3 ms·

The government is not allowed to mandate racial discrimination/affirmative action in the United States. There is fairly clear caselaw on this, including the rec

The government is not allowed to mandate racial discrimination/affirmative action in the United States. There is fairly clear caselaw on this, including the recent decision prohibiting even remedial discrimination (i.e. affirmative action). As for the subsidies, the way they work is, roughly, the government offers you a certain amount of money to build an area, and if you don't, they either give you an extension or fine you or take the money back or some mixture of the three. There's also been reverse auction type approaches, where the government takes bids for people to build out to an area and awards the subsidy to the lowest bidder. It's not like the government just cuts AT&T a $10 billion check and says go forth and build broadband where you see fit. If you have a problem with how the subsidies work, then redesign them.

velcrovan 3y ago
They are allowed to demand the the infrastructure they paid for be constructed and serviced.
- appleskeptic 3y ago
  Yes, they'd be totally in their rights to tell ISPs exactly where to spend the money, but that's not what's happening here. Here, they're telling the ISPs they have to set up an affirmative action regime or else they'll be punished.
  - riversflow 3y ago
    > tell ISPs exactly where to spend the money Thats what they are doing though.
  - llbeansandrice 3y ago
    You're mad they're being given more freedom on resource distribution? They can either tell the ISPs _exactly_ where to spend the money, or they can tell the ISPs to do some more due diligence about disparate impact and more equitably distribute the money. The FCC is doing the 2nd.
  - velcrovan 3y ago
    Yes, the ISPs HAVE ACCEPTED MONEY to set up an affirmative action regime. If they don’t deliver on something they have promised to do in exchange for taxpayer money already received they should be heavily, heavily punished.
jmyeet 3y ago
That's blatantly and objectively wrong. The government isn't "mandating racial discrimination". They're fighting actual and de facto racial (and other) discrimination. For example: - Housing discrimination through the Fair Housing Act [1]; and - Racial discrimination in redistricting, affirmed by even this current Supreme Court [2]. [1]: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_overview https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/f... [2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-alabamas-bid-use-congressional-map-just-one-majo-rcna105688 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court...
- appleskeptic 3y ago
  The Commissioner Simington dissent at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A5.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A5.pdf covers this issue fairly well. The Fair Housing Act disparate impact rule has several constitutional safeguards, the only reason why the Supreme Court upheld it in the Inclusive Communities case, that this one does not. Most importantly, it has a defense for "legitimate, nondiscriminatory" business decisions, such that disparate impact protects people only from "artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers." So you can comply by just making rational business decisions. Here, you can't, you have to take into account race because the only defense is "economic or technical infeasibility."

velcrovan 3y ago

They are allowed to demand the the infrastructure they paid for be constructed and serviced.

appleskeptic 3y ago
Yes, they'd be totally in their rights to tell ISPs exactly where to spend the money, but that's not what's happening here. Here, they're telling the ISPs they have to set up an affirmative action regime or else they'll be punished.
- riversflow 3y ago
  > tell ISPs exactly where to spend the money Thats what they are doing though.
- llbeansandrice 3y ago
  You're mad they're being given more freedom on resource distribution? They can either tell the ISPs _exactly_ where to spend the money, or they can tell the ISPs to do some more due diligence about disparate impact and more equitably distribute the money. The FCC is doing the 2nd.
- velcrovan 3y ago
  Yes, the ISPs HAVE ACCEPTED MONEY to set up an affirmative action regime. If they don’t deliver on something they have promised to do in exchange for taxpayer money already received they should be heavily, heavily punished.

jmyeet 3y ago

That's blatantly and objectively wrong. The government isn't "mandating racial discrimination". They're fighting actual and de facto racial (and other) discrimination. For example: - Housing discrimination through the Fair Housing Act [1]; and - Racial discrimination in redistricting, affirmed by even this current Supreme Court [2]. [1]: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_overview https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/f... [2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-alabamas-bid-use-congressional-map-just-one-majo-rcna105688 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court...

appleskeptic 3y ago
The Commissioner Simington dissent at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A5.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A5.pdf covers this issue fairly well. The Fair Housing Act disparate impact rule has several constitutional safeguards, the only reason why the Supreme Court upheld it in the Inclusive Communities case, that this one does not. Most importantly, it has a defense for "legitimate, nondiscriminatory" business decisions, such that disparate impact protects people only from "artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers." So you can comply by just making rational business decisions. Here, you can't, you have to take into account race because the only defense is "economic or technical infeasibility."