Republicans Are Trying To Make Government Efforts To Help Poor People Afford Broadband Illegal
from the everything-corporations-don't-like-is-now-illegal dept
“Right wing activism organizations posing as consumer rights groups are trying to make it illegal for the federal government to try and help poor, rural Americans afford broadband,” is a sentence I just had to write.
Quick background: the $8 billion FCC Universal Service Fund (USF) applies a small surcharge on traditional phone lines to fund broadband expansion to unserved rural homes, schools, and libraries (of which the U.S. has a lot thanks to rampant telecom monopolization).
While it hasn’t been without its flaws and sporadic examples of waste, the program has seen broad, bipartisan support and wasn’t deemed all that controversial. It really does fund a lot of useful broadband expansion to poor and rural schools, libraries, and communities.
Enter Trumpism.
Back in June, the Supreme Court shot down a lawsuit by a right wing activism org named “Consumers Research” (which pretends to be a serious consumer rights organization), trying to kill the USF, claiming it was illegal and unconstitutional.
Consumers Research isn’t really a consumers’ group. It’s a right wing political project designed to put a veneer of pleb-friendly populism on efforts to destroy corporate oversight. The organization (which maintains a part of their website tasked with tut-scolding “woke” companies) sued the FCC a few years ago, claiming that the Universal Service Fund (USF) was unconstitutional.
Consumers’ Research claimed the FCC (and the non-profit the FCC uses to administer the program) was illegally overstepping its authority by levying the fee. The Trump-stocked Fifth Circuit, pretty radically, agreed with them last summer, putting the entire program at risk. (The 5th and 6th circuits both pretty consistently now declare any regulatory actions corporations don’t like illegal with support from the Supreme Court).
But last June the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 (with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting) in favor of the FCC. Not because the majority loves governance, but because big telecoms like AT&T and Comcast really enjoy the massive subsidies they receive from the program, and want this program expended dramatically to include a new tax on streaming consumers they will get to pocket.
Undaunted, Consumers Research is back again, and has filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit again, basically retrying the lawsuit focused on very narrow specifics the Supremes didn’t reject:
“The majority opinion did not address two provisions that allow for “additional” and “advanced” services for schools, libraries, and healthcare centers to be funded by the program.”
This is creating some interesting tension within the Republican party; a big chunk of which wants to dismantle the entire regulatory state, making any regulatory action corporations don’t like illegal (see recent efforts to kill a program that provided free Wi-Fi to school kids). And another chunk which wants to expand the USF to throw billions in additional dollars at entrenched telecom monopolies.
It’s unfortunate because the USF really does need good faith reform. Its contribution base of traditional phone lines is steadily shrinking, making it harder to fund these rural broadband expansion efforts.
But instead of good faith reform, you have one sect of right wing extremists trying to destroy federal governance entirely, and another (with some support from Democrats) trying to turn the USF into a slush fund propped up by a tax on streaming video (except with no serious accountability over telecoms as to whether they actually use the money to build out these networks effectively).
Ideally you’d want a program like this to both be effective, legal, and feature oversight that the subsidies are being spent correctly. Instead you’ve got two wings battling for either its complete destruction of federal governance, or a conversion of the USF into a massive, unaccountable slushfund for AT&T and Comcast. It’s extremely demonstrative of how shitty and captured U.S. telecom policy is.
It is, as they say, why we can’t have nice things.
Filed Under: broadband, deregulation, fcc, fiber, low income, telecom, universal service fund, usf
Comments on “Republicans Are Trying To Make Government Efforts To Help Poor People Afford Broadband Illegal”
Trump just negotiated peace in the middle east and you’re out here whining about socialized broadband.
Re:
Fuck right off.
Re:
More of that language of the abuser. “Trump just got Israel to stop committing genocide after it’s been committing genocide for two fucking years!” He and the Republicans could have cut off funding for that genocide the moment he got into office. They didn’t. “I let your husband beat you into a bloody pulp but I eventually told him to slow down,” isn’t the boast you want to make. Trump makes shit worse then pulls back slightly and pretends that the slight pull back is something anyone should be grateful for. He’s punched our allies and trading partners in the face and then “negotiated” on the basis of not punching them again. That’s sociopathic behavior.
And what’s worse is Trump is reaping the benefits. You’re just a sycophant cheerleading against your own interests. He’s got billions of dollars. What value do you get from licking his boots on a random website where he’ll never see your obsequious performance?
USF fees
It’s not $8B because the right wingnuts killed RHC and LifeLine. See USAC’s report p.6 of:
https://www.usac.org/wp-content/uploads/about/documents/annual-reports/2024/2024_USAC_Annual_Report.pdf
It’s not a “small surcharge” and it’s not about whatever you think “traditional” phone lines are. You mean 1FBs? POTS? Whatever. USAC FUSF sucharges apply to CATV connections, T1s, T2s, T3s, E1s, etc. So long as it’s used for interstate (and yes, a local loop used to service an interstate service counts) it gets the surcharge.
But hey:
Yes, the entire US Federal government’s taxation and fee system DOES need reform. There’s no good faith to be had from all the crooks scheming to get “their share” of the money.
But you did get it right about the fake organization and the 5th ckt. You malign the 6th ckt, but that’s par for karl.
Large corporations hate the poor. No money to be made. When they find something like this, that helps the poor, send it to Hannity. He’ll happily let his listeners know, “This is an outrage!” and they’ll eat it up.
This could cause problems in Michigan if the porn ban passes
Dial up modems could be considered a circumvention tool as someone could dial up a provider in another state or country
I think dial up modems could soon be illegal in Michigan as they could be considered a circumvention tool
That could cut off internet in rural areas with no broadband availability if dial up becomes illegal in Michigan
Wealth Redistibution
The leftist mentality is that everyone should get everything they want and let the rich pay for it.
Why should me tax dollars be used to subsidize broadband, green energy, healthcare, etc. for other people? It’s great to be poor, the Dems will throw all sorts of bennies your way, knowing full well that working stiffs and a mountain of debt are paying for it. It is a good way to get votes.
If you can’t afford it, you can’t have it and keep your hand out of my wallet.
Re:
I mean, that’s a very ignorant take on “the left” but I guess it doesn’t surprise me that stupid people only believe in caricatures.
Anyhoo, the actual thinking here is that there are some things that pay back way more in the long run, and making sure that everyone has broadband, likely means they’re more likely to be able to be a productive, employed member of society, and can more easily make use of things like government services and healthcare, without needing to be a burden.
I get that ignorant greedy fools don’t understand non-zero sum thinking, but spending a little to help those most in need beats spending a lot more to deal with the fallout of poverty. It can mean fewer people out of work, fewer people in desperate need of expensive emergency medical care.
It truly is amazing how many bigoted MAGA Folks seems wholly unable to comprehend that society is a non-zero sum game.
Re:
How much do you make? Statistically speaking, I’m probably safe guessing less than $100K a year. If not, good for you. Even if you make $100k, you’re likely not contributing a significant amount in taxes to pay for anything for poor people. You’re paying a few cents here and there, a few dollars here and there. And you greatly benefit from those taxes you pay. You get services. You get a functioning society. And it’s in your interests for the poor person at the grocery store you look down on to have affordable health care so they’re not coughing their infectious conditions onto your receipt. And it’s in your interests for the poor people to get good internet access, so they can get a better education, so they can get better jobs and pay more in taxes so your incredibly overwhelming tax burden is reduced. And it’s important for your poor neighbor’s kids to get a good education because they’re going to be wiping your ass in the old folks home and you’ll want them to be able to recognize the medical conditions you’ll be suffering from rather than just force you to sit and rot in your own pain.
This is the most absurd thing to have to say. I recognize that conservatives chronically suffer from an inability to empathize with other people or wish them well. But all these things taxes pay for benefit you. Sure, some are indirect. Some you won’t even know that they benefited you, but they are still there because of the taxes being paid by all of us (it’s not just you, if you would believe it!). So even if you were a completely selfish sociopathic asshole, you’d still want these taxes to keep society going for your own interests. But hey, those leopards get hungry and your face is just as tasty as those poor people you look down on.