No Net Neutrality thread?

[Winehole23]

cautiously optimistic. if true, would be big news.

[TeyshaBlue]

Internet access...The next utility.

I told my brother that back in 2003.

[boutons_deux]

If internet goes under le II, IIRC, Google Fiber will be allowed on poles that are denied to them now.

water, money, internet, health care, electricity, all should be non-profit public utilities.

[boutons_deux]

Commerce Department Study Reveals There's Almost No Compe ion If You Want Real Broadband



https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...roadband.shtml

[boutons_deux]

White House Finally Takes Aim At A Decade Of Ridiculous Protectionist State Community Broadband Laws

For the second time in as many months, Obama has again poured a little gasoline on the FCC and a hot-button broadband conversation topic after belatedly calling for le II reclassification back in November. This week The White House released a report (pdf) throwing the President's full support behind a push to kill off these awful laws, while pressuring the FCC to do the same. The report highlights how community broadband is the perfect tonic for market failure, and a great place to start in terms of improving lagging, uncompe ive U.S. networks:

"In markets where private compe ion is anemic, whether because of regulatory barriers to entry or the high fixed costs of infrastructure investment, town and cities can build their own middle-mile networks and offer compe ive access to the private sector, as Scott County, MN has done. Or municipalities can provide service directly to consumers, like in Chattanooga, TN. In either case, municipalities are creating more choices for consumers, fostering compe ion and creating opportunities for economic growth. Municipal broadband is often a logical choice for towns and cities that are already served by a municipal electric utility, since infrastructure costs can be shared across those two services, just as private cable companies leveraged their networks to provide Internet service."

Back in July, FCC boss Tom Wheeler responded to pe ions from several community-run ISPs(pdf) by stating the agency would be taking a long, hard look at these state laws as part of their mandate to ensure broadband is deployed on a "reasonable and timely basis." That's why, as we've been noting, the FCC has been amping up efforts to show this simply hasn't been happening. Wheeler, bucking expectations of fealty to his lobbyist past, has been highlighting frequently how roughly two-thirds of the country is unable to get more than one ISP that can provide speeds of 25 Mbps or higher.

Ignoring their own failures, ISPs and hired friends are quick to point out the municipal broadband projects that haven't worked (because like any business plan, some don't work), while ignoring areas (like Chattanooga, TN, Wilson, NC or Lafayette, LA) where these efforts are not only paying great dividends, they're motivating in bent ISPs to improve their services. Opponents of these projects like to ignore the most salient point of all: communities wouldn't be getting into the broadband business if the existing market was working. If at any point in the last fifteen years these folks really wanted to stop these efforts, they could have improved services. Instead, they've taken the cheaper route: lobbying, lawsuits and disinformation.

After Wheeler's latest comments, In bent ISPs threatened to sue if the government dares to dismantle their state-built empires of protectionist legislation. Because the justification for eroding local rights is fundamentally weak at its core and an ugly PR move, they've often waged this battle under the guise of states rights, using groups like The National Conference of State Legislatures to do the threatening for them. They've also had folks like Rep. Marsha Blackburn to similarly complain that the government is telling states what to do (you'll notice that letting giant companies write telecom law that hurts these same communities is just fine, however).

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneu...and-laws.shtml


https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...opolists.shtml

[boutons_deux]

Sad states of affairs

Alabama: Municipal communications services must be self-sustaining, "thus impairing bundling and other common industry marketing practices." Municipalities cannot use "local taxes or other funds to pay for the start-up expenses that any capital-intensive project must pay until the project is constructed and revenues become sufficient to cover ongoing expenses and debt service."

Arkansas: Only municipalities that operate electric utilities may provide communications services, but they aren't allowed to provide "basic local exchange service," i.e. traditional phone service.

California: Public en ies are generally allowed to provide communications services, but "Community Service Districts" may not if any private en y is willing to do so.

Colorado: Municipalities must hold a referendum before providing cable, telecommunications, or broadband service, unless the community is unserved.

Florida: Imposes special tax on municipal telecommunications service and a profitability requirement that makes it difficult to approve capital-intensive communications projects.

Louisiana: Municipalities must hold referendums before providing service and "impute to themselves various costs that a private provider might pay if it were providing comparable services."

Michigan: Municipalities must seek bids before providing telecom services and can move forward only if they receive fewer than three qualified bids.

Minnesota: 65 percent of voters must approve before municipalities can offer local exchange services or operate facilities that support communications services.

Missouri: Cities and towns can't sell telecom services or lease telecom facilities to private providers "except for services used for internal purposes; services for educational, emergency, and health care uses; and 'Internet-type' services."

Nebraska: Public broadband services are generally prohibited except when provided by power utilities. However, "public power utilities are permanently prohibited from providing such services on a retail basis, and they can sell or lease dark fiber on a wholesale basis only under severely limited conditions."

Nevada: Municipalities with at least 25,000 residents and counties with at least 50,000 residents may not provide telecommunications services.

North Carolina: "Numerous" requirements make it impractical to provide public communications services. "For example, public en ies must comply with unspecified legal requirements, impute phantom costs into their rates, conduct a referendum before providing service, forego popular financing mechanisms, refrain from using typical industry pricing mechanisms, and make their commercially sensitive information available to their in bent compe ors."

Pennsylvania: Municipalities cannot sell broadband services if a "local telephone company" already provides broadband, even if the local telephone company charges outrageously high prices or offers poor quality service.

South Carolina: The state "requires governmental providers to comply with all legal requirements that would apply to private service providers, to impute phantom costs into their prices, including funds contributed to stimulus projects, taxes that unspecified private en ies would incur, and other unspecified costs."

Tennessee: Municipalities that own electric utilities may provide telecom services "upon complying with various public disclosure, hearing, voting, and other requirements that a private provider would not have to meet. Municipalities that do not operate electric utilities can provide services only in 'historically unserved areas,' and only through joint ventures with the private sector."

Texas: The state "prohibits municipalities and municipal electric utilities from offering telecommunications services to the public either directly or indirectly through a private telecommunications provider."

Utah: Various procedural and accounting requirements imposed on municipalities would be "impossible for any provider of retail services to meet, whether public or private." Municipal providers that offer services at wholesale rather than retail are exempt from some of the requirements, "but experience has shown that a forced wholesale-only model is extremely difficult, or in some cases, impossible to make successful."

Virginia: Municipal electric utilities can offer phone and Internet services "provided that they do not subsidize services, that they impute private-sector costs into their rates, that they do not charge rates lower than the in bents, and that [they] comply with numerous procedural, financing, reporting and other requirements that do not apply to the private sector." Other requirements make it nearly impossible for municipalities to offer cable service, except in Bristol, which was grandfathered.

Washington: The state "authorizes some municipalities to provide communications services but prohibits public utility districts from providing communications services directly to customers."

Wisconsin: Cities and towns must "conduct a feasibility study and hold a public hearing prior to providing telecom, cable, or Internet services." Additionally, the state "prohibits 'subsidization' of most cable and telecom services and prescribes minimum prices for telecommunications services."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-in-20-states/

red states DOMINATE with the corporate protectionism

Freedom!

No regulations!

Free Market!

Govt Overreach!