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

[ThomasD]

 

"It's the FCC's job to handle communications."

 

 

As a matter of fact, it is not.

 

The Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommuncations Act of 1996 do not say "just handle it."  They contain very specific language, none of which includes providing public assistance.

 

You talk about democracy yet you are the one who thinks that when Congress fails to pass laws to your liking that entitles the FCC to just make it up as they go along.   Because- by Federal law - they cannot do what you describe them doing -"bring up the bill." Federal agencies cannot lobby Congress.  Nor is the FCC lobbying Congress - what they are doing is making it up as they go along and daring Congress to stop them.  Their proposal is not a bill.

 

You really have no idea what you are talking about, other than saying "this sounds good, so I think everyone else should pay for it." 

 

Never mind that you are criticizing Republicans for doing exactly what you say they are not doing - addressing issues directly within Congressional purview.  Again, a nation of laws (why do you have a problem with that?)

 

You have no argument, you have emotion, and assertions of moral superiority.

[Guest Kloaked]

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

Verizon can suck my left toe.

I'll do what I want with my data.

[Guest Kloaked]

As a matter of fact, it is not.

 

The Communications Act of 1934and the Telecommuncations Act of 1996 do not say "just handle it."  They contain very specific language, none of which includes providing public assistance.

 

You talk about democracy yet you are the one who thinks that when Congress fails to pass laws to your liking that entitles the FCC to just make it up as they go along.   Because- by Federal law - they cannot do what you describe them doing -"bring up the bill." Federal agencies cannot lobby Congress.  Nor is the FCC lobbying Congress - what they are doing is making it up as they go along and daring Congress to stop them.

 

You really have no idea what you are talking about, other than saying "this sounds good, so I think everyone else should pay for it." 

 

Never mind that you are criticizing Republicans for doing exactly what you say they are not doing - addressing issues directly within Congressional purview.  Again, a nation of laws (why do you have a problem with that?)

 

You have no argument, you have emotion, and assertions of moral superiority.

When you're copying and pasting anything other than links, it helps to use the "Paste as plain text" option if you're using Chrome. I'm not sure if IE or Firefox has that or not.

Just so your text doesn't come out all black on some user's screens since there's a dark theme for the forum.

______

I'm not saying that Congress isn't passing laws that I like and that they're bad for not doing so. What I'm saying is the FCC is well within their job to pass along a bill to get something like this going. It's what they do; it's what they know best. They're not bypassing anything from what I can tell.

I'm not narrow minded, you are just misinterpreting me, and it's possibly my fault because I did not like your choice of language in your first post.

[Trik'Stari]

Verizon can suck my left toe.

I'll do what I want with my data.

*overpaid scum-sucking lawyer voice* That's not what your customer agreement says. It says "you can suck our giant collective overpaid d**ks"

[Lays]

I think the Obama phone was a stupid plan. There is no reason people should get a free phone. A phone is a luxury not a right.

 

 

To be fair, having a phone in this day and age is somewhat a must IMO. Whether it be for applying for jobs; receiving calls about your job, reaching family members that are in the hospital, calling 911, ETC.

[ThomasD]

I'm not saying that Congress isn't passing laws that I like and that they're bad for not doing so. What I'm saying is the FCC is well within their job to pass along a bill to get something like this going. It's what they do; it's what they know best. They're not bypassing anything from what I can tell.

Right now I'm in Pale Moon, sorry if it isn't working on your browser, I had no idea - it all looks fine on my end.

 

I understand very well what you are saying, I also understand that what you are saying is dead wrong.  Dead wrong as a matter of fact, and also as a matter of how our Constitution and government are constructed.

 

The FCC is a creature of Congress, the agency that created it.  The FCC can only legally act within the capacities defined by Congress.  What they are attempting to do is not currently within their lawful scope of activity.

 

Your initial post was criticizing the very people who noted that same fact.

 

You think people need help?  Fine, go help them.  Stop trying to make it everyone else's problem.  And stop using dishonest (or -at least- very specious) arguments to further your cause.

 

 

 

I'm not narrow minded, you are just misinterpreting me, and it's possibly my fault because I did not like your choice of language in your first post.

 

Which is why I really did LOL when I read your reply of "it's complicated."  Had you followed that with an explanation of how and why it is complicated I might have suspected you had real knowledge of the issue, and the laws involved.

 

But based up that terse, (but empty) post it was rather apparent you did not.  Which is ironic, since I actually do.  Which is why I LOLed.

[Unhelpful]

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.

Uh... Not really. A public library... A McDonalds... A starbucks. Most people have those within walking distance or within a 5 minute drive.

 

Stop trying to treat people like they are all crippled. Being poor does not make someone an invalid.

[beebskadoo]

What's this? Republicans being against something that helps the poor? Shocker...

 

They have shown time and time again that they play to big businesses not the middle and lower classes.

[Guest Kloaked]

Right now I'm in Pale Moon, sorry if it isn't working on your browser, I had no idea - it all looks fine on my end.

 

It looks fine on your end because you're either on the light theme or the mobile version. There's a switch on the post editing box (literally a button that looks like a switch) and you can see the code around your text. Font and color codes shouldn't be there.

I understand very well what you are saying, I also understand that what you are saying is dead wrong.  Dead wrong as a matter of fact, and also as a matter of how our Constitution and government are constructed.

 

The FCC is a creature of Congress, the agency that created it.  The FCC can only legally act within the capacities defined by Congress.  What they are attempting to do is not currently within their lawful scope of activity.

 

Your initial post was criticizing the very people who noted that same fact.

That's what I'm not understanding. I don't get how what they're doing is wrong and not acting within what's granted to them when what I'm reading points to it just being their job to bring these things up in the first place.

 

You think people need help?  Fine, go help them.  Stop trying to make it everyone else's problem.  And stop using dishonest (or -at least- very specious) arguments to further your cause.

I help people when I can mate, all of the time. I pay for people's food, I buy people gas, I give people free shit (not literally) all of the time. I can only do so much.

[Guest Kloaked]

Uh... Not really. A public library... A McDonalds... A starbucks. Most people have those within walking distance or within a 5 minute drive.

 

Stop trying to treat people like they are all crippled. Poor does not equal invalid.

You're way over thinking what I said.

I live about 25 miles away from the nearest WiFi spot, which is a McDonalds. Saying most people in your statement, as short sighted as it is, is still saying that there's people who do not have access to the internet.

[Trik'Stari]

Uh... Not really. A public library... A McDonalds... A starbucks. Most people have those within walking distance or within a 5 minute drive.

 

Stop trying to treat people like they are all crippled. Being poor does not make someone an invalid.

Public libraries are not open 24 hours. And not all MCdonalds and Starbucks are open 24 hours either. None of the ones around here are anyways. Not to mention that a person might have things to do during the day, such as raising their children or working their job that barely pays the bills.

 

You're way over thinking what I said.

I live about 25 miles away from the nearest WiFi spot, which is a McDonalds. Saying most people in your statement, as short sighted as it is, is still saying that there's people who do not have access to the internet.

 

40 miles here.

[typographie]

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.

The U.S. national debt, when considered that way, is a rather misleading statistic. The U.S. pays minuscule interest rates on the portion of that debt that is owed to foreign countries, and a huge portion of the rest is owed to our own various government agencies.

(really cool explanation of the U.S. debt in this Youtube video)

Secondly, internet access is nowhere near as expensive as Time Warner and Comcast might lead you to believe. Time Warner, for its part, rakes in a 97% profit margin on their broadband service. Meaning a $40/month standard internet package costs them less than $2/month to provide and maintain.

So, to be honest I really don't think it would be that big a deal. And if it gave needy people an easier time finding work and a link to the outside world, maybe it could contribute a great deal more back into the economy than it costs.

[Trik'Stari]

The U.S. national debt, when considered that way, is a rather misleading statistic. The U.S. pays minuscule interest rates on the portion of that debt that is owed to foreign countries, and a huge portion of it is owed to our own various government agencies.

(really cool explanation of the U.S. debt in this Youtube video)

Secondly, internet access is nowhere near as expensive as Time Warner and Comcast might lead you to believe. Time Warner, for its part, rakes in a 97% profit margin on their broadband service. Meaning a $40/month standard internet package costs them less than $2/month to provide and maintain.

So, to be honest I really don't think it would be that big a deal. And if it gave needy people an easier time finding work and a link to the outside world, maybe it could contribute a great deal more back into the economy than it costs.

Yeah we actually barely pay the interest. That's why we almost defaulted without an extension a while ago. That's what defaulting is, reaching a point when you can no longer pay the monthly interest on the debt.

[Unhelpful]

Public libraries are not open 24 hours. And not all MCdonalds and Starbucks are open 24 hours either. None of the ones around here are anyways. Not to mention that a person might have things to do during the day, such as raising their children or working their job that barely pays the bills.

Well pretty much the only thing that internet is a necessity for is applying for jobs (and even that is up for debate) so people can easily find 10-20 minutes every now and then to go to a place with public internet to put in for a bunch of jobs.

 

And in most areas you can get incredibly bad internet for pretty cheap. You don't need great internet for this. 1.5 down with a cap would easily do for the bare necessities. That varies greatly on the area, but it still isn't even necessary.

 

There are much more important things to spend money on... Such as public education. 

 

Internet is NOT a necessity. 

[Trik'Stari]

Well pretty much the only thing that internet is a necessity for is applying for jobs (and even that is up for debate) so people can easily find 10-20 minutes every now and then to go to a place with public internet to put in for a bunch of jobs.

 

And in most areas you can get incredibly bad internet for pretty cheap. You don't need great internet for this. 1.5 down with a cap would easily do for the bare necessities. That varies greatly on the area, but it still isn't even necessary.

 

There are much more important things to spend money on... Such as public education. 

You're forgetting educational purposes. Online school is way cheaper and generally better than regular college. Mainly because people might have things to do, like working a job that barely pays the bills. Sure, they could get fafsa to pay for school (like I did) but what would be the point if they literally cannot attend classes?

[Unhelpful]

You're forgetting educational purposes. Online school is way cheaper and generally better than regular college. Mainly because people might have things to do, like working a job that barely pays the bills. Sure, they could get fafsa to pay for school (like I did) but what would be the point if they literally cannot attend classes?

Work for a bit before going, save up enough to do some online classes while working... Incredibly low-tier internet is what is necessary for that. Incredibly low-tier internet is not expensive, at least in most places. That one varies greatly. Or go to a community college. 

[sgloux3470]

I think the Obama phone was a stupid plan. There is no reason people should get a free phone. A phone is a luxury not a right.

 

Every homeless guy I've ever known always manages to have a cell phone anyway.

 

I used to let guys charge their phones when I worked at a liquor store in a shady area of town.  

[typographie]

Yeah we actually barely pay the interest. That's why we almost defaulted without an extension a while ago. That's what defaulting is, reaching a point when you can no longer pay the monthly interest on the debt.

 

If we ever default, it will be because Congress shut down the government. Not because we couldn't afford to make the payment.

[ivan134]

You're way over thinking what I said.

I live about 25 miles away from the nearest WiFi spot, which is a McDonalds. Saying most people in your statement, as short sighted as it is, is still saying that there's people who do not have access to the internet.

Lots of people on this thread have a myopic view of the world and think it's nothing but green pastures in this country. They don't know that there are places that look like the 3rd world. I just got back from my cousin's graduation from John Hopkin's medical school in Maryland, and I thought I had seen ghettos here in MA. There were neighborhoods that look like my home country, Nigeria. Nigeria is a very good example of what this country would look like if Republicans had their way. Vast amounts of wealth, but only in the hands of a few. People insinuating that we can't afford it, have bought into the ridiculous conservative narrative, hook, line and sinker. Yes, we can afford it. Whenever people decide that we should end corporate welfare and actually give it to those who need it, a significant chunk of our economic problems will be solved. Republicans are and always have been the biggest obstacle to economic progress.

[Guest Kloaked]

Lots of people on this thread have a myopic view of the world and think it's nothing but green pastures in this country. They don't know that there are places that look like the 3rd world. I just got back from my cousin's graduation from John Hopkin's medical school in Maryland, and I thought I had seen ghettos here in MA. There were neighborhoods that look like my home country, Nigeria. Nigeria is a very good example of what this country would look like if Republicans had their way. Vast amounts of wealth, but only in the hands of a few. People insinuating that we can't afford it, have bought into the ridiculous conservative narrative, hook, line and sinker. Yes, we can afford it. Whenever people decide that we should end corporate welfare and actually give it to those who need it, a significant chunk of our economic problems will be solved. Republicans are and always have been the biggest obstacle to economic progress.

 

/thread

[ThomasD]

 

That's what I'm not understanding. I don't get how what they're doing is wrong and not acting within what's granted to them when what I'm reading points to it just being their job to bring these things up in the first place.

 

Thanks for the editing tip, I'll be sure to check that whenever I cut and paste.

 

 

What they are doing is wrong because it is exceeding their statutory responsibilities.  

 

You really need to dwell on what it means to be a nation of laws, and a nation of expressly limited government.  Allowing people to exceed their defined authority because "it sounds like a good idea" is a surefire trip to fascism.  Or maybe you'd be ok if President Santorum's surgeon general started telling every doctor exactly how to practice medicine?  Or the ATF really did start handing out rifles to anyone who couldn't afford their own...

 

More specifically you need to look at the actual laws pertaining to the FCC, and not just their policy statements and press releases (which will always be self serving,) this is way beyond what they are supposed to be doing.

 

And frankly, anyone who honestly believes in our republican form of government (that's how it is literally described in the Constitution) and the rule of law should be very, very concerned when people push beyond the limits of the law. 

[Trik'Stari]

Work for a bit before going, save up enough to do some online classes while working... Incredibly low-tier internet is what is necessary for that. Incredibly low-tier internet is not expensive, at least in most places. That one varies greatly. Or go to a community college. 

Easy for you to say. I've been applying for jobs at least once a week since I had my last job, and haven't even gotten an offer.

 

If we ever default, it will be because Congress shut down the government. Not because we couldn't afford to make the payment.

Perhaps. All I know is we waste a sh*tload of money on things we shouldn't.

[KirbyTech]

 

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.

Have you considered that there is already free internet for that. Libraries or job centers provide free internet for those kind of things. No need to give hand outs to anyone. That includes companies 

[Unhelpful]

Easy for you to say. I've been applying for jobs at least once a week since I had my last job, and haven't even gotten an offer.

Right... That uhh... That might be a you issue. Stuff like that almost always is. Maybe stop applying for jobs that are clearly out of your experience range, fix up your resume, get a cert or two. Get an unpaid internship. An unpaid internship is still better than unemployed, you are making no money either way but only getting experience with one of them. And getting a foot in the door with a company with one of them.

 

When you don't get hired to an open position it isn't that they personally dislike you. It is that there are better candidates. So make yourself a better candidate. 

[KirbyTech]

Easy for you to say. I've been applying for jobs at least once a week since I had my last job, and haven't even gotten an offer.

As I used to get told, "When you don't have a job, your job is finding one. That means 40 hours a week applying places."