By Randolph May
By and large, the opponents' reactions to Senate passage of the Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the FCC's rule that purported to expand COVID-era funding for WiFi hotspots are misguided – and they illustrate what's wrong with much left-leaning advocacy. The reactions focus on the supposed ill-effects, as a matter of policy, of curtailing funding for WiFi hotspots outside of the E-Rate program's authorization of "classrooms" and "libraries." The opponents ignore what ought to be the most important point: The FCC's rule overturned by the CRA resolution exceeded the agency's authority.
Typical of the reaction is the statement issued by FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez. She says: “Sadly, this vote will only deepen that divide by stripping away one of the few remaining tools available to schools and libraries to help students and seniors access the internet—whether to do their homework, apply for jobs, or consult with a doctor." I don't necessarily agree with her conclusion, or similar sentiments she expresses regarding the extent of what she sees as the extent of the "digital divide." But those are matters of policy that are proper subjects for discussion and debate.
But the proper place for resolution of those policy debates regarding the WiFi hotspots extension funding is in Congress. There's simply not a credible argument that, once the COVID-era emergency WiFi funding had expired, the FCC could simply undertake to rewrite the English language by interpreting the statutory terms "classrooms" and "libraries" to include any remote location on the same planet. That's a linguistic stretch way too far.
Of course, this doesn't mean that Congress cannot – and should not – authorize funding along the lines that Commissioner Gomez and her allied CRA opponents wish to see. But it is does mean that the Senate did the right thing in adopting the CRA. And it does mean that the House should follow suit.
Posts
