Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Network Government The Internet United States

FCC Kills Part of San Francisco's Broadband-Competition Law (arstechnica.com) 110

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission today voted to preempt part of a San Francisco ordinance that promotes broadband competition in apartment buildings and other multi-tenant structures. But it's not clear exactly what effect the preemption will have, because San Francisco says the FCC's Republican majority has misinterpreted what the law does. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's plan partially overturns San Francisco's Article 52, which lets Internet service providers use the existing wiring inside multi-unit buildings even if another ISP already serves the building. The FCC said it's preempting the law "to the extent it requires the sharing of in-use wiring." But Pai's proposal admits the FCC doesn't know whether the San Francisco law actually requires sharing of in-use wiring, which makes it difficult to understand whether the FCC preemption will change anything in practice. Today's FCC decision "stop[s] efforts in California designed to encourage competition in multi-tenant environments," FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, said at today's meeting. "Specifically, we say to the city of San Francisco -- where more than half of the population rents their housing, often in multi-tenant units -- that they cannot encourage broadband competition. This is crazy."

An announcement from Pai's office argued that "[r]equired sharing of in-use wiring deters broadband deployment, undercuts the Commission's rules regarding control of cable wiring in residential MTEs [multi-tenant environments] and threatens the Commission's framework to protect the technical integrity of cable systems for the benefit of viewers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Kills Part of San Francisco's Broadband-Competition Law

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    You are still free to shit in the streets.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    But at least his heart is in the pocket of major corporations.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Watch closely. These don't come out into the light very often.

  • States' Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @05:22PM (#58904642)

    I thought the Republicans were all about States Rights?

    • you're not fooling any one, and neither are they. I just wish we had media outlets that would call them out on their bullshit. There's YouTube, but apparently they've noticed [youtube.com]
    • Only when those rights are inherently racist or sexist. Make America great for white male land owners again!

    • by Agripa ( 139780 )

      I thought the Republicans were all about States Rights?

      Like Democrats, Republicans are only for States Rights when they are not in power.

  • by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @05:28PM (#58904682)

    are staying the course of their financial masters. Pai(d) should be removed as soon as possible, regardless of who wins the next election.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Glad to see the DNC appointed commissioners and a handfull of internet partisans are so blinded by politics that they cannot even read the subject matter at hand.

      Per the city of San Francisco - this ruling will not affect them at all.

      That's right. San Francisco says that their ordinance does not require sharing of in-use wiring. The FCC says "you can't require the sharing of in-use wiring". San Francisco says, "Uh, yeah.... Ok. We weren't gonna do that anyway.

      Then along comes bobstreo and a bunch of oth

  • by Anonymous Coward

    San Francisco's law requires the sharing of wires.

    There's uncertainty over whether it requires the sharing of wires currently in use.

    The FCC vote says that it can't require the sharing of wires currently in use.

    Fin

    • There's uncertainty over whether it requires the sharing of wires currently in use.

      The law is pretty clear that ISPs are allowed to use existing wiring. There is nothing in the law about the existing wiring being in use or not. Thus the law requires the sharing of existing wires while they are also in use by another ISP, if the property owner will not permit installation of another set of wires. The law does not require the property owner to permit that.

  • Bad for tenants (Score:5, Informative)

    by u19925 ( 613350 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @05:39PM (#58904746)

    What if the apartment bldg owner strikes an exclusive deal with an ISP which will provide free 56kbps service. Now that it is in use, you can't use any other ISP. The word "in use" should have been reserved for "in use by the resident" but now it can be interpreted as "in use by the owner". Pai indeed preempted it without anyone noticing it. SF authority response is complete nonsense saying that its law does not apply to in use wiring. In that case, the law has no effect as the owner can provide a fake use.

    • Re: Bad for tenants (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Something similar happened in our building where an ISP made a deal with the construction company selling the apparents in the building so that the actual owners after buying the appartments could not use existing pathways (not even wanting to use cabling at the time) to pull own fiber in what was effectively a collectively owned building. The ISP even threatened owners could not use the in appartment coax cables for anything but their content. Luckily I live in a country where we were able to pull new cabl

  • USA USA USA (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @06:41PM (#58905044)

    Oh wait, I live in New Zealand where I have access to 31 different ISPs, I am currently on 100/20 with no data caps, no port blocking, no prioritising data, etc etc it is just a dumb pipe, all for the cost of NZ$70 a month , I could go to 1000/400 for another $20. My modem is not locked

    In fact something over 85% of the country will have fast broadband within a year or two.

    All bought to you by a government that is "by the people, for the people"

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yet you can't own a scary "assault" rifle. It is that mentality why we had to save western civilization twice in 2 World Wars.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Russia did a shit load more to win WWII than the USA did.
        The largest battle by far was for Stalingrad

        Japan surrendered because Russia was entering the war, NOT because of the US Nukes
        https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/008/expertclips/010

        You can keep your assault rifles along with your school shootings, high murder rates, high crime rates, high prison population, high corruption. The USA should try democracy, freedom and freedom of speech because you sure as hell are not number 1, not by a long shot.

    • Yeah but you live in NZ which is about 50 billion kms away from any hosted game server with a respectable population.

  • Seriously folks... come up with some new comments. I've heard all of these before. Trump sucks... Libtards Suck... Jews Suck... Vacuums Suck...

    I'm seriously bored.... COME ON!!!!

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...