[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there was more traction for NN before the Clown-In-Chief opened his mouth.

With who? The politicians or the public?

The public has already spoken. If certain politicians want to play politics with this issue, let them. It makes campaigning about them not listening to the "american voice" easier.

Realistically, Obama's statement changes nothing because no one was acting on it before. As if Wheeler saying he was going to do Title II wouldn't have garnered the same outspoken opponents.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You're splitting hairs. I said is seen. Not is reality.

Heal thyself, Doctor.

Huh? What were their counterparts stooping about and what did the GOP stoop to?

Unpopular, anti middle class policy.

Is it? On what subject?

This very subject, among others.

Nothing has changed. If you thought the majority change in the Senate would amount to something, you haven't been paying attention to how congress has been functioning the past 6 years.

Exactly my point.

The hell it isn't. The "everybody is the same" is asinine, doubly so when coupled with a specific topic where the stances of each party are pretty stark.

Words are wind, Dakar. What has Obama done for Net Neutrality except take a stance on it after an election where he's conveniently no longer able/not expected to do anything about it? The man appointed a cable industry lobbyist as the chairman of the FCC last year and you think their stances are stark in contrast? They got you hook line and sinker bro.

Oh right, your bush league illuminati.

Anger issues, much?

Oh good, fearmongering.

If voicing my displeasure about the direction of this country to you is fear mongering, I think you need a break from discussing politics.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

… and the lobbyist was confirmed with broad bipartisan support by Congress as head of the FCC. In the Senate, support was unanimous.

You're right that Obama has done nothing up until now to further net neutrality, but the GOP doesn't even have net neutrality on their agenda. Instead, you have people like Tom Cruze coming out against it because Obama is for it, comparing it to Obama Care. I am not quite sure which is attitude is worse.

Didn't I just go on a rant about how pissed off at the GOP I am for that? Voicing displeasure for Obama does not equal voicing pleasure for his opposition.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Save your rant/lecture for someone who didn't specifically point out it's his fault in the OP.

Good God dude, do you want to talk about whatever it is causing you to be so prickly? I'm here for you if you do.

I'd like you better if you didn't seem contrarian for the sake of illuminating us with your overarching philosophy that both sides are the same.

I'd like you better if you weren't a pompous ass half the time, but I look past your faults in the interest of moving the discussion forward. We can work together or not. I am not perfect and neither are you, so chill out and lets focus on the issue.

Do you have anything to suggest that my philosophy applied to this issue is incorrect? Actions, not words.

[CCRyder]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think it's big business vs. start-ups, companies like Apple, Google, Amazon and Netflix aren't start-ups anymore. It's one branch of big business vs. another.

Then it's business-vs-business. Point is, it's not really about government-vs-business.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Heal thyself, Doctor.

Oh, ok. I guess I'm not allowed to point it out.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Unpopular, anti middle class policy.

This is terribly unspecific.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This very subject, among others.

Quote?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Exactly my point

No it wasn't. You implied they squandered something they never had.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Words are wind, Dakar. What has Obama done for Net Neutrality except take a stance on it after an election where he's conveniently no longer able/not expected to do anything about it? The man appointed a cable industry lobbyist as the chairman of the FCC last year and you think their stances are stark in contrast?

There are more Democrats than Obama, bro.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

They got you hook line and sinker bro.

You treating Obama like the end-all be-all of Democrats is the pubs getting you hook-line-sinker.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Anger issues, much?

There's nothing angry about that.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If voicing my displeasure about the direction of this country to you is fear mongering, I think you need a break from discussing politics.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

our foreign rivals getting more aggressive each passing day sensing the weakness of the once-great US

Yes, that sounds like fear-mongering. Our rivals are aggressive is not about the direction of this country. And 'our weakness' is nebulous, but I have to assume it's not about NN.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Realistically, Obama's statement changes nothing because no one was acting on it before. As if Wheeler saying he was going to do Title II wouldn't have garnered the same outspoken opponents.

No one was really speaking against NN, except the ISPs, until he opened his big yap.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Good God dude, do you want to talk about whatever it is causing you to be so prickly? I'm here for you if you do.

You could start by not condescending to me with these long diatribes about the state of politics in general or my blindness to what's 'really' going on, rather than, you know, the actual issue.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'd like you better if you weren't a pompous ass half the time

I have a feeling any perceived pomposity would disappear shortly after your lecturing did. You presume to tell me how naive I am, but I am pompous for replying you are deluded.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do you have anything to suggest that my philosophy applied to this issue is incorrect? Actions, not words.

Republicans are loudly objecting, Democrats are not. How is that not a difference?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No one was really speaking against NN, except the ISPs, until he opened his big yap.

That's because Title II wasn't on the radar until he open his yap. Wheel was crafting a plan that basically hid the lack of neutrality. Why would opponents object?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's because Title II wasn't on the radar until he open his yap. Wheel was crafting a plan that basically hid the lack of neutrality. Why would opponents object?

You aren't serious!? Unless you're talking about someone who hasn't been online in the last 3 years, essentially living under a rock, that's absurd. Title 2 reclassification for ISPs has been talked to death by every commentator who has ever heard about it. It was boldly part of the petition signed by over 4 million Americans this last year, which then ran on to national news headlines, months ago. There wasn't a Left vs Right hard line in the sand until Obama weighed in.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i

The ISP oligarchy does need regulation because the free market does not exist in that space.

This is precisely what I was getting at in my original post in this thread. From a "policy" perspective there really isn't much to discuss. It's a no-brainer! Unless of course you are politician who is bought and paid for by monopolist or at best duopolist corporate interests. Now from a "partisan" perspective ... well the current GOP freakout is to be expected. But let's be clear. President Obama has long supported "net neutrality". It's on the record. The thing is he's expressed it that simply and without going into detail. The only thing that's different now is that he's gone on the record with a video outlining a detailed proposal for how "net neutrality" should be enforced. Specifically, by regulating the internet like a public utility. Which only makes logical sense since the "last mile" is a natural monopoly. Which, for the record, wouldn't even be necessary if the conservative majority on the SCOTUS hadn't gutted the existing FCC rules.

There's nothing Congress nor President Obama can do about it directly since the FCC is an independent agency. All they can do is bring political pressure to bear one way or the other. The GOP is constantly harping about Obama showing "leadership". Well a detailed proposal about what he stands for and why is exactly that. But of course, what they really mean by "leadership" is for Obama to come out in favor of GOP policy.

As for President Obama's appointment of Tom Wheeler to the FCC well let's not pretend that was a singular decision. An FCC appointment is made by the POTUS and subject to Senate confirmation. And given the GOP's knee-jerk response to protect big business interests at all costs ... even against sensible regulations for natural monopolies ... who here really thinks he would have been able to seat an Elizabeth Warren type who would really advocate for public and not corporate interests over a GOP filibuster? Because IIRC that appointment was made prior to the Dems exercising the "nuclear option" on presidential appointments. Hell he couldn't even get Elizabeth Warren herself confirmed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that she started! So let's not put it all on Obama for an "industry insider" being appointed to that position. Just saying ...

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Unless of course you are politician who is bought and paid for by monopolist or at best duopolist corporate interests.

which is nearly all of them.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You aren't serious!? Unless you're talking about someone who hasn't been online in the last 3 years, essentially living under a rock, that's absurd. Title 2 reclassification for ISPs has been talked to death by every commentator who has ever heard about it. It was boldly part of the petition signed by over 4 million Americans this last year, which then ran on to national news headlines, months ago. There wasn't a Left vs Right hard line in the sand until Obama weighed in.

It's one thing for the public to come out in favor of Title 2 reclassification. It's quite another for elected officials to do so. GOP elected officials have for the most part been steadfastly opposed to "net neutrality" for years ... despite the overwhelming support of GOP voters. It's the same sh*t that went down with the background check measure that was proposed after the Sandy Hook shootings. A clear majority of the public ... including GOP voters ... were in favor of it. Upwards of 90+%! But GOP elected officials saw to it that the measure was killed in the Senate.

Again ... let's not pretend that President Obama suddenly created opposition among GOP elected officials that previously was non-existent simply because he weighed in. That's simply not the case.

OAW

[Jawbone54]

There is nothing about the events since Obama's NN declaration that isn't covered in partisanship. This is Obama finally, actually making a positive step (distinct in that it's positive for everyone, barring ISPs), and Republicans open up the floodgates of exasperation, hoping to rally the troops.

This is Republicans feeling cocky about the elections, and hoping to score some more points against O, even at the expense of their constituents' best interests.

This is also why I turned in my card 9 years ago, and have been independent since.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's one thing for the public to come out in favor of Title 2 reclassification. It's quite another for elected officials to do so.

That's not what he said. The claim was that it wasn't even "on the radar", and the truth is that it's been blipping the radar for years. What's changed is that someone whom a majority of citizens distrust, who just so happens to be the POTUS, boldly came out in favor of it. If he'd kept on saying nothing about it, like he'd done until then, this wouldn't have become so politically charged. The fact is, Wheeler doesn't have the balls (or the motivation) to turn the screws on the telcos, and if he doesn't then nothing will be done, so what is the point of Obama piping up in the first place?

"Look! The GOP is against Net Neutrality!" Yeah, smart guy, but what does that matter if your own man won't even commit to change the status quo?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

"Look! The GOP is against Net Neutrality!" Yeah, smart guy, but what does that matter if Comcast's own man won't even commit to change the status quo?

Fixed.

Even worse.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That's not what he said. The claim was that it wasn't even "on the radar", and the truth is that it's been blipping the radar for years.

Dakar can certainly correct me if I'm wrong ... but I interpreted his "on the radar" comment with an IMPLIED "among decision makers" tacked onto it. Hence my comment. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's been "on the radar" among those in the public who are informed about the issue. But it hasn't been "on the radar" among the elected officials who are in a position to pressure the FCC ... aka the "decision makers" ... to do the right thing.

Case in point. Even AFTER the FCC opened up their website for public comment on the issue and the public OVERWHELMINGLY came out in favor of NN ... more responses on that than for any issue opened up for public input EVER ... Wheeler was STILL out their floating "hybrid" plans and whatnot that would allow ISPs to create paid fast lanes. Feel free to provide a link if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anything that would suggest a Title 2 reclassification was "on the radar" of the FCC until Obama came out so forcefully and publicly for it.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Didn't I just go on a rant about how pissed off at the GOP I am for that? Voicing displeasure for Obama does not equal voicing pleasure for his opposition.

I think my post came across the wrong way: I meant to continue your argument, pointing to the fact that we shouldn't look to Congress for sanity or help. It's really quite a frustrating situation.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think my post came across the wrong way: I meant to continue your argument, pointing to the fact that we shouldn't look to Congress for sanity or help. It's really quite a frustrating situation.

Sorry, re-reading again I see where you were going.

I agree with you 100%.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You could start by not condescending to me with these long diatribes about the state of politics in general or my blindness to what's 'really' going on, rather than, you know, the actual issue.

Lecture you? We have the same position on this issue, but differ on a few of the finer points. I didn't realize that voicing my opinion would cause such defensiveness within you. Yours isn't the only voice in here, ya know.

I have a feeling any perceived pomposity would disappear shortly after your lecturing did. You presume to tell me how naive I am, but I am pompous for replying you are deluded.

I'm not sure I said or implied you were naive until you torpedoed me for adding my voice to yours. We are on the same side for this issue and I had hoped to further our common cause by adding my rationale to the issue at hand. I'm not sure you saw it that way.

Republicans are loudly objecting, Democrats are not. How is that not a difference?

Because words are wind Dakar, and given the chance the Democrats have worked just as hard against net neutrality as the Republicans have. You act as if Obama coming out a week after midterm elections to take a stance is somehow laudable. I have followed this issue for the last several years very closely and though Obama had every opportunity to take a stance when his party controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency he was silent. Once he's not able to do anything about it, literally within 10 days he comes out to take a side after 6 years of supporting the ISPs? Please.

I think this is the single most important issue of our generation, from a civil rights perspective. Our reliance on the internet and it's impact on our lives will only increase as time goes on - it is imperative that we keep the internet free, fair and open for everyone.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You aren't serious!? Unless you're talking about someone who hasn't been online in the last 3 years, essentially living under a rock, that's absurd. Title 2 reclassification for ISPs has been talked to death by every commentator who has ever heard about it. It was boldly part of the petition signed by over 4 million Americans this last year, which then ran on to national news headlines, months ago. There wasn't a Left vs Right hard line in the sand until Obama weighed in.

The news doesn't create the outcome (See: Gun control). It wasn't a serious political threat until Obama endorsed it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Lecture you? We have the same position on this issue, but differ on a few of the finer points. I didn't realize that voicing my opinion would cause such defensiveness within you. Yours isn't the only voice in here, ya know.


I'm not sure I said or implied you were naive until you torpedoed me for adding my voice to yours. We are on the same side for this issue and I had hoped to further our common cause by adding my rationale to the issue at hand. I'm not sure you saw it that way.

You have replied evenly, and with this and time at my back I shall do so in kind. Until our next disagreement.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Because words are wind Dakar

I understand that, and its a completely valid viewpoint. But where I'm coming from:

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

and given the chance the Democrats have worked just as hard against net neutrality as the Republicans have.

There's really no evidence of that. It's a reasonable assumption if you believe "all politicians" are the same, but where I'm coming from politicians do have policy differences that would have real-world consequences if the legislative roads were smoother.

It's unrealistic, I know, but I believe that in a world where Congress was all Republicans vs. one where it was all Democrats, the chances of NN reform I support being passed would be considerably higher with the Democrats. That's why I see it as a partisan issue. (No, I don't think it would be unanimous, but that's beside the point).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You act as if Obama coming out a week after midterm elections to take a stance is somehow laudable.

No, I didn't and I find your perspective bewildering. The entire point of posting:

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is what you get when you appoint a corporate stooge to be FCC chairman.

Is to point out that if Obama had a real modicum of concern about NN he wouldn't have nominated who he did. That means while I agree with his message, I find Obama's commentary both pointless and toothless.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think this is the single most important issue of our generation, from a civil rights perspective. Our reliance on the internet and it's impact on our lives will only increase as time goes on - it is imperative that we keep the internet free, fair and open for everyone.

I rate the internet high in importance as well.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I still don't believe reclassification is the real fix, nor that they should be reclassified as common carriers, but the threat of it is valuable. We need an entirely new classification for them, and we need to strongly encourage competition, instead of helping build monopolies through stupid exclusivity agreements and onerous permit and licensing structures for new players. Given the complete political gridlock in DC nowadays, however, I don't see how any beneficial laws can be written to tackle this.

This is absolutely worth watching (Tom Merritt and Molly Wood weighing in). ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq_Y...=youtube_gdata

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I still don't believe reclassification is the real fix, nor that they should be reclassified as common carriers, but the threat of it is valuable. We need an entirely new classification for them, and we need to strongly encourage competition, instead of helping build monopolies through stupid exclusivity agreements and onerous permit and licensing structures for new players. Given the complete political gridlock in DC nowadays, however, I don't see how any beneficial laws can be written to tackle this.

If anything reclassifying them as Title II might be the only way to get Congress to act, oddly enough.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You have replied evenly, and with this and time at my back I shall do so in kind. Until our next disagreement.

I understand that, and its a completely valid viewpoint. But where I'm coming from:

There's really no evidence of that. It's a reasonable assumption if you believe "all politicians" are the same, but where I'm coming from politicians do have policy differences that would have real-world consequences if the legislative roads were smoother.

I'll grant you the evidence is circumstantial at best:

-Wheeler to head the FCC
-A complete disinterest in the issue until after elections
-Many a day golfing with ISP Industry executives.

I grant that none of us have seen the fire but there's a hell of a lot of smoke.

It's unrealistic, I know, but I believe that in a world where Congress was all Republicans vs. one where it was all Democrats, the chances of NN reform I support being passed would be considerably higher with the Democrats. That's why I see it as a partisan issue. (No, I don't think it would be unanimous, but that's beside the point).

This is sorta where I disagree. NN has been an issue for awhile, and a congress that was comprised of "all democrats" (controlling the house, senate, and presidency) failed to even consider the issue despite the EFF, ACLU, etc repeatedly gaining public/industry support. Instead we got a industry lobbyist running the FCC.

You might think I'm crazy for saying this, but if we were to (as a society) push the issue front and center for 2016 I think we'd find a great many republican candidates in support of NN.

No, I didn't and I find your perspective bewildering. The entire point of posting:

Is to point out that if Obama had a real modicum of concern about NN he wouldn't have nominated who he did. That means while I agree with his message, I find Obama's commentary both pointless and toothless.

And here we find our common cause.

I rate the internet high in importance as well.

And again.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You might think I'm crazy for saying this, but if we were to (as a society) push the issue front and center for 2016 I think we'd find a great many republican candidates in support of NN.
And here we find our common cause.

Comcast et al are splitting their contributions equally among Democrats and Republicans, so color me skeptical. Especially when some Republicans have the Ted Cruzian knee jerk reaction that whatever Obama claims he wants must be bad and should be opposed with big language and false analogies. Republicans are in control of both chambers of Congress and Obama is in support of net neutrality (at least he reminded himself that he is), Republicans could get moving on this now. So there is no reason to wait until 2016.

You're right that with Wheeler at the helm of the FCC it's quite doubtful to see a meaningful implementation of net neutrality. But if Wheeler is replaced by someone from the other aisle, I'm sure all you guys get is a Red version of Wheeler -- someone with ties to the carriers and big internet providers.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This is sorta where I disagree. NN has been an issue for awhile, and a congress that was comprised of "all democrats" (controlling the house, senate, and presidency) failed to even consider the issue despite the EFF, ACLU, etc repeatedly gaining public/industry support. Instead we got a industry lobbyist running the FCC.

It's a fair point. However, another problem is its not a priority policy to address. Add to that variance in the liberality of Democrats and you get – jack squat.

Let me be clear, I'm not so deluded to think NN would be sunshine and roses with Dems. I'm just saying on this issue I'll take a 40% chance of my viewpoint being passed over a 10% chance every day of the week.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You might think I'm crazy for saying this, but if we were to (as a society) push the issue front and center for 2016 I think we'd find a great many republican candidates in support of NN.

I find it plausible. Partly because its the least toxic of social issues for them to address (when dealing with their religious wing). Still, I don't think you'll get full Title II support. Just vague allusions to legislating NN.

[OreoCookie]

More news from bizarro land, this time involving a Republican (I'm just saying this so that people don't have any hopes of an improvement because the GOP has taken over both chambers).

A bit of background:

- The internet providers were trying to make Netflix pay for conducting Netflix traffic through their pipes. The performance of Netflix traffic deteriorated further and further.
- Netflix eventually agreed to pay for »fast lanes«, and speeds improved somewhat.
- To improve speeds for customers Netflix bought caching servers and installed them at some of the data centers of the internet providers. Netflix has published the specs for the hardware and software bits of these caching servers, so if you want to install your own Netflix caching servers you can.

Now Ajit Pai of the FCC (a Republican) sends a letter to Netflix CEO Hastings that his company's use of fast lanes at the expense of competitors and that Netflix's use of their own caching protocol (whose spec is public!) is further hampering the competition! Pai is accusing Netflix's policies to be hypocritical, because on the one hand they use fast lanes and on the other they publicly proclaim to support net neutrality.

[The Final Dakar]

I don't understand how providing hardware = fast lane. Also, the hardware wouldn't even exist if ISPs weren't having problems delivering Netflix's content properly (And living up to what they were supposed to be giving their customers)

I wonder which ISP had a nice chat with this guy lately. God, I would love to see that come out.

[BadKosh]

It also illustrates the disconnect between political hacks and understanding technology.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It also illustrates the disconnect between political hacks and understanding technology.

He was a lawyer for Verizon. I think he has a base understanding of tech law. This is willful twisting of words.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't understand how providing hardware = fast lane.

You'd have to be a contortion artist to follow this logic, especially when he uses net neutrality of all things to slam Netflix. Unfortunately most people are not interested/knowledgable about net neutrality and why it is crucial. And I see Pai's letter as an attempt to relabel net neutrality and change the meaning.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It also illustrates the disconnect between political hacks and understanding technology.

I don't think someone in that position doesn't understand the technology behind it, it's just that they're working for the interests of the big carriers and the big ISPs, companies whose customer satisfaction rating is very, very similar to the approval rating of Congress.

[The Final Dakar]

PA represent!
Comcast PAC donations to home state senators pay off in Washington | Ars Technica

"Comcast has informed us that the proposed merger will produce substantial benefits for the public, and that the company has acted proactively to prevent anti-competitive effects," US Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler yesterday.

Casey received $114,175 from Comcast's political action committee (PAC) and employees or employee family members between 2009 and 2014, according to OpenSecrets.org. Toomey received $70,600 from Comcast interests.

Well... shit.

You win this round, Snow-i

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

PA represent!
Comcast PAC donations to home state senators pay off in Washington | Ars Technica

Well... shit.

You win this round, Snow-i

A hollow victory :/

The real battle is yet to come, and you and I are on the same side of that one.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

A hollow victory :/

The real battle is yet to come, and you and I are on the same side of that one.

Out of curiosity, I didn't quite get what the wager was … 

[The Final Dakar]

Both parties are the same.

[The Final Dakar]

“Bipartisan” bill would save Internet providers from utility rules | Ars Technica

“The FCC’s plans to reclassify broadband under Title II are misguided,” Latta said in his announcement. “Imposing monopoly-era telephone rules on a 21st Century industry that has thrived under the current light-touch regulatory framework will undoubtedly impede the economic growth and innovation that have resulted in the broadband marketplace absent government interference. These businesses thrive on dynamism and the ability to evolve quickly to shifting market and consumer forces. Subjecting them to bureaucratic red tape won’t promote innovation, consumer welfare, or the economy. My legislation provides the certainty needed for continued investment in broadband networks and services that have been fundamental for job creation, productivity, and consumer choice.”

[Cap'n Tightpants]

The first time that I'd welcome Obama's veto.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The first time that I'd welcome Obama's veto.

As the OP stated, He has his own plans
Net Neutrality: President Obama's Plan for a Free and Open Internet | The White House

[The Final Dakar]

Obama calls for end to 19 state laws that harm community broadband | Ars Technica

President Obama today called for an end to state laws that restrict the rights of cities and towns to build their own broadband networks.

"Laws in 19 states—some specifically written by special interests trying to stifle new competitors—have held back broadband access and, with it, economic opportunity," the report said. "Today President Obama is announcing a new effort to support local choice in broadband, formally opposing measures that limit the range of options to available to communities to spur expanded local broadband infrastructure, including ownership of networks. As a first step, the Administration is filing a letter with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) urging it to join this effort by addressing barriers inhibiting local communities from responding to the broadband needs of their citizens."

The FCC is already examining these state laws, and considering whether it can invalidate them by using its authority to promote competition in local telecommunications markets by removing barriers that impede infrastructure investment. Community broadband providers in Tennessee and North Carolina recently petitioned the FCC to preempt state laws that prevent them from expanding.

There are also limits on municipal broadband in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. A similar law in Missouri has an exception for "Internet-type" services, but a state legislator is trying to impose new restrictions on municipal broadband there too.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

“Bipartisan” bill would save Internet providers from utility rules | Ars Technica

Sad, totally expected.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Both parties are the same.

Counterpoint: Republicans: Utility rules unnecessary because broadband isn’t a monopoly | Ars Technica

“The Internet is not a monopoly like the telephone companies were and the utilities were in the 1930s,” said US Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX). “It is one of the most vibrant markets in the world. The chairman’s draft is an attempt to keep it that vibrant marketplace.”

[The Final Dakar]

Another counterpoint: Democrats try to overturn state limits on municipal broadband | Ars Technica

[Cap'n Tightpants]

AT&T is out frantically running fiber in my area this week, I'm sure that's no coincidence.

[The Final Dakar]

You guys are a municipal broadband candidate?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You guys are a municipal broadband candidate?

We already have it, though it's "community broadband" set-up as a Co-Op and not directly associated with any municipality, to avoid many legal entanglements. AT&T finally got wind of what's going on (took them over 6 months) and they're freaking out.

[The Final Dakar]

"Why are we losing so many subscribers?"

"Oh"

[BadKosh]

Their customer 'service' sucks, so there's that.

[The Final Dakar]

FCC chairman mocks industry claims that customers don’t need faster Internet | Ars Technica

The Federal Communications Commission today voted 3-2 along party lines to change the definition of broadband to at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream. The vote was no surprise given Chairman Tom Wheeler’s Democratic majority. But Wheeler put on a show just before the vote by contrasting Internet service providers’ marketing claims with their statements to the government.

Party line vote snow-i. Coincidence?