FCC overrules state laws to help cities build out municipal broadband
Quote:
Before it tackles net neutrality, the FCC is setting a major precedent for municipal broadband: it's just voted to preempt state laws that were preventing two cities from building out their own locally run broadband networks. The decision was prompted by separate petitions from Wilson, North Carolina, and Chattanooga, Tennessee - both cities that've established high-speed, gigabit internet services, but have been barred from expanding to neighboring communities due to existing state laws. So far, 19 states have similar regulations to those that the FCC is overriding in Wilson and Chattanooga, but today's ruling affects only those two specific cases.
Even so, the FCC's 3-2 vote will serve as a landmark moment that other communities will point to as they try to compete against commercial ISPs and knock down those deeply restrictive state laws. "There are a few irrefutable truths about broadband," said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler ahead of the vote. "One is you can't say you're for broadband, and then turn around and endorse limits." The commission has decided that Tennessee and North Carolina are needlessly preventing the "reasonable and timely deployment of high-speed internet access to all Americans," a senior FCC official said during a press call a few weeks ago. And it's not hard to see the same logic being applied elsewhere when other petitions are brought forward.
FCC votes to protect the internet with Title II regulation
Quote:
Net neutrality has won at the FCC. In a 3-to-2 vote, the Federal Communications Commission today established a new Open Internet Order that implements strict net neutrality rules, including prohibitions on site and app blocking, speed throttling, and paid fast lanes.
Critically, the order also reclassifies internet providers' offerings as telecommunications services under Title II of the Communications Act. Though this is likely to provoke a challenge in court, Title II gives the commission the tools it needs to enforce these strict rules.
This is also the first time that net neutrality rules will apply, in full, to mobile internet service. Additionally, the commission uses the new order to assert its ability to investigate and address complaints about "interconnect" agreements - deals made between internet providers like Comcast and content companies like Netflix, which has regularly complained that these deals are unfair.
Perhaps I'm betraying my years, but in Washington policy circles there has always been tension between those interested in solving problems and those who see policy disputes as a test of ideology. I'd readily admit falling into the former camp, and have the policy scars to prove it. To be sure, one must have principles and a philosophy of government's proper role. But a democracy cannot function when either side lapses into rigidity. Or worse, when political advantage becomes more important than the nation's best interest.
In our little world, and in my decades of interaction with it, I've felt, and still feel, that the FCC has tried to stay focused on solving problems and avoided turning issues into dogma. Every chairman in my memory, including the current one, has faced political stampedes of one sort or another. Yet the agency has always tried to find a middle ground and a consensus win. They've understood that a win, unlike a fight, is the product of reaching out to both sides, and working in a bipartisan way to find a solution. A win is the product of compromise, thoughtful policy, and a genuine desire to find the answer to a complex set of issues.
These are reactions to the FCC's historic net neutrality vote
Quote:
The FCC has just made history by placing broadband under Title II regulation in an attempt to permanently safeguard net neutrality. The 3-2 vote was the culmination of months of back-and-forth between net neutrality advocates - determined to keep the internet free and open - and ISPs, who have accused the federal government of unjustly overstepping its bounds. As the FCC's huge moment sinks in, we'll be collecting responses to today's vote below and updating as more come in.
It's a step . . . I just hope its not abused an is a step into the cesspool of a nanny-state.
To be clear I am in favor of the principle but am against the idea it has to be forced via more regulation and isn't coming from comprehensive reform within the major players (even if that reform was heavily persuaded by the Feds)
when does the session start back up?
im just getting a creepy static image from the 90s with some weird elevator muzak from the jurrasic park SNES game.
when does the session start back up?
im just getting a creepy static image from the 90s with some weird elevator muzak from the jurrasic park SNES game.
when does the session start back up?
im just getting a creepy static image from the 90s with some weird elevator muzak from the jurrasic park SNES game.
Y'know, the cynic in me is just waiting for the next step in ISP's screwing customers over. My money is on data caps. They'll trot out something like "The American public really only NEEDS 5GB a month... the select few who don't can just buy more at $10 a gig!" or some bull like that.
"FOR A FUTURE IN WHICH THERE ARE RULES TO PROTECT THE INTERNET AND ITS USERS. BUT IMPORTANTLY TODAY IS ALSO A DAY THAT GIVES NETWORK OPERATORS WHAT THEY REQUIRE IF THEY'RE TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND BROADBAND SERVICE AND COMPETITION. THE RULES FOR A FAIR AND OPEN INTERNET ARE NOT OLD STYLE UTILITY REGULATION, BUT A 21ST CENTURY SET OF RULES FOR A 21ST CENTURY SERVICE. "
and
"THE ISPs' REVENUE STREAM WILL BE THE SAME TOMORROW AS IT WAS YESTERDAY. "
"FOR A FUTURE IN WHICH THERE ARE RULES TO PROTECT THE INTERNET AND ITS USERS. BUT IMPORTANTLY TODAY IS ALSO A DAY THAT GIVES NETWORK OPERATORS WHAT THEY REQUIRE IF THEY'RE TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND BROADBAND SERVICE AND COMPETITION. THE RULES FOR A FAIR AND OPEN INTERNET ARE NOT OLD STYLE UTILITY REGULATION, BUT A 21ST CENTURY SET OF RULES FOR A 21ST CENTURY SERVICE. "
and
"THE ISPs' REVENUE STREAM WILL BE THE SAME TOMORROW AS IT WAS YESTERDAY. "
Yeah, except for that whole petition thing, the whole four million public comments thing, or the letter by over a hundred small Internet companies thing.
Yeah, except for that whole petition thing, the whole four million public comments thing, or the letter by over a hundred small Internet companies thing.
The rules and wording kept changing up to the last second. So while people gave input, they gave it blindly. No one out side of those 5 people who voted actually SAW the rules being voted on. THAT is what I am talking about and you know it.
"FOR A FUTURE IN WHICH THERE ARE RULES TO PROTECT THE INTERNET AND ITS USERS. BUT IMPORTANTLY TODAY IS ALSO A DAY THAT GIVES NETWORK OPERATORS WHAT THEY REQUIRE IF THEY'RE TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND BROADBAND SERVICE AND COMPETITION. THE RULES FOR A FAIR AND OPEN INTERNET ARE NOT OLD STYLE UTILITY REGULATION, BUT A 21ST CENTURY SET OF RULES FOR A 21ST CENTURY SERVICE. "
and
"THE ISPs' REVENUE STREAM WILL BE THE SAME TOMORROW AS IT WAS YESTERDAY. "
That sounds great! California was one of the few state that had weird laws the prevent municipals or other new companies from building/providing high speed internet service...
It's a step . . . I just hope its not abused an is a step into the cesspool of a nanny-state.
To be clear I am in favor of the principle but am against the idea it has to be forced via more regulation and isn't coming from comprehensive reform within the major players (even if that reform was heavily persuaded by the Feds)
Y'know, the cynic in me is just waiting for the next step in ISP's screwing customers over. My money is on data caps. They'll trot out something like "The American public really only NEEDS 5GB a month... the select few who don't can just buy more at $10 a gig!" or some bull like that.
The rules and wording kept changing up to the last second. So while people gave input, they gave it blindly. No one out side of those 5 people who voted actually SAW the rules being voted on. THAT is what I am talking about and you know it.
You would think that more people would find this suspect. One would also think that people would rather have the internet control the government, then the other way around.
Just wait till additional mandated FCC fees suddenly pop up on you internet bill.
Yup,I'm pretty sure Canadians either through exorbitant fees, or tax dollars, paid for our infrastructure, not Bell/Telus/Rogers. Its time we owned the copper in the ground.
To be clear I am in favor of the principle but am against the idea it has to be forced via more regulation and isn't coming from comprehensive reform within the major players (even if that reform was heavily persuaded by the Feds)
You think the big ISPs are going to do the right thing? When their actions to the contrary are the entire reason for this effort?
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!