Deadlocked FCC Could Derail Biden's Digital Equity Plans (axios.com) 155
The Biden administration has charged the Federal Communications Commission with prohibiting digital discrimination -- but without a third Democratic commissioner to break the agency's partisan deadlock, those plans are in trouble. From a report: One of President Biden's key domestic priorities, improving internet access and affordability, can't advance unless the Senate confirms his FCC nominee. The Federal Communications Commission has been deadlocked at 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans since Biden took office, and his nominee for the third seat, Gigi Sohn, has been awaiting a Senate vote for months amid Republican opposition. The agency is required by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to craft rules preventing digital discrimination on broadband access.
The rules would prohibit internet service providers such as Comcast or Verizon from deployment discrimination based on the income level or predominant race or ethnicity of the people living in an area. A 2020 study of internet access in Oakland, Calif., found that areas that were redlined by banks in the past -- denied loans or investment -- now have less ISP competition and fiber-based services than their wealthier counterparts. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel launched an inquiry in March, with support from the agency's Republicans, on how to create rules preventing digital discrimination and facilitating equal access to high-speed internet. A major question is how the agency will interpret a part of the law that says the rules should take into account issues of "technical and economic feasibility."
The rules would prohibit internet service providers such as Comcast or Verizon from deployment discrimination based on the income level or predominant race or ethnicity of the people living in an area. A 2020 study of internet access in Oakland, Calif., found that areas that were redlined by banks in the past -- denied loans or investment -- now have less ISP competition and fiber-based services than their wealthier counterparts. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel launched an inquiry in March, with support from the agency's Republicans, on how to create rules preventing digital discrimination and facilitating equal access to high-speed internet. A major question is how the agency will interpret a part of the law that says the rules should take into account issues of "technical and economic feasibility."
The first thing they should do (Score:2)
Is make cell providers get back the same coverage that they had before shutting down 3G, so rural areas have an option to get internet and cell service.
Re:The first thing they should do (Score:4)
The whole point of shutting down 3G was to reclaim the spectrum for 5G. That increases the bandwidth of the towers overall. So far only AT&T has shut down 3G. Everyone else has delayed it a bit.
But then they have to swap out equipment. I don't know what kind of progress they are making but they are likely to be slower than the other major carriers whose own 3G shutdowns are coming soon.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of shutting down 3G was to reclaim the spectrum for 5G.
Not really. The 3G bands are too low frequency to support high bandwidth 5G. And they are not contiguous (I believe a requirement of 5G modulation schemes). What is happening is the telecoms are buying up public service bands and offering police, fire and utilities some nice high bandwidth (and cost) 5G service in exchange. Which can be throttled [nbcnews.com] should your local rural fire department not stay within their allocation.
Re: (Score:3)
Not all 5G is related to high bandwidth. More efficient use of existing spectrum is still part of it. AT&T is using its 850MHz allocation from 3G for low-band 5G. T-Mobile bought 600MHz TV spectrum specifically for low-band, long distance 5G.
The crazy high speeds of mmWave means nothing to rural users. Nobody lives close enough to a tower for the tower to even adopt it.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon has shut down 3G. Verizon sold the spectrum, you can no longer make calls from your basement. There are many companies that had modems that no longer work for M2M devices. In the area I live in I can no longer make calls even on the freeway without verizon dropping or from my basement. The solution verizon gave to me was to turn on wifi calling. Why would I need a cellular provider if I'm going to use wifi? Verizon will never have the same range as they did, because they don't have the spectrum anym
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile. I really think they're going to take over on rural cellular with their investment in 3 bands of 5G.
Re: (Score:2)
I know there is no reason for me to be a verizon customer anymore. The problem is verizon has the towers, t mobile does not.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sadly, if you are rural, you are pretty much not the demographic the Democrats are looking to get votes from...so...yeah.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The first thing they should do (Score:2)
Carriers are handing out 5G devices to customers that previously had 3G-only devices.
This is a non-issue.
Re: (Score:3)
It's an issue for me, I have to be able to receive texts at work for 2FA. I tried to buy a new iPhone which doesn't work on the 3G around here and had to return it and go back to my iPhone 7+.
Welcome to capitalism... (Score:2)
A key feature of capitalism is that companies with limited resources are going to use those resources in the areas likely to bring the biggest returns, and areas which wouldn't be profitable are simply not serviced at all. Spending huge amounts of money building infrastructure thats going to generate little or no profit simply isn't compatible with the business model and would make the shareholders very unhappy.
Re:Welcome to capitalism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why internet access should be municipalized and/or highly regulated like we do with other utilities. Would we accept the same thing with water, sewage or electricity? Communication is a vital service for the country to have for economic and security reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be nice of one political party wasn't dead set against it.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That would be nice if government could demonstrate it wasn't corrupt or incompetent
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
https://reason.com/2022/05/12/... [reason.com]
Re:Welcome to capitalism... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Republican dominated Tennessee, more and more of our power co-ops are offering 10Gbe over fiber owned by the rate payers. I don't believe the issue is as one sided as you're portraying it.
Re:Welcome to capitalism... (Score:4, Funny)
And here in Democrat run California, homeless people steal from stores and nobody stops them. So we have our own public policy victories!
Re:Welcome to capitalism... (Score:4, Interesting)
And here in Democrat run California, homeless people steal from stores and nobody stops them. So we have our own public policy victories!
I do IT for a small string of grocery stores in California and I can assure you this nonsense is most certainly not true. We turn shop lifters over to our local police all the damn time. I get amusing stories regularly about this chit-chatting with our store security and I sometimes even get to see these people literally lead from our stores to the cop car to be brought down to the station.
I have to add that this myth is so absurd I really don't think much of those who believe and/or propagate it. You're either so far down the rabbit hole of partisanship that you'll believe anything or you're so dishonest that you'll say anything to demonize the "other". Either way you need to get your shit together.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, it's not a myth. Your stores are clearly not in San Francisco. You can see pretty much endless youtube videos of people shoplifting, some even bringing trash bags to take stuff out of stores. I always love the "I know that's a lie because in my specific instance it isn't true". We're not talking about your stores.
Re:Welcome to capitalism... (Score:5, Informative)
I always love the "I know that's a lie because in my specific instance it isn't true". We're not talking about your stores.
That's funny because I always love people who talk out their ass like they know something. Or how about "I always love people who go "Duh, I saw it on Youtube so it must be true"" as if it's not possible for anyone to upload almost anything to that service. I bet you were disappointed when those Tide pods didnt go down so well a few years back.
The above poster very clearly stated California, not the incredibly small subset of California that is SF https://www.pinterest.com/pin/... [pinterest.com] . If one is discussing a problem specific to Dallas one does not claim the problem exists in Texas as a whole, that would be a massive exaggeration at best.. So because they were describing the problem as a problem with California all I had to do to disprove their claim was show that it wasnt true somewhere in the state and my individual experience works quite well in that capacity. We hand shoplifters over to the cops all the damn time.
As for this SF specific stuff, please show me what SF specific laws you're talking about because as far as I know the law of the land is as follows:
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/d... [shouselaw.com]
Committing a retail theft crime is a misdemeanor. This is opposed to a felony or an infraction.
The offense is punishable by:
custody in county jail for up to six months, and/or
a maximum fine of $1,000.
A judge can award misdemeanor (or summary) probation in lieu of jail time.
Maybe they have something specific to their city going on but I havent heard of it nor can I find mention of it in my first few Google search results.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to add that this myth is so absurd I really don't think much of those who believe and/or propagate it. You're either so far down the rabbit hole of partisanship that you'll believe anything or you're so dishonest that you'll say anything to demonize the "other". Either way you need to get your shit together.
Walgreens says otherwise [archive.ph]. I'll agree that this may, in fact, be untrue and that Walgreens is lying (the SF Chronicle claims that they are), but it does not make one a partisan hack for repeating the claim that "retail theft in San Francisco was five times the chain average and security costs were 46 times the chain average" when said claim comes from the retailer in question and is not some political talking point made up out of whole cloth.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if it's true it would be completely contrary to my own extensive experience. Furthermore it would be untrue based on what I've been able to find online on the subject after I got passed all the right wing alarmism.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/d... [shouselaw.com]
Committing a retail theft crime is a misdemeanor. This is opposed to a felony or an infraction.
The offense is punishable by:
custody in county jail for up to six months, and/or
a maximum fine of $1,000.
A judge can award misdemeanor (or summary) probation in lieu of jail time.
Fact is, despite its large contribution to our national prosperity California is an incredibly popular punching bag for our country's right wing. The number of outright lies and gross exaggerations I've heard over the years that are easily refuted just by wal
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, by "Well if it's true it would be completely contrary to my own extensive experience." I was referring to the shoplifting is legal in California claim. We do in fact have a homeless problem in very large portions of this state being driven by crazy real estate and rental costs which is bound to fuel crime like shoplifting.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine it has to everything to do with TN's socialized power grid known as the TVA.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree that is almost certainly why we have power cooperatives. That is not, however, how or why those cooperatives are building out fiber networks--the networks have nothing at all to do with TVA.
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder why that is?
The Republican bill also makes an exception for the Tennessee Valley Authority, which operates a fiber network but doesn't have carveouts for any other specific entities.
Re: (Score:2)
The network you are referring to is a backbone network and not consumer facing. IOW, has nothing to do with the "last mile" we are discussing.
Re: (Score:3)
The networks are not being built by the government (though there are some rural broadband grants that are defraying some cost) but by the power utilities (which are cooperatives owned by the rate payers). I assure you that AT&T has lobbied heavily for laws designed to minimize this assault on their revenue streams, and their efforts were largely successful (and not on party line votes)--just as they have been in other states.
It's not "elephant vs donkey" it's "ILECs vs everyone else" and I assure you t
Re: (Score:2)
We do accept the same with water and sewage. Most rural places have to use a well and septic, not municipal services. Electricity, Mail, and POTs are the only examples that really fit your description.
Re: Welcome to capitalism... (Score:2)
Which is why internet access should be municipalized and/or highly regulated like we do with other utilities.
ISPs are unregulated? Are you serious?
Would we accept the same thing with water, sewage or electricity?
Flint Michigan's water system was regulated, run by the local municipality, how did that turn out?
Communication is a vital service for the country to have for economic and security reasons.
High-speed internet is NOT a 'vital service', some people can't imagine living without it, but it is not vital. Fresh water is vital, the hygiene provided by an efficient sewer system is vital, municipal electricity is almost vital (solar cells on household roofs are the perfectly viable alternative).
TV, radio
Re: Welcome to capitalism... (Score:5, Insightful)
The USA decided a century ago not to do that for electricity or running water or mail. Everyone gets service even though this clearly means some areas are too remote for connecting them to be profitable.
Internet is another important utility.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's stupid for states like California to need to route power to remote areas when it creates such a large expense and potential for fire risk.
California is pretty tiny in the grand scheme of things. Power is routed far further away in far poorer areas without burning down half the state.
Rather than talk about "potential fire risk" how about talking about PG&E not doing basic maintenance while returning shareholders huge profits. I mean we don't ask for much, just maybe do inspections more often than once every 100 years.
Re: Welcome to capitalism... (Score:2)
If you live in a remote area, you are required to self-fund running sewer, water, telephone, cable TV/Internet and electricity to your location.
The communities under discussion HAVE service (they lack competition, just like most other communities), and they lack access to some offerings available in other (wealthier communities). Somehow, the FCC will fix this - my question is how?
Digital Discrimination? (Score:2)
Meanwhile, you'll be able to get Starlink in remote areas soon, for a reasonable price covering most of the US.
It may not be 1Gbps or better speeds but it can at least allow people who live in remote or underserved areas better access to the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
That's complete bullshit. Have you even looked at Starlink's capacity and cost?
I hope there's a compromise solution to consider. (Score:4, Insightful)
On one hand, I think that government involvement in the free enterprise system should be avoided where reasonable. ISP's can't be blamed for investing their resources where they expect to get the greatest return, and forcing them to provide services in less profitable markets will reduce the resources available for them to continue exploring and providing new technologies. It will very likely result in slower growth and advancement in this area.
On the other hand, internet access is no longer strictly a "nice to have". Our evolving society has made it a utility; originally a subset of telephone (telecommunication), telephony is now a subset of network connectivity for all intents and purposes. As a utility, it would be reasonable to require access be provided not only to high profit areas but nationwide (wherever feasible). All those miles of power transmission lines, telephone wires, and potable water/sewer pipe didn't come to be because of free enterprise supply/demand pressures, they came about because we collectively (a.k.a., "the government") demanded it.
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand, I think that government involvement in the free enterprise system should be avoided where reasonable.
They aren't involving themselves in the free enterprise. They are involving themselves in enterprises originally funded by governments. You can't have a government build something, hand it over to a private company and then expect the "free market" to actually function.
Mind you people don't want a free market. They want a perfect market, that is something very different and very much requires government regulations.
ISP's can't be blamed for investing their resources where they expect to get the greatest return
If ISP's were investing *their* resources they should be free to do with it what they want. T
Hey, its 2014 all over again (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
However, as we now know that did not happen and the democratic governments we all enjoy outside the US function w
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, now show us on the doll where Hillary touched you. I'm surprised you didn't throw in some CRT and BENGAHZI!!!! into the mix of RWNJ talking points, honestly. Those are like sprinkles on the idiot cake.
Diversity means Racism (Score:2)
Anytime I see someone promoting diversity, I always think of Martin Luther King Junior and what he would think of adding more racial discrimination instead of less....
Just gonna leave this here for all to ponder:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Re:Diversity means Racism (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we all know MLK descended from the heavens, made that one speech and then left for his home planet.
“I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective – the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed matter: the guaranteed income The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.”
“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.”
“If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.”
Re: (Score:3)
While MLK yes was advocating these things in regards to all the poor he specifically (as noted in the 2nd quote) saw the historical issues that pertained specifically to the black descendants of slaves. While he advocated for programs in a universal sense he also recognized that something like reparations is justified:
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society c
Re: (Score:2)
Point is acting like we can just be "colorblind" in all policy decisions is not realistic or accurate or necessarily fair
In other words poor people with the highest intersectionality score are more deserving of assistance than equally poor people with lower intersectionality scores?
Or to ask in a different way can you offer an example of where and why ethnic discrimination (e.g. explicit policy of inequality) would be the most prudent course of action?
Re: Diversity means Racism (Score:3)
Reconstruction America, where after a brutal war we at one point did promise certain benefits for certain races of people who had been historically oppressed. Instead of subjecting them a wholly new type of oppression for another 100 years if it's my opinion we would probably exist in a world with less racial strife than we have currently.
This is some alt-history nonsense and I don't have all the facts to but we certainly acted in a continued ethnically discriminatory way and it certainly led to negative o
Re: (Score:2)
If we are talking prescriptively, although I favor universal programs more
It's 2022. Can you offer an example in the present of where and why ethnic discrimination (e.g. explicit policy of inequality) would be the most prudent course of action?
We really fucked shit up in the early 20th century
We? It's not the 20th century.
I could justify a large dedicated public investments into historically black neighborhoods and communities.
Is justification based upon neighborhood could use improvement or because tribal affiliation?
Would a neighborhood that could equally use improvement with a different tribal affiliation be less deserving of investment?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think i owe you a more recent example if you can't provide an answer for my original one and it feels a bit bad faith to give a recency qualifier now.
The primary reason this is an even an issue toda is due to historical circumstances, they can't just be discounted because we kinda did a right thing in the 1960's finally and wipe our hands. If you meet an elderly black person in many parts of America today theres a chance they had to drink out a different water fountain. The placement of freeways in
Re: (Score:2)
You absolutely can believe that, but the good doctor you originally quoted would very much disagree.
Re: (Score:3)
look at the typical lottery winner: within 5 years, most are worse off than before they won.
This is not a great comparison. Also there are studies of small scale UBI programs that do not back this anecdote up like a test program in California:
Among the key findings outlined in a 25-page white paper are that the unconditional cash reduced the month-to-month income fluctuations that households face, increased recipients' full-time employment by 12 percentage points and decreased their measurable feelings of anxiety and depression, compared with their control-group counterparts.
The study also found
Re: Diversity means Racism (Score:3)
Totally agree that most ppl that win lottery blow through it foolishly. But this is different.
I'm pondering (Score:2)
Just gonna leave this here for all to ponder:
The greatest question to ponder is why right-wing nutjobs only ever believe and quote MLK to counter programs that address inequality built up on hundreds of years of systemic racism. It's quite a dichotomy to believe that the most important part of solving racism is to not help those we spent centuries kicking down.
But hey, I got mine, fuck the poor minorities amirite?
Maybe the best answer would be to roll back slavery laws, but rather than white people building empires on the backs of racial minorities, l
Re: I'm pondering (Score:2)
I suspect the problem is more that anybody who disagrees on any party of the current year Great Leap Forward is habitually branded sone flavour of far-right. Many of us actually believe in his message and had been living it for decades before racism was brought back new and improved.
Re: (Score:2)
The greatest question to ponder is why right-wing nutjobs only ever believe and quote MLK to counter programs that address inequality built up on hundreds of years of systemic racism.
It's quite a dichotomy to believe that the most important part of solving racism is to not help those we spent centuries kicking down.
But hey, I got mine, fuck the poor minorities amirite?
Equality != Equity.
Equality treats everyone the same regardless of tribal affiliation. With equality equal outcomes are not guaranteed nor expected. Some will have certain luck, talents and ethic and do well while others won't and may falter.
Equity is playing favorites in a bid to normalize outcomes such as taking from the rich to give to the poor so that those with less luck, talents and ethic receive more than they would organically otherwise.
Equality is a fairly universal concept that is widely subscri
Re: (Score:2)
This is the fundamental problem with the worldview you're embracing... you want to judge people based on skin color instead of whether they themselves are in a position to need support. It's racism, plain and simple-- you're judging someone based on the color of their sk
Minimum level of service (Score:5, Insightful)
I think to begin with, what the FCC needs to define (if they haven't already; I'll admit I'm ignorant on the subject) is what minimum level of service in 2022 meets the needs of people as far as being able to accomplish employment-related tasks, getting in touch with government services, and being able to stay in contact with family for things like emergencies.
I can tell you it isn't dial-up; I had to use dial-up for a few months as recently as ten years ago and the modern internet is in many cases completely non-functional on it, with many websites and services often failing to load any content even when left to do so overnight. Mobile-friendly sites and addons to selectively load page elements were often helpful, but many people aren't going to know those exist or how to acquire and use them, and there were still sites that weren't usable even with those.
Once the FCC establishes a definition for minimum level of basic service necessary to function in modern society, mandate that it be met. Provide incentives for compliance and (actually) harsh penalties for noncompliance. Make it unprofitable to fail to comply. I'm generally against an abundance of interference with free enterprise, but basic necessities are a huge and fairly obvious exception. It's one thing if Comcast doesn't build out gigabit to some area because it's not profitable; it's another entirely if they won't even provide the bare minimum needed to get by in the modern era.
The FCC won't do that (Score:2)
This is what happens when we vote for entertainment value instead of policy.
Re: (Score:2)
These days dial-up isn't even an option in most places. I would be surprised if there any local dial-up access in any of the areas the also don't have high speed Internet. Those areas could probably find a long distance dial-up portal but at that point the cost is definitely not worth the effort.
Redlining had little or nothing to do with rural. (Score:4, Interesting)
It was race based. I am in a former redline area. There has been fiber 2 to 4 blocks in every direction from me for 5 years. There are also no grocery stores, fast food or chain coffee shops. This is in the city where there are sometimes 2 Starbucks on the same block. (Seattle)
20 years ago I had to manipulate the telco by ordering multiple fax lines to get them to replace the ancient 25 pair that fed 3 blocks so my former redline neighborhood could get DSL.
This republican FCC strategy is still race based today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
To be honest, it is a horrible plan (Score:2)
if we tax payers are paying for it, let's own it and keep costs way low.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government is already subsidizing $30/mo for people who can't afford Internet under the ACP. This is guaranteed money for ISPs that expand into these areas.
Re:Decoding from woke (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
$30/month ought to get you fiber. It does in many countries.
How many countries that provide $30/month fiber are near the size of the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, all the more reason. Countries a fraction of the size of the US are able to do it and so should we.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, all the more reason. Countries a fraction of the size of the US are able to do it and so should we.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Scale matters in this case, and its my understanding that many of the countries that are offering cheap fiber are closer to the size of a US state, not the entire country. The distance east to west across Texas as an extreme example is something like 900 miles / 1500 km as just an example of ONE STATE where long hauls would have to happen to get fiber to the home.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Decoding from woke (Score:4, Informative)
Except that isn't factually true, it is just how you feel.
Now decode Trump's trillion dollar tax cut for the elites.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump's tax cuts helped middle income earners the most on a percentage base (low income earners paid/pay no income tax already). The main part of it was raising the standard deduction. That increased the income threshold of people not paying any federal taxes (FICA is separate) which accounts for about the bottom 50% of earners. It also helped people that rent and don't itemize by increasing their deductions. Rates were reduced as well. At the higher end of the income scale, the tax rate was reduced, b
Re:Decoding from woke (Score:5, Insightful)
Woke really is living rent free in your head. Is there a day goes by that you don't think about it?
Re: (Score:3)
"discrimination based on the income level" is otherwise known as "ability to pay".
More often than not, it is not simply about the ability to pay, but about the ability to pay for the hyper inflated prices these companies use to stuff the pockets of shareholders.
I'm sure you can fix this by some form of communal internet but then you're likely be sued by the oligarch telcos, even if they never planned on extending their lines so you can have internet.
Why the people in the US find this kind of exploitative capitalism acceptable is beyond comprehension.
On the other hands, close to half the
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful of what you wish for. When the government controls everything, it's a monopoly. There is zero incentive to innovate or offer options. As it's the government controlling it, there is no room for an upstart competitor to come in and offer better service. You're stuck with it. "Customers" cannot just decide to stop paying the government for a service, it's paid for through taxes everyone must legally pay. People lose all leverage over change.
Re: (Score:2)
We accept monopolies for certain things though, there are such things as natural monopolies where having multiple competitors makes no financial or logistical sense (electricity, water and modern wired internet services). There are also things like healthcare where demand is very inelastic so the normal market rules get turned upside down. Accepting these realities is part of understanding capitalism.
Markets and competition work great for most things, but not everything.
And customers can always stop payin
Re: Decoding from woke (Score:2)
No, they want high-speed gigabit/fiber offerings in communities that lack the resources to adopt those services so carriers can recoup their investment/profit.
The communities are served, but not as well as Some other communities... this is forcing carriers to offer unprofitable services in poor communities.
Re: (Score:2)
I pay $75/mo for 8Mb DSL in a rural area, I think there's room for some competition here. I know a lot of people would switch because "Fuck Frontier" is everyone's attitude around here after being fucked by them for so long. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the power and land line phone systems were created using this very same strategy. If the installation of power and phone systems hadn't been subsidized by the government and had only rolled out those that could directly pay for the service we probably wouldn't have the power and phone grids that we have today.
Internet access is at the point where it is now a necessity more than it is a luxury and the only way to make sure that everyone has access to this necessity is to subsidize the ins
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the summary (I did not read the actual article), the concern is not those poorer neighborhoods not having internet access. The concern is in having multiple choices in those neighborhoods ("have less ISP competition and fiber-based services than their wealthier counterparts"). That means at least one provider already spent money on the infrastructure. Others are not interested because odds are only the cheapest plans will be subscribed to and with a competitor already servicing the area, get
Re: (Score:3)
I am rural but I am not poor. I have exactly one ISP, Frontier, to choose from which provides DSL running on copper laid by Ma Bell. I get 8Mb download speed, it used to be 12 Mb until the utility pole got knocked down and Frontier tied the line to a tree so it wouldn't be in the road. That's been the situation about 4-5 years now. I would be more than happy to subscribe to another faster ISP if they moved to the area and I know a WHOLE LOT more like me that would too. Funny how the Fox News reality do
Re: Decoding from woke (Score:2)
High speed (e.g. fibre) isn't a necessity for any of those things. A complete lack of basic broadband is more of a rural issue.
For me it'd depend on what us being asked here. If these urban areas have broadband, just not the fastest speeds, having the government force ISPs to provide it seems akin to demanding VW not only sell VW - they must also open Audi showrooms in poor areas.
Re: (Score:2)
You're 100% right in what you say. The problem is that Biden is weak, ineffectual and consumed by the idea that today's Republican Party is still similar to the one from thirty years ago, back when he still had enough brain cells left to speak a coherent sentence without some kind of stimulant blasting though his failing body.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden has never been able to speak a coherent sentence in his entire political career. The closest he's come is when he's been plagiarizing others (which he often did).
Re: (Score:2)
I was just going to say I've heard him speak coherently before, but upon reflection, I can't say his words weren't written for him by somebody else, or outright stolen.
I think what bothers me more than anything is that Biden's still on his knees kissing Republican butt even as they repeatedly slap him across the face. He can't even control the scumbags in his own party, much less the other one. Look what happened to Cawthorne when he decided to spit on some of the GOP movers and shakers.
Re: Get rid of these fucking republicans (Score:2)
Political appointees are replaced with each new administration.
DeJoy isn't a political appointee, he's confirmed by the post office leadership, his term spans administrations.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Maybe we should get rid of everyone that blindly without any sense of reality calls everyone they disagree with nazis, racists, sexists, bigots, *ists. Then we might actually be able to have actual adult conversations and solve actual problems.
Re: (Score:2)
People are just calling them like they see them.
Re:Get rid of these fucking republicans (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, we accept natural monopolies [wikipedia.org] for electricity and other utilities, we really just need to treat internet the same way. Every house needs one fiber line to it, that's it. If we want competition as to who that line gets hooked into at the head end thats something that's workable but the lines to the homes should be treated same as we treat power lines and water lines.
Re: Not holding my breath (Score:2)
Broadband is different. You can't offer better electricity by installing new lines. Barring pipes being in terrible condition (e.g. lead), you can't offer better water by installing high tech pipes.
There's no practical way to compete on transmission. By contrast, broadband can be improved through newer transmission lines. Companies can actually compete by running new lines. Vodafone has been doing that here, running new fibre lines in my area. While Internet access could to some extent be a utility, higher
Re: (Score:2)
That used to be true when we were in the standards war between DOCSIS, DSL, etc.
Now once a piece of single-mode fiber is installed to the premises the theoretical speed is only limited by the equipment on each end, probably for at least the next few decades, if not a century, don't see any tech on the horizon to be better than fiber, they are putting literal terabits through single strands now.
Even when fiber wasn't readily available we did have similar rules for POTS lines, in my house growing up we never
Re: Not holding my breath (Score:2)
Uses of capacity will arise. It'd be incredible to imagine we've somehow peaked on demand and capacity for the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:3)
That's partly or even mostly our own fault.
Right now there are primaries happening in states for the midterms, we have the opportunity to nominate candidates that better represent these values. If more people participated in the process we could see better results. Primary voter participation in this country is pretty pathetic overall.
Same goes for Republicans. As much as I find disagreement with them I would much rather have principled libertarians than the worthless culture war conservatives , just as
Re: Deadlocked by design (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit of a pipe dream I will admit but I have really come around to the idea of mandatory voting.
Voter participation rate for primaries is generally under 40% and in a lot of places can be under 30%. That's going to make a big difference no matter how much we like to blame the system. Not that the system doesn't have problems but like we can get as doomer as we want about it but the political landscape is a far different place with a primary participation rate of 60%+ no matter what either party want
Re: Deadlocked by design (Score:2)
Re: Deadlocked by design (Score:2)
Oh yeah absolutely ranked choice, probably more likely a thing than my idea. Of course to get people elected who would change to that requires a lot of primary voting.
I do like the idea of national referendums. I live in a state where they are pretty easy to get on the ballot and a lot of good ones have passed even with a 60% threshold. I wonder how it would work legally though would it need an amendment?
Re: Deadlocked by design (Score:3)
Yeah I am a democracy enjoyer. One idea is that people would have more impetus to become informed, especially at the state and local level.
It's not authoritarian to make everyone mail in a form, we do it already. You can leave the ballot blank, no one is compelling you to actually vote for anyone.
Is you suggestion we restrict the people who can vote based on their information level and that is in fact not authoritarian?
Re: Deadlocked by design (Score:2)
Now we are in the realm of philosophy, I wouldn't consider having to mail in a form every two years an undue burden, this is already done in some countries, notably Australia.
Every law is a restriction on freedom technically so we are just arguing over the lines, everybody has them. Libertarianism as a philosophy is at its core a leftist idea.
I am sure if I queried you for some more beliefs I could make a case some of them are authoritarian but it doesn't make it so, I have to make that case.
Re: (Score:2)
I would much rather have principled libertarians
Might as well ask for magic fairies that crap pixie dust.
Re: Deadlocked by design (Score:2)