Slashdot Mirror
FCC Internet Grant Decision Riles Congress
museumpeace writes "The FCC, with no advance notice to congress, effectively made substantial cuts in the funding for the program that subsidizes provision of internet connection to libraries and poorer school systems. This was not small potatoes: 2.5 billion buys a lot of connection. [confess your real identity to them and the ]
NYTimes will tell you all about the uproar. The ostensible cause according to FCC officials, who annoyed congressfolk by dodging the inquiry, was an attemp to control possible fraudulent spending in the program but FCC actions then went far beyond fiscal oversight. FCC deference to phone companies by way of reducing the amount they were required to contribute to the program has compounded its financial woes according to Technology Review which also covered the story. [and which will also require a "free" registration]"
schools do not NEED interent connections or computers, with a large % of people coming out of school illiterate, I would think that schools need to concentrate on the basics first!
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
So, the FCC has stopped paying out- Yet it's still on my cell bill, where are the funds piling up? the FCC coffers? or the telco?
fwiw, I have no problem subsidizing a telephone to a city of 200 in W VA that can't run at a profit.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Of course, we could find another corrupt organization to control distribution or, even more radical, let the localities KEEP their money and spend it on the things they need instead of keep bureaucrats employed. Oh wait, this is /. and not the WSJ discussion forum.
$30 Off All Plans: Use code TRIPLESAWBUCK
It's not that...it's that the FCC didn't tell anyone they were going to do this...like Congress.
The FCC is again just acting like they have no one overseeing what they're doing...and they had to be reminded that they do indeed have people watching what they're doing.
Funding for the FCC needs to be cut WAY back itself...they are tending to stick their noses where it just doesn't belong...at all. But that's another matter.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I've read of massive hardware installations and billing done at small schools, all by unscrupulous companies and oblivious administrators, at the public expense. Any time you have this kind of blank check, and any time its 'for the children', you're going to get this kind of graft. The only solution is to stop taxing long distance bills (read your phone bill some time), and make local communities fork over the cash - they will buy what they can afford or what they need, no more, no less. It will spark creative ways of managing networks, combining services with adjacent communities, community involvement, and basically return the $$ spent back to the local vendors (with the exception of the hardware cost). Inject Gubmint monopoly money, and of course the costs will explode - look at the medical industry in the US for an example.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Probably because if they did, and then everyone reading were to login with the bugmenot username and password, then not too many more people would be able to read the article. Don't you think that many news sites that require registration keep track of whether there are say more than a hundred people using the same username at about the same time from different IP addresses no less? More often than not, once someone mentions bugmenot in a slashdot story like you just did, the username stop works very soon afterwards.
Although I think that Internet access in schools, and libraries are a good thing, why is it that it has to be the Federal Government's job to give them internet access.
If you as a constituant think that your local schools and libraries need internet access then you lobby your State or Local governments and let them fund it. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where the Federal Governement is required to fund Internet connections, and I do see where anything not specifically listed in the Constitution is reserved for the States. So I see this as really a non-issue. I don't feel that the FCC should be funding this anyway. Let the States or even Local governments handle this.
I will also give you my reasoning for why the Federal Government should stick to only doing what the Constitution says it should do and let the States do all the other things. The government, like anyone else, cannot do things for free. Everything that a government does requires money. The problem is that the Federal Government has accountability to EVERY American. So your voice of how you think your tax money should be spent is of less significance because you are in a sea of many millions of Americans. Now in the States level, the field of constituants is dramatically cut down, as only residents of that Stateare included. Going one step further to the Local level and the number is a lot less. So you can have more control over how your elected representatives handle your tax money, the further down the chain you go. That is why I feel that the Federal Government should stick to only A) Settling Inter-State disputes, B) Providing for the National Defense of the United States, and C) Handling diplomatic responsibilities for the States. I think the Federal Government should stop doing all the other things they have their sticky little fingers in like Health Care, Education, Social Security, Welfare, etc... The list is rather long...
The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
Maybe because the editors want to honour the other sites requirements? Besides, it isnt the editors that write the italic blurb, its the article submitter that does that, editors comments are usually in plain face after the submitters blurb.
Seriously, Slashdot editors have no place at all of suggesting methods of circumventing other sites login requirements. If they did, how long until NYtimes blocks referers from slashdot? How would slashdot feel if there was a bugmenot type site for slashdot itself? To view the article you need to log in, thats the casual agreement and cost of viewing the article, the same as having a unique ID on this site. Just because its on the Internet does not mean you have a Carte Blanche right to view it on your terms.
If the FCC were so principled:
1) They would appear before congress to defend their actions.
2) They would appear in *some* open forum to defend their actions.
3) They would publish a public document to defend their actions.
But they did not.
Instead they acted in a manner consistent with Michael Powell's long history as a corporate puppet -- they slipped the knife in under cover of night.
A vote for Kerry is a vote against Powell.
Randy
If this ship is not heading where you want it to go, you won't correct that problem by dropping the sail. You have to adjust the rudder.
Trying to correct an out-of-control FCC by just cutting it's funding is likely to get you an FCC which is still heading the wrong way, but perhaps in a less-effective fashion.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Better yet, let's close down everything that is not explicitly covered by the Constitution.
We'd probably cut the budget by 50% in 1 year's time.
Doesn't fix the problem. Check.
Arrogant and secretive. Check.
Hurts American children. Check.
The reason the Federal government is involved here is because the Federal Government benefits when the population of the entire country is better educated.
If we poshed this responsibility down to the local level, we'd wind up with (even more of) a two-tiered system where anyone living in big cities, where broadband is readily available, would pay next-to-nothing for great access and people living in rural communities, where broadband is still non-existant, would be paying thousands each to fund access for their school.
FCC policy we have today is leading us to an Information Superhighway of privately owned toll roads. There are still many people in the US who have only dial-up access to the Internet, only one telecommunications provider to choose from, and no "market opportunity" to effect a change. If we had followed these same policies in deploying the telephone, most of the country would still be relying on the post office for their "telecommunication" needs.
In my mind, this policy action on behalf of the FCC is just another in a long string of policies designer to ensure that a publically owned internet infrastructure is not allowed to come into existance, in favor of saving that infrastructure for divving-up amount the incumbent, politically powerful, telecommunications carriers and media companies.
Here's an interesting question to homeowners? Would you be interested in fiber-to-the-curb provided and administered by your local government (city or county government) if the per-month cost for that service was on par with what you currently pay for city/county water? (For those who don't regularly write the check, it's about $15-$30 a month) If a local entity can keep the gallons flowing for this amount, why can't they keep a few routers running for the same money?
Is the postal service a legitimate function of the Federal Government?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Michael Powell was on NPR yesterday and he was asked about the fact that FCC only censors broadcast media and not cable and satellite radio. He basically said that this was outdated and suggested that cable and broadcast should be treated similarly. If Bush wins in November, say goodbye to the Sopranos. The thought police have decided that we need protected from the bad words.
What ever happened to the FCC and government in general looking out for us?
FCC Chairman Michael Powell has said on several occasions that he doesn't know what the public wants and votes however his lobbyists want. The same thing happened with de-regulation (which allows bigger media monopolies than we have today).
The FCC is archaic and corrupt and something needs to be done.
I agree.. why should the FCC have such powers? They're not elected or representative of the people. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?
..decide not to spend money until they have it. This *is* government, after all.
When money is allocated for the less powerful, any excuse is good enough to cut it. (E.g. internet for the poor, the children, the libraries)
When money is allocated for the more powerful, any excuse is good enough to justify it. (E.g. tax cuts on over $200 000/yr. and on income NOT worked for (capital gains)).
Oh, have you noticed that the rich-only tax called capital gains is going away and the poor only tax called social security is not even CALLED a tax anymore and is ignored in Republican tax statistics.
You went to the library seeking information. That's what a library is all about. It's irrelevant as to how the information is packaged - magazine, newspaper, hardcover book ... that's just the transport mechanism. You went seeking information. Internet access is a logical extension of the library's charter, so it makes a ton of sense. If you don't want to read some grungy old book that's been thumbed through by countless "unfortunate souls," that's your prerogative; you can purchase a shiny new one at a bookstore. Same goes for your internet access.
... In order to truely prosper, you (we) need to provide infrastructure to all areas, not just the ones that are economically feasible. And yes, you (we) get to foot the bill.
All countries run "social programs." Roads are built with tax money or under charter from the gub'ment. Same goes for providing potable water, electricity, sewer
Explain to me the reasoning that says, "there's something wrong here, so we should do away with the whole program" because I can't understand it. They should be fixing the problem, not shutting down the program.
There are numerous examples of private schools that spend *FAR LESS* per child than your average failing inner city school, yet they achieve vastly better results, even with children who were referred to them as "problem cases" who couldn't succeed in public school.
Read the facts in The Underground History of Education, full text online.
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton