> Regarding the first half of your comment, yeah, they didn't find intentional discrimination so they focused on disparate impact. From the first paragraph of

> Regarding the first half of your comment, yeah, they didn't find intentional discrimination so they focused on disparate impact. From the first paragraph of the linked article to this post: > Groups like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) have released studies on cities like Cleveland and Detroit, documenting how this discrimination lines up with 30s “redlining” efforts. I am quite curious as to why TechDirt was able to find these, but a commission wasn't. > Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of disparate impact. And please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38304973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38304973 for how this is not like other disparate impact standards in American law. I am no legal scholar, but I have a vague idea of disparate impact. As far as I'm aware, you're correct. There really isn't a disparate impact standard for any private business. It's mostly for government entities (the one I'm mostly familiar with the is the Civil Rights Act and government election rules). > The point is that the FCC is requiring you to practice discrimination/affirmative action with regards to your build out decisions. You have to figure out where the minorities are and build out to them, and make less money as a result (how much less? they won't tell you. better hope you guess right). It's quite easy to find where the minorities are. The Census data is quite accessible. It like is not wholly complete given many minorities lack of trust of government officials, but it will give one a strong idea of where they reside. I do agree with you that the FCC is reaching a bit here. I would be perfectly fine with strong requirements to any of the $56 billion subsidy dollars allocated have strong requirements about disparate impacts and affirmative action. And that applying it to ALL business decisions is almost certainly an overreach. But I do think that something needs to be done about the unintended consequences of profit-before-all-else behavior. And this likely is not it. I have a strong feeling given this current Supreme Courts hate of stare decisis, this decision may not live much longer.