 
kdwycha
join:2003-01-30
Riverview, FL | Hoo! *yawn* | |
|  | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Re: Hoo! Make way for huge ugly boxes at your house now! | |
| | | | | | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
 ·Cruzio Internet
edit:
November 3rd, @04:34PM
| Re: Hoo! If the community wants to put big ugly boxes to service areas that need it, they wont have much choice in some areas if they dont have agreements with residents.
They dont bother me much, I like having internet.
Maybe they can get artists to make works of art of them.
A little wire and plaster, some paint, and I could make one a huge DeathStar.
Many Bothans died for this information ... | |
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
 ·chambers cable
·Qwest.net
| Great State-level muni bans need to be lifted. Clearly there are instances of what economists call "market failure" in broaband deployment - communities that have none, and where all the local incumbents have stated they have no plans to deploy (e.g., in my county, Verizon has told the two poorest cities that they aren't going to get FIOS).
In that case, why shouldn't the communities be able to do that themselves, if the majority want to? It's called democracy, baby. Why should those people be prevented from doing so, just because the telco can bribe the state legislature, because they think that they may want to deploy in that area in 50-75 years from now? | |
| | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Great said by KoolMoe  :Unfortunately these days, there are so many issues voters feel more important, such a thing is likely not a major factor, Worse, most people don't care about anything. Around 50% are registered voters. And, usually half of them turn out to vote. Most people don't care. If they can buy the latest video game, large screen teevee, next year's SUV, etc., they're happy. Issues tend to be resolved by the extremes.
That's why political polls always crack me up. Why ask someone who doesn't vote what they think?
Mark | |
| jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
 ·Dreamhost
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Finally! After years of tech specialists, analysts, and gurus alike saying that we need to start work on a national broadband plan, a first step is finally taken. Mind you it is only a baby step and has not even passed yet (still has Senate to go through). Unfortunately with the Senate's track record of being more highly conservative and business-centered it is likely that it will get shot down, but the fact that anything at all was put through congress and did pass the house is proof that at least now something is getting done.
Now if only we could get some bills passed for all these other problems that the U.S. faces...
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | 
The Watcher
@rr.com
| Re: Finally! So after all the partisan hearings and all the insults about the other party making a mess, this is all the current "do nothing" majority could get out of committee?
Yep, now I'll sleep better  | |
| 
TK Junk Mail
Golf season has returned - hurrah
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
November 3rd, @02:48PM
|  Bill doesn't treat Internet as a public utility
“The Community Broadband Act treats Internet access as a public utility” It will also help ensure those without broadband get high-speed Internet access. That is the sentiments of Jason Lee Miller, a WebProNews editor and writer covering business and technology.
Those words are not in the Senate bill and were not uttered by any off the co-sponsors.
While this bill does override those state laws banning municipal broadband projects, that is about all it does. Jason Miller is reading a lot more in to this bill than is there. His statement makes it seem like the bill would turn the Internet in to some public right like water or electricity and will make sure everyone gets internet access.
Here is a link to the bill:
»thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1853:
And here are the comments of one of the co-sponsors:
»commerce.senate.gov/public/index···ear=2007
The Community Broadband Act of 2007 would specifically:
* set forth that no state or local regulation or requirement can prevent a public provider from offering broadband services;
* require a municipality offering high-speed Internet services to comply with federal telecommunications law or regulation that applies to all such providers;
* encourage public-private partnerships; and provide the public with notice and an opportunity to be heard before a municipality provides broadband to the public. P.S. there are no funds associated with this bill to actually do anything. All it is are nice words and the 1 legal item overturning state laws that banned municipal broadband.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
| | 
rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY | Re: Bill doesn't treat Internet as a public utility A State should not have to sacrifice their autonomy for the benefit of a corporation. | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Is it me or is this bill actually going to deregulate the entire broadband market?
quote:
set forth that no state or local regulation or requirement can prevent a public provider from offering broadband services;
Sounds like FCC regulations (whatever is left) just went out the window. | |
| | | 
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Panama City, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse of Power said by pnh102 :How dare the US Senate infringe on the sovereign right of states to protect their taxpayers from schemes like these. Even if this abomination becomes law, expect it to be struck down by the courts. Huh? Either thats sarcasm, or you dont really understand what this bill would do.
It protects the people from the state outright banning of something the community may want. It doesnt force anything on anybody. If the people choose to not have a muni broadband, then nothing is forcing them to build one. If they CHOOSE to build one, this bill prevents the state from saying you cant have one.
I personaly think that individual communities know whats better for themselves and thier people than some suit sitting 200mi away who may not even be able to find thier community on a map. | |
| | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse of Power Where does the Constitution state that the Federal government can intervene in state affairs of this sort?
If the people do not want their states to ban government broadband, then they can take the issue up with their state legislatures.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Panama City, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse of Power So people should have to go to the state legislature to get back thier rights as a community?
So the state can trample the county government?
So, basically, its NOT ok for the federal government to tell the individual states what to do, but it IS ok for the state government to tell the county/city government what to do?
Example: Utah only allows the sale of hard alcohol and beer above 3.5% to be sold from state run liquor stores, between the hours of 9am-5pm Mon-Sat. (May have changed, havent lived there since '97). The state, as a whole, is predominatly mormon, and not drinking, or selling, alcohol is what the majority of the community wants.
But, what if there was a town/county that didnt feel the same way, shouldnt they have the CHOICE as to whether or not ban the sale of alcohol on sundays in thier town?
Ok, not a great example. But how many federal/state laws that limit your personal freedoms, are not concurrent with the feeling/views/morals of the community you live in?
This bill is NOT limiting the PEOPLE from deciding, its limiting the STATE from deciding what the people can choose. | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse of Power said by Boogeyman :So the state can trample the county government? Actually, yes. Every state has the power to create, manage, regulate or even dissolve counties, municipal governments and school districts, based on the rules laid out in each state's constitution. In this case, states can choose whether or not local governments can offer government broadband or not.
The relationship between state government and local government is not comparable to the relationship between the state government and the federal government.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | 
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC | Didn't we fight a war once over what the federal gov could tell states they could and couldn't do? | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Abuse of Power said by Neyland85 :Didn't we fight a war once over what the federal gov could tell states they could and couldn't do? Yes, and the feds won (US Civil War). | |
| | | | DigitalXeron
There is a lack of sanity
join:2003-12-17
Hamilton, ON
·Cogeco Cable
·Bell Sympatico
| said by pnh102 :Where does the Constitution state that the Federal government can intervene in state affairs of this sort? If the people do not want their states to ban government broadband, then they can take the issue up with their state legislatures. To my knowledge of the US... States are not sovereign and must answer to the federal level. States are not countries to themselves thus have no "rights" to say to the federal level "no, we don't want to do that". This is what being one country is about.
--
--Kradorex Xeron
| |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse of Power said by DigitalXeron :To my knowledge of the US... States are not sovereign and must answer to the federal level. States are not countries to themselves thus have no "rights" to say to the federal level "no, we don't want to do that". This is what being one country is about. That is incorrect. The US Constitution explicitly grants to the federal government a certain set of powers. The remainder of the powers belong to the states, and ultimately to the people.
The federal government exercises most of its power by regulating things which go across state lines. This is why if someone commits a crime in one state and goes into another state, the federal government can get involved. The same idea applies to commerce that goes on between states. For example, if you live in one state and order something online from another state, it would be the federal government that would allow for your state to apply sales tax to that purchase. The US Supreme Court actually ruled in this area in allowing states to collect sales tax on such orders provided the business has a physical presence in the state in which you live.
Unless it is a civil rights issue, the federal government does not have the authority to involve itself in the relationship that exists between states and their local governments.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | |
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Panama City, FL
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse of Power Damnit, you're correct.
But I believe theres still some grey area where this bill may be allowed to pass.
Case in point, Louisiana. They werent going to raise thier drinking age from 18 to 21. The federal government coudlnt make them change it. So the federal government said if they didnt raise the drinking age to 21, they would cut off federal funding for roads.
So the federal government may find another way to coerse the states into abiding. | |
| | | | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse of Power said by Boogeyman :So the federal government said if they didnt raise the drinking age to 21, they would cut off federal funding for roads. The sad part is that this sort of approach is used far too often to impose federal will upon states.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by pnh102 :The US Constitution explicitly grants to the federal government a certain set of powers. The remainder of the powers belong to the states, and ultimately to the people. This is one of those truths that are almost meaningless. The grants of power are so broad that they cover almost anything depending on the circumstances and political makeup of Congress and the Court at any given time. For example, where in the Constitution is a grant of power concerning education, energy or the environment? Undoubtedly the Founders had no concept of the need for such national programs. And yet, here we are.
They had no concept of the federal courts enforcing individual rights against state or private infringement (which was a *massive* loss of power by the states). But, here we are.
Powers/rights retained by the states pretty much amounts to what the Federal government hasn't yet legislated on. And, to some extent what the Supreme Court hasn't yet chosen to adopt as the norm. Case in point: The framers of the 14th Amendment (1866) intended to give the federal government authority to enforce the Bill of Rights against state and private infringement. Until then they were only a bar against Congressional infringement. Even after ratification it took 60 years before the Supreme Court began to accept the intent of the 14th amendment. Another 50 years as the Supreme Court selectively incorporated elements of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment. (And, again, this kind of *huge* shift in power from the states to the Feds would have caused the Federal framers to spin in their graves. It was reluctantly accepted by the federal court. And now it's accepted as standard.).
My point is: So-called States' rights (and grants of power) are not black and white.
Mark | |
| | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by pnh102 :How dare the US Senate infringe on the sovereign right of states That's like saying "How dare the US congress infringe on the sovereign right of states to protect freed slaves from local laws reinstituting slavery." The problem is when the states don't. Then we find out they aren't sovereign.
State sovereignty ceased to exist (for all practical purposes) with the civil war and resulting 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Also the 18th Amendment putting senators to popular vote (instead of appointed by state legislatures). The result is a charade of some undefined protections against an over-reaching congress. But, not an absolute "sovereignty."
This should withstand a court challenge. It has far more correlation with the Interstate Commerce Clause than other Congressional acts that affect states (such as the gun-free school zone).
Mark | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse of Power said by amigo_boy :This should withstand a court challenge. It has far more correlation with the Interstate Commerce Clause than other Congressional acts that affect states (such as the gun-free school zone). Last time I checked, no municipal government in any state extended beyond state lines, so nope, there is no way the Federal government can legally involve itself here.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Abuse of Power said by pnh102 :no municipal government in any state extended beyond state lines, so nope, there is no way the Federal government can legally involve itself here. Schools don't either, but Brown v. Board overturned state and local "separate but equal" laws. The 1990 gun-free school zone comes to mind too. It was overturned by the SC in an extremely rare limitation to Congress's ability to legislate under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Congress re-enacted the law, correcting the technical errors found by the Court (adding "findings" as to why gun-free zones are important to interstate commerce.).
I'm not in favor of the gun-free law. Just saying that if *it* can be justified under the ICC, certainly the internet can.
At least we've established that states aren't "sovereign" in the literal sense of the word. They have some undefined rights against congressional over-reaching which seem to expand and contract depending on the political makeup of Congress and the Supreme Court.
Mark | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse of Power said by amigo_boy :Schools don't either, but Brown v. Board overturned state and local "separate but equal" laws. Civil rights are guaranteed by the US Constitution, the federal government is well within its authority to go after states and local governments if they violate our civil rights.
In most other intrastate issues though, the federal government does not have the power to intervene.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Abuse of Power said by pnh102 :Civil rights are guaranteed by the US Constitution, the federal government is well within its authority to go after states and local governments if they violate our civil rights. And yet we find more examples of the Supreme Court overturning Congress enforcing civil rights than we do interstate commerce. The "gun free school zone" was reenacted after fixing small technical defects. It still stands. Since then the Supreme Court has overturned laws upholding civil rights (Morrison, Boerne, etc.).
The reason is that Congressional power to apply the Bill of Rights against state and private infringement is relatively new. It wasn't recognized by the Supreme Court until the mid-1920s when the Court began to "selectively incorporate" the Bill of Rights into the 14th amendment. It took another 50 years before the vast majority of the Bill of Rights had been incorporated.
This was actually a huge blow to so-called State's rights. A windfall to the Supreme Court, and to individuals fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of the Court's newfound power.
said by pnh102 :In most other intrastate issues though, the federal government does not have the power to intervene. The 1995 overturning of the "gun-free school zone" was the first time in over 50 years the SC limited Congress's use of the Interstate Commerce Clause. As I said before, they overturned it on technical issues (that Congress hadn't provided findings of how guns in schools affected Interstate Commerce). Congress reenacted the law with those findings. A trivial matter.
If Congress can legislate concerning guns in local schools as a matter affecting interstate commerce, I'm pretty sure they can legislate concerning the Internet. I wouldn't say it's obvious that they can't.
Mark | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by amigo_boy :said by pnh102 :How dare the US Senate infringe on the sovereign right of states That's like saying "How dare the US congress infringe on the sovereign right of states to protect freed slaves from local laws reinstituting slavery." The problem is when the states don't. Then we find out they aren't sovereign. State sovereignty ceased to exist (for all practical purposes) with the civil war and resulting 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Also the 18th Amendment putting senators to popular vote (instead of appointed by state legislatures). The result is a charade of some undefined protections against an over-reaching congress. But, not an absolute "sovereignty." This should withstand a court challenge. It has far more correlation with the Interstate Commerce Clause than other Congressional acts that affect states (such as the gun-free school zone). Mark Interstate Commerce Clause and the Civil War killed whatever autonomy the states had. | |
| | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Abuse of Power said by patcat88 :Interstate Commerce Clause and the Civil War killed whatever autonomy the states had. I agree. I'll go you one further by saying the Constitution itself killed state autonomy. The original form of U.S. government was the Articles of Confederation. It lasted eleven years until it was replaced by the Constitution. Under the articles there was no chief executive (President of the United States). Only a presiding officer of Congress. There was no mechanism to force states to comply with their obligation under the articles (to come to the aid of other states, pay their apportioned debt, etc.).
The new constitution was a contradiction waiting to be resolved. It gained sufficient public support for ratification due to the constitutional debates which dealt with whether the states were losing their autonomy. Federalists like James Madison insisted they weren't. But, between Art. 4 Sect. 4 (shall guarantee each state a republican/constitutional form of government) and Art. 6 (the constitution and federal law are supreme over states), there wasn't much room for state autonomy. No room to leave the union. No room to legislate against it.
The federalists added the Bill of Rights to placate the anti-federalists. It included the 10th amendment (powers not delegated or denied are reserved to the states). But, what wasn't delegated or denied? Precious little. The Federal government could (and has) legislated on everything (which the original confederation couldn't). President Lincoln violated the constitution with the Emancipation Proclamation (violating existing property laws and Art. 4 Sect. 2 of the Constitution, concerning slaves. The 13th Amendment was required later to make his proclamation legal.). He couldn't have done that as the presiding officer over Congress (under the Articles of Confederation).
The loss of state autonomy is good or bad depending on who benefits. There's always someone's ox being gored. Whether it's slave owners or broadband providers who want to use state law to enhance their property rights (by prohibiting municipalities from exercising freedom).
Mark | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
·chambers cable
·Qwest.net
| said by pnh102 :How dare the US Senate infringe on the sovereign right of states to protect their taxpayers from schemes like these. Nice try. But telecommunication has long been considered "interstate commerce" and thus subject to Federal jurisdiction.
Under your reasoning, the states, and not the FCC, could regulate use of radio spectrum inside a state, the 1996 Telecomm Act could not have prohibited most state regulation of cable TV, rates, etc. None of these are the case. | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Abuse of Power said by PDXPLT :Nice try. But telecommunication has long been considered "interstate commerce" and thus subject to Federal jurisdiction. Not exclusively. States can and do regulate telecommunications services within their own borders. This is why intrastate intra-LATA as well as intrastate long distance calls using landline phones are taxed by the states on a per minute basis. However, these taxes do not apply to calls made to out-of-state phone numbers.
said by PDXPLT :Under your reasoning, the states, and not the FCC, could regulate use of radio spectrum inside a state ... You are comparing apples to oranges. The FCC itself was established specifically because airwaves crossed state lines. Municipal boundaries, on the other hand, do not cross state lines.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY
| backlash.. This is probably the result of the backlash by customers of the actions of both Comcast and AT&T's failure to meet customer expectations. Competition from 3rd parties to do broadband better is sorely in need. When they have public hearings, I want the hammer lady to testify! | |
| | | |
|
|
Senate Committee Approves Broadband Bill
Abuse of Power