They are allowed to demand the the infrastructure they paid for be constructed and serviced.

Yes, they'd be totally in their rights to tell ISPs exactly where to spend the money, but that's not what's happening here. Here, they're telling the ISPs they have to set up an affirmative action regime or else they'll be punished.

> tell ISPs exactly where to spend the money

Thats what they are doing though.

You're mad they're being given more freedom on resource distribution? They can either tell the ISPs _exactly_ where to spend the money, or they can tell the ISPs to do some more due diligence about disparate impact and more equitably distribute the money. The FCC is doing the 2nd.

Yes, the ISPs HAVE ACCEPTED MONEY to set up an affirmative action regime. If they don’t deliver on something they have promised to do in exchange for taxpayer money already received they should be heavily, heavily punished.

That's blatantly and objectively wrong. The government isn't "mandating racial discrimination". They're fighting actual and de facto racial (and other) discrimination. For example:

- Housing discrimination through the Fair Housing Act [1]; and

- Racial discrimination in redistricting, affirmed by even this current Supreme Court [2].

[1]: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/f...

[2]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court...

The Commissioner Simington dissent at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-398477A5.pdf covers this issue fairly well. The Fair Housing Act disparate impact rule has several constitutional safeguards, the only reason why the Supreme Court upheld it in the Inclusive Communities case, that this one does not. Most importantly, it has a defense for "legitimate, nondiscriminatory" business decisions, such that disparate impact protects people only from "artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers." So you can comply by just making rational business decisions. Here, you can't, you have to take into account race because the only defense is "economic or technical infeasibility."