5 ms·

As they should - the rules are nonsense. From the article: A US law required the FCC to issue rules "preventing digital discrimination of access based on incom

As they should - the rules are nonsense. From the article: A US law required the FCC to issue rules "preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin," and gave the FCC some leeway in how to implement them. The resulting FCC rules let consumers file complaints about alleged discrimination and define the elements the FCC would examine when investigating whether an Internet service provider should be punished for discrimination. The FCC defined digital discrimination of access as "policies or practices, not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility, that differentially impact consumers' access to broadband Internet access service based on their income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin or are intended to have such differential impact." I very much doubt ISPs are in the habit to turn down expansion in any area (and therefore more money/maintain their regional monopoly) because of the race of people living there. It seems like a way to force them to build out in non-white neighborhoods over other places even if it doesn’t make economic sense. For one, that’s racism against white people by another name. We see that a lot now but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it. For two, it’s just an incredible waste of resources at the FCC. There are better ways to guarantee good internet for everyone instead.

goodSteveramos 3y ago
“Anti-discrimination” laws are a modern patronage system. Instead of government jobs being given out based on political favors, private companies are forced into giving out the jobs, and if they refuse, (like Elon Musk) they get hit with spurious lawsuits until they comply.
tremon 3y ago
I very much doubt ISPs are in the habit to turn down expansion in any area... That's like climate denialism. There is a documented 30-year history of ISPs not expanding their network while claiming subsidies for exactly that: https://newnetworks.com/bookofbrokenpromises.htm https://newnetworks.com/bookofbrokenpromises.htm . ...even if it doesn’t make economic sense You're conveniently ignoring the "not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility" in your own goddamn quote.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  > There is a documented 30-year history of ISPs not expanding their network while claiming subsidies for exactly You are conflating two things. I haven't read the book but does the data show they did it in a discriminatory manner, that is they didn't expand to minority areas even when it made business sense?
  - Arainach 3y ago
    Companies granted monopoly rights in areas don't get to do only the things they claim make "business sense".
    - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
      Hilarious. Then why grant them monopoly rights in the first place? Why not remove monopoly rights instead of adding more regulations/bandaids? Does a free market have monopoly rights?
      - Arainach 3y ago
        >Why not remove monopoly rights instead of adding more regulations/bandaids? Because it is in society's interest that utilities be available to all. We don't have a post office for only the areas profitable to deliver to.
      - tremon 3y ago
        Do you really want your street to be dug open every month by a new sewage company laying a connection to one of your neighbours? Because they switched providers?
- hitpointdrew 3y ago
  > There is a documented 30-year history of ISPs not expanding their network Yeah, which has nothing to do with race at all, and everything to do with population density. ISP’s don’t want to invest to expand to rural areas with few customers for obvious reasons, none of which have anything to do with discrimination of any kind.
whynotmaybe 3y ago
Kinda ironic that you call this "racism against white" by subtly saying that non economically profitable neighbourhoods are non white. Those proposed changes are not racist, they are simply and blindly anti-poor.
- leereeves 3y ago
  GP isn't saying "non economically profitable neighbourhoods are non white." GP is saying that white non-economically-profitable neighbourhoods get no protection from that rule.
  - spookybones 3y ago
    Doesn’t preventing discrimination based on income level cover that?
    - leereeves 3y ago
      Not always. For example, not when rural areas are excluded. Also not if, for example, an ISP decides to expand to a minority area instead of a white area because of DEI policies. In theory that should also be forbidden by the rule against racial discrimination, but in practice it's often not enforced that way.
      - vacuity 3y ago
        Would that people could be trusted to not discriminate in any way...maybe some subconscious personal bias, but then surely a group could even out the biases.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - leereeves 3y ago
      Which should we do? Disallow discrimination against white people on the basis of race? Or dismiss discussion of such discrimination as "specious bullshit flogging the reverse racism trope"? I ask because those are diametrically opposed positions, and your second sentence illustrates why the first sometimes doesn't happen.
july21 3y ago
>I very much doubt ISPs are in the habit to turn down expansion in any area (and therefore more money/maintain their regional monopoly) because of the race of people living there. You're doubting something that you made up. >It seems like a way to force them to build out in non-white neighborhoods over other places even if it doesn’t make economic sense. No, it doesn't. > For one, that’s racism against white people by another name. We see that a lot now but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it. The thought of a person in 2024 who believes that the US government is systematically working to be racist against white people would be hilarious, if it were not so sad. > There are better ways to guarantee good internet for everyone instead. Like what? This is the FCC press release on the announcement.[0] You might want to read it. Here are the actual rules[1]. You might want to read those too. And think about how peculiar it is that, out of all the groups defined, that you've chosen to focus exclusively on race. You know what the say. A man who has lived his entire life of privilege feels persecution in equality. [0] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A1.txt [1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-100A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-100A1.pdf
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
text0404 3y ago
[flagged]
nitwit005 3y ago
> I very much doubt ISPs are in the habit to turn down expansion in any area (and therefore more money/maintain their regional monopoly) because of the race of people living there. Then presumably the law will have no effect. Your conclusion is assuming bad intentions, but frankly the effect of most anti-discrimination provisions tends to be rather minor. It's extremely difficult to prove, unless people are blatant about it.

goodSteveramos 3y ago

“Anti-discrimination” laws are a modern patronage system. Instead of government jobs being given out based on political favors, private companies are forced into giving out the jobs, and if they refuse, (like Elon Musk) they get hit with spurious lawsuits until they comply.

tremon 3y ago

I very much doubt ISPs are in the habit to turn down expansion in any area... That's like climate denialism. There is a documented 30-year history of ISPs not expanding their network while claiming subsidies for exactly that: https://newnetworks.com/bookofbrokenpromises.htm https://newnetworks.com/bookofbrokenpromises.htm . ...even if it doesn’t make economic sense You're conveniently ignoring the "not justified by genuine issues of technical or economic feasibility" in your own goddamn quote.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago
> There is a documented 30-year history of ISPs not expanding their network while claiming subsidies for exactly You are conflating two things. I haven't read the book but does the data show they did it in a discriminatory manner, that is they didn't expand to minority areas even when it made business sense?
- Arainach 3y ago
  Companies granted monopoly rights in areas don't get to do only the things they claim make "business sense".
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    Hilarious. Then why grant them monopoly rights in the first place? Why not remove monopoly rights instead of adding more regulations/bandaids? Does a free market have monopoly rights?
    - Arainach 3y ago
      >Why not remove monopoly rights instead of adding more regulations/bandaids? Because it is in society's interest that utilities be available to all. We don't have a post office for only the areas profitable to deliver to.
    - tremon 3y ago
      Do you really want your street to be dug open every month by a new sewage company laying a connection to one of your neighbours? Because they switched providers?
hitpointdrew 3y ago
> There is a documented 30-year history of ISPs not expanding their network Yeah, which has nothing to do with race at all, and everything to do with population density. ISP’s don’t want to invest to expand to rural areas with few customers for obvious reasons, none of which have anything to do with discrimination of any kind.

whynotmaybe 3y ago

Kinda ironic that you call this "racism against white" by subtly saying that non economically profitable neighbourhoods are non white. Those proposed changes are not racist, they are simply and blindly anti-poor.

leereeves 3y ago
GP isn't saying "non economically profitable neighbourhoods are non white." GP is saying that white non-economically-profitable neighbourhoods get no protection from that rule.
- spookybones 3y ago
  Doesn’t preventing discrimination based on income level cover that?
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Not always. For example, not when rural areas are excluded. Also not if, for example, an ISP decides to expand to a minority area instead of a white area because of DEI policies. In theory that should also be forbidden by the rule against racial discrimination, but in practice it's often not enforced that way.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      Would that people could be trusted to not discriminate in any way...maybe some subconscious personal bias, but then surely a group could even out the biases.
- klyrs 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Which should we do? Disallow discrimination against white people on the basis of race? Or dismiss discussion of such discrimination as "specious bullshit flogging the reverse racism trope"? I ask because those are diametrically opposed positions, and your second sentence illustrates why the first sometimes doesn't happen.

july21 3y ago

>I very much doubt ISPs are in the habit to turn down expansion in any area (and therefore more money/maintain their regional monopoly) because of the race of people living there. You're doubting something that you made up. >It seems like a way to force them to build out in non-white neighborhoods over other places even if it doesn’t make economic sense. No, it doesn't. > For one, that’s racism against white people by another name. We see that a lot now but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it. The thought of a person in 2024 who believes that the US government is systematically working to be racist against white people would be hilarious, if it were not so sad. > There are better ways to guarantee good internet for everyone instead. Like what? This is the FCC press release on the announcement.[0] You might want to read it. Here are the actual rules[1]. You might want to read those too. And think about how peculiar it is that, out of all the groups defined, that you've chosen to focus exclusively on race. You know what the say. A man who has lived his entire life of privilege feels persecution in equality. [0] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A1.txt [1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-100A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-100A1.pdf

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

text0404 3y ago

[flagged]

nitwit005 3y ago

> I very much doubt ISPs are in the habit to turn down expansion in any area (and therefore more money/maintain their regional monopoly) because of the race of people living there. Then presumably the law will have no effect. Your conclusion is assuming bad intentions, but frankly the effect of most anti-discrimination provisions tends to be rather minor. It's extremely difficult to prove, unless people are blatant about it.