[masklinn]

> Strong state and local laws protecting the right to form municipal ISPs would be a good start. Those seem to scare Comcast & friends the most. If corporate ISPs become significantly restrictive, I think we'd see a big upsurge in interest for municipal broadband.

Yeaaah about that? The GOP is no friend of muni.

Not that Democrats love it[0], but Obama's FCC did try to defend muni against state restrictions alongside its move towards Title II ISPs (it lost[2])

You probably won't see Pai's FCC defending municipal broadband.

[0] The map of muni restrictions as of 2015[1] is fairly evenly split between 2016 "red" and "blue" states on restrictions (red 4 blue 2) and outright bans (red 3 blue 2), however the deep south wins "regulated" for red team by a mile (red 7 blue 2)

[1] https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/198661-fcc-may-kill-stat...

[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/fcc-admits-defea...

[dawnerd]

If the red states want to have a crippled internet let them. They’re all for states rights so let’s just have our states put in their own net neutrality (which will likely happen on the west coast in some form).

[masklinn]

You're assuming ISPs won't try attacking muni federally.

> They’re all for states rights

If you actually believe that I've got a great bridge called "Fugitive Slave Act of 1850" for sale I'm sure you'd enjoy it.

[thehardsphere]

The Republican Party was founded in 1854.

[masklinn]

Name aside, the Republican Party of 1854 has nothing to do with the Republican Party of 2017, that has very little relevance.

My comment is about the "muh states' rights" crowd, back in the 19th century, they were Democrats (quite literally since the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery democrats splitting off and uniting with the northern Whigs).

[FilterSweep]

So, where are all the jobs for displaced people who happened to live in a gerrymandered, rigged state?