Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Halt Expansion of Broadband Subsidies For Poor People (arstechnica.com)
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced today that the FCC will be "dropping its legal defense of a new system for expanding broadband subsidies for poor people, and will not approve applications from companies that want to offer the low-income broadband service," reports Ars Technica. The Lifeline program, which has been around for 32 years and "gives poor people $9.25 a month toward communications services," was voted to be expanded last year under FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. That expansion will now be halted. Ars Technica reports: Pai's decision won't prevent Lifeline subsidies from being used toward broadband, but it will make it harder for ISPs to gain approval to sell the subsidized plans. Last year's decision enabled the FCC to approve new Lifeline Broadband Providers nationwide so that ISPs would not have to seek approval from each state's government. Nine providers were approved under the new system late in former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's term, but Pai rescinded those approvals in February. There are 36 pending applications from ISPs before the commission's Wireline Competition Bureau. However, Pai wrote today, "I do not believe that the Bureau should approve these applications." He argues that only state governments have authority from Congress to approve such applications. When defending his decision to revoke Lifeline approvals for the nine companies, Pai said last month that more than 900 Lifeline providers were not affected. But most of those were apparently offering subsidized telephone service only and not subsidized broadband. Currently, more than 3.5 million Americans are receiving subsidized broadband through Lifeline from 259 eligible providers, Pai said in today's statement. About 99.6 percent of Americans who get subsidized broadband through Lifeline buy it from one of the companies that received certification "through a lawful process," Pai wrote. The remaining 0.4 percent apparently need to switch providers or lose service because of Pai's February decision. Only one ISP had already started providing the subsidized service under the new approval, and it was ordered to notify its customers that they can no longer receive Lifeline discounts. Pai's latest action would prevent new providers from gaining certification in multiple states at once, forcing them to go through each state's approval process separately. Existing providers that want to expand to multiple states would have to complete the same state-by-state process.
The lifeline subsidy does not come from your income taxes, but from a fee charged to telephone subscribers. This is used to make sure that poor people can call 911 and can participate in our society sufficiently so that they can get a job, go to school, and make use of government services that were formerly only available by phone or personal visit.
These days, getting a job requires use of the internet and you can't really hang around the library for the entire time you're trying to get work. So, it makes sense to give poor people some basic connectivity.
I believe the actual motivation behind this move is the same one that is behind making it more difficult for poor and disenfranchised people to vote - even though there is no evidence of significant voting fraud in the USA: Poor folks and minorities might vote Democratic. Suppression of the Black vote has historically been an important part of Republican strategy, this is just one of many reports on that issue. Having gerrymandered them into the most odd-shaped electoral districts, it becomes time to make sure they can't get news online or participate in democratic discourse.
Bruce Perens.
Because telecommunications has deemed a Federal responsibility
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
When did regulate ever mean "to make regular". The word "regulate" comes from the Latin "regula" which means "to rule", and even as early as Middle English, meant "to direct, to make rules". You're just inventing a fake etymology to further a false argument about what the framers of the Constitution intended.
"Regulate" meant the same in 18th century English as it does today.
"regulate (v.) Look up regulate at Dictionary.com
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating."
http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The problem I'm having with your argument is that I can't come up with a natural reason for this to be a State rather than Federal issue. What I've heard before is reference to intents of the founders or the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment argument generally takes an originalist view of the Constitution. Given originalism, we'd not have women's suffrage or racial equality, so much for originalism.
If we look back to when social policies like this were enacted in the Federal context, it's when we've had the problem that some states have been dragging their feet about racial equality (and essentially any other social issue of the last century). The Federal government thus saw a need to step in.
Bruce Perens.
If you think government is required to build roads (to support cars offered by the free market) or to build power plants (to support devices that require electricity also offered by the free market) or to regulate some aspect of life you think is unfair (because you didn't read the fine print) there is nothing I can say that would convince you.
Those are rather interesting examples you lay out. The US Government was the one that created our interstate highway system. Private industry repeatedly demonstrates failures in managing nuclear power plants and our power grid is deteriorating because no one can be bothered with upkeep. Regulations have proven themselves necessary in the face of businesses defrauding or otherwise harming customers, employees, and the public at large.
Uh, I'm not sure you actually got what is going on. FCC is going to cave on it's previously-ongoing legal defense of an extension to include broadband in the lifeline communications subsidy. FCC will stop approving broadband providers who wish to participate in the program and will instead allow states to make this decision. States don't actually have the constitutional responsibility to govern communications, that is given to the Federal government by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934. States are unlikely to have a program to approve broadband lifeline subsidies in place at present because it's a Federal responsibility, and even given the FCC Chairman's odd justification states aren't necessarily going to be eager to take this on.
Bruce Perens.
People like you get to make choices. The poor (who are not people like you) don't choose. They "are red-lined", "raised", and end up knocked up.
And by that standard the fucking internet would not exist.
NO SIG