Tennessee sues FCC: Giving cities free rein to provide their own broadband is 'unlawful'

>get the impression this is more about "state" vs "federal"

Yeah I guess Tennessee needs to have its ass handed to it again to remember which one out ranks the other.

Actually

Actually it is about the paymasters not wanting any competition and finding someone to pay for the lawsuit. TN AG is probably doing the bidding of the "broadband providers" under the umbrella of State vs Federal.

Re: Tennessee is famous

Well, it IS the home state of Al Gore...

Re: Bogus argument

The FCC will just counter their authority is delegated to them BY Congress through the Telecommunications Acts. Unless Tennessee can cite where it's the purview of Congress ALONE, that argument won't stand.

Re: "Don't tread on me" applies to ME, not you. @Thomas K.

Are you really that ignorant to say that?

Do you even know how many small towns and farms were basically stolen by the TVA to put up those dams? That they literally trampled on the rights of the property owners?

Considering you folks haven't got a clue when it comes to Americian politics, geography, States rights, the Constitution or anything else topical; so as much as you can't restrain yourself you might try learning what actually happened before you make lame statements like that.

BTW, these "same States" are the last to want the federal government to be involved (especially the southern ones) in ANYTHING. Ever hear of "revenuers"?

Dependent on candle light and happy to still own their family property, free from State or Federal interference would be more like it for those Tennesseeans that got ripped off by their own state goverment.

To add insult to injury you quote unsubstantiated opinion and conjecture from wikipedia as your source. Wikipedia is a very unreliable source in many cases, especially that one.

No, Tennessee is saying that the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate how a state governs its towns -- and they are right, the FCC doesn't. Congress may pass a law, which is then voted upon and approved by the representatives of the people - but the FCC is an appointed body without the power to usurp the power of the states to regulate their own cities.

The FCC has the right to regulate interstate communication, but its right to regulate INTRA-state communication is rather limited. Being federal does not automatically make the more powerful, Unless it crosses a state line, they really don't have a leg to stand on.

That being said, from what I understand the issue is that Tennessee has established territories in which a municipal utility can operate. Presumably this territory was defined as being an un-served or under-served area some time in the past. What Chattanooga wants to do is provide services outside of its territory, which Tennessee has regulations to prevent.

What SHOULD happen is that Chattanooga should go the state regulators and ask them to designate the under-served areas as part of their territory, then they would be free to expand into it. Instead, they wanted to do an end-run around the laws and regulations under which they were created.

The other problem is that they are an POWER company trying to provide communication services. They should have instead established a separate utility.

I don't have a problem with municipalities establishing broadband networks. I get my own connection though one, and am VERY happy with they service I am getting. But they need to be done right.

Re: Ah the The American South

> It is not as if all Southerners are bat-shiate crazy, far from it.

Only the ones that disagree with you, right, AC?

Re: Good times, good times, they are a-coming.

>if the Chattanooga voters want the city to run an ISP it should be up to them

Totally agree. This whole make it illegal biz is about as justified as the Federal government being lobbied into not using its purchasing power to negotiate discounts on prescription drugs. I.e. any politician involved with passing/upholding this law should be strung up to lampposts by their testicles. Local cable monopolies by large corporations have not served voters well. Entrenching them in law is a cynical sham.

However, that's not to say there are no risks with municipal governments stepping in. Harrisburg is near/at bankruptcy on a municipal incinerator mess. More local to me, the city of Nanaimo, a rather sleepy little fishing town on Vancouver Island launched a massive convention center. Ernst & Young had advised them to take up the opportunity in hosting conventions due to lack of capacity. Trouble is, E&Y's convention planning business unit was peddling that same advice snake oil all over North America. By the time it was near done, the developers for the matching downtown business hotel saw the writing on the wall - there was no shortage of capacity anymore. They pulled out of the hotel and now Nanaimo has a massive white elephant with insufficient lodging.

By all means, let municipalities step in if there is a market failure. There is nothing wrong with competing with the private sector in that case. Indeed, one law I would pass is one forbidding predatory local discounts by Comcast & all after the fact.

But there is a risk involved, both due to insufficient local expertise or to bad advice by specialized consultants fleecers. Me? I smell a golden opportunity for an Acc*nture Municipal ISP Business Unit ;-) to proffer "advice" for example.

What I truly would like to see is effective planning and implementation support for municipalities taking this route - disseminate best practices, at low cost. Cheap broadband can boost an economy and improve living conditions, so a bit of enlightened philanthropy to help along, a la Gates Foundation would be great. Enough local successes should force cable companies to review their strategies.

Re: if the Chattanooga voters want the city to run an ISP

On a philosophical basis only:

IF the Chattanooga voters wanted it, and were willing to cover all the costs regardless of the outcome, you might have a point.

HOWEVER, the integration of state and federal money transfers has completely annihilated any chance of that ever happening. Therefore the people of Tennessee have the right to circumscribe what the voters of Chattanooga can do with their money.

On a Constitutional basis, Tennessee is correct and the FCC is wrong. If we had a non-politicized court system, SCOTUS would slap down the FCC so hard it would make El Reg commentard heads explode.

"Tennessee doesn't want its cities causing trouble for the likes of Comcast with working, affordable taxpayer-backed ISPs, in other words."

Except that they frequently don't work, aren't available and are overpriced thanks to state-stamped local loop monopolies.

"The lack of local loop broadband competition in the US is largely a function of the exclusive cable franchises cities granted many years in the past."

GIven a choice between between having 30 different companies stringing cable along poles and then going under, or one outfit doing it, that's a sensible decision for the most part, however those exclusive franchises haven't had adequate financial oversight.

As for 50Mb/s - "yeah right" - there are more complaints about the quality of "broadband" from cablecos than from ISPs - and bear in mind that it's the cablecos who started the "rent seeking" behaviour over the likes of Netflix when it starting impacting sales of their own video services.

The USA system is a royal clusterfuck based on who pays the regulators the largest backhanders.

Re: OK can put this into simple stupid terms for me..

The FCC has no right to regulate interstate trade. The State of Tenessee has enacted a law regulating intrastate trade, which is fully within its purview and has been constructed so as to encourage interstate trade.

What you're missing here is that with regard to the US, Tennessee is to the UK as UK is to the EU, that is, it has significant legal rights as sovereign. In this particular case, the power to regulate interstate trade has been delegated from the sovereign states to ONLY the Congress. The FCC =/= Congress, therefore it's rule is unconstitutional.