Appeals Court Decision Kills North Carolina Town's Gigabit Internet (hothardware.com) 222
MojoKid writes: In early August, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the FCC had no authority to prevent states from imposing restrictions on municipal internet. This was a result of the FCC stepping in last year in an effort to "remove barriers to broadband investment and competition." However, the courts sided with the states, which said that the FCC's order impeded on state rights. In the end, this ruling clearly favored firmly entrenched big brand operators like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and ATT, which lobbied hard to keep competition at bay. The federal ruling specifically barred municipal internet providers from offering service outside of their city limits, denying them from providing service to under-served communities. The fallout from the federal court's rejection of the FCC order to extend a lifeline to municipal internet providers has claimed another victim. The small community of Pinetops, North Carolina -- population 1,300 -- will soon have its gigabit internet connection shut off. Pinetops has been the recipient of Greenlight internet service, which is provided by the neighboring town of Wilson. The town of Wilson has been providing electric power to Pinetops for the past 40 years, and had already deployed fiber through the town in order to bolster its smart grid initiative. What's infuriating to the Wilson City Council and to the Pinetop residents that will lose their high-speed service is that the connections are already in place. There's no logical reason why they should be cut off, but state laws and the lobbyists supporting those laws have deemed what Greenlight is doing illegal. Provide power to a neighboring town -- sure that's OK. Provide better internet to a neighboring town -- lawsuit
Right. (Score:2)
Just like States can impose restrictions on where you pee.
Re:Right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's because doctors don't approve laws for doctors, but politicians approve laws for politicians.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How in the fcuk did this comment get modded as insightful? Out of the three you got 1 right.
Don't blame the States - Wrong, blame the States, it is the States (as through it's elected officials) that is taking the bribes (meaning the 'legal' lobbying).
Blame the big corporation - Correct.
Blame us- Wrong. The corruption of politics is so complete that if you believe your vote counts for anything then you are delusional.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Blame us- Wrong. The corruption of politics is so complete that if you believe your vote counts for anything then you are delusional.
Your influence in government is increased the more local that government is. Your vote may not count much (if at all) at a federal level, but it does at the state level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right. (Score:5, Informative)
Blame "us" why? You say to blame "us" like we could do something about it. What would you have "us" do other than read news articles and say how bad it is? There is literally nothing "the People" can do about this kind of injustice. American democracy is a sick joke.
Precisely why the overwhelming public perception right now is that the only fix to vote for an outsider candidate and blow it the hell up.
Don't blame the courts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Blame North Carolina for passing a bad law. The courts did no more than affirm the states' right to regulate their municipalities.
While you're at it, blame Wilson for overreaching. They could have made a case for installing basic infrastructure (fiber optic cable, no different than roads) and then leasing it by the strand to individuals and businesses to connect to the Internet provider of their choice. And invited providers to enter the market and compete, now with the ease-of-entry facilitated by last-mile infrastructure. Instead they made the same bad decision most municipalities make: run a municipal Internet service with no direct access to the cable for other purposes.
Re:Don't blame the courts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Good news it can now go to the supreme court. Then let's see if they find that "state's rights" trump the rights of local municipalities or not. State's rights is pure hypocrisy, whining that the feds have too much power while turning around and exerting undue power over it's own citizens, all for no rational legal purpose than to get campaign funds from donors, while the rights of the people are ignored. Libertarians are probably in a tizzy over this; support small government, or support their traditional allies the big corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree with this ruling as broadband should be treated as a utility a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is long-settled law. The Constitution of a State always trumps municipal powers, because all municipal powers ultimately depend on devolution from the State Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't blame the courts. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Don't blame the courts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Don't blame the courts. (Score:5, Funny)
Basic fibre internet is the rural electrification of the 21st century.
Yes but someone told the NC State Legislature that this municipality was going to allow transgendered people onto the exact same internet as everyone else and they freaked out.
Re: Don't blame the courts. (Score:4, Insightful)
So you thini there's somehow a natural right for some private entity to be given access to infrastructure they did not build so they can make a profit because...I can't even make up a because here.
There is no right of privitization. Despite what conservatives think, capitalism is not enshrined in our Constitution and if we the people decide we want to provide something absent some fatcats making money off of it then that is our right.
I'll grant that shouldn't be done in haste, but no justification is needed. In this case there's plenty of justification. Cable and telecomm companies these days do nothing but engage in rent seeking behavior and holding back progress.
North Carolina is wrong and the court is wrong. In all the furor over states' rights everyone is forgetting peoples' rights.
Now, in a large screw you gesture to the vastly corrupt and totally owned by corporate interests North Carolina state government, what ought to happen here is that the people in these towns should form a non profit company in which they all own equal shares. They can elect a board to run it, get tax rebates and gifts from their governments for startup money just like billionaire sports team owners get who don't want to pay their own business expenses, and run the thing the way it's being run right now. Of course the company would have in its charter a prohibition on ever being sold to a for profit entity.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's *giving* them anything? They can *buy* access, and the entity that installed the infrastructure can then recoup their costs and maintain it. Seems to work perfectly well in the UK.
Re: Don't blame the courts. (Score:4, Interesting)
The entity that installed the infrastructure in the UK was the government, who then sold off the infrastructure to a private company.
This private company has only upgraded the infrastructure in areas that would be profitable, or when the government has further subsidised the upgrades.
Commercial entities have installed their own infrastructure too, but only in certain profitable areas, other areas are left in the dark.
Re: (Score:3)
Municipal governments don't have rights, they have responsibilities and areas of authority as assigned by the state governments. To misunderstand that is to grossly misunderstand basic civics in the United States.
You also misunderstood what I wrote if you think I made any sort of claim that there's "right for some private entity to be given access to infrastructure they did not build."
I spoke to the smart plan, not any kind of rightful one. The smart plan is to build roads and let private enterprise build c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I were a federal judge, I would that we the people decided to not provide the something. This has nothing to do with conservatism or capitalism. It's a result of a state law, passed ostens
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Councils don't build roads and then lease them to toll operators; they don't install mains water pipes and lease them to a 'water operator': Operating the whole service is the point of council: There are 2 exceptions for civil infrastructure; electricity and communications. Electricity isn't so bad since it is tightly regulated once it leaves the provider's sub-station. In hindsight, it was wrong of councils to outsource communication infrastructure, which has created the very mess councils are now mire
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the states can forbid councils from building roads or installing mains water services.
This is common. For example, in Virginia incorporated cities are required to maintain their own roads (and may collect taxes for the same) while county roads are maintained by the state and the county governments are generally forbidden to do roadwork.
The state government decides what subordinate governments are allowed to do and what activities are reserved to the state government. This is long, long settled law.
Re: (Score:2)
Blame North Carolina for passing a bad law. The courts did no more than affirm the states' right to regulate their municipalities.
While you're at it, blame Wilson for overreaching. They could have made a case for installing basic infrastructure (fiber optic cable, no different than roads) and then leasing it by the strand to individuals and businesses to connect to the Internet provider of their choice. And invited providers to enter the market and compete, now with the ease-of-entry facilitated by last-mile infrastructure. Instead they made the same bad decision most municipalities make: run a municipal Internet service with no direct access to the cable for other purposes.
Yes, this was a technical decision about the ability of states to tell municipalities what they could and could not do... Courts basically treat municipalities of a subdivision of the states, so state law and state regulations always take precedence. It is a legal no-brainer.
But for every bureaucratic decision there is usually some other bureaucratic way around it. For municipalities trying to promote local Internet Service there seem like a dozen different ways to do it. Just set up a non-profit, give
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically, given the nature of the business of the corporations in question and the internet in particular, this is actually a situation where an originalist reading of the commerce clause would give the feds carte blanche. The one time the courts fucking should apply it, they don't.
Re:Right. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah let's turn this into an LGBT issue, that'll make things more progressive.
You may actually be onto something here. If we can somehow define municipal broadband as an LGBT right, no court can stop it.
Just keep it running. (Score:4, Insightful)
Arrest anyone that tries to shut it off.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be contempt of court, and the arresting officer would be facing potentially serious jail time if coupled with deprivation of liberty charges.
Unfortunately big business has trampled roughshod over citizens rights, yet again.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to jail the arresting officer? What if the entire city's police department joins him? Are they going to send in the state police and have a war between them? That'd be interesting to see, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Banning any sort of speech is very dangerous because all you accomplish is to sweep the thing under the rug, where less people have the opportunity to point out the flaws.
If you want to kill islam, you should be fighting for the right of criticizing it, rather than trying to "just to the same thing, but for the "right side" (tm)".
Re: (Score:2)
Arrest anyone that tries to shut it off.
Anarchy -- now that's the spirit. The country may go up in flames as more and more people model your example and just "take what's theirs," but thank heavens 1300 people will have a fast pipe to read about it.
Re: (Score:2)
If everything becomes anarchy, yes.
But it is a good tool to have on your belt when everything else fails, kinda like having a picklock for when you lose your keys.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's not about losing a fiber internet connection, it's about letting companies buy the death of the competition.
A future where you're forbidden to compete on anything is basically something like communism but even worse, as they don't even need to pretend that they care about you.
Bribery wins again (Score:5, Interesting)
At the very least, service should keep running until someone else provides service. It's not as if Comcast is going to provide service within anyone's lifetime just because Greenlight stops.
Re: (Score:2)
the fact is that due to the immense cost of the infrastructure, this is a natural monopoly and should be treated as such.
The infrastructure is. One company runs the infrastructure and it's regulated. Like phone, gas, whatever. The service does not have to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the people in NC (Score:2)
Have to hope it motivates them to do something about the legislators that did this.
Kind of happy though, good to see the courts get a Constitutional issue right. They have been pulling far too much out of their ass in the name of making feel good lately.
Work around? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Work around? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, sell the fiber network to Pinetops for $1 and then they can hire Wilson to run the net.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sell the fiber network to Pinetops for $1 and then they can hire Wilson to run the net.
That would require that there be a legally entity "Pinetops" to do the buying. If it's an unincorporated area, there isn't. Of course, the residents of Pinetops could create a corporation "Pinetops Internet", or something, and have it buy the fiber network. Assuming the state law doesn't prevent that somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the state law doesn't prevent that somehow.
If it doesn't now, it will as soon as Comcast/Time Warner/etc gets out their checkbook.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I as a European don't understand is how it can be that the state can enforce an ISP monopoly. In the United States of Frothing Freemarketia no less.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's saying you can't sell stuff because the government is saying you cannot.
We put up with that sort of obstruction to capitalism when the stuff is dangerous, but when it's this arbitrary it's behaving like a communist or other authoritarian government.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism trumps Free Market.
Using the power of government to take taxes, then create competition, is the exact opposite of Free Market.
All competitors must rely on service quality and cost to convince free people to prefer their product. A government does not, and can force you to pay for the service whether you want it or not.
As added insult to injury, the company will pay taxes to support this "competitor".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Work around? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the US has is crony capitalism. All of the drawbacks of socialism with none of the benefits. It doesn't help that people use terms interchangeably that mean vastly different things. There is a revolving door between big business and the government, so risks are nationalized while the rewards are pocketed. The entire system is fundamentally at odds with laissez faire capitalism, so when people yell that this is what happens in a free market those who actually care what words mean discount them as the ignorant buffoons they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Laissez faire capitalism also results in organizations large enough to buy elections and stand against governments with impunity. There must be limits.
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of the US, only if you ignore that legal fictions are constituted completely under the powers reserved by the States. Regulation of legal fictions is completely within the power of the several States as outlined by the 10th Amendment. We have the problems we do now because people have been complacent regarding the use of expedient, but patently unconstitutional, shortcuts to get the results they desire faster. The electorate is ultimately to blame, because people are greedy and self-serving when it
Re:Work around? (Score:5, Informative)
Because that too would be disallowed under state law. The locals have no political power. None of this has anything to do with any legal theory or ideal regarding state's rights, it's all about campaign donations. Oh sure, there's some frantic handwaving about how all government is evil and so a municipal government can't tax citizens to provide basic services, even if the citizens voted for it, so therefore there must be an even bigger government to stop that with an iron fist. But no one seriously believes that without being a wearer of tin foil hats. Pure and simple it's all about getting re-elected, which means getting big companies to give you money, and only picking on people that the average voter won't know or care about.
Re: (Score:2)
Another European here going WTF at the implication that cities are considered corporations?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
American here going WTF at the implication that Europeans still consider the alternative -- establishment by royal charter -- to be a good thing.
(FYI, a "municipal corporation" [wikipedia.org] just means that the town was established by the free association of the people who live in it. The concept exists in parts of Europe too, by the way.)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps since it is a "small community" its not a city, but an unincorporated area
Betcha that Pinetop will shortly incorporate just so it can keep and operate its part of the network.
Call a spade a spade (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end, this ruling clearly favored firmly entrenched big brand operators like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and ATT, which lobbied hard to keep competition at bay.
Can we just call a spade a spade, and treat "lobbying" as a bribe? I'm getting sick of seeing this blatant corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Tim S.
In the end, this ruling clearly favored firmly entrenched big brand operators like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and ATT, which lobbied hard to keep competition at bay.
Can we just call a spade a spade, and treat "lobbying" as a bribe? I'm getting sick of seeing this blatant corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets not forget these laws were passed by elected officials. When you "follow the money" you find that interests find pairs of politicians competing for office where one of then tends to vote for the company's interests, and the other does not. They shower the one that does with political donations. That money goes toward advertising during the next election. Remember, it's still the peo
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to the market ..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially you can not become a politician without also being a hypocrite, no matter what political party it is.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has never, for a second, had a free market economy any larger than a farmer's market.
Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. "Oh, and also, please re-elect me."
Vested interests (Score:2)
That goodness there is a lobby group available to protect big business and their right to gouge profit from every community around.
This reminds me of the old USSR (Score:2)
Ideology over common sense (in this case the ideology is that private free market is the highest goal). We all know how well this ended for the USSR.
Re: (Score:3)
At one point in life... (Score:2, Insightful)
... you will have to choose between the Law and Morals.
I have a friend who gets very angry when he talks about Morals; he has no qualms about the concept that the Law must followed however terrible the consequences. He's otherwise a very balanced person.
IMHO the Law is a tool which we produced to help us live in harmony; if it is used to damage the interests of the people, one has to question if that tool is working well according to the original intent (aka the "Spirit of the Law") -- reference: https://en
NC is Not in the 6th Circuit (Score:4, Interesting)
This court decision is not binding on the state of North Carolina. The Sixth Circuit covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. North Carolina is in the Fourth Circuit. Decisions in other circuits are merely persuasive authority, not binding. Only the Supreme Court can do that.
Split the company (Score:2, Interesting)
Each municipality should have an independent company that works in partnership with the other. With a minimal of overhead, they will be able to sidestep state law.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad you posted Anon. First rational answer here.
Riot! Burn down AT&T and Comcast infrastructur (Score:3)
All they have to do is (Score:2)
Privatize the fiber, call it a Co-Op
There all fixed, next injustice please.
Pat McCrory is a crook (Score:2)
First the coddling of Duke Energy, then HB2 and now this. But go on voting Republican because zOMG SOCIALISM! or you hates them feelthy preverts.
Re: (Score:2)
Another difference is that you have Republicans that are fighting this law and under the Democrats it is accept it or else.
Well of course. (Score:2)
Because of all the situations in which the Interstate Commerce Clause has been stretched to extend Federal authority, Internet access isn't one of them.
Simple Solution (Score:2)
Pinetops should just announce that they are now merging with the town of Wilson. No more issues.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that the typical voter doesn't know this is happening or doesn't care. There's also a big notion in the south that the courts must not get involved in politics, while at the same time politics ensures that bad laws can never be overturned. US Congress could act here, as this is basically interstate commerce that's involved. But they're bought and paid for just as much as the South Carolina legislators.
Re: (Score:3)
You can IMAGINE whatever you want. As to voting out their legislators, consider that this is one single issue, and not one that is very prominent on the radar of most of the state's voters. As far as I can see, it only affects a very small number of citizens in one single town.
It's the same principle as the US Congress. Anyone with two brain cells to connect together knows that on the whole they are a bunch of rat bastards, but hardly anyone has a problem with HIS OWN PARTICULAR representative.
Re: North Caroliners (Score:3, Insightful)
I have plenty of problems with my own particular representative thank you very much. My whole life I've been 'represented' by corporate friendly religious pandering stooges whose opinions for the most part couldn't be more opposite to my own.
Every time a bad law is debated or one of these corporate giveaways like TPP comes up, I already know how my particular useless waste of flesh will vote on it without even looking. I just ask myself what vote would be in favor of actual human citizens and sure enough
Re: (Score:2)
The "one single issue" is corruption, not Internet access. Corrupt legislators affect everyone in the state. Whatever you happen to catch them on (today, it's this), is just going to be the tip of the iceberg.
Of course you're right about that. Hence the story and public discussion: to help get it on peoples' radar. Now, it's the job of any NC nerds reading this on Slashdot,
Re: not profitable (Score:2, Insightful)
What a bunch of libertarian infantile bullshit, starting with the 'taxes are coercion' crap and ending with the usual selfish 'it's being spent on something I personally disapprove of and therefore is morally wrong because reasons' type argument.
First off, jackass, people form governments to, you know, govern. Providing essential services has been a government function since before the founding of this country even though libertarians love to rewrite history in their deluded brains to pretend it isn't.
One
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As for taxes, I personally like paying taxes. As a wise man once said, in return I get civilization.
I always feel like that saying misses out the middle step. In reality, in return for taxation you get authorities with more power than you individually have. How much civilization you get depends on the nature of those authorities and how they wield that power, hence another old saying about accepting no taxation without representation.
Getting back to the matter at hand, apparently this is a silly situation that is against the interests of the local residents and yet benefits no-one. On the other hand, the
Re: (Score:2)
We feel like helping others in these situations is simply the right thing to do, and our governments are better able to do it than individual citizens.
I would argue that the government is not better able to provide charity than individual citizens. For example, the Zika funding bill was voted down, because members of congress disagreed with each other. If Zika funding was provided through voluntary means, then we would not have these stalemates and delays. I won't say that private charities are perfect, but at least you can choose the private charity that you want to donate to; when it comes to government, you only get a "choice" every couple of years, an
Re: (Score:2)
If something is not profitable enough, then that is still a form of charity. For example, suppose that my market rate is $50/hour. An organization tells me that they could really use my services, but all they can afford to pay me is $10/hour. If I accept their offer, then I am essentially giving them the equivalent of $40/hour in charity.
Anyway, let's assume that you're correct and you can earn a nice 10% return by taking a moderate risk. Why not start this company yourself? The private sector is open to ev
Re: (Score:2)
If something is not profitable enough, then that is still a form of charity. For example, suppose that my market rate is $50/hour. An organization tells me that they could really use my services, but all they can afford to pay me is $10/hour. If I accept their offer, then I am essentially giving them the equivalent of $40/hour in charity.
Based on your first example, I don't think you understand what "charity" means. It's not an imposition, as you imply. If you lowered your price it would mean that you took $40 of value in some form other than immediate monetary compensation. Whether it's a public relations coup that you think you will benefit from at a later date, a warm fuzzy feeling inside, or the reduction in stress from knowing that you won't be inconvenienced while checking out with a credit card because of slow internet, you will h
Re:not profitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Based on that flawed logic, most of the rural US would still be lacking power and phone service.
My guess is that rural communities would simply pay a premium for those services. Morally, that seems perfectly acceptable, because more resources are required per customer to service rural communities.
But even if I'm wrong, I still don't see what the problem is. If your hypothetical scenario came to pass, that would mean the urban residents refused to provide the rural communities with charity. Now, if the urban residents are perfectly content with the suffering of the rural residents, then who am I to jud
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that thing that has never existed, but is routinely blamed by the intellectually dishonest (whether they're pro or anti).