Jon Stewart is educated by Ezra Klein on Government Regulation

[jmotivator]

Your use of the word "kleptocracy" is unfortunate!
The inefficiencies develop because we , the people, cannot agree on anything.

I've worked in Government too long to accept that as the excuse. The problem is that very few Government bureaucrats are in their jobs to "make a difference". Altruism is a characteristic that seems mandatory in a bureaucrat but it is no more common in that demographic than it is in any other group of people.

Power and Job security is what generally drives most bureaucrats, same as anybody else, and the last thing most Government employees want to do is work themselves out of a job. It's more beneficial to a bureaucrat working on oversite of a bullet train project to prolong the project by making everyone jump through needless hoops because doing so satisfies both the power and the job security desires.

A quick an easy solution, even if it's obviously the correct path, is anathema.

Rule of thumb is that when you find quick reaction and completion of a Government project, check the government oversite personnel bank accounts.

Off shore wind? Of course there will be a contingency of people who cannot bear the sight of them and tie it up in litigation.
Solar panels? Ah, that could ruin the historic appearance of that charming New England town.- same result
Housing? Who wants a duplex or triplex to be built in that lovely neighborhood of spacious single family homes?
Cluster housing? Egads. there must be adequate parking for every household to have 2 cars!
Want to build a house with ICFs- well the city has no idea what that is or how to make sure it fits all the codes

Yes, NIMBY will forever kill any construction project, which is why the biggest eyesores always get dumped on the neighborhoods with the least clout.

But in the case of rural broadband they could have avoided it all together but didn't out of political spite.

 

[jmotivator]

Do you live in the country??? I did for decades. Fact is there are many small internet servers out there ready to expand their services mostly by piggy backing off cell towers. There are a score of satellite servers ready to expand. I had both small business internet and satellite TV service. Problem with satellite service is it doesn't operate when you really need it- severe weather conditions.
I'd much rather see several companies competing for rural contracts than one Manic clown controlling it all...

I have lived in the country, yes. And I know that the broadband in those areas sucks. Cell towers aren't a solution unless the cell providers want to beef up their tower pipeline to service rural broadband providers. Cell service in a lot of those areas is also spotty.

The whole point of this bill was to, in theory, find a solution for fast reliable broadband to rural areas that are being under severed by the shitty fly-by-night, unreliable providers currently available. That can be accomplished by either running new, modern wiring to the rural homes, or simply handing them a satellite antenna. Which is cheaper?

In theory they could run fiber to all of these rural homes and provide a better service than Starlink or some other competitor, but the reality is that such a project isn't feasible and could never recoup the cost of the infrastructure.

 

[Threegoofs]

The whole interview is really good, and I like that Ezra Klein is the one exposing this stuff in his new book, but Jon Stewart's response as Klein walks him through the $42 billion rural broadband process is priceless.

They could have given rural customers money for Starlink and been done with the rollout in 2022, instead by 2024 53 states and territories had dropped out and nothing at all was accomplished except some bureaucrats got paid.

And if they didnt have a precise process, allowing for multiple groups to challenge, you would have had a shitfit because Billy Bobs Church of Snakes was denied broadband in Whorejuice, TX by Biden.

And you would have seen JimBob Poteet out in Mississippi pocket all the broadband money with his startup company 'WIFI for Whites" that specifically excluded poor black rural customers from getting it (to your eternal cheers, no doubt).

 

[jmotivator]

And if they didnt have a precise process, allowing for multiple groups to challenge, you would have had a shitfit because Billy Bobs Church of Snakes was denied broadband in Whorejuice, TX by Biden.

And you would have seen JimBob Poteet out in Mississippi pocket all the broadband money with his startup company 'WIFI for Whites" that specifically excluded poor black rural customers from getting it (to your eternal cheers, no doubt).

Cool story, bro. Going for the personal attacks right away, eh?

They could offer a federal subsidy to rural Americans who can show that they have 1 or 0 terrestrial broadband providers in their area to help pay for a Satellite broadband provider of their choice OR help pay for their 1 terrestrial option to upgrade to a faster plan.

Most of those customers would probably prefer Starlink just because it is currently the best Satellite provider, and they probably already have a lot of anger towards their 1 terrestrial internet provider anyway and have dreamed of the day when they could get rid of them.

 

[Visbek]

The only reason all of that bullshit was even being done was because the best solution was ruled out in advance for political spite.

Did you know that Republicans were the ones who introduced the Rural Broadband Act in 2021?

House Agriculture Republicans Introduce Broadband for Rural America Act

agriculture.house.gov

Yep, this started out as a bipartisan idea, which wound up getting passed as part of the IIJA in 2021 -- y'know, in the middle of a global pandemic. Do you think there's any possibility that slowed down the bill at all?

Meanwhile: Starlink only started launching satellites in 2019, meaning no one knew if Starlink was viable at the time. Nor were they prioritizing rural US when they started.

Elmo also wasn't a right wing scumbag back then. In fact, Republicans would have been furious if a chronic dope-smoking solar-pushing EV car manufacturer with a half-baked satellite Internet offering got an exclusive no-bid $42 billion contract to provide rural Internet.


As to the bureaucracy? Yes, some of it is ridiculous and counter-productive. Yes, we can certainly clean it up. But a lot of that red tape is because everyone, including Republicans and ordinary citizens, demands that these programs jump through lots of hoops.

So....

Do you really think it would be better if the state of Idaho was allowed to select data line routes in 6 weeks? You think they'd take advantage of that speed?

Do you think it's better if the state government of Idaho can unilaterally declare that it's going to put data transmission lines right through the property of thousands of residents, and they have no say whatsoever? You don't think that would result in any lawsuits whatsoever, or citizen outrage over having a portion of their land "stolen" via eminent domain?

Do you think it's better to award government contracts without any guidelines for competing bids? Or skip the bidding process altogether?

Do you really think that every problem in the US has a one-size-fits-all answer?

When did conservatives dump the idea that competition is the way to go?

The reality is that simplistic answers to complex problems don't work. So yes, bureaucracy sucks, but in a nation of 330 million people, it's often necessary -- as there is almost never one, single, easy-to-implement answer that magically fixes everything.

 

[jmotivator]

You are certainly giving your own take and adding a bunch of your own bias on his straightforward idea.

I'm explaining why his straightforward idea will face roadblocks. The culture of the federal government is not in any way about cheap, efficient solutions.

 

[Threegoofs]

Cool story, bro. Going for the personal attacks right away, eh?

I've seen your post history. Its much faster just to shortcut to the inevitable.

They could offer a federal subsidy to rural Americans who can show that they have 1 or 0 terrestrial broadband providers in their area to help pay for a Satellite broadband provider of their choice OR help pay for their 1 terrestrial option to upgrade to a faster plan.

Most of those customers would probably prefer Starlink just because it is currently the best Satellite provider, and they probably already have a lot of anger towards their 1 terrestrial internet provider anyway and have dreamed of the day when they could get rid of them.

I understand you really, really think one company should benefit from this program.

 

[notquiteright]

I have lived in the country, yes. And I know that the broadband in those areas sucks. Cell towers aren't a solution unless the cell providers want to beef up their tower pipeline to service rural broadband providers. Cell service in a lot of those areas is also spotty.

The whole point of this bill was to, in theory, find a solution for fast reliable broadband to rural areas that are being under severed by the shitty fly-by-night, unreliable providers currently available. That can be accomplished by either running new, modern wiring to the rural homes, or simply handing them a satellite antenna. Which is cheaper?

In theory they could run fiber to all of these rural homes and provide a better service than Starlink or some other competitor, but the reality is that such a project isn't feasible and could never recoup the cost of the infrastructure.

The so-called shitty providers??? They are underfunded and that would be an easy fix. The cell providers can easily provide for piggyback internet providers. Satellite providers already exist, just fund them. No need to add a monopoly on the service...

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'm explaining why his straightforward idea will face roadblocks. The culture of the federal government is not in any way about cheap, efficient solutions.

It’s the culture of nimby and that’s not the fault of any ideology.

 

[Cassandra]

I've worked in Government too long to accept that as the excuse. The problem is that very few Government bureaucrats are in their jobs to "make a difference". Altruism is a characteristic that seems mandatory in a bureaucrat but it is no more common in that demographic than it is in any other group of people.

Power and Job security is what generally drives most bureaucrats, same as anybody else, and the last thing most Government employees want to do is work themselves out of a job. It's more beneficial to a bureaucrat working on oversite of a bullet train project to prolong the project by making everyone jump through needless hoops because doing so satisfies both the power and the job security desires.

A quick an easy solution, even if it's obviously the correct path, is anathema.

Rule of thumb is that when you find quick reaction and completion of a Government project, check the government oversite personnel bank accounts.



Yes, NIMBY will forever kill any construction project, which is why the biggest eyesores always get dumped on the neighborhoods with the least clout.

But in the case of rural broadband they could have avoided it all together but didn't out of political spite.

Sure, there are "job security" driven motivations. The use of the term, "kleptocracy" connotes something else, altogether

 

[jmotivator]

Did you know that Republicans were the ones who introduced the Rural Broadband Act in 2021?

House Agriculture Republicans Introduce Broadband for Rural America Act

agriculture.house.gov

HAHAHA!! Yes, the Republicans were the ones who cared about rural broadband! The ONE good thing about the project, that being the idea that it should be done, came from Republicans. You sure sowed them!

You know who administered that project into failure? (Hint: not Republicans)

 

[jmotivator]

Sure, there are "job security" driven motivations. The use of the term, "kleptocracy" connotes something else, altogether

It denotes taking money from the Government and the tax payer and providing nothing in return, which many of these bureaucrats are doing.

 

[Visbek]

They could offer a federal subsidy to rural Americans who can show that they have 1 or 0 terrestrial broadband providers in their area to help pay for a Satellite broadband provider of their choice OR help pay for their 1 terrestrial option to upgrade to a faster plan.

Satellite is OK for rural individuals. It's not likely to work for rural businesses, hospitals, schools and so forth. Sat is slow, has high latency, and strict data restrictions.

Plus, someone would have to confirm every single one of those requests, right? You don't really want to send cash without checking, right? Or do you think rural people never commit fraud?

Most of those customers would probably prefer Starlink just because it is currently the best Satellite provider

Yes, I'm sure you based that conclusion on a thorough review of the available options, rather than just naming the one service you've heard of.

Back in reality, Starlink has its pros and cons. E.g. Compared to Hughesnet, Starlink is faster and doesn't have a data limit; but it's also got less coverage and significantly more expensive -- $600 just for the hardware.

Surprise! Your simple one-size-fits-all solution is already starting to get complicated, and you have barely asked anyone affected by your policy proposal their opinion. Ask more people, including those with experience or impacted by the policy, and things will get more and more complex. Funny how that works, eh?

 

[jmotivator]

It’s the culture of nimby and that’s not the fault of any ideology.

NIMBY applies to some federal projects. Generally the projects that bring poor people into rich neighborhoods, or industrial sprawl... into rich neighborhoods are the ones that are killed for NIMBY. See my earlier post on that

Only a 1 of the 14 steps spelled out by Klein might be considered NIMBY, and that is the Environment impact portion of the process. I wouldn't really consider that NIMBY though since the people screaming the loudest probably don't live in the area where the lines are being run.

 

[Slartibartfast]

NIMBY applies to some federal projects. Generally the projects that bring poor people into rich neighborhoods, or industrial sprawl... into rich neighborhoods are the ones that are killed for NIMBY. See my earlier post on that

Only a 1 of the 14 steps spelled out by Klein might be considered NIMBY, and that is the Environment impact portion of the process. I wouldn't really consider that NIMBY though since the people screaming the loudest probably don't live in the area where the lines are being run.

That’s are just necessary to protect the environment.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Starlink?

Yep.

Absolutely no terrestrial construction necessary and no environmental impact to speak of and nearly 100% of rural homes already would be covered with a simple appliance install. It was a no-brainer decision, so of course Democrats ****ed it up.

Yes, this is true, but it's not going to be Starlink.

 

[noonereal]

They could have given rural customers money

**** them nobody gave me money for my internet.

 

[jmotivator]

Satellite is OK for rural individuals. It's not likely to work for rural businesses, hospitals, schools and so forth. Sat is slow, has high latency, and strict data restrictions.

Satellite is not that slow anymore, nor does it have very high latency. Also, schools, hospitals and most rural business internet access is not very low-latency dependent.

Plus, someone would have to confirm every single one of those requests, right? You don't really want to send cash without checking, right? Or do you think rural people never commit fraud?

Not really, you'd need to create a central database that collates broadband access by zip and address, and you can automate the approval process. No need for a large bureaucracy.

Yes, I'm sure you based that conclusion on a thorough review of the available options, rather than just naming the one service you've heard of.

Here is a quick search I did for Satellite/wireless providers in my area:



One of those is a 5G provider, which isn't available to most rural customers, and of the three satellite providers Starlink is the clear choice, with speeds that are twice as fast as the competitors and no monthly data caps.

 

[jmotivator]

Yes, this is true, but it's not going to be Starlink.

It wouldn't be Starlink under a Democrat president, but if the project was open and the customers were allowed to pick their preferred Satellite provider, most would choose Starlink because it is by far the best satellite option.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

It wouldn't be Starlink under a Democrat president, but if the project was open and the customers were allowed to pick their preferred Satellite provider, most would choose Starlink because it is bar far the best satellite option.

I am in favor of removing Starlink satellites from orbit.

 

[Visbek]

HAHAHA!! Yes, the Republicans were the ones who cared about rural broadband!

No, it was bipartisan. That means both Republicans and Democrats were involved.

And the point is that the demand for bureaucracy is also bipartisan.

The ONE good thing about the project, that being the idea that it should be done, came from Republicans.

You mean, the one law that you were blasting as being inefficient and bogged down with a bloated bureaucracy? The part of the law that I'm pretty sure you never praised before?

And do you really think we're going to believe that you pored over the IIJA with a fine-toothed comb, and decided that the only part that made sense was... a tiny rural broadband expansion? Seriously?

You know who administered that project into failure? (Hint: not Republicans)

And again... The bureaucratic impulse is bipartisan.

Consider welfare. We could just do a basic check for citizenship and income, and give people a pre-paid credit card every month. Instead, Republicans pile on the red tape. They demand work requirements, which requires additional verification. They insist on reducing fraud, which requires additional staff and processes. They want to micromanage what food you can buy with an EBT card.

Just applying for aid in Idaho, for example, requires you to fill out a complex 19 page form. And that's a streamlined form -- as it covers TANF, AFDC, HCA and ICP.

https://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/HW2000_Application%20For%20Assistance.pdf

 

[cpwill]

The whole interview is really good, and I like that Ezra Klein is the one exposing this stuff in his new book, but Jon Stewart's response as Klein walks him through the $42 billion rural broadband process is priceless.

They could have given rural customers money for Starlink and been done with the rollout in 2022, instead by 2024 53 states and territories had dropped out and nothing at all was accomplished except some bureaucrats got paid.

It's almost as if Government Spending is done to benefit Government, instead of the citizenry......

It's been good to watch Klein and the "Abundance" democrats come to the realization that government is unwieldy, awkward, incompetent, and chokes off growth. I wonder when they will begin to draw the logical follow-on conclusions that "So We Need To Elect People Who Will Fix That By Making Government GOOD Again!" is attempting to change the tiger's stripes.

 

[jmotivator]

**** them nobody gave me money for my internet.

Awe, poor you.

Move out to the country if you want that benefit so bad.

 

[noonereal]

They could offer a federal subsidy to rural Americans who can show that they have 1 or 0 terrestrial broadband providers in their area to help pay for a Satellite broadband provider of their choice OR help pay for their 1 terrestrial option to upgrade to a faster plan.

**** that. Why should i subsidize the Red Hat freeloaders?

 

[Jetboogieman]

no environmental impact to speak of

That's not true.

There is increasing evidence that these satellites due to their metal composition, may be damaging the ozone when they fall back to Earth and we're putting 10's of thousands of them up there.