this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2026
583 points (99.3% liked)

politics

31826 readers
2993 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Gigabit goal “prejudicial” to satellite and wireless

Ah, so money changed hands. Got it.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chunk6235@piefed.social 143 points 2 months ago (3 children)

"Government abandons attempt to electrify lighting, says it's unfair to flammable technologies"

[–] Carl@anarchist.nexus 58 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Believe it or not, there actually was an effort to block electric lighting. Because it was someone’s job to walk around the neighborhoods and light all of the streetlights. And “protect the jobs” has historically been a really awful argument against technology.

[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Has the argument been awful, or just the outcome?

I mean, when have those who lost their jobs due to technological obsolescence actually been looked after directly, rather than left to fend for themselves?

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Historically speaking, new technologies tend to create more new jobs than they destroy.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

An economist visits a site where a canal is being dug. He asks the foreman why the workers are digging with shovels, when a diesel-powered excavator could do the work of a hundred men. The foreman explains that the canal is a jobs project.

The economist exclaims, "Why didn't you say that it was a jobs project earlier?! These men should be digging with spoons!"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tburkhol@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

In my brother's neighborhood, more than half the houses have gas fueled porch lights. They burn 24/7, because no one wants to remember to turn the gas on/off with the sun or to light them every night. These are homes built in the last 40 years: the gas lights were a 'quaint' fad.

[–] chunk6235@piefed.social 10 points 2 months ago

Jfc.... That's mental, how long have they had those?

I'd never be able to use that, I'd be too worried some shithead would manage to shatter the housing and start a fire

[–] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

...OK but I used to work in a neighborhood where a bunch of people had actual, period exterior gaslights left over from the 19th century. They had been upgraded with digital timers and stuff. Automatic shut-off/restart. That's ridiculous!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 100 points 2 months ago

Sounds like Elron got involved and started whining

[–] BeanGoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 97 points 2 months ago (3 children)

"We are eliminating the automotive safety standards because they are unfair to the dangerous cars"

actual clown logic

[–] Mister_Feeny@fedia.io 26 points 2 months ago

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what they did.

techcrunch.com/2025/04/10/nhtsas-self-driving-safety-staff-reportedly-disproportionally-affected-by-doge-cuts/

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

Well? What do you think DOGE did, in addition to grabbing up everyones' data?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rujo@lemmy.world 69 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Major telecommunication companies collected billions of dollars through state rate increases and tax breaks since the 1990s under the promise of building high-speed fiber-optic networks, but largely failed to deliver the fully realized infrastructure.

So we pay, nothing happened, and now out of fairness, deal with it?

Brilliant!

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think they got like 100 billion or more, might have been several hundreds, in the Obama years, never delivered. Then a later administration, I think Biden's, gave them another such deal.

[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Probably just a bribe to buy access for projects like PRISM.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 62 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

so much for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

When was that ever the case?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mcv@lemmy.zip 41 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Technologies have more protection against discrimination than people?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 39 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Unfair" to telecoms who essentially stole billions from the American taxpayers and didn't build out what was promised

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 months ago

Twice, in Verizon's case

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 37 points 2 months ago

FCC too corrupt to function

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago

Slower technologies like Starlink. Yup.

[–] certified_expert@lemmy.world 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Government clousures toilet factories, says it's unfair to diaper companies"

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Dont give them such great ideas.

[–] DisasterTransport@startrek.website 29 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Infrastructure is important, and walking back from these gigabit targets is awful. There is no replacement for fiber. We all deserve to have access to fast internet.

But to yell at a cloud for a moment, if we're being honest most people should not need gigabit. I know everyone is a gamer now, but let's forget about bulk downloads. For normal browsing most people should not need much more than about 12mbps. 12 mbps is fast enough to have two 1080p h265 streams running concurrently. And yet, when you try to use the modern web at that speed, it's a terrible experience because of all the adtech bullshit that gets crammed into every page. When I measured this Ars article it was 6.53MB. That is, to borrow a yardstick from a blogpost I reread recently, long enough to fit 3 or 4 of the great Russian epics inside. It is bigger than the shareware version of DOOM, big enough to fit the entire python standard package library documentation. For one article.

Don't let this cheapen the FCC being chickenshit and captured by specific perverse corporate interests, but publishers have sold us a bridge when it comes to the modern web. Web3 was supposed to fix all this with micropayments. I'd gladly pay whatever my paltry share of Ars' CPM they expected to get out of my pageview, wouldn't you? But cryptobros turned it into a get-rich-quick slopfest and then it died.

edit: having meandered over to my computer because I just cannot sleep, I decided to measure the page as I access it, with ublock, noscript, and umatrix turned on. That article now weighs just over 724kB. Way better. Reader mode loses the images and gets the article down to 2.49kB. Meaning the actual content is roughly 0.04% of the delivered size of the original page. The stylesheet alone is many times the size of the content. I know I'm really indulging my old man energy but web pages do not need to be this large. I know cache exists, and that's fine, but it's still a bit ridiculous. Some people in this world do still use dialup and/or pay per MB. Your 6.5MB web page might cost somebody a nontrivial sum to read, relative to their means.

The irony is not lost on me that my home instance itself is not the most lightweight web app. The page I am using to edit this comment is 1.9MB. With the cache active it's <100kB transferred per page load but still, if I weren't a hypocrite I'd probably switch to a Piefed instance.

edit 2: added emphasis

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 7 points 2 months ago

Yes but some of us DO need it for our small businesses to run.

[–] AmyAye@nord.pub 7 points 2 months ago

I remeber in the 90s deciding if it was worth removing line breaks in order to make my html on Geocities take up kbs less.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But to yell at a cloud for a moment, if we're being honest most people should not need gigabit.

For now*

The way tech moves, this won’t be the case forever. And it’ll be better to have it already then need it and have to wait another decade for it.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago

I get your point but also that's a bias borne from the industrial and technological revolutions, it's entirely possible that we may already are seeing the slow down of large scale technological advances from every 2-4 years seeing major leaps to every ten years or more, hell I cant think of any major tech jumps over the last 10 years of particular note outside of AI (hurk) and battery/ green energy neither of which need faster internet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kaotic@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

That's the fucking point!

[–] ThomasWilliams@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago
[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

At present, it is impossible to predict long-term technological developments and the evolution of consumer preferences.

Ah yes, it is impossible to know whether a consumer will still want faster Internet in the future. They could enjoy the retro experience of a dial up modem making noises when connecting.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 8 points 2 months ago

Or maybe the internet will be locked up by new terrible laws and high speeds are not needed for the allowed content.

[–] stumu415@lemmy.zip 19 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Soon the US will be manufacturing external 28.8 kbps modems with a SCSI interface using steam powered tools.

[–] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Excuse me I prefer my pixels, packets, and kilobits delivered by horse drawn carriage thank you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AnitaAmandaHuginskis@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So that's why vaccinations are dialed back, right? It's unfair to diseases?

jfc, you really do get the government you deserve, lol /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thorhop@sopuli.xyz 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

There is still ISDN in the US and it's still there to uphold artificial scarcity and price fixing. Broadband in the US is basically neutered to ensure that the ISPs can buy cheaper equipment and maintain high pricing.

It's also why they wanted to remove network neutrality, so they also could gouge small data centres and make backroom deals with big tech giants.

I know you may hate the word "data centre", but if the small ones can't compete, say goodbye to any form of competition.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zink@programming.dev 11 points 2 months ago

They will literally make arguments for affirmative action and reparations as long as the beneficiary is a rich corporation instead of a human in need.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago

It's no longer the land of opportunity, it's the land of mediocrity.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Those poor cable companies with their outdated tech.

[–] Retro_unlimited@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So we now go back to dialup?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Turtles are great and all, but dammit I want my pipes fast.

[–] Foofighter@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 months ago

Ah yes. In Germany we call this "Technologieoffenheit" and do not consider internet speeds, but car's.

[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

So they're in favor of net neutrality?!

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 5 points 2 months ago

Thanks Elon.

load more comments
view more: next ›