dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-08-20 08:11:47: With several cities directly and clearly asking the FCC to act on protectionist bills prohibiting them from improving their own broadband infrastructure, it's put up or shut up time for FCC boss Tom Wheeler, who has promised action on the subject sev.. ..


sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

How surprising

I totally would have expected to see a republican supporting this position. /s

bop75

join:2013-11-08
Rochester, NY

Done deal

Wheeler, a democrat. Will put up.

ITGeeks

join:2014-04-20
Cleveland, OH

Authority??

Since when does the FCC have authority over the Internet and who can and can not build. This is up to the states and the courts to fight over. Not the FCC. The only thing that is going to do is end them up in court and the tax payer money going to bail them out when they lose.


fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
said by ITGeeks:

Since when does the FCC have authority over the Internet and who can and can not build. This is up to the states and the courts to fight over. Not the FCC. The only thing that is going to do is end them up in court and the tax payer money going to bail them out when they lose.

Arguably, Section 706 gives the FCC the authority to preempt state anti-muni laws:
quote:
If the Commission’s determination is negative, it shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.
At least, I think that is how the FCC is reading Section 706. I don't agree with them, but you're right, ultimately a court will have to sort this all out.


batman

@66.249.83.x
reply to sonicmerlin

Re: How surprising

said by sonicmerlin:

I totally would have expected to see a republican supporting this position. /s

Sorry. Republicans don't suuport Federal preemption of states rights.


batman

@66.249.83.x
said by batman :

said by sonicmerlin:

I totally would have expected to see a republican supporting this position. /s

Sorry. Republicans don't suuport Federal preemption of states rights.

Support

asdfdfdfdfdf
Premium
join:2012-05-09
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon Wireless..

2 recommendations

And we get to hear the endless deceit from pro-corporate ideologues about...

how this is a states rights issue.
It is people at the state and local level and municipalities that are asking for relief from the suffocating control that communications companies have over state legislatures. Don't try to feed us this garbage about how much you believe in local control and local rights. The federal government is not forcing any of these localities to provide municipal broadband. The localities are trying to move forward and being stymied at every turn by corporate lobbying money.

Have the decency to be honest about what you are. You are apologists for corporate power. You are not defenders of states rights, or limited government, or individual liberty or any of the other rhetoric you try to hide behind.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

reply to fg8578

Re: Authority??

State lobbying created a barrier. This section clearly says they have the authority to take immediate action if it is determined by them to be negative.

Not sure what part you don't agree with there but it appears pretty straight forward when not looking through "industry colored glasses".

sad guy

join:2013-03-11

1 recommendation

reply to asdfdfdfdfdf

Re: And we get to hear the endless deceit from pro-corporate ideologues about...

Overturning anti munibroadband laws would be a win for citizens not sure why that's so hard for people to understand?


jslik
That just happened
Premium
join:2006-03-17
reply to batman

Re: How surprising

said by batman :

Sorry. Republicans don't suuport Federal preemption of states rights.

I wish someone would have told the Powell and Martin-led FCC that.
--
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them?

shmerl

join:2013-10-21
reply to sonicmerlin
Not corrupted republican may be. But you shouldn't expect it from those who receive money from ISPs to write those very crooked laws.


fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
reply to Skippy25

Re: Authority??

said by Skippy25:

Not sure what part you don't agree with there but it appears pretty straight forward when not looking through "industry colored glasses".

What "industry colored glasses" are you referring to? NCSL threatened a lawsuit on Constitutional grounds if the FCC goes ahead with this; are they also seeing this issue through "industry colored glasses"?

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

If we are speaking of the government and corporations there is legalized bribery involved somewhere so my answer to that will be yes.


bigO

@98.67.154.x
there's actually a precedent on this. it involves the city of Barbourville, KY & Union College Vs At&t (or was it bell south back in the mid 90's). anyway iirc current poles are owned by those that set them and FCC has regulation to prevent others access. so the city and college set it's own poles along the other side of US-25E from the fiber backbone along US I-75.


fg8578

join:2009-04-26
Salem, OR
reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

If we are speaking of the government and corporations there is legalized bribery involved somewhere so my answer to that will be yes.

Matthew Berry, the chief of staff to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who is also a former FCC general counsel told the National Conference of State Legislatures today at their legislative summit that the Commission does not have "the legal authority to preempt state laws regulating municipal broadband."

His linked remarks discuss Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League and explains in detail why he thinks the language of Section 706 does not support pre-emption, in light of the Nixon decision.