"

            "Ok, that's it! Give the FCC whatever they want. Give Comcast whatever they want! Give Verizon . . . "

            Sometimes capitulation can go too far. Way too far.

        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday August 12 2016, @08:57PM

          by edIII (791) on Friday August 12 2016, @08:57PM (#387168)

          The bread and circuses works really well because there is a certain tipping point the people must reach on average before they are willing to fully invest themselves in protest.

          That's coming very quickly. Bread and circuses is actually dying, along with our economy. What happens when the entire fast food industry moves towards automation? Those slave wagers, already taking state benefits, will swell the numbers of homeless people. There's a point I'm making with that, because a man in our neighborhood has fucking lost it over homeless people. Right next to his property he has major issues keeping homeless people from attempting to bivouac in the open property behind him. He's rented back hoes, invested thousands in strong metal fencing, and has engaged in a futile attempt to place obstacles to the homeless around him.

          He's not happy. There are no bread and circuses at this guy's joint, that is quickly turning into a barbed wire, closed circuit surveillance, no trespassing, ill-fucking-shoot-you-if-step-on-my-lawn happy town.

          The stresses and pressures are quickly overtaking people's ability for peaceful enjoyment, whether or not they still have the means to do so. I must stress, I'm in a very nice area of the country situated next to Silicon Valley. You would think we wouldn't suffer from this, but it's very clear that the service worker demographic in Northern California is tanking, and nobody gives a fuck.

          That will only give the government justification to imprison masses of people and send us into a truly dystopian nightmare.

          No. A revolution will result in the 99% killing of much of the 1%, specifically that part that doesn't escape to another country. What sides are there going to be in the revolution again? White conservative nationalists against liberal minorities? I'm sure that fits some narrative for a race war, but the truth is the most hated and visible opponents are law enforcement and the 1%.

          We've already seen the beginnings of it. Angry black men with military training becoming so convinced the only path to safety is killing the enemy. In this case, the enemy is law enforcement killing innocent unarmed, and predominately, black males. That's super hard to argue with, because that is exactly what the media portrays constantly. On both sides of the Republican and Democratic parties you have hordes of angry pissed off people convinced that the 1% are the problem, and that their party brings the solutions against them.

          The numbers [prisonpolicy.org] are staggering. 2.3 million people locked up, at costs [vera.org] that are quite sobering.

          Among the 40 states surveyed, representing more than 1.2 million inmates
          (of 1.4 million total people incarcerated in all 50 state prison systems), the total
          per-inmate cost averaged $31,286 and ranged from $14,603 in Kentucky to $60,076
          in New York (see Figure 4).
          9
          The methodology provides an “apples to apples”
          comparison of state prison costs because it standardizes the measure and counts
          the comprehensive costs to taxpayers in every state.

          At the averaged cost, that is ~$71 billion dollars per year. The actual number of all 50 states is higher, and those numbers are 2012 numbers. For each and every single one of those 2.3 million people, they contributed nothing to GDP and the tax base, and in fact, only contribute to private prison profits. Those profits come back in the form of taxes? Depends on what corporate inversions are occurring, and just how low the adjusted tax rate actually is. In any case, slave labor isn't subject to OSHA or the Federal Minimum wage laws.

          Were the fucking 99% dude. Let's see them scale up the prisons that fast, let's see them deal with the collapse of the economy, and let's see them continue to make the rest of the middle-heading-to-poor class pay to house all of their friends and relatives fighting the good fight. Putting everyone in prison only works when you can afford it, and who is going to pay up that much money?

          You know what a prisoner is afraid of when escaping prison? Going back to prison put simply enough, and that is fear based on the rest of the people outside of prison. So what happens when you have a prison of 10,000 Americans held of political activism (excuse me, revolution) and they realize that they fantastically outnumber the guards, and not everyone outside of prison agrees that a new prison should be built to house them at all. That's because those 10,000 people can actually tear the prison down and render it unusable in a matter of hours without the national guard moving in to pacify them lickety-split. How many former national guard members and trained ex-paramilitary might be in there too?

          No, dude. You can't imprison a revolution. Not at this scale.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:24PM (#386706)

      The FCC could argue the case under the commerce clause, however congress would have to grant the FCC that specific power.

      While sympathetic to the arguments, I note that this is more or less a case of the cudgel of government is fine and good for things i support, and a gross injustice for things I don't.

      There are numerous approaches to this that don't involve the FCC, and even if it does, there is a clear path to give them that authority.

      I DO NOT want the FCC regulating more than they absolutely have to.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:25PM (#386756)

        The FCC could argue the case under the commerce clause, however congress would have to grant the FCC that specific power.

        Congress can only give the FCC such a power if the constitution grants the federal government such a power. It's unclear to me how the commerce clause would apply here.

        While sympathetic to the arguments, I note that this is more or less a case of the cudgel of government is fine and good for things i support, and a gross injustice for things I don't.

        "If I like a policy, it's constitutional. If I don't like a policy, it's unconstitutional." is a sadly common mindset.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:44PM (#386767)

          Wire crosses state lines. This is one of the few unambiguous applications of the commerce clause, but the power of regulation is specific to congress alone. If congress wishes to grant the FCC more authority, so be it, but it is going to require new law, which the congress has been hesitant about.

          Yes, I'm a bit irked that people will beat their breast about localities making contracts with ISPs, but something fundamental like being able to buy health insurance across state lines, well there's always Obamacare.

          Fuck me.

  • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:18PM

    by Gravis (4596) on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:18PM (#386702)

    even if the FCC can't override state laws, the federal government can always (threaten to) withhold federal funding from states that don't comply with FCC regulations.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:33PM (#386714)

      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

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:38PM (#386719) Homepage Journal

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:41PM (#386721)

          Double nickle. Title 9. NCLB.

          Oh and fuck off.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 12 2016, @06:07PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 12 2016, @06:07PM (#387107) Journal

          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: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:22PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:22PM (#386704) Homepage Journal

    Appeals court judge determines that cartel-like, monopolistic broadband providers are well within their rights to buy state law at the expense of the general public.

    I'm all for State's rights and think the Feds should only step in when it is generally a constitutional matter. This usually comes down to the Feds keeping the States from restricting personal freedom of the people. So in this case, why should the states be allowed to restrict a municipality from providing internet access? If a rural town is not being served adequately by a large Telco, why not let them run their own fibre and connect up to a major hub? Oh right, corruption being used to protect a near monopoly.

    To those who might disagree with Zz9zZ [soylentnews.org] I'd point out that municipalities are groups of "the people." Laws restricting the ability of "the people" to exercise their liberty (in this case, use their property as they see fit) is a slap in the face to decent, hard working Americans who want to decide for themselves.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:51PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday August 11 2016, @09:51PM (#386797) Journal

    especially since the amateur lawyer in me believes the court decision was in error.

    Mendax! If you have an amateur lawyer in you, you really should look into getting it removed. These are very dangerous parasites, and can take over your entire being, and soul, if you do not act early and decisively.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @12:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @12:16AM (#386840)

      ... and god help you if it turns professional.