didn't ISPs take massive subsidies to build out that less-profitable infrastructure? seems fair that they, you know, build it.
We don't need to play silly "affirmative action" games to keep them accountable.
The issue is that FCC is, correctly, treating broadband as a utility at a level comparable to electricity/sewer/drinkable water. And as such, ensuring that underserved people get access to the service is more important than punishing contractors for failing to deliver it.
I do agree that the discrimination hand-wringing is unnecessary, and a good "Deliver the service to everyone, assholes" should be plenty in theory. But if leaning on those laws is what it takes to get them to comply, then whatever. Results are what matters.
There is no valid reason to turn this into yet another performative piece of race-bait.
I'm still against this particular rule because it sets a very problematic precedent.
There are other non-problematic ways to hold them accountable. Like fining ISPs for the taxpayer dollars they were given, plus interest.
This would be a bizarre and circuitous way to attempt the recover from that mistake.
There weren't? How do you figure that?
Go find the bills and find me some consequences for the companies that failed to do what they were asked.
There aren't any.
I don't understand why people constantly vilify companies acting like companies instead of the corrupt government that's lying to our faces.
I agree but I also think it's not very practical to expect selfish parties to take advantage of a free lunch (frog and scorpion situation).
The companies are supposed to act in their own interest and they did. The Government is supposed to act in our interest and they didn't. Plus, they're the ones that we can hold accountable.