Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Apolybus t1_iu42vd4 wrote

We already paid for this and they just didn’t build it and kept the money. I guess here is round 2.

375

MetaStressed t1_iu49b0i wrote

The fact that internet is not a utility yet is further proof congress needs to have term limits and lobbyists need to be illegal.

122

disposition5 t1_iu5abq9 wrote

Actually probably a lot less effort than that.

An FCC appointee has been sitting on the shelf for over a year because the entire GOP and (reportedly) 2 Democratic senators are holding up the appointee.

But chances are folks are going to vote in favor of the GOP this cycle and then bitch & moan and act surprised when nothing of value is provided to regular folks.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/senate-has-gone-a-full-year-without-voting-on-biden-fcc-nominee-gigi-sohn/

26

fitsum_g t1_iu85mk9 wrote

>2 Democratic senators

Gee I wonder who they could be?

0

fortfive t1_iu4q91y wrote

I share the sentiment, but term limits (at least if they're too short) and ending of lobbyists will simply shift the corruption around.

It doesn't matter, it all has to end in revolution of some sort. If there is one group who will never vote against their own interests, it's federal and state legislatures.

15

lard-blaster t1_iu5ecpw wrote

0% chance a violent revolution doesn't eventually end in dictatorship

9

Spot-CSG t1_iu5m28f wrote

America's done it once before, they can do it again.

−1

lard-blaster t1_iu5ob53 wrote

What kind of leadership structure would you like to see after an ideal revolution?

1

Minimum_Escape t1_iu6848j wrote

Let's just copy Finland or Sweden. They seem to have their stuff together.

1

Denidil_Taureran t1_iu65ef3 wrote

> needs to have term limits

people keep bringing this up, but it isn't actually a solution. it actually makes lobbyists more powerful.

the solution is to increase voter participation, voter knowledge, and to stop hiring almost exclusively lawyers to congress

5

BronzeHeart92 t1_iu5yvkn wrote

More than that, Internet should always be a RIGHT whatever it takes. That's something my country just happens to recognize.

1

pillbinge t1_iu9kyjj wrote

Making it a utility would "normalize" having, using, and needing the internet, but the government should work against that. Especially since it can't contain what's on there at the moment, and can't really even help people. It barely regulates anything, and then it doesn't really enforce what it has on paper. Get to that point, then maybe it should consider it a utility.

1

bengtc t1_iu55itt wrote

So we can be charged on usage like other utilities?

−6

edthesmokebeard t1_iu4akpr wrote

Let me guess, you think it's a basic human right, like housing or medical care?

−58

The_onlyPope t1_iu4lbxn wrote

Let me guess, you’re stupid and have a let’s go Brandon flag in your front yard.

20

HorseRadish98 t1_iu4euaj wrote

Me: wants us to gradually become the federation, where we evolve beyond the drive to acquire more wealth

This guy: Idk guys the ferengi look pretty great

19

kstip t1_iu4fzwg wrote

So not every human deserves housing or medical care? You seem like a nice person.

8

Flame87 t1_iu4o3ir wrote

Well considering you don't think people deserve those either, we already know that you don't actually want an answer. You just want somebody to respond so ecan go on an unhinged rant about the internet belonging to the 1% or what the fuck ever.

Nobody cares my dude. Go fasch somewhere else.

5

mikewoodson97 t1_iu4pt68 wrote

Was this sarcasm? It feels like sarcasm, and it sucks that we don’t know anymore.

3

meatball402 t1_iu5dfu6 wrote

>Let me guess, you think it's a basic human right, like housing or medical care?

Yes

Do you think the poor should die from preventable diseases, just for not having the money to pay for the cure?

3

councilmember t1_iu44xil wrote

Yeah, why not just mandate the work we paid for first time?

103

Semi-Hemi-Demigod t1_iu4zjcc wrote

Because that would be socialism

63

Denidil_Taureran t1_iu65bxy wrote

amusingly the people who would benefit the most from it oppose it the most, as usual

13

Minimum_Escape t1_iu67xeo wrote

It's true most of us would not benefit from rural people getting a bigger megaphone for spreading their controversial views.

5

Sapere_aude75 t1_iu797xs wrote

Maybe it's because they are simply acting selflessly to stand up for what's best for the country. The government is not exactly know for being an efficient allocator of capital.

Would you say it's amusing if I voted against a bill that would pay me 10 million a year by increasing taxes on the lowest bracket?

−3

Denidil_Taureran t1_iu7ah6l wrote

> Maybe it's because they are simply acting selflessly to stand up for what's best for the country.

no, they aren't.

2

Sapere_aude75 t1_iu7be5p wrote

I disprove your thesis

−5

Denidil_Taureran t1_iu7bibr wrote

no, you don't. you're under the delusion that kissing corporate ass and letting them run roughshod over you is "Standing up to the government"

id10t

6

Sapere_aude75 t1_iu7coy5 wrote

Lol No... Maybe you need to look in the mirror when making statements like that. You are suggesting that we give corporations lots of money for work that isn't economically justified. I don't know what about this has to do with "standing up to government".

I don't think we should be wasting money to bury a bunch of fiber when it's not economically viable. On top of that government programs add even more bureaucracy further inflating the cost. I'd rather just get a starlink, mobile broadband, radio internet, etc...

Your the idiot

−1

Denidil_Taureran t1_iu7ddaw wrote

> Your the idiot

nice english, bro.

> You are suggesting that we give corporations lots of money for work that isn't economically justified.

I think it would be better if we just seized all the data infrastructure and nationalized it, due to them being fraudulent fuckers that pocketed the $400bn we invested 20 years ago. But that's SOCIALISMS COMMUNISTS NAZISMS according to you ignorant fuckers who vote republican.

The fact that you think you're some hero standing up the the corporations when you vote for the party of "kiss every corporate ass in existence, encourage regulatory capture, cut taxes for the 0.1% and break any attempt of the government to protect the consumer" just puts lie to your bullshit.

5

Sapere_aude75 t1_iu7fbve wrote

You're making the mistaken assumption that I vote republican... This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with not wasting money. Government intervention almost always increases costs in the long run.

What do you suggest next. Shall we provide water hookups to every house in the country? 5 million for each house bumba fuck nowhere, but don't worry the tax payer will pay for it from our unlimited funds. This kind of reckless spending is what drives inflation that we must now suffer. Low income groups are hurt the most.

I guess using your logic, urban groups who make the most should be subsidizing car costs for rural populations without access to mass transit

0

Sapere_aude75 t1_iu7fvrw wrote

The only thing you have said that I agree with is enforcement of the agreement that was previously paid. They need to fulfill the contract they agreed to when they were paid. Nationalizing the data infrastructure is not the solution

0

ExplanationJolly779 t1_iu477ol wrote

After the last round a local co op here got funding to connect rural areas. Now I have one gig up and down, without Spectrum.

18

ian2121 t1_iu4dpzy wrote

Yeah, the local providers have been going crazy with fiber near me.

14

ExplanationJolly779 t1_iu6i7pu wrote

I was so happy to kick Spectrum to the curb, now I just need a reliable mobile alternative.

1

lord_pizzabird t1_iu4adu6 wrote

Tbf there was a roll-out of wireless options that circumvented cable companies intentionally blocking development.

Source: I'm one of the people effected. I'm now on 5g Tmobile ISP.

12

bengringo2 t1_iu4iw3m wrote

I’ve been surprised how well T-Mobile 5G Home works. I have both it and Verizon 5G Home (My work mandates backup ISP’s) and it blows Verizon out of the water. I thought the opposite was going to be true.

3

BlkOwndYtFam t1_iu4aqnd wrote

>Paid for it

Well we gave them tax breaks, but ya, kinda.

1

Ready-steady t1_iu5o49q wrote

When did we do this again? I remember it but cannot pin down the timeline.

1

Mr_Kittlesworth t1_iu47qu0 wrote

To be fair, prior funding was run through different programs and wasn’t for fiber.

Things are in a much different and more productive place now between the ARPA and Infrastructure Bill programs - this is actually going to be good.

−6

[deleted] t1_iu4901o wrote

Yeah Okay lol. Telecom companies wrote the book on this shit.

3

Mr_Kittlesworth t1_iu4c1fp wrote

Have you actually looked at any of the new rules?

No one gets any money up front. States and localities are involved and have the ability to submit their own plans. The government isn’t allowed to discriminate against coops or munis

4

zazz1337 t1_iu4v39l wrote

Thanks for this, seems like the immediate reaction to everything now is negativity and mistrust lol. Might help to look i to the actual grant specificities and how it might play out first.

3