Support NeoGAF

[Wilsongt]

https://thinkprogress.org/fcc-loses-public-internet-fight-c1996bc76f08#.jgate3kmg

In a preemptive move last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed an order that gave cities the power to build their own broadband networks. The order was part of the agency’s larger plan to extend public internet access to primarily rural communities, often out of reach of major, privately-owned networks.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against the FCC’s municipal broadband order this week, determining that it went beyond the agency’s abilities set forth by Congress. The problem was the order preempted two state laws in Wilson, N.C. and Chattanooga, Tennessee that banned local governments from building public internet networks that competed with major broadband providers, such as Verizon and AT&T.

“Rural communities want to build the networks themselves…It’s a political fight at this moment.”
Approximately 20 states have similar laws on the books that restrict cities from expanding or building public internet networks. With help from industry trade group USTelecom, the states sued the FCC to preserve the laws.

The all-Republican, three-judge panel ruled almost unanimously against FCC’s order with Judge Helene White concurring and dissenting in part. White sided with the FCC regarding its broadband regulation in North Carolina, saying the law directly conflicts with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

 

[AndyD]

It is unfortunate but the description is not wholly correct.

The ruling allows State laws which ban communities from building outside their city/community limits. Chattanooga has an excellent fiber system, but it wanted to expand past its' current network into outlying areas, which is what the State law prohibits. It won't change the city's ability to continue running its network within the limits.

 

[MartyStu]

I think this is actually quite fair. Chattanooga should not be allowed to essentially become a direct regional competitor in the market.

 

[Coriolanus]

Chattanooga should not be allowed to essentially become a direct regional competitor in the market.

why?

 

[Firestorm]

I think this is actually quite fair. Chattanooga should not be allowed to essentially become a direct regional competitor in the market.

Because lower prices leading to a higher percentage of the population having access to what is now an essential service is bad?

 

[SRG01]

why?

Because it would effectively be using state funds as a subsidy to compete against private companies for a non-essential service.

Edit: wait, has it declared an essential service? That changes things.

 

[NeOak]

I think this is actually quite fair. Chattanooga should not be allowed to essentially become a direct regional competitor in the market.

Internet is now an essential service. So you're arguing in favor of keeping the mono or duopolies that currently exist.

Mind you, public ISPs have profits and they fund their projects using bonds, not taxpayer money.

I'd rather buy bonds to help build a public ISP than buy bonds for another fucking school stadium.

Edit: wait, has it declared an essential service? That changes things.

Yes, and backed by a District court of appeals: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html

 

[hom3land]

Because it would effectively be using state funds as a subsidy to compete against private companies for a non-essential service.

Edit: wait, has it declared an essential service? That changes things.

Have you tried to apply for jobs without an Internet connection?

 

[UnemployedVillain]

The problem was the order preempted two state laws in Wilson, N.C. and Chattanooga, Tennessee that banned local governments from building public internet networks that competed with major broadband providers, such as Verizon and AT&T.

Wow, why am I not surprised?

 

[Arthr2ShdsJcksn]

I think this is actually quite fair. Chattanooga should not be allowed to essentially become a direct regional competitor in the market.

Reducing the ability for competition is the opposite of fair.

 

[NeOak]

Wow, why am I not surprised?

Can't have the government take away the FREEDOM of the people that are the corporations to overcharge suckers customers for mediocre speeds with data caps.

 

[demon]

Because it would effectively be using state funds as a subsidy to compete against private companies for a non-essential service.

Edit: wait, has it declared an essential service? That changes things.

Take the internet in its entirety down for an indefinite period of time and see what happens to society, then tell me it's a "non-essential service".

 

[SRG01]

Have you tried to apply for jobs without an Internet connection?

Take the internet in its entirety down for an indefinite period of time and see what happens to society, then tell me it's a "non-essential service".

Well, it was stated in the context of it not declared as an essential service, which I've been corrected here:

Yes, and backed by a District court of appeals: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html

So how does this current ruling interact with this one then?