The federal effort to expand internet access to every U.S. home has taken a major step forward with the announcement of $930 million in grants to shore up connections in dozens of places where significant connectivity gaps persist. Those places include remote parts of Alaska and rural Texas. The so-called middle mile grants are intended to trigger the laying of 12,000 miles of fiber through 35 states and Puerto Rico. The middle mile is the midsection of the infrastructure necessary to enable internet access, composed of high-capacity lines carrying lots of data quickly. The expansion is among several initiatives pushed through Congress by President Joe Biden’s administration to expand high-speed internet connectivity.
I always felt that rule was no fun. No fun at all! 😁
Does this magazine even have such a rule? I didn’t see anything like that (and on mobile it’s not showing me any way to access the description or rules/stuff in the sidebar).
BTW: If my editorialized headline is wrong I’ll delete the post but I read the article and it looks like these are definitely grants and not subsidies and they must go to qualifying entities which for these types of grants can only be ISPs (and only the biggest would have the resources to even fall within the scope/apply). I don’t even think any reasonable person could say it’s even misleading!
My opinion is that the regular news media isn’t doing its damned job lately and the evidence is right in front of our eyes: Giving every politician and business a huge benefit of the doubt and not pointing out precisely where and how decisions/changes/actions are going to play out in reality. The reality here is that:
I wouldn’t call the headline wrong, but mostly speculation and opinion. Not that those are necessarily bad things.
Recent history certainly backs you up, regarding ISP subsidies. Generalizing everyone in areas that don’t have reliable internet access as ‘out-of-touch’ does rub me the wrong way, though.
The phrase “in effort to expand internet access to out-of-touch Americans who can’t read this headline” sounds to me as if you’re suggesting that it’s not worth expanding reliable internet access to certain parts of the U.S. You may not have meant it that way, but that’s how it reads to me.
I think it makes a good example for why I liked the idea that the main post copies the headline 1:1, and any opinions of the OP can always be expressed and discussed in the comments. Instead of many top-level comments being about an editorialized headline by the OP, they’d be about the posted article.
Very much agreed. There’s a good reason why /r/politics opted ultimately to stick with the headlines for topic titles. Let people draw their own conclusions from reading the actual link rather than trying to color their opinions with some lurid ‘summary’ with a zinger at the end.
I like your headline!
The objection people had was with the phrase “out of touch.” You used it literally because those people have no ability to get in touch online. Yet the phrasing came across as those people were out of touch figuratively.