Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956__
FCC sued by dozens of cities after voting to kill local fees and rules
The Federal Communications Commission faces a legal battle against dozens of cities from across the United States, which sued the FCC to stop an order that preempts local fees and regulation of cable-broadband networks.
The cities filed lawsuits in response to the FCC's August 1 vote that limits the fees municipalities can charge cable companies and prohibits cities and towns from regulating broadband services offered over cable networks.
"At least 46 cities are asking federal appeals courts to undo an FCC order they argue will force them to raise taxes or cut spending on local media services, including channels that schools, governments, and the general public can use for programming," Bloomberg Law wrote Tuesday.
Various lawsuits were filed against the FCC between August and the end of October, and Bloomberg's report said that most of the suits are being consolidated into a single case in the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. An FCC motion to transfer the case to the 6th Circuit, which has decided previous cases on the same topic, is pending.
The 9th Circuit case was initially filed by Eugene, Oregon, which said the FCC order was arbitrary and capricious and that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Constitution, and the Communications Act. The cities' arguments and the FCC's defense will be fleshed out more in future briefs.
Big cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Francisco, Denver, and Boston are among those suing the FCC. Also suing are other municipalities from Maine, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington, according to a Bloomberg graphic. The state of Hawaii is also suing the FCC, and New York City is supporting the lawsuit against the FCC as an intervening party.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @03:17PM
Niggers need more bling for they Obamaphones.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @03:44PM (14 children)
Isn't it great that we pay taxes so the FCC can do this?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @03:54PM (7 children)
This is Government vs government. Fight! fight! fight!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @04:10PM (6 children)
Local government is easier for normal people to wrangle with or flee, I hope they win.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @04:24PM (5 children)
By nature of being subject to wider scrutiny, federal government is less petty, capricious, arbitrary, and vindictive. I hope local government loses.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @04:38PM (4 children)
Obviously you have no experience with the federal government or have even ever watched congress in action.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @04:50PM (3 children)
You clearly do not own any property anywhere, you have never suffered the whims of a small town council, and you have never even read a neighborhood newspaper.
Selling your home and leaving town is not a viable option every single time local government does something that affects you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @06:38PM (2 children)
You chose to live in a socialist community, what exactly stopped you from moving a few miles away?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @06:56PM (1 child)
When you stop being a jobless bum, when you have a family and obligations, moving is more difficult than tying up your bindle and hailing an Uber to your next shantytown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:07PM
Plenty of people with jobs and family move all the time. That isn't a legitimate reason. Eg, I've met so many people fleeing the impending Illinois shitshow. That is a far bigger move than just going to the next town over.
(Score: 1, Troll) by captain normal on Saturday November 16 2019, @05:59PM (5 children)
Russian trolls are busy today.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @06:11PM (4 children)
Da, Comrade. I troll post for Marxist-Leninist way of life.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @06:34PM (3 children)
Deep state clones are typing away with their little clone fingers today.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @06:51PM (2 children)
Execute Order 66.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:09PM (1 child)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_66 [wikisource.org]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 16 2019, @08:37PM
Pauperism is the new normal in the 21st century thanks to big tech. Grover Cleveland couldn't save us from Google and Amazon.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by exaeta on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:12PM (2 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday November 17 2019, @03:06AM
In TFA there is this quote: "the Order prohibits excessive franchise fees and explains that local governments may not regulate most non-cable services, including broadband Internet access service, offered over a cable system."
It doesn't say local governments can't decide who can offer cable in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17 2019, @06:47PM
That is kindof an interesting view.
Without financial incentive, the state governments will have no incentive (other than bribery, in all of its various lawful and unlawful forms) to continue with exclusive right-of way-contracts. In fact, the Fed would be invalidated hundreds of contracts between the states and the telcos in one move. Of course the carriers would sue, but really the states exclusive right-of-way agreements are a violation of the 1st amendment anyway. But state judges are cheaper to buy than federal ones I would imagine.
The better solution is to say that the will documented interference with interpersonal communication by the carriers, makes the states endorsement of exclusive right-of-way agreements direct interference with the 1st amendment. Which it is, and it should really be trivial to prove at this day and age.
On one hand, it may free up some local telecom markets. On the other hand, they are essentially federalizing all of the carriers into one institution. Not that it really matters, since they are all agents of the state at this point anyway.