413 private links
RF Caution/Warning/Danger signs
“The FCC is dishonestly claiming that it is promoting equity and fairness. However, the FCC is just seizing control over business decisions, funneling resources to politically preferred constituencies.” //
Congress, in the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill, delegated to the FCC the task to “ensure that all people of the United States benefit from equal access to broadband internet access.”
In fact, the agency found no evidence of intentional discrimination, but the leftists on the FCC used Congress’ delegation as an excuse to force equity and diversity mandates ranging from controls over discounts, language options, and credit checks to marketing and advertising.
SpaceX also faulted the FCC for relying on Ookla speed tests:
For instance, the Bureau's decision arbitrarily penalized SpaceX—and only SpaceX—for not meeting RDOF speed requirements years before SpaceX had any obligation to do so. The arbitrariness of applying this unstated standard exclusively to SpaceX was only compounded by the Bureau's reliance on Ookla nationwide speed tests without any notice that it planned to use such tests and even though those nationwide averages included areas that would not be served by RDOF. Even so, Starlink likely recorded the fastest speeds of any operator in the locations eligible for RDOF funds... Starlink has also deployed its service in advance of all RDOF deployment milestones and well ahead of most, if not all, RDOF awardees.
Instead of carefully crafting a framework that identifies bad actors, describes their discriminatory actions, and outlines solutions to them, the FCC just assumes everyone is guilty. The regulators will treat any entity that tries to build up the next generation of internet access as purveyors of systemic injustice. The agency’s order does not give tangible examples of violations but operates under the premise that it should punish all broadband internet companies.
The regime applies to every company in the broadband internet space. It even applies to the small business contractors who build and maintain the infrastructure. These operators and technicians simply build where governments have permitted them to construct cell towers or lay fiber. But if the FCC deems that their work promotes discrimination, then bureaucrats will investigate and punish the workers on the frontlines.
This bureaucracy will hamstring the entire internet ecosystem. The rules will hinder industry leaders from developing and deploying new technologies that could transform internet access. Companies might fear that the FCC will interpret their best efforts as discrimination if all communities do not have an “equitable” opportunity to adopt the innovations. //
For example, in Pennsylvania, the population of Amish residents in Lancaster County is more than 39,000. As we learned from last month’s emergency alert test, there are quite a few Amish individuals who enjoy digital connectivity. If the FCC does not think enough Amish people subscribe to cell phone plans or use Wi-Fi in their barns, then the agency has granted itself the authority to investigate the supposed shortcoming as a violation of the digital discrimination order. Think of the absurdity: The FCC could actually punish a provider for not selling cellphones to enough Amish people. With this new regime, it is clear there are no limits to what the FCC will consider a breach. //
Instead of an arbitrary and undefined regime, the FCC would better serve the nation by establishing a framework that encourages cities and municipalities to promote the deployment of next-generation internet access. Too many communities, such as New York City, are dragging their feet. Others, like San Jose, are delaying deployment by charging internet providers exorbitant fees to build out these transformative networks.
It is clear the FCC’s rules are not concerned with improving internet access and upward mobility. Instead, they’re intended to dramatically expand the federal government’s power. There are real challenges to closing the digital divide, but the new order will not help that effort.
Now is the time to empower creators and innovators who are bringing new ideas to life. The FCC should work to promote new opportunities and technologies that will enable upward mobility rather than create a regime that punishes entrepreneurs who dare to take chances.
As exhausting as it is to read that list, the FCC itself says it is not an exhaustive list. The Biden administration’s plan empowers the FCC to regulate every aspect of the internet sector for the first time ever. The plan is motivated by an ideology of government control that is not compatible with the fundamental precepts of free market capitalism.
But it gets worse.
The FCC reserves the right under this plan to regulate both “actions and omissions, whether recurring or a single instance.” In other words, if you take any action, you may be liable; and if you do nothing, you may be liable.
There is no path to complying with this standardless regime. It reads like a planning document drawn up in the faculty lounge of a university’s Soviet Studies Department.