Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Warned Not To Take Actions a Republican-Led FCC Would Dislike

samzenpus posted about a month ago | from the you-wouldn't-like-me-whn-I'm-angry dept.

The Internet 338

tlhIngan writes Municipal broadband is in the news again — this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks and warned the (Democrat-led) FCC to not do anything that a future Republican led FCC would dislike. The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment.

cancel ×

338 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

yeah (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724715)

fuck that guy

Re: yeah (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724729)

Free marketism.
It's a fundamentalist religion.

Re: yeah (4, Funny)

SpockLogic (1256972) | about a month ago | (#47725205)

Free marketism. It's a fundamentalist religion.

In other news Matthew Berry announced that he was looking forward to taking a highly paid position as VP for Media Obfuscation with a nationwide cable company in the near future.

Correction: (4, Informative)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a month ago | (#47724749)

this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks

He's endorsed the right of the people in each state to get bent over by massively-corrupt telcos with their monopolistic behaviors - by reinforcing their monopolies - all in the name of a free market (despite the fact that it's anything but).

FTFY.

Re:Correction: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724781)

In other words, he's being a Republican.

Re:Correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724893)

You didn't read the article then?

Re:Correction: (5, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about a month ago | (#47724917)

In other words, he's being a Republican.

No you jackass. He's being a politician.

Republican, Democrat, WHATEVER, they're all saying the same thing to you (whatever they think will make you vote for them) now, and doing whatever the fuck they can to maximize benefit to their personal pocket book later.

If you think this is somehow mitigated by party affiliation, you REALLY need to stop abusing your prescriptions and hike your way out of fantasy land.

Re:Correction: (3, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a month ago | (#47724955)

Republicans are just a bit more blatant about it because it appeals to their idiot constituency.

Re:Correction: (1, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47725053)

Do you just not understand what you are saying or are you somehow brainwashed?

You just said that republican politicians are open about lining their pockets while democrats hide it because it's what their voters want. This is the same as saying the republican voters know what they are voting for and democrat voters keep getting the misled in order to vote democrat and you think the republican voters are the idiots?

It seems like you should have another word in there or direct your comment towards another group of people.

Re:Correction: (0)

chihowa (366380) | about a month ago | (#47725169)

Republicans are just a bit more blatant about it because it appeals to their idiot constituency.

It's just more blatant to you because you're not one of their idiot constituency. Democrats seem to be less blatant about it because you are one of their idiot constituency.

That you see one as being more blatant than the other says more about you than the politicians.

Re:Correction: (2)

mbone (558574) | about a month ago | (#47725079)

If you think this is somehow mitigated by party affiliation, you REALLY need to stop abusing your prescriptions and hike your way out of fantasy land.

If you truly believe that, you have seriously not been paying attention these last 45 years.

Re:Correction: (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about a month ago | (#47725183)

Both parties have, as their first priority, protecting the financial interests of their largest (usually corporate) donors. Both parties lie about this to their voters, claiming to be the party of the common man. The only difference is that some donors don't give to both parties, and so different donors get favored depending on who's in power.

I cant speak for 45 years, but it's been this way for at least 25. Do you disagree?

Re:Correction: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724829)

At least you can fight a corporation. You can't fight city hall. I can post negative things about Comcast and try to get the PUC to force them to fix their problems, but if I do that to the city if they owned the fiber, I would be beaten by their thugs in blue and put in jail. It's much better for a private corporation to provide Internet access than someone that has their own army.

Re: Correction: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724853)

Do you get to vote in or out the Comcast ceo like you get to do with the city mayor ?

Re: Correction: (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47724903)

Do you get to vote in or out the Comcast ceo like you get to do with the city mayor ?

You can, if you own enough stock.

Re: Correction: (3, Insightful)

Calavar (1587721) | about a month ago | (#47724945)

If you're one of the select few that are so wealthy that you own enough stock to be able to vote out an unpopular CEO (or block a grassroots shareholder movement to do the same), you're either the CEO or his yachting buddy.

Re: Correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725145)

Comcast can't put me in jail but my city can. You can dodge a company, but you can't dodge a law. Just because telecom laws are an idiotic mess doesn't mean the people that created the idiotic mess are going to be better at being a telecom.

Re:Correction: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724849)

Hint: Republicans don't just do this with the telco industry.

And yes, they are far worse than the Dems. Grow up.

Re:Correction: (0)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about a month ago | (#47724937)

Hint: Republicans don't just do this with the telco industry.

And yes, they are far worse than the Dems. Grow up.

This is my favorite part about Democrat voters. They don't claim their party has anything good about it - it's just "better than Republicans".

If that's your best reason to vote then, please, stay home on election day.

Re:Correction: (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a month ago | (#47724965)

I'll take bad over horrible every day, and twice on the second Tuesday in November.

Re:Correction: (1, Offtopic)

redeIm (3779401) | about a month ago | (#47725045)

I'd feel like vomiting if I voted for an evil scumbag. That's why I vote based on my principles, and not just on who is 'less evil.' Productive or not, I refuse to support evil scumbags that the democrats and republicans put forth.

Re:Correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725017)

If that's your best reason to vote then, please, stay home on election day.

If, in your state, the "wrong" lizard merely has a chance at winning, then no, they most definitely should go and vote for the "correct" lizard on no other grounds than they are not the "wrong" lizard.

But if the "wrong" lizard statistically always wins, you're better off voting for some third party lizard.

Re:Correction: (4, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about a month ago | (#47724929)

this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks

He's endorsed the right of the people in each state to get bent over by massively-corrupt telcos with their monopolistic behaviors - by reinforcing their monopolies - all in the name of a free market (despite the fact that it's anything but).

FTFY.

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town. If the city comes in and serves only the tightly packed businesses, they can easily offer the service at a lower price and still make money or break even, and the telco ends up losing their profitable customers and therefore their ability to offset their losses elsewhere.

I'm not against "municipal broadband", but they need to be held to the exact same standard as all other carriers in the same area. That might well mean offering service to out of town customers, also.

I didn't understand the fuss until last time this came up and someone in the industry explained it quite clearly in a +5 post.

Re:Correction: (1)

silfen (3720385) | about a month ago | (#47725121)

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town.

It's turtles corrupt regulations all the way down! One corrupt regulation begets another!

Re:Correction: (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725131)

This is the exact problem with the USPS - they are delivering to all the not-so-profitable rural areas for UPS, FedEx and DHL. The USPS doesn't have a choice in the matter and to boot are forced to fund their things into the future no private company could or would ever fund.

Business people don't have a problem with the USPS arrangement. But now they have a problem when the same rules may apply to them in a negative way?

Please.

People argue that the reason the USPS thing is different is because 'my taxes pay for the USPS!'. No, they don't. The USPS is funded entirely on it's product sales and services.

CAPCHA: dueling

Re:Correction: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725137)

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town.

That is simply not true. Just look at all the places where verizon has done piss-poor job of rolling out FIOS. All the ISP's have cherry-picked their neighborhoods. DSL even inherently varies in service quality based on the distance to the CO but they still charge customers the same price because they price the service in maximum bitrates not minimum guaranteed bitrates.

Re:Correction: (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about a month ago | (#47725149)

Those telcos are forced to provide service to everybody at the same price, which means they make a profit on tightly packed businesses in the city and that offsets their losses on the more widespread customers out of town.

Subsidies like this for suburban and rural residents is why we have sprawl.

I wouldn't mind paying $10 per gallon of milk in exchange for lower taxes and lower utility costs. (Especially because I'm lactose intolerant!)

Re:Correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725155)

Dead on. My state has a few city-owned cable companies. Good luck getting service just outside of the city. Municipal-owned industries make it completely cost ineffective for private companies to service suburban (or rural) customers. On top of that, good luck getting municipal-owned companies from investing a dime in research or new product development.

Re:Correction: (5, Informative)

mellon (7048) | about a month ago | (#47725207)

What? No they aren't. This isn't telephone service—it's internet service. There are no regulations requiring them to provide service out in the boondocks. Indeed, Verizon and AT&T received massive government subsidies to expand broadband service to rural customers, and then just decided not to do it and kept the money.

When I lived in rural southeastern Arizona, I got my DSL service from Valley Telecom, a local customer-owned cooperative that provides internet service, telephone and cellular to the poorly served areas of that rather sparsely populated corner of the state. I had 1.5mbps DSL in 2006 10 miles up a dirt road outside of Bowie, Arizona, pop. 300, for a very reasonable price, and VTC was doing just fine financially. It was a bit cheaper than my current service from Comcast, but that's precisely because Comcast only serves the areas where it can make a profit.

Meanwhile, back in Verizon territory, my mom, who is on the selectboard of her town (pop. 1200, small but much more dense than Bowie) could not get any kind of broadband in 2006, and the town wound up having to set up their own municipal broadband wireless service using Motorola Canopy radios and a microwave link to Mt. Tom because that's the only way they could avoid a massive drop in property values due to the lack of this essential service in the town, despite the fact that Verizon had been receiving money to pay for installing broadband to towns just like hers for the previous decade.

So maybe some shill from a cable company told you all about how supporting rural customers is why their service is so expensive, but that's a complete load of bullshit. Local and state governments don't currently have authority to impose regulations of this type on ISPs.

Re:Correction: (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month ago | (#47725051)

this time Chief of Staff Matthew Berry, speaking at the National Conference of State Legislatures, has endorsed states' right to ban municipal broadband networks

He's endorsed the right of the people in each state to get bent over by massively-corrupt telcos with their monopolistic behaviors - by reinforcing their monopolies - all in the name of a free market (despite the fact that it's anything but).

FTFY.

Except, you know, they aren't monopolies.
But none of that will matter soon. After the disastrous Rural broadband initiative from 2009, the FCC realized just how expensive it is to provide service outside the cable footprint. So they've reverse course and it now seems they are about a 20yr plan to completely eliminate the universal service fund. At that point, there will be no teleco for most of these communities and they'll have to have municipal broadband or nothing at all. With the changes in FCC rulings, Telcos have started charging different rates base on how expensive it is to serve you. Previously this was a big no-no but I've now see the FCC rules changes, and it's kosher with them as long as it isn't for the phoneline itself. But DSL is fair game. Soon I bet it will be phone service to.

If a new wireless tech doesn't come along soon, rural internet will be dead and gone. And by rural I mean outside the cable footprint, if you don't have Cable access now and have to rely on DSL like most of the country, you're who I'm talking about. It's a sad thing but Urban users refuse to subsidize the poor anymore I guess.

Re: Correction: (1)

theophilosophilus (606876) | about a month ago | (#47725165)

A government telco isn't a monopoly?

In other words... (5, Insightful)

jtgd (807477) | about a month ago | (#47724751)

"Don't you dare serve the people, you shall only serve the corporations!"

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724779)

A federal government commission MUST not do something that some state legislator might not like! Bravo, that's America at it's finest!

chutzpah, meet hypocrisy! (2)

mbkennel (97636) | about a month ago | (#47725055)

chutzpah and hypocrisy, go together like a horse

*) Federal government regulating over the desires of State legislatures: Evil! Evil! Evil!
*) State government regulating over the desires of municipal legislatures: Motherhood, Apple Pie and the American Way!

Re:In other words... (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47725125)

That's exactly right. The federal government is not sovereign over everything in the US. The entire concept was that it was supposed to be spelled out in the constitution and the states which were separate countries only gave up or surrendered the amount of sovereignty to the federal government that was in the US constitution. This is fifth grade history BTW. Over the years, the federal government has been granted more powers by the expansion of several elements within the US constitution by the courts. This expansion is in ways not originally foreseen by the founders or the interpretations of the constitution until it happened. FDR's expansion which started the modern day everything goes came at a constitutional impasse in which his new deal legislation was deemed unconstitutional and he basically said "so what, I'm the executive and I can enforce it" while the democrat congress threatened to expand the supreme court seats until they could pack enough party supporters in that they had a majority. The end result, before everything blew apart, the Supreme Court ended up allowing the New Deal provisions as a means of the interstate commerce clause. This is why things like the federal minimum wage doesn't apply to companies with less than a certain amount of revenue or some other substantial impact on interstate commerce and will default to whatever the state minimum wage is.

  Bravo indeed. That was what made America the finest in the world at one time. We have lost that position and lost the constitutional separations.

Re:In other words... (1)

mellon (7048) | about a month ago | (#47725215)

You're thinking of the Articles of Confederacy, which preceded the Constitution. Study your history.

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724801)

WTF are you talking about you fucking moron?
THE CORPORATIONS ARE THE PEOPLE!

Citizens are the Debt Enslaved Peons who work in the Globalized Company Store.
No one serves them.

In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724803)

Well, corporations are people!

You think we should serve Soylent Green instead?

Re:In other words... (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a month ago | (#47724979)

You think we should serve Soylent Green instead?

As long as it is done by free market principles (read that, the corporation that pays me the most baksheesh.

In other other other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725041)

Another way to get bent over for a probe to uranus.

Pub wants to (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47724753)

make it so only corporation dictate what yo can do, news at 11.

Pubs have become more and more ant citizen every year. The citizens wont municipal broadband? FUCK EM!

"that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment."
That's been shown to be false over and over again. Why do these people get away with a provable false statement.
We have seen, over and over again tax-payer funded program create jobs, create infrastructure, and in some cases create entire tangential industries.

Re:Pub wants to (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a month ago | (#47724813)

That's been shown to be false over and over again. Why do these people get away with a provable false statement.

Uncritical audiences who want these statements to be true because it aligns with their ideology?

If you can equate it with socialism, you can count on a chunk of people agreeing with you even if it's a lie. It doesn't have to be true if the people who vote for you don't care if it's true, and don't want to know or believe it isn't.

This is just about entrenching the notion of corporate profits, and ensuring they never really have to work for it ... because, stock holders. It doesn't matter if people get good service of it they're introducing state granted monopolies ... they must be good.

Increasingly, politicians are entirely in the back pockets of corporations, and will simply not do anything which goes against that.

The oligarchy at this point is pretty much inevitable. Because they can bribe the politicians to do their bidding.

Re:Pub wants to (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a month ago | (#47724927)

It's the same argument that Rupert Murdoch keeps peddling against public broadcasters such as the BBC and ABC, fortunately UK and Oz governments of all colours haven't bought it and probably never will.

Infurstuctsure (5, Insightful)

pellik (193063) | about a month ago | (#47724755)

While they're at it state and federal funded roads compete unfairly with privately funded toll roads. Better do something about that.

Re:Infurstuctsure (1)

dpilot (134227) | about a month ago | (#47724785)

Maybe there's another reason that our infrastructure is crumbling...

(Line up the conspiracy theories.)

Re:Infurstuctsure (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724817)

removing funding and then say it doesn't work then turn it over to corporations.
It's not a conspiracy when there are a myriad examples of pubs doing it.

Choking the beast.

Re: Infurstuctsure (1)

nickmalthus (972450) | about a month ago | (#47724895)

In Texas they already are. All new highways in Texas will be toll roads. [mysanantonio.com] TXDOT is making sweetheart public private partnerships (read fascist) with construction companies like cintra with half century long long land leases and government bailouts for guaranteed profit! People in my area are going to freak out when they receive their flex rate toll bills for all of the new roads they are building.

Re: Infurstuctsure (1)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about a month ago | (#47724989)

In principal there is nothing wrong with a PPP (public, private, partnership) structure to build infrastructure. It is a way for a government to get infrastructure built that it otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. But the devil is in the detail. Why would there be a government guarantee of profitability is a big question. Right to toll is a pretty standard option for a long period of time 20 - 50 years. But if you screw up your traffic forecasts or you go over budget on the build well that is your problem, not the Governments. If you want to see a pretty spectacular example of that in Australia have a look at the North South Bypass Tunnel (Clem 7) which went bankrupt 11 months after the tunnel opened because traffic was only 30% of the projected flow.

Also if they are done well the ownership rights should return to the government after a period of time. At that stage the government can decide if they want to sell that asset for a cash injection or remove the toll. Usually they choose to resell the tolling rights but I have seen them remove tolls as well.

Re: Infurstuctsure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725001)

The second coming of a personal air vehicle is near! Praise the propellers!

Re: Infurstuctsure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725023)

Tell me about it. I can't use a freeway to drive to work without paying a toll, or adding an extra 16 miles driving the old, non-toll roads.

Of course, that just pushes more and like-minded drivers like myself onto the surface streets.

Re:Infurstuctsure (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47725151)

You mean the one thing the federal government does that it is constitutionally empowered to do is the one thing you are wanting to single out as your example?

Wow..

By that logic... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724757)

A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.

Re:By that logic... (1)

hey! (33014) | about a month ago | (#47724805)

A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.

And your point would be?

Re:By that logic... (1)

Grow Old Timber (1071718) | about a month ago | (#47724953)

Don't do anything that will upset the stock price of the telco internet companies. We know how much they are wringing out of us MONTHLY. Pay no attention to the ads on TV about passing legislation limiting FREE TV. It's just the telco companies saying they don't want to have to pay a fee for content they are using.. I say let the bastards pay for free TV. We know how much they are making EVERY FUCKING MONTH!

Re:By that logic... (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a month ago | (#47724827)

Unless they enjoy being hypocrites

It certainly seems they do. At least they are rarely punished for it such that the penalty is not a dis-incentive.

Re:By that logic... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47724981)

A republican FCC shouldn't do anything a democratic one won't like either. Unless they enjoy being hypocrites.

What ever the democratic appointees do, they do. They got appointed, it's their call. If they want to be partisan, so be it.

The really sad thing is that the FCC commissioners used to be about sensible regulation and doing what's right for all, now it's who's paying who under the table and which campaign got money from which company.

Have we learned nothing from the Light Squared debacle? That whole thing was such a boondoggle technically, but no, the FCC had to string all that along. Stuff like that needs to stop and this is just the latest example. Come on folks, THINK about it and do the right thing for the PEOPLE you serve, not because it makes you or your party the most cash.

Re:By that logic... (1)

Livius (318358) | about a month ago | (#47725123)

They enjoy being hypocrites.

Yes. That's what republicans have said for years. (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month ago | (#47725193)

When it comes to granting new powers to the government , that's exactly right. Republicans have been saying tat for decades and Bysh Jr was criticized for taking on new powers, because any new power he assumed would be inherited by Obama or whoever came next.

Looking at poll numbers, Jeb Bush us likely to be elected president in two years. How much power do you want Jeb Bush to have? Any powers you grant Obama will be inherited by J Bush.

Compromise? Never heard of it! (5, Insightful)

Mystiq (101361) | about a month ago | (#47724763)

So according to this guy, we should never make laws or decisions that don't have complete bi-partisan support because the other side will try to repeal it. How would anything get done? At that, we wouldn't have any laws at all. Did he even listen to what he said?

I swear, man. Congresscritters sound more like whiny children every day. This is the epitome of politicians' refusal to compromise on anything. The general intelligence of people in politics must steadily be dropping. They better stay where they are because they sure can't do anything else.

Re:Compromise? Never heard of it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725063)

Actually, the 'congress-critters' are quite happy with the current deadlock, eg. they can't be blamed or held responsible for doing something that turned sour . . . since they don't DO anything - no bad laws, no bad actions, nothing to be blamed for - except for blindly holding up their 'home' team's side to keep a perpetual stalemate! This 'perfect' condition requires little effort, almost no work, and absolutely no intelligence or morals, and provides some seriously good perks (keep campaign funds, franking, publicity, medical, substantial retirement bennies, etc)

Re:Compromise? Never heard of it! (2)

silfen (3720385) | about a month ago | (#47725257)

Actually, the 'congress-critters' are quite happy with the current deadlock

So are many voters, actually.

Re:Compromise? Never heard of it! (1)

silfen (3720385) | about a month ago | (#47725147)

So according to this guy, we should never make laws or decisions that don't have complete bi-partisan support

If it was Congress voting on it, that would be fine. But isn't about lawmaking, it's about the FCC using its regulatory powers to limit what laws states can pass, laws that have little to do with the FCC's original mission. Yes, regulatory agencies overriding state legislatures is a serious problem.

And this warning may not be just a warning to undo FCC regulations. At some point, Congress and voters may get fed up with federal abuse of regulatory powers and severely curb them.

no, he said don't take NEW powers if your successo (3, Informative)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month ago | (#47725157)

No, he didn't say everything needs to have bipartisan support. He said that if the FCC assumes a NEW power, the power to override state law and ban or require municipal broadband, the FCC will still have that power when Jeb Bush is president. If you decide that the FCC can choose whether or not muni is built, a different FCC chairman would inherit that power and could ban municipal broadband. Don't assume new powers for yourself if you don't want your successor to have the same power.

That's something I keep in mind. If Palin were president, would I want her administration running the health care industry? If not, I should oppose government run healthcare because we WILL have a president as bad as Palin at some point. Maybe in 2016, maybe in teo years, maybe in six years, maybe in ten years. We will have a horrible president. How much control do I want that crappy president to have over my life?

Re:Compromise? Never heard of it! (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47725185)

So according to this guy, we should never make laws or decisions that don't have complete bi-partisan support because the other side will try to repeal it. How would anything get done? At that, we wouldn't have any laws at all. Did he even listen to what he said?

Well, no. The FCC does not make laws, it makes regulation with the force of laws without congress voting on all the regulations. What he is saying is that whatever they do, a republican chairperson can undo. Don't bother with extreme partisan hacks because it will not last when another party is in charge of the FCC. That is sort of the challenge of having regulatory bodies appointed with the power of law, they need to have sound enough reasoning for all their actions in order to prevent the next appointment from undoing them. That is all he is saying.

I swear, man. Congresscritters sound more like whiny children every day. This is the epitome of politicians' refusal to compromise on anything. The general intelligence of people in politics must steadily be dropping. They better stay where they are because they sure can't do anything else.

I do not think I can disagree with that.

What a massive ass (2)

Rigel47 (2991727) | about a month ago | (#47724767)

"It’s not hard, then, to imagine a future FCC concluding that taxpayer-funded, municipal broadband projects themselves are barriers to infrastructure investment.

Right, because we've all done so well under the monopoly of Comcast et al. If the private sector can't compete (*cough*strong arm a monopoly*cough*) versus a municipal project then golly-gee maybe there's a lesson to be learned. Not that I expect an evidently corrupt bureaucrat to fathom said lesson.

That's his point. Don't let the FCC ban/require (4, Informative)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month ago | (#47725103)

You seem to have completely missed his point, so let me break that long sentence into four short sentences for you:

The is FCC deciding if it has the (unconstitutional) power to decide whether or not municipal broadband is built, disregarding state law.
If the FCC assumes that power, a future FCC chairman would therefore have the power to ban municipal broadband.
That would be bad.
Therefore, don't assume new powers that you wouldn't want your successor to have.

I'm not sure if I agree in this case. I do agree with the general principle- if you acquiesce to Obama assuming new powers, president Jeb Bush will inherit those new powers in a couple years.

Bullshit ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724775)

The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment.

Lies, damned lies, and Republican bullshit.

What about your lovely free market? What about competition? If you want to have customers, offer a better product and invest in your infrastructure -- they haven't been investing in it for years, because they're greedy assholes worried about short term profits and executive bonuses.

The Republicans have become about entrenching corporate profits at the expense of the tax payers, and people get shitty services and inflated rates because of it.

The Republicunts are about NOTHING other than corporate profits and enforcing the religious freedoms of Christians.

Such hypocrisy.

This is the kind of bullshit you see when money is equated with speech.

I say we remove the charitable exemptions for religions, and kill all the lobbyists.

Fuck all y'all.

Re:Bullshit ... (1)

Mystiq (101361) | about a month ago | (#47724845)

These days I've been questioning the motives of the "Repulicunts". Free market principles seem to go out the window with big "donations". Is it just me or would this proposed move from the FCC be exactly in line with what the Republican party stands for? Granted, the net neutrality proposal would be against it but I don't see how removing a barrier to competition would be against the Republican's principles. It should be the Democrats complaining.

Re: Bullshit ... (1)

brianerst (549609) | about a month ago | (#47725159)

You do realize that Obama's hand picked FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, is a long time cable and cellular lobbyist so beloved by the industry that he's the only man in both The Cable and Wireless Hall of Fames? A man dedicated to gutting net neutrality?

If the Dems are any more friendly to municipal broadband, it's just as part of a different payoff (unions or a different set of corporatations).

Re:Bullshit ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725203)

The Republicunts are about NOTHING other than corporate profits and enforcing the religious freedoms of Christians.

You forgot pandering to white guys, old people, paranoid gun owners, and residents of 'Pleasantville'.

Full of it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724795)

"The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment."

"Private investment", notably the quite-intentional lack of it, was the barrier to future infrastructure investment, hence the entire raison d'être of municipal broadband in the first place.

Bitch and moan about the stifling of private business opportunities when you actually have a business plan concerning that locale beyond "avoid until February 31st".

Cable companies: begging for cake, (not) choosing it, having it, and eating it all at once.

Re:Full of it (1)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | about a month ago | (#47724921)

The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment.

What do they think tax credits are? Before either the telco or the cable company would expand broadband service into the outer neighborhoods where I live, the city had to give the telco and cable companies a huge, many year tax credit - many times what the companies own people claimed the cost of equipment upgrades.

Re:Full of it (1)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about a month ago | (#47725019)

I also don't really understand the thought process as to how it would be a barrier to infrastructure. I kinda thought a major part of a governments role was to build infrastructure the private sector wasn't. If there is a push for a municipal level rollout then the private sector has failed in that case. Surely the logical thing is for the municipal to roll out the fibre and then, once in place, sell it to the private sector. That way you get your infrastructure, you get a ROI, you get competition for services and government stays out of providing random services.

You know what else discourages investment.... (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | about a month ago | (#47725097)

in broadband communications? Hoarding profits to buy out competitors, NBC, and politicians. Why invest in improving service for your captive customers when you can invest in takeovers and bribes?

Reality (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a month ago | (#47724821)

[March 2014] Speaking at the Deutsche Bank Media, Internet & Telecom Conference, [Verizon CFO] Shammo said the company would not consider other markets until it generates more cash within the wireline business.

"I am not going to build beyond the current LSAs (local service acquisitions) that we have built out," Shammo said. "We have to generate more cash within the wireline business and once we do that and I feel that FiOS has returned its cost of capital, then we can look at expansion, but at this point we're happy with what we have."

These are the same people that are allowing their copper network to rot out in order to push people onto FiOS.

Why should we-the-people have to wait for a conglomerate to make the business case for bringing service to our communities?
Especially if we can do it now.

Re:Reality (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a month ago | (#47724999)

Why should we-the-people have to wait for a conglomerate to make the business case for bringing service to our communities?

Dear god, man, are you suggesting a consortium of taxpayers decide to compete with a corporation, and take away stock holder value and threaten executive bonuses in order to get better service and introduce competition is a good thing??

Are you some kind of communist bastard?

The corporations are entitled to ridiculous profits without having to work to preserve market share, to suggest anything else is un-American.

Why, corporations are people, and they're entitled to all the speech they can afford. People don't know what they want, it's up to corporations to tell them.

OK, seriously, I don't believe any of that drivel.

But there are a huge amount of people who believe that corporate profits is a moral imperative, and that they should be protected from being undercut by new entrants to the market, and that if it's tax-payer funded it's practically communism.

Those people are, of course, idiots. And they're the ones making damned sure existing corporations get more protection in law, and everyone else gets screwed.

American Democracy has largely become something which is in service of corporate goals.

Re:Reality (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a month ago | (#47725005)

The rotting out of Verizon's wires is much more likely to push people to non-Verizon services given how little of the US FIOS covers.

For me all it did was cause me to drop Verizon completely and switch to T Mobile.

Ignore it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724823)

Ignore the Republicans. There are too many dependents soaking up government bennies to ever elect another R as president.

R house? Sure. R senate? Maybe. R president? Not before the currency collapse.

Re:Ignore it (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47725009)

R house? Sure. R senate? Maybe. R president? Not before the currency collapse.

That soon? Wow.

Re:Ignore it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725233)

R house? Sure. R senate? Maybe. R president? Not before the currency collapse.

That soon? Wow.

If it wasn't a real possibility, that would have been funny.

CAPCHA: industry

FCC should laugh at him (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about a month ago | (#47724831)

And simply say "For us to be concerned about a Republican FCC, we would need to believe that it is possible for a Republican to win a presidential election. Given the current climate, that won't happen in your lifetime, Senator"

Re:FCC should laugh at him (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47725161)

And simply say "For us to be concerned about a Republican FCC, we would need to believe that it is possible for a Republican to win a presidential election. Given the current climate, that won't happen in your lifetime, Senator"

Don't know if I'm willing to say that yet. The current election cycle seems to be sliding towards the R side taking over the Senate, and there is little chance of them loosing seats in the house. Of course this is the out year of a lame duck president, which generally slides away from the white house's party, but the complexion of what happens totally changes if the Republicans take control in the senate.

How that plays out in 2016 is anybodies guess, except I can tell you that the president and his party will be out of control of more of the optics in Washington, which means that the republicans will control what gets discussed and what issues they deal with. Remember the Democrats invoked the "Nuclear option" and changed the long standing senate rules so the republicans will be able to get bills on the presidents desk, any bill they choose, and strong arm him into making a very public veto or striking concessions. He will either play ball and alienate the Democratic base, or mess things up so badly signing that veto line over and over that the middle will abandon droves. Either way, the next two years won't go well for the democrats. My guess is he will just play golf for the next three years, which will be really bad for his party and alienate the majority the 20 somethings that voted for him. But all this is if the republicans take the senate which is not a foregone conclusion, yet..

You only hope for 2016, is that the Senate doesn't slip away, or that the republicans mess it up so badly nominating their candidate in 2 years that even I won't vote for them. Your only real chance is slipping away so you better hold onto that senate.

Give it up ... (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month ago | (#47724833)

We've seen this with water, gas, and electricity.

Just run the damn wire.

They know (1)

amightywind (691887) | about a month ago | (#47724863)

They know. The dem commies are about to lose big. A GOP Senate can't wait to try these no filibuster rules.

Like Freedom? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a month ago | (#47724873)

Yeah, cause they want us to be serfs in a backwards nation where people can't even run at 1 GB/s while the other first world nations run at 100 GB/s.

Yeah, that works.

Not.

Lord, save us from corporatists (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month ago | (#47724877)

Why do they play and say talk about a "Republican led FCC" instead of just saying they don't want the FCC to do anything that might mean the least inconvenience for Comcast and AT&T's complete takeover of the Internet?

I mean, for chrissake, Barack Obama, the marxest marxist who ever marxed, appointed goddamn Tom Wheeler, a former cable executive to be chairman of the FCC. Are they disappointed that the chairman of the FCC isn't just Brian Roberts, the CEO of Comcast?

Fucking corporatists. They're not even trying to hide their evil agenda any more. We need another president like Taft or Teddy Roosevelt to just scare the living shit out of big corporations. It's the only way to make them behave. The Clayton Act and other anti-trust legislation ushered in the most productive and prosperous era in US history, and now these sleazy fucks want to take us all the way back to the age of robber barons where young women got burned up in shirt factory fires. Now we've got pussy-ass Barack Obama and Eric Holder who shake with fear every time a CEO so much as looks cross at them. Now, a company breaks the law and the justice department fines them with one hand and passes them the money to pay the fine with the other hand (Citicorp, Goldman Sachs, et al). Two parties, one is completely terrified of the corporatists and the other's got their nose up the corporatists ass. No, they're not the same, but the outcome is the same.

Seriously, there needs to be a goddamn revolution in this country. I'll get behind it 100% as long as it's finished by the start of football season because I'm totally gonna take my fantasy league this year. Or maybe we can just not have the revolution on Sundays or Monday nights. Didn't they used to do that in wars? Take Sunday morning off so everyone could go to church and pray that God help them butcher the other side? Something's got to be done, I tell you. Start the revolution right now while it's still pre-season.

At least, thank god, we get another chance in 2016. Yeah, I know, anybody who gets the nomination from either party is going to be a corporatist, but if I don't hold out some faint hope that something will change, I'll just go shoot myself, and I can't do that because, like I said, I'm going to own fantasy football this year. But, (and thank God for small favors) I won't be enriching Comcast while I do it.

Re:Lord, save us from corporatists (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | about a month ago | (#47725061)

FFS where's the "like" button when I need one? Sire, your post just made my day, I thought I was the only one who thought that way...

Re:Lord, save us from corporatists (1)

mbkennel (97636) | about a month ago | (#47725081)

| Are they disappointed that the chairman of the FCC isn't just Brian Roberts, the CEO of Comcast?

Yes.

In fact, they are disappointed that the FCC exists as a nominally independent government institution. That they have to seduce potentially reluctant regulators, instead of the regulators sucking their cable ports with enthusiasm.

Republican / Democrat is a false dichotomy. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724909)

By framing the narrative this way the public can be polarized around trivial issues; divide and conquer.

Implying that a a left-wing or democrat controlled FCC would behave differently is misleading -- they are all beholden to the same powerful business interests who play both sides so that they are certain to have the winner in their pocket.

Warning the FCC to not do anything 'anti-republican' is just re-enforcing the imaginary division between left and right in our minds. It doesn't exist. There are only global supra-national corporations and people. Everything else is an intentional distraction.

Besides the corrupt global monetary system, the single most important issue that has allowed us to be reduced to abject serfdom is that corporations are considered persons under the law, which is a development of the last 125 years in the US. This allows management and ownership to escape personal liability for any actions of the organization under his or her control.

Because corps are able to vote with their huge dollars your small dollars are irrelevant -- as are your wants and needs.

Focus on that. Thinking Left/Right is just wasting your time.

Re:Republican / Democrat is a false dichotomy. (1)

preaction (1526109) | about a month ago | (#47724967)

This and only this kind of thinking will get us out of our current, sustained political quagmire.

Republican-Led FCC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724911)

The question we all have to be asking ourselves is... when is that going to happen again? Do we honestly think the Republicans will be able to lead anything more than the split of their own party? I really think it's the end of an era.

Might as well worry about when McCarthy will be back. Better make sure you don't associate with any Communists!

Slashdot liberal propaganda keeps rolling (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724959)

I see Slashdot is going the way of Digg and being taken over as a liberal propaganda blog.

This information is 100% fabricated. The FCC panel is headed by hardcore progressive liberals.

H1b Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47724973)

Why am I not surprised. Send Sunil, Mooj or whatever his name is back to his shithole country.

Linkbaiting + selective exposure + illiteracy FTW (5, Insightful)

Marble68 (746305) | about a month ago | (#47725033)

Jesus - the hyperbolic circle jerking.. sigh.. Could we get any more f#cking stupid here?

His point is that this should be viewed as beyond the authority of the FCC by both sides; that a bureaucratic panel doesn't have the power to tell individual states how to regulate themselves; and doing so will open a Pandora's box. He illustrates his point by citing SCOTUS precedence, and hypothesizes what sort of dramatic swings would be possible with that power.

Everyone loves HHS - but they forget (let me make his point in a different way) the HHS could effectively slash Abortion coverage at will by simply saying Insurance can't cover it. That's what it's dangerous to give so much power to one position; especially a politically appointed one.

Christ - His biggest mistake, apparently, is forgetting to dumb down his point and talk like everyone is 12.

IMHO, the FCC should just declare ISPs common carriers as a start; then recommend to Congress a law that says the individual citizens have a right to assembly, even in the form of a municipality, and establish publicly held utility services.

Then, it could go back to SCOTUS or whatever.

Re:Linkbaiting + selective exposure + illiteracy F (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725133)

Everyone loves HHS - but they forget (let me make his point in a different way) the HHS could effectively slash Abortion coverage at will by simply saying Insurance can't cover it. That's what it's dangerous to give so much power to one position; especially a politically appointed one.

What current law gives them that power? The ACA allows them to mandate coverage of certain things, but I"m unaware of any that allows them to forbid coverage of medical procedures.

another political story (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725037)

/. is becoming reddit.

I am tired of the stories with comments that follow astroturfed political scripts

double reverse ungood (1)

Strange Ranger (454494) | about a month ago | (#47725067)

"that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment."
 
Yes everyone can compete in the free market,
except for groups of geographically related people cooperating with their tax dollars. Can't have them competing.
 
That's the last thing we want for our infrastructure. People cooperating with their votes and tax dollars.

Municipal ISP Cable Company (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47725109)

I'm a Republican and normally I don't like the government things that private businesses can. Except, in this case ISPs are utilities and monopolies, the free market does not work with monopolies. Municipal ISPs are a bad idea, but giant cable monopolies is a worse idea. Cities are good at running utilities, either let them become ISPs or find a way to ensure competition and low barriers to new entries to the market.

Say what?! (1)

meerling (1487879) | about a month ago | (#47725135)

"The argument is that municipal broadband discourages private investment in broadband communications, that taxpayer-funded projects are barriers to future infrastructure investment."

Wait, you mean that someone else doing the exact thing that the corporations have refused to do would 'discourage' the corporations from doing that very thing they've already declared they don't want to do?
You are such a fucking ignorant tool Mr. Berry.

LOL; Utah and Google anybody? (3, Informative)

WindBourne (631190) | about a month ago | (#47725141)

Because a city in Utah had already started a system and had it in place, they were able to lease it to Google, which Google did.
If anything, that shows that gov. helping its citizens, and then working businesses, goes MUCH FURTHER, than allowing large business monopolies.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?