Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Big League Economics

Van Voorhis: FCC needs to bring same broadband to rural Americans that urban Americans enjoy

Published

on

The 2016 election, which catapulted President Donald J. Trump into office largely because of unexpected support from rural communities, represents nothing less than a mandate for the federal government to do everything it can to close the immense divide between urban and rural Americans.

One of the most pressing issues rural Americans face today is a lack of basic, affordable internet access, 34 million people in the U.S. still don’t have broadband internet access — defined as having download speeds of 25 megabits per second — according to the Federal Communications Commission–about 23.4 million live in rural parts of the U.S.

Access to the internet is one of the least expensive ways for rural Americans to be connected to the rest of the country, and to the rest of our increasingly global society. Think of how often you access the internet – whether it’s to check driving directions, to find a quick answer to a pressing issue, or even to get a package delivered to your door in a matter of hours.

Now imagine that you did not have the capability to do that at any second of the day from your smartphone or computer. Imagine if you were cut off from all of the world’s information overnight. How would your life change?

Trending: DOCUMENT: Peter Strzok Was CIA And FBI At The Same Time, Say Experts

Urban Americans like ourselves take this for granted. I know I do.

Unfortunately, this is the predicament that tens of millions of rural Americans find themselves in on a daily basis, and only furthers the divide between the haves and the have-nots in our society.

If this is a truly a problem, then something must be done about it. Liberals like Hillary R. Clinton have proposed that the federal government spend billions of your tax dollars to allow people to access the internet. As conservatives, we believe that the best solution to problems in society is almost always to have government get out of the way, instead of using its power to craft a ‘solution’ that often represents anything but that.

We need a smarter alternative, and in this case, the best opportunity is for government to recognize that it is not the solution, but the problem.

The Foundation for Economic Education reported that many of these “frequencies are not being used, causing certain channels to be ‘white spaces’ — channel-less and wasted. According to research, there is a notable range — the 600 megahertz bandwidth — that offers three spaces for this new television to internet signal conversion.”

If the FCC simply loosens its regulation of these ‘white spaces,’ private investment could easily bring affordable internet access to millions of rural Americans. Fortunately, a bipartisan group of over forty members of Congress have called on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to make the use of rural broadband through ‘”TV White Spaces” a priority as they begin the process of repacking broadcast stations after the recent broadcast spectrum auction.

Chairman Pai, a conservative who has been an advocate of decreased regulation during his tenure at the FCC, would be wise to use this free-market solution to solve the internet access problem, instead of a heavy-handed government intervention.

Peter Van Voorhis is a conservative activist, commentator and journalist. He is a weekly contributor to iHeartRadio’s PowerTalk 96.7FM.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Big League Economics

Derrick Wilburn Explains Why Democrats Are So OLD

Published

on

Derrick Wilburn of Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives (RMBC) explains in a stirring new piece shared on Facebook why the Democratic Party leaders are so old, while the Republican Party — adherent to its own term-limit laws — provides fresh faces in committee leadership.

Wilburn writes:

Quick, name a nationally-prominent Republican who’s under 60 years of age. Those who pay even the least bit of attention to the political game can likely name Tim Scott (52), Marco Rubio (46), Mia Love, (48), Ted Cruz (46), Rand Paul (54), Trey Gowdy (51), Nikki Haley (46) among others.

In recent weeks as many as 7 Republicans who are current committee chairmen have announced their intentions to retire from Congress. Why? Many in the media are attempting to sell the narrative that its because they sense impending doom. Not true. Its’ because the Republican caucus term limits its chairmanships and these have reached the end of their terms.

A recent piece in TheHill.com spotlights a key difference between the way the Republican caucus & Democrat caucus in Washington D.C. operate, but a difference few in the USA are aware of: “The term-limit policy, put in place by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in 1994, was designed to keep the party from growing stale by regularly injecting new blood and fresh ideas into the mix.”

The GOP’s self-imposed rule is that legislators can not serve more than six years as the party’s top lawmaker on a committee. So once you’ve chaired a committee for six, you’re out and it someone else’s turn. And there’s no back-dooring it. Once you’re done, you’re done. You can’t return to committee member status for a year or two then run for Chair again. They can chair another committee, but not the same one again.

Democrats have no such rules and its at least a part of the reason there’s such a lack of youth in the Dem caucus leadership.

Apply the same question which opened this newsletter to today’s Democrat party leadership — *quick*, name a prominent Democrat, someone with presence on a national level — who’s under 60 years of age. Nancy Pelosi (78), Harry Reid (tho now retired most can name him, 80), Diane Feinstein (84), Chuck Schumer (68), Maxine Waters (80), Elizabeth Warren (70), Bernie Sanders (76 – tho technically an Independent not a Democrat) & the list goes on. All nationally prominent, all 70, 75, 80+ years of age.

Where’s the youth? Blame, at least in part, a lack of (self-imposed) term limits.

Democrats pay their dues early in their careers by carrying the water (i.e. providing necessary votes) and one day ascend to the desired position of Committee Chair, then stay there, …forever.

So what happens often times is younger Democrats win local elections, get to D.C., look up and realize that these old farts aren’t going anyplace! The old guard is from districts in which they can’t be un-elected; they’ve been their for 25 years; been chair for 14; are currently 72 years old meaning they’ll be Committee Chair for at least another 10 or 15 until they retire (if they ever do.) So the young bucks realize, “I’m frozen out.”

For example: Rep. John Conyers, who was forced to (finally) resign in December amid the #MeToo scandal, was born in 1929. Conyers helped draft the presidential articles of impeachment — against Richard Nixon! Conyers first won a seat on the Judiciary Committee in 1965. He first became Chair of the House Oversight Committee in 1989.

Imagine you’re a young lawyer, say 46 years old, a Democrat who just won an election and your dream has been to get to D.C. one day and chair a committee that’s chaired (when Dems are in power) by 70 y/o Elizabeth Warren. You know good & darn well that you’ve no hope of that chairmanship for another 10 or 15 years! What’s that do for your hopes for your future?

You’ve heard of, seen and know Trey Gowdy, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Tim Scott, and they’re nationally prominent because they get a shot at the top much earlier in their careers and that, at least in part, summarizes why pretty much the only Democrats you see on the nightly news speaking from a podium into a microphone at press conferences are old farts. Nancy Pelosi, Chuch Schumer. That’s just about it.

The situation caused the National Review to write a major piece which it titled “Old-Guard Democrats Refuse to Leave the Stage” sub-title “They’re keeping new leaders from emerging.”

Are term limits a good thing? That debate rages on. But the Capital Hill Republican party took the step of self-imposing them 25 years ago and it cannot be argued that the step has not created some very noticeable separation and differences between the parties.

-A Derrick Wilburn original

 

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend