Republicans want to kill the FCC's plan to subsidize internet for the poor

[ivan134]

For a rare instance, I'm inclined to agree with the GOP. The poor can go to public schools or libraries for internet and apply themselves there to better their learning and lives. Only a few edge cases, mostly linked to disability, should really need any subsidy.

I don't know if to laugh or cry about how ignorant of reality your proposition is.

[ThomasD]

That's the Republican's job is to always go for the opposite of what the Dem's want, even if it's for progress.

 

Jesus Christ can these people just grow some balls already.

Balls?

 

Balls is thinking that someone else should pay for whatever you want.

 

Generosity is only generous when it comes out of your pocket.

 

Otherwise it's greed.

[Guest Kloaked]

Balls?

 

Balls is thinking that someone else should pay for whatever you want.

 

Generosity is only generous when it comes out of your pocket.

 

Otherwise it's greed.

 

It's not that simple.

[ThomasD]

It's not that simple.

LOL!

 

Tell me another story.

 

You want simple?  How about this for simple:  The FCC has no business getting involved in providing public assistance to anyone. 

 

We are a nation of laws, no?  

 

The FCC was established by Congress for the purpose of regulating interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.  If anyone wants them to get into the welfare game then Congress needs to pass a law telling them to do that.

 

What's next, the FBI passing out milk and cookies to daycare kids?

[Trik'Stari]

LOL!

 

Tell me another story.

 

You want simple?  How about this for simple:  The FCC has no business getting involved in providing public assistance to anyone. 

 

We are a nation of laws, no?  

 

The FCC was established by Congress for the purpose of regulating interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.  If anyone wants them to get into the welfare game then Congress needs to pass a law telling them to do that.

 

What's next, the FBI passing out milk and cookies to daycare kids?

^And I think we have the winning post here

[Real_PhillBert]

I don't know about where you live, but here in Massachussets, there are no 24 hour wifi locations. So what do you do if you work all day? For example how do you attend online classes, or even complete homework from a community college? if we ever get 24 hour wifi locations, then I'll come over to your side of the argument. As of right now, your insinuating that people should only find jobs where they work at night.

 

Not to call you a liar, but this is complete BS. You dont have a McDonalds? Starbucks? Library? 

 

I agree that it is not an ideal solution to use public wifi locations, but we should never make unemployment an ideal solution. You might have to get out of your house in order to make it work. 

 

I'm not insinuating that people should only work at night even in the slightest. You can job search for an hour or two a day at a coffee shop, bank, library, starbucks, mcdonalds, etc and continue about your day. You dont need to work nights to do that. 

 

As for the online classes, it's going to be tough paying for online classes without a job anyway so that is a bit of a moot point. 

[Guest Kloaked]

LOL!

 

Tell me another story.

 

You want simple?  How about this for simple:  The FCC has no business getting involved in providing public assistance to anyone. 

 

We are a nation of laws, no?  

 

The FCC was established by Congress for the purpose of regulating interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.  If anyone wants them to get into the welfare game then Congress needs to pass a law telling them to do that.

 

What's next, the FBI passing out milk and cookies to daycare kids?

 

Come back when you want to have a discussion and not a one-way street to "fuck the people who literally can't fend for themselves".

[Trik'Stari]

Not to call you a liar, but this is complete BS. You dont have a McDonalds? Starbucks? Library? 

 

I agree that it is not an ideal solution to use public wifi locations, but we should never make unemployment an ideal solution. You might have to get out of your house in order to make it work. 

 

I'm not insinuating that people should only work at night even in the slightest. You can job search for an hour or two a day at a coffee shop, bank, library, starbucks, mcdonalds, etc and continue about your day. You dont need to work nights to do that. 

 

As for the online classes, it's going to be tough paying for online classes without a job anyway so that is a bit of a moot point. 

I'm going to online school thanks to FAFSA.

 

And I would prefer to work only at night lol. Also, isn't Elon Musk working on a global free wifi thing? Why don't we just put government money into that instead of giving it to ISP's that won't do anything with it?

 

Come back when you want to have a discussion and not a one-way street to "fuck the people who literally can't fend for themselves".

 

He did have a point. This is outside the FCC's purview, if congress wants to do it, then they should do it. Personally, as I said above, just give the money to Elon Musk and create a global WIFI network with satellites. At least then it might get done, rather than giving it to Comcast, Verizon, or TWC and watching them spend it on buying other companies.

[Guest Kloaked]

I'm going to online school thanks to FAFSA.

 

And I would prefer to work only at night lol. Also, isn't Elon Musk working on a global free wifi thing? Why don't we just put government money into that instead of giving it to ISP's that won't do anything with it?

 

 

So you're going to school on someone else's dime and you're agreeing with someone who would make a great Republican Presidential candidate in your previous post?

[Unhelpful]

Come back when you want to have a discussion and not a one-way street to "fuck the people who literally can't fend for themselves".

Literally can fend for themselves... Internet is not a right... On top of that, there are many areas you can go to for public internet. 

[Guest Kloaked]

Literally can fend for themselves... Internet is not a right... On top of that, there are many areas you can go to for public internet. 

 

It should be a right given how many businesses are moving toward online-only job applications. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a store to talk to a manager only to be directed to the internet.

[ivan134]

Not only am I up against ignorance and misinformation, but sub 2nd grade reading comprehension. I remember why I don't discuss politics on here.

[Trik'Stari]

So you're going to school on someone else's dime and you're agreeing with someone who would make a great Republican Presidential candidate in your previous post?

I didn't say this shouldn't be a thing, just that its outside the FCC's purview. It's not their place, this is something congress should be doing. At least as far as the letter of the law goes.

 

I also said, just create a global wifi network, like Elon Musk suggested. Then this becomes a moot point.

 

It should be a right given how many businesses are moving toward online-only job applications. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a store to talk to a manager only to be directed to the internet.

 

^this, and the furtherance of education, are why I do think internet access should be a right.

 

Then, once we've created a global wifi network, start air dropping laptops with wifi cards into North Korea (and any other nation with a censored internet), and wait for their government to implode lol

[Unhelpful]

It should be a right given how many businesses are moving toward online-only job applications. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a store to talk to a manager only to be directed to the internet.

See my second part. That is a nonissue. 

[Blaze101xx]

Ron Paul 2016.

[ThomasD]

Come back when you want to have a discussion and not a one-way street to "fuck the people who literally can't fend for themselves".

This is a discussion.

 

At least it was until you started putting words in my mouth that I never actually said.

 

Which only demonstrates that you don't actually have anything to say.

 

Other than "shut up."

[Guest Kloaked]

I didn't say this shouldn't be a thing, just that its outside the FCC's purview. It's not their place, this is something congress should be doing. At least as far as the letter of the law goes.

 

I also said, just create a global wifi network, like Elon Musk suggested. Then this becomes a moot point.

 

The FCC's job is to regulate communications. It's well within what they're supposed to be doing, which is why they're passing it up the chain. Congress just sits on their asses and votes/vetoes shit all day while they're not on vacation.

 

See my second part. That is a nonissue. 

 

There's still areas that do not have public WiFi, and if they do it's not easy to access. Transportation costs money, so how do you expect people who are broke to go downtown to a public WiFi area?

 

I'm saying that rhetorically because that's the FCC's job to figure out.

[ThomasD]

The FCC's job is to regulate communications. It's well within what they're supposed to be doing, which is why they're passing it up the chain. Congress just sits on their asses and votes/vetoes shit all day while they're not on vacation.

 

...

No, that is utter nonsense.

 

Regulation doesn't mean, nor imply, provision to people based upon "need" or any other criteria.

 

You, nor the FCC, get to make it up as you go along.

 

The ATF regulates gun sales, are they going to start handing out handguns to people who cannot afford them?

 

'Because I want it' is not a valid argument for anything.

[Guest Kloaked]

This is a discussion.

 

At least it was until you started putting words in my mouth that I never actually said.

 

Which only demonstrates that you don't actually have anything to say.

 

Other than "shut up."

 

Let me break it down for you.

 

LOL!

So right here we see that you are laughing out loud in all caps at my simple statement of the situation not being as simple as you think it is; laughing at me as to possibly gain some sort of superiority over me like you know more than I do.

 

Tell me another story.

Yet another example.

 

You want simple?  How about this for simple:  The FCC has no business getting involved in providing public assistance to anyone.

It's the FCC's job to handle communications. As a matter of fact, you listed it.

 

We are a nation of laws, no?

Nah. We're a nation of FREEDOM with a side of DEMOCRACY.

 

The FCC was established by Congress for the purpose of regulating interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.  If anyone wants them to get into the welfare game then Congress needs to pass a law telling them to do that.

And who do you think is going to bring up the bill? Who better than the people who's jobs are regulating communications! I know right?!

 

What's next, the FBI passing out milk and cookies to daycare kids?

And a third statement of trying to gain some superiority in your argument.

Next!

[Guest Kloaked]

No, that is utter nonsense.

 

Regulation doesn't mean, nor imply, provision to people based upon "need" or any other criteria.

 

You, nor the FCC, get to make it up as you go along.

 

The ATF regulates gun sales, are they going to start handing out handguns to people who cannot afford them?

 

'Because I want it' is not a valid argument for anything.

They proposed a bill. That's what they do. They're not handing out AR's, or in the FCC's case free internet, to people at the charge of the tax payers without going through Congress.

They brought up a bill. Congress can pass it. The White House can pass it. Or they can choose not to.

That's literally how the system works.

[Trik'Stari]

The FCC's job is to regulate communications. It's well within what they're supposed to be doing, which is why they're passing it up the chain. Congress just sits on their asses and votes/vetoes shit all day while they're not on vacation.

 

 

There's still areas that do not have public WiFi, and if they do it's not easy to access. Transportation costs money, so how do you expect people who are broke to go downtown to a public WiFi area?

 

I'm saying that rhetorically because that's the FCC's job to figure out.

That's a good point.

 

I'd still prefer to see the creation of a global WiFi network, because even if this did get passed through congress, we all know one of the three companies that will end up getting the contract to implement it, and we all know those companies cannot be counted on for ANYTHING other than complete sociopathic behavior.

[BKOben]

Who is footing the bill for it? That's my question.

^ This......

[Guest Kloaked]

That's a good point.

 

I'd still prefer to see the creation of a global WiFi network, because even if this did get passed through congress, we all know one of the three companies that will end up getting the contract to implement it, and we all know those companies cannot be counted on for ANYTHING other than complete sociopathic behavior.

Me too. That way I don't have to go over my mythical "data limit" that Verizon gives me.

[BKOben]

Helping the less fortunate afford Internet access is not a bad thing morally, but financially...well...let me say this, can the US really afford it? We are $18.2 trillion in debt (http://www.usdebtclock.org/). We're already struggling as it is. If certain cities or states want to implement this, fine, whatever, go ahead, but on a national scale? No.

 

As thoughtful as it may seem, it's going to make our economy worse, and prices will rise from this. Who pays for the subsidized Internet? The people, through taxes. When there's not enough money to fund all of these subsidized programs, guess who's going to have to pay for it - the people, through higher taxes. Again, the thought is very nice, but we really can't afford to do it...

 

Most people have Internet already. If somebody doesn't have much money yet still has Internet, then well, that person is probably doing fine enough to afford Internet access. If the person is struggling to the pay the Internet bill, and if he needs it that badly, then make financial cuts. Work with what you have.

 

If cutting out Internet has to happen, you can still get Internet access just about anywhere... There's many places with open WiFi such as a fast food chain, you could go to a friend's house, and then of course there's the public library... 

Also This.....^^

[Trik'Stari]

Me too. That way I don't have to go over my mythical "data limit" that Verizon gives me.

Don't forget not having access to certain "superfluous" websites, like netflix...youtube....etc.