[doppelganger27]

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the states' justifications aren't important to this appeal. The decision that "the FCC is not able to, essentially, remove state laws that prevent the construction of municipal broadband networks" (from the article) doesn't say anything about the legality of the state laws, just that the FCC doesn't have the authority to change them.

[clavalle]

Fair enough. I wasn't suggesting it was relevant to the decision.

Just, considering the democratic ideal of the government serving the people, I struggle to come up with a plausible justification that the states might give for denying municipalities and I'm hoping someone more familiar with the matter here at HN can shed some light.

[crymer11]

I live in Chattanooga, home of EPB, which was one of the municipally owned ISPs that was hoping this case went the other way. The common argument we hear for the laws that restrict EPB from expanding is that it's "anti-competitive," since they aren't a private business.

[clavalle]

How much competition was in Chattanooga before EPB?

[crymer11]

Before EPB, it was basically just Comcast. So none.

[drauh]

Yeah, I hear this all the time: "municipal broadband services would be anticompetitive", while ignoring the fact that there is a de facto monopoly in place and municipal broadband would actually introduce competition.

I noticed that line of argument seemed more common when I lived in the south (NC).