No one lives in the 2 spots in Massachusetts picked by FCC for higher subsidies
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: No one lives in the 2 spots in Massachusetts picked by FCC for higher subsidies
#2Re: No one lives in the 2 spots in Massachusetts picked by FCC for higher subsidies
#3Pathetic. This is why government sucks....bigger is almost always worse....local policies are at least run by the locals....fuck this
Re: No one lives in the 2 spots in Massachusetts picked by FCC for higher subsidies
#4Pathetic. This is why government sucks....bigger is almost always worse....local policies are at least run by the locals....fuck this
Local is too small to actually deal with these behemoths. Look at what happens when these large companies play municipalities off each other to get factories and facilities built in their jurisdiction.
Re: No one lives in the 2 spots in Massachusetts picked by FCC for higher subsidies
#5Pathetic. This is why government sucks....bigger is almost always worse....local policies are at least run by the locals....fuck this
Local is too small to actually deal with these behemoths. Look at what happens when these large companies play municipalities off each other to get factories and facilities built in their jurisdiction.
TFA is about the FCC.
The size of the organization has no relation to the competence of the organization.
Re: No one lives in the 2 spots in Massachusetts picked by FCC for higher subsidies
#6This is a little silly but I don't see a problem. No one lives in these areas, so no one will get the subsidy. People have lived there in the past; this isn't a random patch of wilderness. It sounds to me like people in this area would qualify if they existed. Now they're pre-approved.
Where's the harm?
Re: No one lives in the 2 spots in Massachusetts picked by FCC for higher subsidies
#7This is a little silly but I don't see a problem. No one lives in these areas, so no one will get the subsidy. People have lived there in the past; this isn't a random patch of wilderness. It sounds to me like people in this area would qualify if they existed. Now they're pre-approved. Where's the harm?
>No one lives in these areas, so no one will get the subsidy
>Where's the harm?
the harm is that no one will get the subsidy. The point of the subsidy is to help people get internet. There are hundreds of thousands of people that don't have it, many because they can't afford it. This isn't a case where they picked 100 areas for the subsidy, and it happens that 2 of them don't currently have anyone living there. This gives the illusion that that a solution has been put in place, without actually heping any of the people that need the help.
Re: No one lives in the 2 spots in Massachusetts picked by FCC for higher subsidies
#8Pathetic. This is why government sucks....bigger is almost always worse....local policies are at least run by the locals....fuck this
If we could get Republicans to stop their Two Santa Claus policy we would be much better off. Unfortunately, enough folks believe their propaganda and we get this.
Re: No one lives in the 2 spots in Massachusetts picked by FCC for higher subsidies
#9Pathetic. This is why government sucks....bigger is almost always worse....local policies are at least run by the locals....fuck this
Local is too small to actually deal with these behemoths. Look at what happens when these large companies play municipalities off each other to get factories and facilities built in their jurisdiction.
Municipalities definitely can deal with them in some sense, since otherwise playing cities against each other would have no purpose.
It's our responsibility to make sure our local governments don't screw us over on that front, and that they represent our desires.
Re: No one lives in the 2 spots in Massachusetts picked by FCC for higher subsidies
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Local is too small to actually deal with these behemoths. Look at what happens when these large companies play municipalities off each other to get factories and facilities built in their jurisdiction.
Municipalities definitely can deal with them in some sense, since otherwise playing cities against each other would have no purpose. It's our responsibility to make sure our local governments don't screw us over on that front, and that they represent our desires.
But if you have two desperate communities that are really looking for jobs, how do you prevent them from racing to the bottom? In some sense that is the 'correct' market solution. Government is a form of collective bargaining for citizens (amongst many other things of course).