Republicans slam broadband discounts for poor people, threaten to kill program::Thune, Cruz complain that $30 discounts go to people who “already had broadband.”

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    153
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    what a bunch of low life jerks.

    they can give millions in subsidies direct to corporations, but a mild discount in internet services for poor people requires incredible, roadblock worthy proof of obvious numbers for zero reason. theyre just assholes.

    • just_change_it@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I would like to propose an alternative solution: Force broadband providers to offer low cost service to families that need it. Don’t subsidize it, just force it.

      Internet connections cost next to nothing to maintain. The telecoms can afford it.

      • BitWzrd@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        I like the sentiment, but I don’t trust the government to run anything efficiently or productively

          • BitWzrd@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            As a Texan, I 100% assure you that I fully understand the ramifications of commoditizing public services. I was cold with the rest of them, while Can-cruz was slipping away to vacation.

            I just think that placing the federal government in charge of building, maintaining, and upgrading internet infrastructure would have lasting negative ramifications in just about every way.

            The though above (in a sister comment to the one i replied to) about regulations requiring an affordable option (maybe one that could be further subsidized for parents with school age children, etc) is much more palatable to me.

            • Johnmannesca@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              have you looked into Calyx? They have a pricing model that costs less because they are a 501c3 nonprofit

        • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          I have no doubt they can do it.

          I don’t think they should be in control of our communication though. I don’t trust them with my privacy or not to use it to exert political control over the people.

          I want regulations. A government willing to set rules and to enforce those rules.

          • KnightontheSun@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I would rather have the government run it with heavy oversight on privacy and fair distribution of the services.

            Businesses have already proven they cannot be trusted.

            • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              The problem here is neither can really be trusted long term. The main advantage I see to governments is that there would be forced transparency.

        • Riskable@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          As someone who has worked in government and private industries of all sizes let me tell you the takeaway from my experience: Only organization size matters. The only exception is in the “small stuff”:

          • Small government entities (municipal stuff) are often extremely efficient and frankly, surprisingly competent.
          • Small businesses are much more likely to be wildly inefficient and incompetent. They’re also much harder to police and can often exist solely to extract as much money as possible from a government contract while providing as little benefit/output as possible (the bare minimum). Safety is never a priority and anything that can be made someone else’s problem will be (externalities).

          Big business and big government are both extremely slow and wasteful but in different ways. Big government wastes time and money on simple things that should be cheap but because of various laws and regulations must adhere to regulations of all sorts they end up being expensive (and these regulations often don’t keep up with the times). This also slows everything down because you have to wait for the stuff to pass muster before you can use it most of the time (no matter what that thing is… From simple paper products to chairs to industrial equipment to desks to rocket engines etc you name it). This often results in people having to wait (sitting on their asses while still getting paid).

          Big business wastes money on 3rd party tools and services that are often completely unnecessary. Usually because the powers that be “have always done things that way.” They also waste money by being really, really bad at project management. This is the big one: At any big company something like 9 out of 10 IT projects are considered failures because they just keep going forward (with the project) no matter what. So they often end up with something that needs to be maintained/replaced and ends up becoming a regular, long term expense.

          Big business isn’t usually corrupt but they will spend loads and loads of money lobbying to make it easier for them to extract profit from whatever it is that they do. Safety, ethics, and things like the general well-being of society be damned. They have no morals except those codified in law whereas the people in huge government organizations are very visible to the people in general and know they have to act ethically or they could get in big trouble (and there’s whole entities who’s job it is to watch them for bad behavior and inefficiencies).

          Related: There’s never “too much” or “too little” regulation. There’s just good regulations and bad regulations. Anyone who says regulations are bad or insinuates that they’re “job killing” is looking to mislead you.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      they can give millions in subsidies direct to corporations

      That’s exactly why they’re fighting it – every dollar they give to poor people is a dollar less they can give to rich people.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s what they think, or at least that’s what they want you to think. Every study has shown that every dollar you give to anyone below the 40th percentile returns more than a dollar to the economy. The lower on the totem pole, the more it grows the economy. The opposite is also true. For every dollar you give the top 10 percent, 70 cents or less goes back into the economy.

        The more they give the poor, the richer they would get, but the money isn’t the point. Cruelty is. They want to cause as much harm as they can get away with before we whip out the trebuchets and guillotines.