3 ms·

didn't ISPs take massive subsidies to build out that less-profitable infrastructure? seems fair that they, you know, build it.

dolni 3y ago
If you wanna go down that road, compel them to build the infrastructure where it was promised. Or issue a fine for the amount they were given, plus interest. We don't need to play silly "affirmative action" games to keep them accountable.
- Chabsff 3y ago
  While I broadly agree with you at surface level, you are missing a piece of the puzzle. The issue is that FCC is, correctly, treating broadband as a utility at a level comparable to electricity/sewer/drinkable water. And as such, ensuring that underserved people get access to the service is more important than punishing contractors for failing to deliver it. I do agree that the discrimination hand-wringing is unnecessary, and a good "Deliver the service to everyone, assholes" should be plenty in theory. But if leaning on those laws is what it takes to get them to comply, then whatever. Results are what matters.
  - dolni 3y ago
    Even from the "underserved people" standpoint, most of the people who have shit-tier internet are people living in very rural areas (read: overwhelmingly white). There is no valid reason to turn this into yet another performative piece of race-bait.
parineum 3y ago
They sure did and there were no strings attached to that money. That's not their fault. This would be a bizarre and circuitous way to attempt the recover from that mistake.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > there were no strings attached to that money There weren't? How do you figure that?
  - parineum 3y ago
    There was little more than a pinky promise. They took the money because there was no downside to them if they didn't do what the money was supposed to be for. Go find the bills and find me some consequences for the companies that failed to do what they were asked. There aren't any. I don't understand why people constantly vilify companies acting like companies instead of the corrupt government that's lying to our faces.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      To be clear, I'm not trying to exonerate the government here. I totally agree that the government failed to keep its promise to make sure the tax money that went to the ISPs actually got used for its intended purpose. I just also think the companies knew full well what they were supposed to do, but chose not to do it because they knew the politicians weren't going to actually hold them accountable. Both sides are at fault here.
      - parineum 3y ago
        > Both sides are at fault here. I agree but I also think it's not very practical to expect selfish parties to take advantage of a free lunch (frog and scorpion situation). The companies are supposed to act in their own interest and they did. The Government is supposed to act in our interest and they didn't. Plus, they're the ones that we can hold accountable.
wholinator2 3y ago
Yeah, honestly with how the big ISP have fucked around almost every single individual in the entire United States, it seems insane to have literally any sympathy for them when an agency makes rules to try and make things better for people. Why should we all just bend to the whims of random corporations, making billions on anticompetitive practices and exploiting us all for money. They can afford to make non profit maximizing decisions for once in their entire god-forsaken existence.
- dolni 3y ago
  I don't think people here have sympathy for ISPs. I sure don't. I'm still against this particular rule because it sets a very problematic precedent. There are other non-problematic ways to hold them accountable. Like fining ISPs for the taxpayer dollars they were given, plus interest.

dolni 3y ago

If you wanna go down that road, compel them to build the infrastructure where it was promised. Or issue a fine for the amount they were given, plus interest. We don't need to play silly "affirmative action" games to keep them accountable.

Chabsff 3y ago
While I broadly agree with you at surface level, you are missing a piece of the puzzle. The issue is that FCC is, correctly, treating broadband as a utility at a level comparable to electricity/sewer/drinkable water. And as such, ensuring that underserved people get access to the service is more important than punishing contractors for failing to deliver it. I do agree that the discrimination hand-wringing is unnecessary, and a good "Deliver the service to everyone, assholes" should be plenty in theory. But if leaning on those laws is what it takes to get them to comply, then whatever. Results are what matters.
- dolni 3y ago
  Even from the "underserved people" standpoint, most of the people who have shit-tier internet are people living in very rural areas (read: overwhelmingly white). There is no valid reason to turn this into yet another performative piece of race-bait.

parineum 3y ago

They sure did and there were no strings attached to that money. That's not their fault. This would be a bizarre and circuitous way to attempt the recover from that mistake.

pdonis 3y ago
> there were no strings attached to that money There weren't? How do you figure that?
- parineum 3y ago
  There was little more than a pinky promise. They took the money because there was no downside to them if they didn't do what the money was supposed to be for. Go find the bills and find me some consequences for the companies that failed to do what they were asked. There aren't any. I don't understand why people constantly vilify companies acting like companies instead of the corrupt government that's lying to our faces.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    To be clear, I'm not trying to exonerate the government here. I totally agree that the government failed to keep its promise to make sure the tax money that went to the ISPs actually got used for its intended purpose. I just also think the companies knew full well what they were supposed to do, but chose not to do it because they knew the politicians weren't going to actually hold them accountable. Both sides are at fault here.
    - parineum 3y ago
      > Both sides are at fault here. I agree but I also think it's not very practical to expect selfish parties to take advantage of a free lunch (frog and scorpion situation). The companies are supposed to act in their own interest and they did. The Government is supposed to act in our interest and they didn't. Plus, they're the ones that we can hold accountable.

wholinator2 3y ago

Yeah, honestly with how the big ISP have fucked around almost every single individual in the entire United States, it seems insane to have literally any sympathy for them when an agency makes rules to try and make things better for people. Why should we all just bend to the whims of random corporations, making billions on anticompetitive practices and exploiting us all for money. They can afford to make non profit maximizing decisions for once in their entire god-forsaken existence.

dolni 3y ago
I don't think people here have sympathy for ISPs. I sure don't. I'm still against this particular rule because it sets a very problematic precedent. There are other non-problematic ways to hold them accountable. Like fining ISPs for the taxpayer dollars they were given, plus interest.