FCC Republican wants to let states block municipal broadband

[Newsjock]

Source: Ars Technica

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler is going to have a fight on his hands if he tries to preempt state laws that limit the growth of municipal broadband networks.

Matthew Berry, chief of staff to Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai, argued today that the FCC has no authority to invalidate state laws governing local broadband networks. In a speech in front of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Berry endorsed states' rights when it comes to either banning municipal broadband networks or preventing their growth. He also argued that the current commission, with its Democratic majority, should not do something that future Republican-led commissions might disagree with.

... Arguing that municipal broadband networks could discourage investment by private companies, Berry said, "It’s not hard, then, to imagine a future FCC concluding that taxpayer-funded, municipal broadband projects themselves are barriers to infrastructure investment. So if the current FCC were successful in preempting state and local laws under Section 706, what would stop a future FCC from using Section 706 to forbid states and localities from constructing any future broadband projects? Nothing that I can see."

Twenty states place at least some limits on the ability of cities and towns to offer Internet service to residents through laws passed as favors to cable companies and other ISPs. Wheeler argues that because Section 706 gives the FCC authority to promote competition in local telecommunications markets by removing barriers to investment, the commission can preempt laws that prevent cities and towns from creating their own broadband networks that compete against private companies. The Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and the city of Wilson, North Carolina, which both say local laws prevent them from expanding Internet service to surrounding areas, have filed petitions asking the commission to do just that.

Read more: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/fcc-republican-wants-to-let-states-block-municipal-broadband/

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. Oh, fuck you.

Every town should offer some wifi or broadband as part of its duty to the community.
These fucking GOPers really hate the rest of us, don't they?

[dembotoz]

2. screwed again

[tanyev]

3. Does he also believe that Republican majority commissions should not do something

that future Democratic-led commissions might disagree with?

Yeah, thought not.

[quadrature]

4. cities are agencies of their state ...

and can be (a city) zapped out of
existence with the stroke of a pen.

city-state relations are none of FCC's business

[seabeckind]

8. And states are a part of???

The United States.

Article IV, Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

It is entirely the FCC's business and if the FCC and the rest of our gov't hadn't been coopted by business interests we would have a solid, fast, cheap broadband internet utility backbone.

Instead we have tin-horn state gov'ts denying rights and privileges to citizens within their states.

I remember my history, wasn't there a war that was fought to enforce this part?

[quadrature]

9. see post #4

a state can snap its fingers
and a city disappears

[seabeckind]

11. Does that work for the citizens also?

Whether the city exists or not is irrelevant when talking about the rights of citizens of the United States.

[groundloop]

12. This isn't about city/state relations, it's telecommunications (which IS the FCC's business)

It's been ruled time and time again that the FCC's responsibility is to regulate telecommunications because if that were left up to the whims of state or local governments there would be an unworkable patchwork of incompatible rules throughout the country.

[freshwest]

14. That's the GOP goal, to force citizens to live under the local bosses and not know any better.

It's agonizing listening to their idiotic arguments for doing such a thing. They want feudalism and will say anything they can to get it. They really want to be able to control everything about the lives of the people they can.

[A Little Weird]

5. Why does this not surprise me?

[BrotherIvan]

6. Who does the FCC represent?

Oh wait...

[blackspade]

7. This Berry guy is an idiot.

His whole line of reasoning makes no sense.

Local broadband is generally better and cheaper which is why the telecoms push legislation to limit it.
And his argument that the Democratic FCC shouldn't pass regs that the rethuglicans might undo is ridiculous.

[groundloop]

10. What's forgotten is that municipal broadband creates more jobs than cable companies

That asshole is pandering to a select few cable companies. I work in an industry that supplies materials for the telecom industry and can say for certain that municipal broadband projects create jobs. Comcast, Time Warner, etc. , if allowed to have their monopolies (by buying local politicians) will do as little as possible to upgrade their infrastructure. When municipalities roll out broadband service they purchase goods and services from a broad array of companies that supply cable, supply hardware, supply software, install cable, install hardware, service the equipment, etc. Once again GOPers are showing who they work for.

[Laelth]

15. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[mntleo2]

13. Telecommunications Act Says Different

But the truth is We The People have paid for and own these airwaves, we only allow corporations access by in essence leasing them. Since the poor pays the highest rate of taxes in every single state they have paid for it too. Therefore because our government is well aware of who is paying for it, there is one bright light about the Telecommunications Act that SHOULD allow everybody this access, but is often ignored. Section 254 Article 3 of this act says, and I quote:

all regions of the Nation.
(3) ACCESS IN RURAL AND HIGH COST AREAS- Consumers in all
regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those
in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to
telecommunications and information services, including
interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and
information services, that are reasonably comparable to those
services provided in urban areas and that are available at
rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for
similar services in urban areas.
`(4) EQUITABLE AND NONDISCRIMINATORY CONTRIBUTIONS- All
providers of telecommunications services should make an
equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to the
preservation and advancement of universal service.
`(5) SPECIFIC AND PREDICTABLE SUPPORT MECHANISMS- There
should be specific, predictable and sufficient Federal and
State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service.

Cat in Seattle (former IT and avid and long time supporter of The Electronic Frontier Foundations)