SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow4463
Ajit Pai works to cap funding for rural and poor people, gets GOP backing
The Federal Communications Commission has preliminarily voted to cap spending on the FCC's Universal Service programs, which deploy broadband to poor people and to rural and other underserved areas.
[...] Pai's plan, as we previously reported, would set a combined cap of $11.4 billion on the four programs that make up the Universal Service Fund (USF).
Pai's proposal says that capping the fund at this level "will strike the appropriate balance between ensuring adequate funding for the Universal Service programs while minimizing the financial burden on ratepayers and providing predictability for program participants." All four Universal Service programs are paid for by Americans through fees on their phone bills.
The proposed cap of $11.4 billion is the same as the sum of the four programs' budgets for 2018 and would be indexed to keep pace with inflation under Pai's proposal. The new cap wouldn't have an immediate impact on actual spending, because it's higher than current spending. The FCC projects that the USF's total disbursements will be $10.2 billion in 2019 and remain below $10.5 billion annually through 2023.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SemperOSS on Sunday June 09 2019, @06:30PM
I mean, think of how much money the rich people lose if the poor people get a fair treatment. (Shudder!) What a horrible thought!
I don't need a signature to draw attention to myself.
Maybe I should add a sarcasm warning now and again?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 09 2019, @06:33PM (2 children)
If he didn't do all these horrible things, you think he would still have his job? He's just following orders, is he not?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 10 2019, @11:36AM
That IS the real shame. Ajit Pai, working on his own, would be worthy of assassination. Ajit Pai, the Telco's bitch, isn't worth the powder to blow him away. The Telcos have kennels filled with bitches, each awaiting the opportunity to please their masters.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday June 10 2019, @02:03PM
Capping funding for poor and rural people is something that naturally would get GOP backing.
Follow my cynical thinking for a second.
If rural and poor people could get decent internet service, they would have batter 21st century access to news and information.
Being informed can affect how one votes.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 09 2019, @07:14PM (22 children)
I live in a rural area.
I'm not rich.
I think this whole scheme should be done away with. Why? Because they've been raking in the dollars for years, and not delivering service to us anyway.
In fact, they should probably be prosecuted. Wasn't it Vermont that showed that it was a huge scam? From my experience, it's not just Vermont.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday June 09 2019, @07:34PM (20 children)
Or, maybe, deals and contracts should actually be good, fair and, you know, enforced? Corruption cleaned up?
Greedy Old Plutocrats: Making Americans Poor and Worthless Again.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 09 2019, @07:39PM
Maybe build transparency and accountability into the programs from the start, with treble damages for proven malfeasance, 5x damages for obstruction of said transparency and accountability?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday June 09 2019, @08:09PM (18 children)
I you don't like it, buy your own senator.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday June 10 2019, @03:29AM (17 children)
Voting is cheaper
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday June 10 2019, @03:36AM (16 children)
It doesn't work though. [opensecrets.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday June 10 2019, @03:57AM
If we had strict spending caps, public financing and complete transparency (with the *names* of the humans involved) about political action (ads, pr campaigns, etc.) and "3rd party" spending, we might have less of an incumbency problem.
What's more, public financing would give folks who'd never have a chance to run for office the opportunity to do so. That would give us more, and more diverse voices in meaningful political debate.
But no. That's not going to happen since those who benefit most from the current system are the ones who would need to change it.
Joseph Heller would be proud. [wikipedia.org]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday June 10 2019, @04:17AM (14 children)
Yeah it does. We're just not working it. You gotta flip the switch and turn the dial yourself. This shit isn't automatic.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday June 10 2019, @11:18PM (13 children)
I would argue that as you have never managed more than two parties in over 200 years of voting, your system is broken.
If your politicians are not frightened of losing their jobs they won't listen, and as yours almost never lose, they don't.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday June 10 2019, @11:29PM (12 children)
We didn't limit ourselves to the two majors until somewhere in the 20th Century. Even today there are more than two parties on the ticket, but most people are just too comfortable with things as they are. If the system is broken, it's because the voters broke it. The choice is theirs to make.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 11 2019, @12:50AM (11 children)
Have a quick look at this site. [government-and-constitution.org]
I can't see a time that your country ever had three parties, and this bit at the end says it all:
There may well be more than two parties on any given ticket, but there is only the choice of Republican or Democrat, and that has been your choice since 1869.
If a third party could get any power at all, it would have happened at least once in the last 150 years.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 11 2019, @01:01AM (10 children)
Just in 2016 there were at least four different parties on the ballot. The two majors get ~95% of the vote. Whose fault is that? Tell the truth now :-)
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 11 2019, @02:32AM (9 children)
Well, yes of course if people don't vote for party they won't win, but I still think it is way over-simplifying things to say it is the voters' fault.
You have only ever had a two party system in more than 200 years of elections. In all that time a third party has never arisen (except as far as I can see when the southern Democrats were in the process of turning into Republicans) which happens all the time in other countries.
You had 4 parties on the ballot in 2016 (which is not really true, you actually had 4 presidential candidates) but that is setting a very low bar anyway.
The UK is a much smaller country than the US and they also have first past the post elections, but they managed to elect 8 parties to parliament the last time.
I just don't think elections are terribly important in your system of government.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 11 2019, @02:56AM (8 children)
Heh, the UK? Hardly a good example. Having more parties only brings *entangled alliances*
I afraid it is that simple. People make their own choices. The blame passing does not absolve them of responsibility... If they refuse to accept it, all is lost.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:25AM (7 children)
I don't know what that means.
More parties means that they all have to listen to their constituent, because if they don't they disappear.
It's only been 240 - odd years I'm sure it will happen soon. :-)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 11 2019, @03:56PM (6 children)
Don't you pay attention to the weird parliamentary coalitions that form all over Europe when nobody has a clear majority? Those alliances are extremely entangled, and will change at the drop of a hat, all ideals are compromised or lost completely. The UK is in total chaos right now. The EU is not much better off. Nobody has proven any advantage over the American system. Majority rule itself needs a closer examination when looking at the kinds of people that win the vote.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 11 2019, @08:39PM (5 children)
Yup, and I live in a country under coalition government, and have done for 20 years or more. It's way better than what we had before, when a party with 38% of the vote could govern alone, and the executive, comprised of about 15 people actually ran the joint.
Due to the ineptitude of the Conservatives, who did have a parliamentary majority, then pissed it away because of hubris.
Brexit has nothing to do with anything other than a few "born to rule" elites who want to go back to 1952.
European coalitions (with the exception of Italy which is corrupt) are stable and work really well.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 11 2019, @09:57PM (4 children)
Really? Only Italy is corrupt? I find that difficult to believe...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 11 2019, @10:29PM (3 children)
Well, the US is too.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 11 2019, @10:57PM (2 children)
:-) Well, I was kinda talking about the Continent, but sure, the Americans have to be pretty corrupt also to keep reelecting the same old politicos to a 30 or 40 year career for some of that "bacon", juicy contracts, favored treatment, etc. The tradition goes back to the very beginnings of majority rule, way before the US ever existed, all the way back to Plato, probably way before him too...
Going back to your old comment:
Well, yes of course if people don't vote for party they* won't win... [did you mean "that"?]
I should point out that any party can win with sufficient votes. The choice is strictly up to the voter. There will be no improvement until the voters acknowledge their responsibility for their choices. This is absolutely critical if there is to be any progress against political corruption in a representative government.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday June 11 2019, @11:58PM (1 child)
Which brings us full circle.
You're arguing that any party can win in the US.
I am arguing that any party can win in the US, as long as it is the Republicans or the Democrats. That is because the system you have is set up to make sure that only those two outcomes happen.
If any party could win, surely another party would have won at least one of your many, many elections since 1869?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday June 12 2019, @12:17AM
Yes, I've always said that any party can win. All they need are votes. 95% of the voters choose republican and democrat. That is the only setup that keeps them in power.
Now, if you are saying that the count is fraudulent, I cannot dispute that. But the voters have to demand better transparency to verify the count. No matter where you go with this it still boils down to them.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Monday June 10 2019, @01:12AM
If the funds were just for giving broadband access to rural people, sure...but it's not. A major part of the fund's purpose is to ensure all households have phone access of some kind (though the subsidy aimed at supposedly achieving that goal is absurdly tiny), and that schools & libraries have broadband service.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Sunday June 09 2019, @07:21PM (9 children)
Oh come on.....how is a cap a billion dollars above what it is going to need the next four years some kind of story of unreasonableness and oppression? Particularly since they can always change it again later if it comes down to it.
(Ignoring discussion on the actual effectiveness of that program in the first place)
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 09 2019, @07:36PM (6 children)
Gotta make sure we don't get obligated to give too much of our money to them poor people... now, how can do that and still convince them to vote us in in the next election?
Red states seem to have a process that works for them, I'm pretty sure it involves keeping the majority of their states' population ignorant and/or not voting.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 09 2019, @08:17PM (5 children)
Lots of red state voters are quite unhappy with the republicans, but are very tired of getting shit on by democrats.
Ignoring even the regular helpings of Coastal Contempt Inc. (featuring such hits as Bitter Clingers, Basket of Deplorables, Voting Against their own Interests and the ever-popular Flyover Fascists) there are the ideologically-driven activists pushing things like the continuation of the sagebrush wars, pandering to environmental pressure groups that don't apparently understand biology or ecology, but never saw a government intervention they didn't like.
Really, the bigger surprise is that it hasn't actually erupted in open civil war.
But yeah, they do vote, and a lot of them vote against the democrats, rather than for the republicans.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 10 2019, @12:07AM
I'll never forget my conversation with a poor truck driver who was voting against Obama because his bossman told him everybody would be laid off if Obama got elected... didn't happen, but didn't stop him from getting cowed by the fat cat.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday June 10 2019, @02:44AM (3 children)
And as study after study has shown, most Democrats (regardless of where they live) are much more moderate (and tolerant) than Twitter might make you believe:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html [nytimes.com]
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245462/democrats-favor-moderate-party-gop-conservative.aspx [gallup.com]
https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/13/evidence-twitter-skews-medias-understanding-americans-think/ [thefederalist.com]
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/for-democrats-twitter-is-not-real-life-but-it-could-be.html [nymag.com]
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/09/politics/democratic-party-voters-analysis/index.html [cnn.com]
As such, if you're reacting to the tiny group of Democrats being assholes (along with the similarly loud and assholic Rs) on Twitter, you're fooling yourself. The truth is that as *Americans* we have much more in common than we do differences. As polling data and common sense makes quite clear.
However, if you're just looking for folks to hate, rather than finding ways to make the US a better place for everyone, I guess they can be a convenient target.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @04:03PM (2 children)
This isn't about me. The folks you want to persuade don't read Soylent, and don't know it exists.
Go do your missionary work among the heathens, not on high street.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday June 10 2019, @04:29PM
So stating facts is "missionary" work now?
Besides, have you read the many comments here parroting the "Ds hate America and want to close your church and town hall and replace them with mosques and Sharia," narrative or something similarly ridiculous?
Engaging people in conversation and discussion is what this site is all about. Why shouldn't I share my thoughts and the data that informs them?
Yes, I realize you're probably trolling, but bits are cheap and I type fast. Toodles!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @05:52PM
:facepalm:
The cycle continues.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday June 09 2019, @10:03PM
See: outrage culture.
I honestly see that as a possible attempt to hold the ISPs accountable for managing their money, and not assuming that unlimited funds will be available for all of their inefficient fuckups. If it were to be enforced, and the ISPs were to be held accountable for producing results, it would be the best option for "cleaning up" the situation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 10 2019, @11:39AM
The problem, as I see it, is that they are legitimizing the fact they've been ripping us off all along.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Shire on Sunday June 09 2019, @11:22PM
This cap is higher than the current budget, higher than it was under Obama, and will be adjusted according to inflation. He's not taking anything away from the program, just giving it a structured budget.
I think Pai is an ass and his net neutrality decisions are criminal, but this particular policy is a non issue.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 10 2019, @02:38PM
Isn't that how the word "idiot" is pronounced in the US?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gottabeme on Tuesday June 11 2019, @02:21AM
The headline is bullshit. Here are the facts from the quoted portion of the article:
But what do we see? A dishonest, hit-piece headline from Ars, blaming Pai and Republicans for nothing, and Soylent News publishing said headline, verbatim. Then, cue all the bigoted comments about Pai, which get modded up, and the honest explanations, which get modded down.
SN ought not let the inmates run this asylum.