The FCC is stopping 9 companies from providing subsidized Internet to the poor

Re:The FCC is stopping 9 companies from providing subsidized... by JohnTHaller on Saturday February 04, 2017 @12:14AM (#13565748)

"Notwithstanding the decline in economic fortunes since 2009" is a rather unsubtle way of attempting to rewrite history and pin the Great Recession of 2007-2009 due to the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 on Obama. So, no, he's not as reasonable and inline with HN folks as you think.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The FCC is stopping 9 companies from providing subsidized... by gowld on Saturday February 04, 2017 @01:33AM (#13565935)

2009 is when the program costs started to increase. The statement is saying that even in light of declining fortunes, 34% of the public is too much.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The FCC is stopping 9 companies from providing subsidized... by ethbro on Saturday February 04, 2017 @08:52AM (#13566966)

No, the statement contains one fact and one opinion. The fact is bullshit.

"Notwithstanding the decline in economic fortunes since 2009, [34%] is too many."

Here's US GDP per capita. Notice a "decline in economic fortunes since 2009"?

World Bank: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita

St. Louis Fed: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA

A stronger case could be made for median income, but even there, we're better off than we were in 2009. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The FCC is stopping 9 companies from providing subsidized... by deelowe on Saturday February 04, 2017 @11:55AM (#13567675)

None of this adds any support to the case that a 160% increase in costs is reasonable or expected. In fact, the data points you've presented further call this into question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The FCC is stopping 9 companies from providing subsidized... by ethbro on Saturday February 04, 2017 @01:11PM (#13568093)

What you're talking about is the opinion. I was talking about the fact cited.

[ Parent | on HN ]