Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Businesses The Almighty Buck Technology

FCC Sued By Dozens of Cities After Voting To Kill Local Fees and Rules (arstechnica.com) 106

Posted by BeauHD from the cause-and-effect dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission faces a legal battle against dozens of cities from across the United States, which sued the FCC to stop an order that preempts local fees and regulation of cable-broadband networks. The cities filed lawsuits in response to the FCC's August 1 vote that limits the fees municipalities can charge cable companies and prohibits cities and towns from regulating broadband services offered over cable networks. "At least 46 cities are asking federal appeals courts to undo an FCC order they argue will force them to raise taxes or cut spending on local media services, including channels that schools, governments, and the general public can use for programming," Bloomberg Law wrote Tuesday.

Various lawsuits were filed against the FCC between August and the end of October, and Bloomberg's report said that most of the suits are being consolidated into a single case in the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. An FCC motion to transfer the case to the 6th Circuit, which has decided previous cases on the same topic, is pending. The 9th Circuit case was initially filed by Eugene, Oregon, which said the FCC order was arbitrary and capricious and that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Constitution, and the Communications Act. The cities' arguments and the FCC's defense will be fleshed out more in future briefs. Big cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Francisco, Denver, and Boston are among those suing the FCC. Also suing are other municipalities from Maine, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington, according to a Bloomberg graphic. The state of Hawaii is also suing the FCC, and New York City is supporting the lawsuit against the FCC as an intervening party.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Sued By Dozens of Cities After Voting To Kill Local Fees and Rules More

FCC Sued By Dozens of Cities After Voting To Kill Local Fees and Rules

Comments Filter:
  • They'll sue you someday too. Then you will sue someone who is suing them. It keeps the economy strong.

  • FCC in the right here? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Presence Eternal ( 56763 ) on Thursday November 14, 2019 @05:31PM (#59415140)

    My experience was all those "local fees" just get shoveled right into the customer bill anyway, and then used as a sandwich for other made up fees that go straight to fat bastards.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Train0987 ( 1059246 )

      ALL fees get passed on to customers by every business.

      • Re:FCC in the right here? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by youngone ( 975102 ) on Thursday November 14, 2019 @05:46PM (#59415188)

        ALL fees get passed on to customers by every business.

        Unless the business operates in a competitive market, in which case the business needs to think about how many customers they will lose if they pass on a price increase.
        The US Internet access market has no competition, so in that case all fees are passed on.

        • Note that 9 times out of 10, the restriction of competition is BECAUSE of the local Government authorities. They profit handsomely from the restrictions... If those restrictions weren't there, you'd see a lot more competition in most municipalities.
          • You'd see competition in the places worth competing for. The rest would get nothing.
            A lot of places are only worth bothering with if you can be guaranteed customers or guaranteed no competitors.
            • So - quid pro quo?

              • I'm assuming there was some deal done whereby you get the monopoly for a certain area. But you have to cover the whole area.
                Otherwise 2 (however many) companies would compete for the profitable bits, and leave the rest with nothing.

                It's evil socialism apparently, as well as crony capitalism. But it works in most countries.

        • I guess that is a liberal mindset? Let me spell it out.

          Case 1 A No fees, no competition
          Cost + Markup = charge to customer
          Cost 10, markup 100%, charge 20

          Case 1 B with fees, no competition
          Cost (including fees) + Markup = charge to customer
          Cost 15, Markup 100%, charge 30

          Case 2 A No Fees, big competition
          Cost + Markup = charge to customer
          Cost 10, markup 20%, charge 12

          Case 2 B with Fees, big competition
          Cost (including fees) + Markup = charge to customer
          Cost 15, markup 20%, charge 18

          • I guess that is a liberal mindset?

            Not sure hat you mean by that. I don't think economics is particularly liberal (unless you mean neo-liberal, in which case maybe).
            I am also not sure what your examples are supposed to prove. Any of those would be undercut by any new entrant to your market who offered a price with a lower markup.

        • Oligarchies are not competitive by definition.

        • The US Internet access market has no competition

          Cable, DSL, Wireless (frequently from multiple companies). What are you talking about?

          • I'm talking about what everyone else in the world calls competition.
            That is where I have the choice of something like 20 different ISP's all offering me different deals.
            I am afraid your examples are setting the bar pretty low.

        • ALL fees get passed on to customers by every business.

          Unless the business operates in a competitive market, in which case the business needs to think about how many customers they will lose if they pass on a price increase.

          Unless the company has their own money printing press in the back room, all fees get passed on to the customers. That's how it works.

          I own a business. My customers pay all my bills. I can't print my own money.

          • I own a business. My customers pay all my bills

            Which has exactly nothing to do with competition.
            If your customers find someone who will provide your service for less, they will stop paying your bills.

            I can't print my own money.

            Of course you can't, nobody said you could. Or that you might ever need to.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by shilly ( 142940 )

            Your bills are not your only outgoings. There's also your remuneration. In the case of corporations, that's dividends to shareholders. You can cut your salary and cut your dividends. You can also find ways to cut your other bills so that you can cope with a fee hike.

    • Re:FCC in the right here? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nitehawk214 ( 222219 ) on Thursday November 14, 2019 @05:35PM (#59415156)

      Of course, the FCC works for the telecoms companies. They will stop giving the fee to the local governments but still charge the money to the customers. There is no way for the people to win here.

    • My experience was all those "local fees" just get shoveled right into the customer bill anyway, and then used as a sandwich for other made up fees that go straight to fat bastards.

      Yeah, uh, none of your business, none of the FCC's business.

      You don't like City Hall, tough cookies, no whining. Run for Mayor.

      The FCC can't change the policy in a way that harms the interests of the cities in an arbitrary and capricious way. What exactly does that mean? That means the Federal Government isn't allowed to change their rules willy-nilly according to the mere preferences of the latest department heads. They have to have and provide actual good reasons for changes, and they have to weigh the im

      • Re:FCC in the right here? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by packrat0x ( 798359 ) on Thursday November 14, 2019 @06:46PM (#59415318)

        The Federal Communication Act of 1984 gave the localities the power to levy these "fees". The federal government is taking some of that power away. The complaint isn't that the this is illegal or unconstitutional, it's that the change didn't happen per federal rules.

        • The complaint isn't that the this is illegal or unconstitutional, it's that the change didn't happen per federal rules.

          That it didn't happen per federal rules is literally what makes it illegal.

    • My experience was all those "local fees" just get shoveled right into the customer bill anyway, and then used as a sandwich for other made up fees that go straight to fat bastards.

      The "we'll have to raise taxes" argument is laughable - they're already taxes, they're just hidden to the people most people don't recognize them as such so they get to get away with fleecing their constituents for more.

  • Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shotgun ( 30919 ) on Thursday November 14, 2019 @05:33PM (#59415148)

    If this isn't a clear demonstration of a run-amock, out of control federal government, I don't know what is. The Constitution specifically states that any right not listed in there is reserved to the people and the States. Issuing taxes and fees to the local population for a local service is a local as local can get, and the federal government has no right to interfere.

    • If this isn't a clear demonstration of a run-amock, out of control federal government, I don't know what is.

      Well then, you don't know what it is, because it is not the Federal Government that is the problem here.
      This is known as Regulatory Capture, and is the reason the FCC is not doing it's job.

      This piece explains it quite well. [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by geek ( 5680 )

        This is also why you can't buy health insurance from anyone you want or across state lines. They "captured" that business via regulations. It's amazing more people don't get upset over this. No one stops and thinks "Hey why don't I ever see commercials for health insurance on TV?" it's because you're trapped first by what companies are allowed to sell it in your state and then trapped again by what company your employer uses because they are mandated to provide you coverage whether you want it or not if you

        • Of course, it would be so much better for Americans if you all didn't have to buy health insurance at all.
          Funding your health system directly from taxes is cheaper and provides better health care, but yes, your health insurance industry has captured the business.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by shilly ( 142940 )

            Plenty of successful health systems in Europe involve insurance; in fact, the majority. Spain and the UK are relative outliers. Of course markets like France, Germany, the Netherlands etc all have significant regulatory control of how the payor operate, which helps

    • The FCC is really nothing more than a public, government owned company that unfairly competes with private members of the "free market" such as states and municipalities to offer the services including provision of "telecommunications regulations". The constitution is meaningless unless it is actively defended by the legislatures and courts of the nation.

    • Re:Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Thursday November 14, 2019 @06:28PM (#59415272) Journal

      If this isn't a clear demonstration of a run-amock, out of control federal government

      It's actually crony capitalism run amok. The big telecoms want to run the whole show, and bribe politicians via legal campaign donations to do their bidding.

      • People, the emotional creatures they are like to agree with this sort of comment, but it doesn't actually solve anything. You need to offer solid proof of the "bribery" claim. You know you can't, since a majority of what you're referring to is protected either directly or indirectly by "corporate free speech" in case-law via "Citizens United v. FEC (2010)". You also need to suggest some sort of solution; otherwise this is nothing more than torches and pitchforks. I believe the argument that this isn't the

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          You need to offer solid proof of the "bribery" claim.

          I don't have any, but I do have a solid line of reasoning.

          Most politicians are slimebags. If you give a slimebag more campaign money to do A than B, they are more likely to do A.

          In general if you give people more money to do A than do B, they will do more A.

          • So stating the obvious, torches and pitch forks then? What should we actually do differently about the issue? We're already doing the usual; let the courts decide.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Tablizer ( 95088 )

              Any fix will probably require a Constitutional amendment in order to limit campaign donations and political ad spending (for politicians). We probably can't put a limit on issue ads, but maybe increase disclosure requirements so at least it's easier to know who is behind such ads.

              Limiting total campaign donations and spending per politician may also help some. However, those with deep pockets still have ability to fund the entry of their chosen candidate.

              • I agree the Citizens United case is an issue... but... What you're saying is like a rocket engineer talking about repealing the law that enacts gravity.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shotgun ( 30919 )

          I believe the argument that this isn't the responsibility of the federal government is flawed in that they are the ones who granted these powers and that they are those solely capable of revoking them.

          Umm? Read that Constitution again. The federal government is not an omnipotent king that "grants powers". The people granted a few powers to the federal government.

    • Ya, but if you talk to these state's-rights defenders, they almost always think that the state or feds are allowed to overrule local governments, especially when profits are on the line. Hypocrisy? Of course.

      • > but if you talk to these state's-rights defenders, they almost always think that the state or feds are allowed to overrule local governments

        Not quite - people who understand states rights are aware that the states held a convention in 1787 and at that convention they "delegated certain powers to the United States", while all others were "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people".

        The states explicitly gave the federal government certain powers, when the states created the federal government

        • Also along the way, there was a war. We decided that slavery was right out, that the feds absolutely had the power to declare this no matter how much the states whined about it. States rights originally meant 100% that it was about the right to own slaves, no matter how much hand waving people today make of it. Of course, it took another 100 years for emancipation to really take place but that's another matter. So based on this war, there's a reasonable theory out there that the "loose confederation of

          • You're certainly right that life today is a bit different than it was at the founding of the republic. More on that later, so I can take your points in order. Even though that means saving the parts where we may agree for last.

            > We decided that slavery was right out, that the feds absolutely had the power to declare this no matter how much the states whined about it.

            I don't think that's quite how it happened. I think the STATES ratified the 13th amendment. This was a decade or two after half the states

    • I love the 10th Amendment and Article 1 as much as anyone.
      That's inwbof the few things, if not rhe only thing, that the Constitution repeated twice, just in case somebody failed to read it the first time. The wheat cases were a travesty.

      However, I think it's reasonable to say that the internet, and Comcast, are interstate commerce. That gives the feds the power to regulate them. Where the feds have power (which is limited to a few areas), the supremacy clause says the feds can prevent the states from als

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        The food I buy at the grocery store comes from all over the wold. I still pay a local sales tax at the counter. I could still end up paying a local toll to get to that grocery store.

        • In 1998, Congress did not pass a law prohibiting states from taxing interstate corn. Congress can (and does) regulate groceries sold in interstate commerce; it has not chosen to bar states from adding their own taxes on interstate groceries.

          They did pass the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The Act bars taxes on interstate internet service, on ISPs.

    • Issuing taxes and fees to the local population for a local service is a local as local can get

      No, the individual is as local as local can get. Governments at most should only have powers ceded to it by individuals because only individuals have rights. The government has no right to issue taxes and fees without a majority of the population giving the government that power, and even then only as limited by overriding law (i.e. a Constitution.)

    • Issuing taxes and fees to the local population for a local service is a local as local can get, and the federal government has no right to interfere.

      Well someone clearly never went to law school.

      There are plenty of issues where Federal interests trump local interests under the Constitution. Many under the commerce clause, but other clauses as well. For example, Federal regulations can preempt local regulations where interstate commerce is impacted. That's why California's exception to set their own

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • For Communist Control

    they do the work of China and Russia

  • The FCC, when dumpster fires just aren't dumpster-y smelly enough!

    We now accept Yuan and rubles (no bitcoin, that would be too obvious - we have to pretend to *serve* the American public, WINK)!!!

  • breathtaking levels of Federal corruption (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chromal ( 56550 ) on Thursday November 14, 2019 @07:40PM (#59415442)
    Suddenly the FCC has gone from protecting the public to predating upon us all. It's amazing how a fascist writ can not only rescind hard-won progress in an instant, but even tie up a staggering quantity of The People's resources (here, in the form of public attorneys and budgets) just to fight to preserve things that should never have been threatened. In this manner, we'll lose an entire decade to these attacks upon our system. We will never know complete relief and satisfaction, and no compensation can make up for lost years. These Nazis genital lickers need more than a slap on the wrist, a chilling message regarding the consequences of fascism and corruption needs to be sent to posterity such that people shiver in memory of what was down to these Hitler clowns and it never is revisited upon us again for the span of living memory. That's what happened in Nuremberg after WWII, and I'm not sure that anything less will sufficient now because these monsters' defiance and contempt of liberal democracy is endless and bold.
    • show up to your primary in 2020, then to the General election too. Don't forget that primary. Not a lot of people show up, so if you do you get a _lot_ of voting power.

      • Remember when Bernie Sanders sued the Democratic Party, claiming that they rigged the primary against him? He lost his case.

        You know why? Because the Democrats argued in court - and won - that they are a private corporation that need not respect the results of any vote. But don't trust me, follow the citations from the article below. Face it, your vote is meaningless. They will nominate whomever they please. Like George Carlin said, "It's a big club and you ain't in it".

        Court Concedes DNC Had the R [observer.com]

        • He sued because they suspended his campaign from the DNC’s voter database [thehill.com].

          The lawsuit you linked to was class action. It wasn't filed by Bernie. Bernie supported and endorsed Hilary after losing.

          So go take your Bernie Bashing somewhere's else. We all see right through you.
          • Uh, that in no way invalidates the judges decision that the Democrats can rig their vote. And did. If you think your vote matters, you're sorely mistaken.
            • they're a private organization. The GOP can rig their vote too (and have repeatedly, look up "Sheldon Primary" sometime).

              My vote matters. So does yours. Show up to your primary and they can't rig shit. They can only rig the primary because guys like you either stay home or do whatever your told by the establishment. All it takes to break that is for a 5% margin. If just 5% real anti-Establishment types showed up to the primaries then the margins wouldn't be big enough to rig. Book it, done.

        • Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders [observer.com]

          On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. "In evaluating Plaintiffs' claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true - that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor of Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent," the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff's allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.

          I admit, I've gotten pretty disillusioned with the voting process lately. The link you gave got me curious though, and I actually went looking for the court document your linked article reports on, in order to actually confirm my disillusionment. But, if I'm reading the court docket correctly, (which, in fairness, I may not be. IANAL), the court actually agreed that the DNC argument was bullshit, and that they *couldn't* rig the primary. The suit was dismissed due to technical reasons where the court point

      • Show up to VOTE, period. I'm afraid that's just about the one thing we agree on.

        Like usual, I'll be voting for the best candidate. I guess I'll be voting for Biden, as he's the Oldest Whitest Malest around, and I'd love the SJWs to freak out about him. (He's the wrong sex, sexual orientation, color, age, and hair color. But he's the right party and we're inclusive, so that's OK this time.)

        Actually, I doubt I'll be voting for him, he's already had his chance. And remember: CONGRESS runs the country, t

    • Re:breathtaking levels of Federal corruption (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday November 14, 2019 @08:26PM (#59415512)
      This is why many of us have been arguing for a less powerful Federal government. If your government is broken up into lots of small governments, then it becomes more difficult to corrupt it all.

      But we got shouted down by those of you who didn't want to go through the trouble of getting legislation passed first at the lower levels of government, before instituting it at the Federal level. That was too hard and troublesome for you. You wanted to take a short cut - pass it at the Federal level and have it immediately apply everywhere, overriding the state and local governments. And you abused the Commerce Clause to accomplish this. Well you got your wish. And the precedent set by your maneuver to bypass the allocation of powers between the Federal, state, and local governments has opened up the avenue by which a single person heading a single Federal agency can override all the state and local governments and set policy for the entire country.

      You can't assume the government will always be on your side when you expand its powers. You always have to consider what the government could do with those powers if it becomes hostile to the public's interests. Then decide if that's really a power you wish to give the government.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chromal ( 56550 )
        The Federal government is the best level of government from which to implement anti-corruption reform across the country. Then it's only one battle to exterminate the corruption, vs fifty.

      • If your government is broken up into lots of small governments, then it becomes more difficult to corrupt it all.

        That belief is adorable! Small governments in no way will be swamped by lots of lobbyists.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by G00F ( 241765 )

          the closer to gov and choices made to the people, the more power the people have.

          Example is that cities and communities are rolling out internet other than comcast. This isn't happening fed or state.

      • Most of you have been arguing for less government period. No distinction between levels.
    • Do you realize that you're recycling old, tired right-wing anti government rhetoric from the 1990s? Because those are exactly the arguments they used. Especially the part about fantasizing about visiting retribution on the corrupt officials, and calling them Nazis. Do you not know you sound exactly like camo-clad survivalists?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Chromal ( 56550 )
        Regardless of how justice could be measured, nothing that went down in the 1990s holds a candle to what's been going on the last nineteen years. Personally, I'm disgusted and just want to be liberated from these oppressive days.
        • Dude, in the 90s the federal government burned down a building with hundreds of people in it. The far right retaliated by bombing a federal building and killing 150+ people. Seriously people forgot this? How many mass murderers has the US government done against its own citizens since 2016?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Chromal ( 56550 )
            Dude, in the 2000s, the US government promoted the legal theory that torture and war crimes were legal and justifiable. They suspended on a mass scale the requirements and protections of the US Constitution, as Room 641A and Snowden revealed. They directly or indirectly caused over 100,000 civilian deaths when they illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, and went on to displace perhaps over a million Iraqis from their lives. Their war crimes and crimes against humanity have saddled the country with US$23B (and
            • So you've got nothing about the US government attacking its own people. So stereotypical for your kind to care more for foreigners than your own people.

            • Given that the only reason for the raid at all was the BATFE wanted to put on a dog and pony show in order to increase their funding and the only reason the compound was buttoned up and ready for the feds is because said federal agency leaked the date and time of the raid to the local press a week in advance so that there would be an audience with plenty of cameras to film the raid, I'm gonna go with you're an idiot. Regardless of whether Koresh was a nutjob or not, the BDs very much were victims.

  • Local TV stations are owned by private companies like Sinclair Broadcast Group. The money goes in their pockets not the cities.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close