Senate Passes 'Cruel' Republican Plan To Block Wi-Fi Hotspots For Schoolkids (arstechnica.com) 101
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The US Senate today voted along party lines to kill a Federal Communications Commission program to distribute Wi-Fi hotspots to schoolchildren, with Democrats saying the Republican-led vote will make it harder for kids without reliable Internet access to complete their homework. The Senate approved a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to nullify the hotspot rule, which was issued by the Federal Communications Commission in July 2024 under then-Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. The program would be eliminated if the House version passes and President Trump signs the joint resolution of disapproval.
The Rosenworcel FCC's rule expanded E-Rate, a Universal Service Fund program, allowing schools and libraries to use E-Rate funding to lend out Wi-Fi hotspots and services that could be used off-premises. The FCC rule was titled, "Addressing the Homework Gap through the E-Rate Program," and the hotspot lending program was scheduled to begin in funding year 2025, which starts in July 2025. Today's Senate vote on the resolution of disapproval was 50-38. There was a 53-47 vote on Tuesday that allowed the Senate measure to proceed to the final step. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said on Tuesday that "this resolution would prevent millions of students, educators, and families from getting online." Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called the Republican move "a cruel and shortsighted decision that will widen the digital divide and rob kids of the tools they need to succeed."
The Rosenworcel FCC's rule expanded E-Rate, a Universal Service Fund program, allowing schools and libraries to use E-Rate funding to lend out Wi-Fi hotspots and services that could be used off-premises. The FCC rule was titled, "Addressing the Homework Gap through the E-Rate Program," and the hotspot lending program was scheduled to begin in funding year 2025, which starts in July 2025. Today's Senate vote on the resolution of disapproval was 50-38. There was a 53-47 vote on Tuesday that allowed the Senate measure to proceed to the final step. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said on Tuesday that "this resolution would prevent millions of students, educators, and families from getting online." Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called the Republican move "a cruel and shortsighted decision that will widen the digital divide and rob kids of the tools they need to succeed."
Adam Serwer summed it up years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I thought that the tech giants where united in demanding higher computer literacy among graduates (you know, to pull salaries down for IT work). These people have plenty of money with which to bribe the government, so, it doesn't stand to reason that the government would reject their concerns out of a desire to keep people stupid.
My first thought was that this had more to do with recent stories we have been reading about how cell phones are super-distracting to kids, and are even being banned in the classr
Re:Adam Serwer summed it up years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
You're tying yourself into a pretzel trying to come up with a line of reasoning even half as compelling as the plain interpretation. And the rationale you went with is bad even by Trumpain FCC standards.
Re: (Score:3)
I would make the argument that some homework is fine, But there is no reason Internet access should be involved to complete homework.
Even in University college classes; most homework is done by reading the assignments in the textbook, then turning to a page in the textbook with the assigned homework, and completing the exercises on paper. Zero internet access is involved.
Internet is generally needed to bring in outside materials extraneous to the class. Homework should instead be based on specific
Re:Adam Serwer summed it up years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
I would make the argument that some homework is fine, But there is no reason Internet access should be involved to complete homework.
Even in University college classes; most homework is done by reading the assignments in the
Going to stop you right there. Don't have any kids in K-12 right now do you.
Re:Adam Serwer summed it up years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
Even in University college classes; most homework is done by reading the assignments in the textbook, then turning to a page in the textbook with the assigned homework, and completing the exercises on paper. Zero internet access is involved.
My guess is that you went to college at least 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Adam Serwer summed it up years ago (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought that the tech giants where united in demanding higher computer literacy among graduates (you know, to pull salaries down for IT work). These people have plenty of money with which to bribe the government, so, it doesn't stand to reason that the government would reject their concerns out of a desire to keep people stupid.
It's perfectly reasonable if your objective is to reduce social mobility. We can't have those poor people getting good jobs!
Re:Adam Serwer summed it up years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
First, a hotspot is not a cellphone.
The reasoning might be flawed, but I am still not seeing evidence that "the cruelty is the point."
Ok, so here's the reasoning.
Cruz's press release said that "unlike in a classroom or study hall, off-premises hotspot use is not typically supervised, inviting exposure to inappropriate content, including social media." Cruz's office alleged that the FCC program shifts control of Internet access from parents to schools and thus "heightens the risk of censoring kids' exposure to conservative viewpoints."
After signing a waiver that says you agree to pay for this thing if you don't return it at the end of the year, as is standard for all the iPads and laptops and whatever kids bring home already, parents might be incapable of putting this hotspot in a kitchen drawer or switching it off to control access. Or taking their kid's device away for the evening, or in general whatever they do to supervise their children.
So then the school's internet censorship might both allow social medias... and block access to conservative viewpoints?? ... the ones that aren't on all the social medias ???
Little Timmy with his dad's shit laptop and no home internet service is screwed because the school's internet hotspots might censor conservative viewpoints? Or because Little Sally might use the school's internet hotspot without supervision AND TURN GAY. Not enough censorship, the wrong kind, we have to ask right, and there's plenty here that will jump and say the censorship itself is cruel.
Ted Cruz actually believes this crap, or he makes things up and doesn't give one flying fuck about poor families internet access. Which is it. Because if it was about the money, just say it's about the money. IDK, but to me it's like saying JD Vance wasn't TRYING to be cruel, he just had to make something up about cats and dogs to bring our attention to the real problem in Springfield, Ohio which was ... *crickets*
So when a politician does something that IS cruel, and offers no realistic explanation that they themselves could plausibly believe, then I have to think, just maybe, the cruelty was the point of it.
Re: (Score:2)
... Fox News. This isn't about wi-fi stopping them from seeing OAN and NewsMaxx and Fox News. It's about forcing them to see it. It's the main reason, VoA, NPR and PBS were de-funded. (The other is, leaving more money in the treasury.) CNN and ABC sane-wash the Republican Party but most people will choose the much worse Fox News click-bait.
He likes the Newt Gringrich/Mitch McConnell playbook: Break it and promise his cheaper, dumber answer is good for everybody
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"My first thought was that this had more to do with recent stories we have been reading about how cell phones are super-distracting to kids"
Aside from this being an example of class warfare, I would guess it very much is an expression a certain lobby's will to prevent people from getting uncontrolled news on social media.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not cruelty. Is a correction of an abuse of funds in the first place.
In fact the whole E-Rate program is largely a misuse of funds. I have seen what schools over the country are doing with their E-rate money. One of them just put in a 1000 Gigabit fully protected fiber ring b/w all their schools on the taxpayer dime. This is not for student use - the students don't need a fraction of that connectivity day to day.. We're making internal data processing more convenient for their technology departments
Re: Adam Serwer summed it up years ago (Score:2)
"The purpose of the fee is Universal Service Fund.. That is the fee all of us pay on top of all our Landline phones and Cell phone bills collected for the purpose of providing universal service. At this point the focus of these funds should be on making sure that 100% of households have gigabit internet available."
We tried and failed at that already. The telcos pocketed hundreds of billions of dollars (insanely this is not an exaggeration) and we got nothing for it. They did buybacks and have big exe
Re: (Score:3)
We tried and failed at that already. The telcos pocketed hundreds of billions of dollars
Duh. My suggestion would be to Not simply release funds to the telcos. Provide the funding power directly to the homeowners or neighbors, and Telcos will not own them, but will instead have to lease access to customers on the infrastructure. Make the funds available to communities and individuals to offset the cost of an individual or neighborhood buildout project that create or maintain communications plant which wi
Re: (Score:2)
Provide the funding power directly to the homeowners or neighbors, and Telcos will not own them, but will instead have to lease access to customers on the infrastructure. Make the funds available to communities and individuals to offset the cost of an individual or neighborhood buildout project
I'm not against that, but the telcos are, and they have enough money to prevent it from happening.
Re: Adam Serwer summed it up years ago (Score:2)
All to further stupefy the US population and shore up the protection of the ultra-rich.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not going to accuse the left of intentionally stupefying the population, it would be incredibly dishonest to do so, but that is the unintended outcome of t
Re: (Score:2)
"The cruelty is the point."
Serwer was wrong. Bring on the downvotes. It's not the government's job to provide Internet at home.
You know full well two things here: most of those kids were not doing "homework" with those connections, and and most of the people griping for this are the ones that think everything should be free anyway. The vast majority of Americans are not going to lose one wink of sleep over this.
Community hotspots (Score:2)
Re:Community hotspots (Score:5, Interesting)
That's right, we are expected to use our own data to do work when there is a fully functioning wi-fi system in the building. All of the students are connected to the "student" wi-fi using the district-issued Chromebooks. The administration uses the "Staff" wi-fi, which the teachers are not permitted to access.
The really annoying part is that I got a grant for a bunch of drones and robots. I have the hardware, but I can not use them because the district IT department is adamant that nothing under teacher control is to be connected to the wi-fi.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Community hotspots (Score:2)
I can imagine. [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard of some pretty asinine policies that teachers have to deal with, but this one really has me scratching my head.
Re: (Score:2)
The administration uses the "Staff" wi-fi, which the teachers are not permitted to access.
This is not a legal requirement. It's a stupid policy of your school that probably exists for convenience of someone in your tech department. Idk what your recourse would be; maybe take it to a school board meeting.
They absolutely can connect teachers to the network under Erate funds. As you mentioned they have a "Staff" network. Someone probably just believes it's too much a bother to manage or secure a bunch
Re: (Score:2)
Just throwing this out there, but unless you're sure where your network-connected drones and robots are sourced from and where they "call home" to, it's not an irrational policy to not allow that stuff. Some of the cheaper crap does phone home to some China-based server infrastructure, sometimes over VPN tunnels to get around basic filtering. Do you know what's being passed on to those servers?
Re: (Score:2)
Just throwing this out there, but unless you're sure where your network-connected drones and robots are sourced from and where they "call home" to, it's not an irrational policy to not allow that stuff. Some of the cheaper crap does phone home to some China-based server infrastructure, sometimes over VPN tunnels to get around basic filtering. Do you know what's being passed on to those servers?
Firstly, the issue is not the drones, which, by the way, I got from a Department of Defence grant. They didn't just provide the money; they purchased the hardware. The hardware was then given to me as I completed the class on how to teach students how to use the drones and robots.
The issue is a paranoid lockdown of services. This is in response to a post that said,
I guess the schools will just have to setup facilities in poorer neighborhoods who's wifi will spillover and pay for it with erate funding.
Your post fails to answer the question of why the administration is permitted to use the "staff" network, but teachers have to use our own
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The sad thing, internet access can still be shit! (Score:3)
It's unbelievable that in 2025 we're still at a point where you have to question if a child has a computer and access to the internet. Screw the question if the parents should provide it, there should not be a situation where a child can't access a computer with good quality internet access. I don't care if they have to stay late at school, go to a library, whatever, that situation should not exist. I understand that when schools hand out computers they do not get treated well, I also understand that Chromebooks are crap, but if the choice is between nothing or something, something wins.
It's nearly $5B a year with little oversight (Score:1, Insightful)
This was a nearly $5B/year program with little oversight as to who would get these devices. School staff, library staff, library patrons, students, anybody who wants one can get it with no justification needed.
If this is meant for schoolkids then why isn't it at least tethered to provide service only to a school-managed and provided Chromebook?
If this is for doing homework then why isn't it covered under one of the other home internet access programs?
Re:It's nearly $5B a year with little oversight (Score:4, Insightful)
So nobody can have it because it's just possible that someone who doesn't deserve it may get it. Understood.
Re: It's nearly $5B a year with little oversight (Score:4, Interesting)
What evidence do we have though of it being "a rushed idea with little thought put into it"?
All we were given was a cost and an accusation with normative implications. That's lazy, don't make the reader do your thinking work for you.
Convince the rest of us, with evidence.
you know damn well thats how some people think (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody can have it because it's just possible that someone who doesn't deserve it may get it.
That's the conservative rule for everything, ever.
Can't be having The Poors being able to get Healthcare. Or education. Or apparently, safe food, safe medicine, safe working conditions, clean water, clean air, safe skies, or access to nature.
Re: (Score:1)
That was my comment and I'm a "conservative".
Mind you, I'm a Canadian conservative (ref: Edmund Burke), not a USAian "conservative", which is really reactionary fascism.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So nobody can have it because it's just possible that someone who doesn't deserve it may get it. Understood.
We means-test all kinds of assistance intended for the poor. Why is this different?
And what about the questions on the purpose and how to enforce usage consistent with the purpose:
- If this is meant for schoolkids then why isn't it at least tethered to provide service only to a school-managed and provided Chromebook?
- If this is for doing homework then why isn't it covered under one of the other home internet access programs?
Re: (Score:2)
We means-test all kinds of assistance intended for the poor. Why is this different?
Because being a poor kid is bad enough without having to prove it and endure the public shaming that goes along with being "other".
-First, you have to prove to the administrator (possibly with other kids watching) that you are poor enough to qualify for the charity device
-Then, all the other kids who see you using it know you are one of "the poors".
It is embarrassing and causes ostracization -which leads to kids being unwilling to use it.
And what about the questions on the purpose and how to enforce usage consistent with the purpose:
Enforcement takes work. It adds unnecessary cost and complexity to a s
Re: (Score:2)
Because being a poor kid is bad enough without having to prove it and endure the public shaming that goes along with being "other".
-First, you have to prove to the administrator (possibly with other kids watching) that you are poor enough to qualify for the charity device
-Then, all the other kids who see you using it know you are one of "the poors".
It is embarrassing and causes ostracization -which leads to kids being unwilling to use it.
I'm going to follow up with a couple anecdotes to emphasize my point here. I grew up dirt-poor so I have plenty of them to offer.
--
One year, at the new school I was attending (we moved around, so it was usually a new school to me) there was a Free Lunch Program for children of exceptionally poor parents. My mother had gone thru all of the paperwork to prove to the administration that she was too poor to afford to feed me properly, so I was on the list.
At this school, we were led to lunch in the cafeteria,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's nearly $5B a year with little oversight (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure but if you want more and more stringent means testing then you have to pay for it. Someone has to enforce it and evaluate all the applicants and investigate if they are being truthful.
There does come a point where you spend so much on means testing that you end up spending more than using a lighter hand and accepting some "undeserved" benefits. There's also a lot of wasted productivity of where the applications of benefit becomes overly burdensome.
here's a reason Social Security has an administrative cost of 0.5%. There's no simple answer you just have to define "what outcome do we want from this program"
Re:It's nearly $5B a year with little oversight (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh. If only there was an alternative between two all or nothing extremes. Like if someone were to make rules, "regulate" if you would, who can use the money and under what circumstances. We could even call these potential rules "regulations". Oooohhh and then we could task someone else to check up on how the money was spent, an "audit" as the fancy financial people say. That person who we could call something clever like an "auditor" can then report back on how the funds were actually used.
Eh, fuck all that. Processes and oversight are for fags amiright?
wait, we still have a Congress? (Score:3, Funny)
They haven't completely abdicated their duty, allowing the President to decide everything by signing emergency executive orders because we're at war with Venezuela or something?
Re: (Score:2)
They're actually doing something other than ranting about Jewish Space Lasers.
They've been busy! They just passed a bill codifying the "Gulf of America". You know, the important stuff that Americans really care about.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been busy! They just passed a bill codifying the "Gulf of America". You know, the important stuff that Americans really care about.
Democrats should use "Gulf of America" to describe the growing inequities in the country, especially under (R) control, like the "widening digital divide" Sen. Edward Markey mentioned.
Re: wait, we still have a Congress? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did just read that some democrat either added or proposed an amendment to rename earth "planet Trump". At least the dems are giving the bill the respect it deserves.
Then he'll open a restaurant with that name and the actual planet gets sucked into a recursion loop ... :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but the left is driving us towards a feudal system while complaining that the GOP is responsible.
They don't want an educated proletariat (Score:2)
This is part of their campaign of "soft eugenics".
Starve the poor
Deny them health care.
Deny them education.
They'll eventually die out.
Re:They don't want an educated proletariat (Score:5, Informative)
Or they'll rebel and kill all the oligarchs. It's not like it's never happened before in human history.
It really hasn't (Score:2)
Violence doesn't work for the left wing. That's because to make violence work you need a good command structure. And as soon as you build that command structure congratulations you're no longer left-wing you're now right wing.
Because that's the entire point of the righ
Re: (Score:3)
Violence doesn't work for the left wing.
Damn
Today I learned that:
French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Pol Pot, Cultural Revolution are all right wing.
Re: (Score:2)
So, just to be clear, you're saying that failing to pay for wifi, will result in death?
I'm all for helping the poor, but maybe the dramatic language is a little excessive.
Re: (Score:1)
Education? That thing liberals have been in charge of and running into the ground for almost 60 years? How many illiterate students are we graduating now?
Health care? That thing liberals have consistently made more expensive and less available as they tried to make it cheaper and more accessible?
Yeah, I'm sure conservatives are at fault now for saying the FCC didn't have the
Wifi? Try food (Score:4, Informative)
Republicans don't even want to feed children. https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
You will pay (Score:2, Troll)
Mind you, they won't pay [politifact.com], but you will.
Re: (Score:1)
How much money is saved? How does it benefit anyone to take resources away from the poor?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes! Please spend more of my money on people I don't know on things they don't need. I love it when you do that. Oh wait. They actually stopped it from happening? That doesn't sound like congress. All they want to do is spend my money. This sounds made up.
The "Cruel" made me lol, so thanks for that :)
Yes! Awesome! Now they can spend even more money by giving it to people who already have several orders of magnitude more money than you do!
Re: (Score:1)
It’s all smirk smirk smirk for you until you realise one day that it’s now *you* who needed something vital that used to be publicly funded, but actually no one knows *you* and no one gives a fuck about *you*. I look forward to that happening to you
More serfs (Score:3, Informative)
A surprising number of people see kneecapping others kids as a way to increase the chances of their own. Most people who think this way won't say so in public, for obvious reasons, but I have heard it expressed more candidly from cultures who are more honest about class distinctions.
And then there are the "jerb creators", who don't want any of their poor people getting ideas about improving their station or worse, actually achieving financial stability. Southern US states explicitly pitch this when trying to lure companies in, along with "no unions".
The US government is trying to destroy the middle class. They want you poor, powerless and scared.
Re: More serfs (Score:2)
Hey, look on the bright side... Most of the people impacted by this change are from rural areas, and MAGA supporters are mostly rural people.
FA, FO.
The midterm elections are going to be interesting.
no (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't like a lot of what Xian churches teach people and give them permission-structures to do without guilt. That doesn't mean I want to burn them down.
I'm a fan of adversarial systems with rules. They have served us well. And I absolutely believe in smacking people who subvert those rules down, hard. But disagreeing about the right way to run things is simply politics, and being wrong about politics shouldn't mean you get enslaved to El Salvador OR have your kids' lives ruined.
We should be better than that.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, but the thing is, these people *voted* for other people to be enslaved in El Salvador and for other people’s kids’ lives to be ruined. They had themselves already stepped way outside the line of acceptability. They are absolutely the equivalent of the ordinary Germans who voted for and actively supported Hitler. The sole distinction is that they voted for Shitler instead. But they each need to be marched through the camps and made to look at the bodies and smell the crematoria stench.
Re: no (Score:2)
"But they each need to be marched through the camps and made to look at the bodies and smell the crematoria stench."
That won't be possible until we get into the full swing of our Holocaust, by which time it won't help
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the problem is your Marxist mindset. He was proven wrong over the 20th century, so maybe take that into consideration before applying his theories.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Both SIDES!!
Go Team!
Collateral beauty? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So these kids spend less time on social media.
Good question. Are these mobile wireless hotspots just open to the Internet? Or are they configured as VPNs to a library or school network? I don't know about schools, but our local library has a pretty decent filtering system for 17 and under. I'm not certain that all social media sites are reachable from the library network. And by extension, these WiFi hotspots might not allow it either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"The US Constitution never intended for the federal government to be buying stuff for individual private use, and does not grant such powers."
Yep. But stand by for downmodding.
Education is a State function, not Federal, period. It is not listed as a Federal power or responsibility, nor denied to the States, and therefore belongs to the States (per the Constitution). If a State education system is requiring at-home Internet for "homework", then that State can figure out how to address that need/issue
Widening the digital divide (Score:3)
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) called the Republican move "a cruel and shortsighted decision that will widen the digital divide and rob kids of the tools they need to succeed."
Another Gulf of America -- between the haves and have-nots, between the fortunate and unfortunate ...
Federal budget will be balanced soon (Score:3)
It seems like a bunch of the administrations actions seem like they are negative...no more (Federal) police body cams, cutting off programs for toddlers, cancelling food aid for starving people in Sudan, trying to cancel Big Bird (& Oscar the Grouch) now wifi for people at the library, cancelling FEMA...before hurricane season (gusty)
But these sacrifices need to be made in order to balance the books. I'm sure after this first fiscal year the government deficit and debt will begin to fall and we can work towards government fiscal responsibility just as our Republican representatives have espoused for decades. Again, any day now we will see plans for a balanced budget. Any day now.
Collateral Benefit (Score:2)
Losing access to the garbage on the web is the best thing that can happen to kids, provided they have books.
I only wish there were a way to eliminate access to the internet for more children.
The digital divide has now completely reversed -- the more internet access a child has, the bigger the detriment.
Oh Noez (Score:2)
" with Democrats saying the Republican-led vote will make it harder for kids without reliable Internet access to complete their homework. "
Anytime someone throws out the " Think of the Children " bullshit, then you know they're being desperate.
I'm old so, why is Internet Access a requirement for doing homework when not everyone has access in the first place ?
( Rural areas especially )
Do we not hand out textbooks any longer ? Once upon a time homework was:
" Read Chapter Four and answer all the questions at
making kids stupider is obviously the purpose (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The soundtrack to the current administration (Score:2)
"Obsessed by Cruelty", by Sodom.
oh shut up (Score:1)
It's 2025.
Any home that has Internet has wifi.
There's no need for little Timmy to ALSO have a hotspot so he can do homework in the barn..
Re: (Score:2)
Take a close look at Democrats in our media today. They aren't competent enough to organize and communicate the message you are claiming.
The far-left Democrats are living rent free in your head. Sometimes I love to see the torment. But today it's just tedious.
Summary excludes the most relevant information. (Score:1)
And all because (Score:2)
The Universal Service Fund, and its successors, have failed to deliver 'universal access' to the Internet, Despite decades of legislation and by now close to a trillion dollars, none of these initiatives have delivered anything close to universal access. Even the early state-level projects failed, some less than others.
So now we will give students hotspots to access the Internet, despite being committed to them having that access at home? Note I wrote 'at home'...
This is not really about students having acc
One less jet falls off an aircraft carrier (Score:2)
We'd have the money for free WiFi if we could reduce the number of jets we drop into the ocean.
Has it ever been implemented? (Score:2)