dslreports logo
 story category
FCC Votes 3-2 To Take Aim At State Municipal Broadband Bans

For about as long this site has existed, we've documented the efforts of local towns and cities to build their own broadband networks -- efforts usually only undertaken because these towns and cities lack access to meaningful broadband competition. Unfortunately, for just as long we've discussed the dirty tricks incumbent ISP lobbyists have used to derail these efforts, and the more than 20 state laws passed (usually based on ISP/ALEC draft legislation) to eliminate the local communities' right to make these decisions for themselves.

Click for full size
After ignoring the issue almost entirely for more than decade, the FCC voted today to begin taking aim at these protectionist state laws. The FCC voted 3-2 to use their Congressional mandate to ensure "reasonable and timely" broadband deployment to specifically take aim at state laws in North Carolina and Tennessee.

Municipal broadband deployments in Chattanooga, Tennesee and Wilson, North Carolina (EPB Broadband and Greenlight, respectively) petitioned the FCC back in July to take action against these laws, arguing they were hindering their ability to expand -- solely to the benefit of national incumbents. The FCC has said they'll use Section 706 of the Communications Act to declare portions of those laws invalid, potentially opening the door to similar battles in additional states.

ISPs have donated heavily to politicians to pretend they're outraged that the FCC would abuse state sovereignty in such a fashion. Such opposition has been hard to take seriously, given these same individuals tend to see no problem with AT&T and Comcast writing state laws that erode citizen rights. ISP groups had threatened to sue the FCC if the agency proceeded with their plan.

While often framed as a partisan issue to encourage divisiveness, community broadband actually has strong bi-partisan support, and most of the most successful municipal broadband deployments have occurred in highly Conservative portions of the country. That's because improving broadband and retaining the right for a community to choose the best path forward for itself tend to be things most Americans support.

"There are a few irrefutable truths about broadband," FCC boss Tom Wheeler said following the agency's vote. "One is you can’t say you’re for broadband, and then turn around and endorse limits."

You can find the full FCC announcement here.
view:
topics flat nest 

tito79
join:2010-03-14
Port Saint Lucie, FL

tito79

Member

2 states?

Only 2 states?

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

Re: 2 states?

They were the first 2 to apply.

rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay

rebus9 to tito79

Member

to tito79
said by tito79:

Only 2 states?

Give it time. Let the state laws be challenged and overturned in TN and NC. Then you have precedent which can be cited in cases elsewhere.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to tito79

Member

to tito79
The FCC has limited power. They can't make broad rules that trump all states. But they can setup a system that allows the communities to petition them so they can address it individually.

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: 2 states?

The FCC has no legal power to over turn laws.

w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR

w0g

Member

Re: 2 states?

they have the authority granted to them to say, the FCC regulates this, not the states.

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: 2 states?

No they do not. They are not a legal agency that can over throw a states law. When will people on here figure out the FCC is useless and the cause of the mass spending this country does when they're hauled into court.

Until the court tells the FCC or Congress gives them legal powers to over throw a state then they have no powers. They makes rules, NOT laws.
dot854jc
join:2004-06-28
Cleveland, TN

dot854jc

Member

Re: 2 states?

Can you read? If you can you may find it interesting that a federal judge clearly and blatantly gave them this right over a year ago. It literally states the fcc has the power to overturn any and all laws preventing or restricting the expansion of network infrastructure. They were handed the ability to do exactly what you are saying they can't do. Now turn off faux news and do some research.
AVonGauss
Premium Member
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL

AVonGauss

Premium Member

Good Thing...

This is a good thing, but the FCC doesn't exactly have the power to set aside state laws, so this is probably just step 1 out of (x) steps... What it may do is wake up the state lawmakers who can change the laws at any time for their state, and would be the most expedient way of correcting this situation.
jhawl3
join:2014-05-27
Orangeburg, SC

jhawl3

Member

Re: Good Thing...

They do actually, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: Good Thing...

Actually they don't. They are were never given legal power. Also the courts have ruled under Brand X that the Internet is an information service.

w0g
o.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR

w0g

Member

Re: Good Thing...

those ruling that internet was an information service were based upon FCC's previous declarations, FCC didn't support changing their regulation at the time and didn't want the states or localities to be able to override them. so the courts sided with the FCC, that Internet at the time was going to be regulated as an information service.

FCC's opinion dictated that. the courts backed them up because that's what the FCC had said. now the FCC changes their mind, given that the law always allowed them to change their mind.

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: Good Thing...

They don't create law. That is the problem. Do you understand that??? And no they just can't change their mind.

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

Packeteers

Premium Member

1 of 4 million

I dug up my own letter from May 2014 - enjoy

Subject: recuse yourself from internet decisions

To FCC Corporate Stooges;

None of you are qualified to make decisions about the Internet, as you
all either come from or will retire to companies which you now pretend
to regulate. You are also all rich as sin, or will be rich once your FCC
tenure is up, so you can well afford to pay the same Internet related
costs you are about to burden the rest of our countries citizens with.

The only thing you are qualified to do is to advise and manage some
secret independent odd number citizen board, sort of like a grand jury
in a criminal law case, who will be presented with all facts and views
on Internet related matters, and render a decision that you the FCC
will be bound to enforce.

None of you can be trusted to do anything more, and you very well
know it. How the Federal government has eroded to this stage of
corporate and special interest driven greed and bias, is the furthest
thing from Democracy our founding fathers had in mind. Just because
your form of graf is perfectly legal (thanks to the Orwellian based
Robert's supreme court) does not make it right.

you all totally disgust me, - JB in NYC
andrew55
join:2014-10-20

andrew55

Member

Re: 1 of 4 million

Great comment! But not all the founding fathers believed in democracy and rule by the people. Alexander Hamilton is a perfect example of that.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25 to Packeteers

Member

to Packeteers
So were you posting that to show how wrong you were back on May 2014?

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

Packeteers

Premium Member

Re: 1 of 4 million

right or wrong, it was a snapshot of how many felt back then - before wheelers "modified" internet last summer, and eventually coming over to the net neutral side just a few months ago. nothing i wrote was observation-ally inaccurate, rather it held less sway over wheeler (the swing vote) once the politics and votes were finally cast.

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Funny ISP Response

ISP groups had threatened to sue the FCC if the agency proceeded with their plan.
I find this rather funny that these ISP's would sue the FCC to argue a matter that is really between local government and state government. The ISP's fighting to keep the laws they paid politicians a lot of money for is quite comical actually. Hopefully the courts will stick with precedent that the FCC has the power to regulate telecommunications as well as expose the shady operations of the ISP's getting these laws passed in the first place.
Freezone
join:2000-09-29
Southfield, MI

Freezone

Member

Re: Funny ISP Response

Do ISPs have standing?

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Re: Funny ISP Response

said by Freezone:

Do ISPs have standing?

That is the big question. Other than the fungible complaint it will harm their business, this IMHO boils down to the FCC inserting itself into a dispute between the local and state governments. But it has been made clear since the days of the founding of the FCC that the federal government has supremacy in telecommunications matters. In the same token, the state governments cannot grant licenses to operate radio stations within their borders. That is a federal prerogative.

BBUserDude
@rr.com

BBUserDude

Anon

What is the Constitutional basis for federal EM spectrum regulation?

Well, that's a claim that the federal government made when establishing the FRC+ICC->FCC. Its certainly not enumerated or implied in the Constitution, anywhere.

Perhaps you or some deep cogitative thinker can explain why...light (EM spectrum)...or at least, certain wavelengths of it... is some inherent domain of the federal government to control?

(Why just certain EM wavelengths? Heck, since they are claiming domain authority over waves, why not ANY kind of wave? Sound waves perhaps? Don't they travel across state lines? )

Its one thing to argue for federal oversight when EM usage spreads across state lines (though State Compacts/agreements could handle that as they do other issues, like water), but what about all of the EM usage that DOES NOT TRAVEL ACROSS STATE LINES?

Where exactly does the Constitution provide the federal government with the power to manage INTRAstate resources/resource usage that do/does not cross state lines?

Same could be said for any other form of claimed federal resource domain management authority that doesn't involve an actual interstate usage (water for example)...

What standing does the federal government have of inherent domain authority over a natural existing resource, especially when the usage is only intrastate in nature?

Perhaps its time to re-examine (and challenge) this basic claim/assertion to inherent federal public ownership/domain authority made by the federal government to certain EM wavelengths (or any other "public natural resource").

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest to n2jtx

Anon

to n2jtx

Re: Funny ISP Response

Although SCOTUS has ruled before internet is not telecommunications. Its information.

Also the FCC would have no legal power over turning state laws. And if EPB wants to expand out of their power grid area they need to repay all the money they were given by the feds and repay all what they took from the power side. And spin off the ISP
AckAck
join:2011-06-02

AckAck

Member

Re: Funny ISP Response

Huh, who'd of guessed?

Tele = To or at a distance

Communication = the imparting or exchanging of information or news

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

Packeteers to n2jtx

Premium Member

to n2jtx
verizon's actual "1930 style" response today was "funnier" than one would imagine;

»nymag.com/daily/intellig ··· les.html
AckAck
join:2011-06-02

1 edit

AckAck

Member

Re: Funny ISP Response

-.-. .-. -.-- -... .- -... .. . ...

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY

Packeteers

Premium Member

Re: Funny ISP Response

»publicpolicy.verizon.com ··· internet

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest to n2jtx

Anon

to n2jtx
They will sue along with many states. Be prepared for a new FCC or a refunded one that operates only on applications and fees they collect. The same as the FDA.
ohreally
join:2014-11-21

1 edit

ohreally

Member

What difference will it really make?

A big hurdle against municipal and other private networks is money.

Unless you get someone with deep pockets like Google to do it for you as a vanity project, or can raise money through bonds or taxation, it becomes a lot more difficult to make it happen regardless of the regulatory situation. Time is another factor too - it'll take years to make even a small dent in the levels of coverage that the incumbents enjoy.

And then you have the issue of whether it truly creates competition. To me, real competition is a choice of several or many tens of providers. A single extra option from the government or from Google is not competition. It's just the beginning of the creation of a new monopoly/duopoly.

(and even if all of these networks were forced to open up, there's the question of cost/hassle vs benefit. Countries like the UK work because the ISPs have to deal with one company, the telco, and they get immediate nationwide access to customers. Not so when every city/town has their own network with their own access agreements and network interconnection points)

FedvsState
@google.com

-1 recommendation

FedvsState

Anon

Re: What difference will it really make?

This is just another attempt by Federal functionaries to break big city government away from state control. IOW, an attempt to end states rights that has been going on since the 1960s.

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: What difference will it really make?

Yes that is true!
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow to ohreally

Premium Member

to ohreally
It bothers me that muni fiber or Google fiber as ohreally pointed out offer content instead of just offering a transport last mile fiber network open to all content providers. I am afraid Google and muni networks will just become the new monopoly.

I use the free Google apps all the time and realize that capturing what I do pays the bills for Google but it bothers me that if I am on Google Fiber they can track everything I do connected to the internet.

With muni fiber like the big cable companies they will control the content except what you do over the internet. I like the power company where they provide the power connection to the side of the house and then you hook anything you want inside the house. I am afraid in some cities a political group could go after some channel and get it banned from being offered.

That said if this helps get fiber to more people I am for that. Wilson wants to expand outside the town limits which is good.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to ohreally

Premium Member

to ohreally
The thing is the big ISPs are totally to blame for the desire for muni networks. They let some towns rot in 1999 level technology because its not "profitable" to keep them up to date. Should people be stuck by laws because its not profitable for a corporation to keep them in the present?

davidc502
join:2002-03-06
Mount Juliet, TN

davidc502

Member

Re: What difference will it really make?

Agreed, and if a city wants to build their own, and the people support them, then by all means they should.

IMHO Protectionist laws should be invalid and ignored.
wahoospa
join:2006-03-23
Charleston, SC

wahoospa

Member

Section 706

SEC. 706. ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS INCENTIVES.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Commission and each State commission with
regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall
encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of
advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including,
in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) by
utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest,
convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory
forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local
telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove
barriers to infrastructure investment

BBUserDude
@rr.com

BBUserDude

Anon

More federal voiding of the 10th Amendment...

A curious inclusion of "each State commission" considering that, those would be State authorized, not Federal, and this would claim federal authority over State commissions - a(nother) clear violation of state sovereignty via the 10th Amendment...

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Wheeler has been surprising me lately....

.... More like, pleasantly surprised, too.

MuniMaintain
@cox.net

MuniMaintain

Anon

Maintenance of Muni Broadband?

Just out of curiosity, who is responsible for maintaining municipal broadband once it has been built?

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: Maintenance of Muni Broadband?

Those lovely tax payera both local and federal. So yes you got to pay for EPB and Greenlight the same as everyone else without getting anything from it. It goes bankrupt we're still on the hook. Gotta love being a socialist country where many think its okay.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Maintenance of Muni Broadband?

how is that any worse than people who are stuck paying $50 a month for substandard broadband because the private sector is too damn cheap to give them a modern network? A Private sector who cares more about assholes in Wall Street than their customers.

empire5
join:2002-07-31
Rosharon, TX

empire5

Member

republicans

Always funny how much the republican agendas align with big business regardless of how much it hurts the consumer.

Companys could start stealing our furniture thry'll still throw a fit if government gets involved.