By Michael Bielawski
The Vermont Community Broadband Board (VCBB) is asking to hear from the public on the state’s draft Digital Equity Plan and how it might be improved.
According to the Green Mountain State’s Digital Equity Plan, priority access to broadband may prioritize access based on race – which may violate federal law.
The plan involves how to distribute $2.75 billion via three grant programs “to ensure all people have the skills, technology, and capacity needed to reap the full benefits of our digital economy.”
Who gets first dibs on this money will at least in part be determined by your race. There is a list of the ‘program priorities’ that includes factors such as age, disabilities, income, and also “members of racial or ethnic minority groups”.
According to a report on VermontBiz.com, certain covered populations have been at an economic disadvantage compared to others, thus justifying the policy. It states, “A central piece in developing the plan is gathering data on the experience and barriers of people who fall within the Covered Populations from the Digital Equity Act.”
It continues that “racial or ethnic minorities” will be included in “covered populations” which will get priority broadband access.
It states, “Covered Populations include people who live in low-income households (income up to 150% of poverty level), aging individuals (60+), people who are members of racial or ethnic minorities, veterans, people with disabilities, people with a language barrier or who have low levels of literacy, incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals, and people who live in a rural area. 96% of Vermonters fall into at least one of these categories.”
The plan does not specify whether racial minorities will need to demonstrate economic hardship to qualify.
The virtual listening session will occur on Thursday, Dec. 14 at 6:30 p.m. Those who are interested to sign up can click here.
Vermont’s Digital Equity Plan
According to a draft copy of the state’s Digital Equity Plan, the state estimates that POC trend in lower income brackets than their white counterparts.
“Vermonters who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups often also face significant broadband adoption barriers, many driven by income,” it states.
“In Vermont, the median household income for any racial or ethnic minority group is below that of the median income for white households.”
It continues, “Poverty levels for racial and ethnic minority Vermonters are also significantly higher than for their white counterparts; for example, the poverty rate for Black Vermonters is more than twice the poverty rate for white Vermonters (23.8 percent vs. 10.7 percent), and the poverty rates for Asian Vermonters (15.4 percent), Native American Vermonters including members of state-recognized Abenaki tribes (17.6 percent) and Hispanic Vermonters (16.2 percent) are all at least 44 percent higher than the rates for white Vermonters.”
The Civil Rights Act
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no person shall ever be favored for goods or services based on race.
It states that, “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
Contribute to Vermont Daily Chronicle via Stripe.com – quick, easy, confidential
Vermont legislature proposed distributing housing money by race
A bill that would prioritize land and home ownership based primarily on an skin color was once considered at the Vermont Statehouse but did not become law.
“H.273 aims to foster racial and social equity in land access and property ownership by creating grant programs, financial education, and other investments ‘targeted to Vermonters who have historically suffered from discrimination and who have not had equal access to public or private economic benefits due to race, ethnicity, sex, geography, language preference, immigrant or citizen status, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, or disability status,’” the report states.
The author is a reporter for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Race and Division, State Government
You’ve got to be freaking kidding me. This is a joke, right? Isn’t this simple reverse discrimination? Of course it is, and it doesn’t take a PhD in rocket surgery to figure it out I keep saying it, but I’m convinced I’m right – Fight fire with fire. Lawfare is the way to go.
If you listen to Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with Alex Jones, you might understand why we are seeing more crazy stuff like this…a lot of what was said in the interview makes sense, and Jones sums it up in a manner that is understandable to most. I am not blindly agreeing, but I came to many of the same conclusions myself. I consider Vermont a proving ground, by the left, before unleashing many of these hairbrained ideas nationwide.
The state of Vermont is captive to a cult and needs to wake up.
DEI is an exercise in power and enslavement that undermines the founding principles of our democratic republic; a governmental structure that guarantees everyone the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution protects our individual freedoms and means no one has more rights than others based on income, race or ethnicity. All are equal under the law, although we can see these principles being eroded daily.
H.273 is a product of delusional people who have been sucked in by the DEI and ESG nonsense that is being promoted by the United Nations and World Economic Forum’s intent to destroy national sovereignty and rule the world. WAKE UP Vermont! you’re aiding and abetting our own destruction!
This is occuring because according to the World Economic Forum no one can be left behind in the digital transformation. The implementation of a digital ID is a United Nations Sustainable Development Goal. This is positioned as an equity issue, but there is a hidden motivation. A digital surveillance state that mirrors China’s digital, AI system is being constructed globally. I am currently reading The Age of AI And Our Human Future. Much of the book lays out what has already occurred like governments using AI as a means to govern what media content is allowed to be created and be shared through the implementation of “community standards” to stop the spread of disinformation on social media. The book discusses that workers will be dislocated during the transition, with no explanation of how long. This sacrifice will be necessary for the greater good of society. Society needs to provide alternate sources of income for the displaced, enter universal basic income. I believe this is why student loans are being forgiven by the federal government. These kids have received or are in the process of receiving degrees that may be useless in the new economy powered by AI.
Our local and federal government knows what is occuring. Vermont is actively pushing this agenda forward with the help of NGOs, aligned to the United Nations agenda.
Don’t fall for this rage bait, just clicking the link will show you that the first meeting is in Brattleboro and the FIRST group being discussed is, “checks notes” Rural and/or Vermonters who identify as being in a low-income household.
Second of all, lets look at the groups that are included in the Digital Equity Act:
*Covered Populations identified by the Digital Equity Act include:
Aging individuals
Incarcerated individuals
Veterans
Persons with disabilities
Members of a racial or ethnic minority group
Rural residents
Individuals with a language barrier, including those who are English learners or have low literacy levels
Individuals living in households with incomes not exceeding 150 percent of the poverty level
Sounds to me that the State is making an effort to serve vulnerable populations, not wire internet to black people at the expense of whites lol.
Those last two paragraphs have nothing to do with the original story, one of them is about a thing that didn’t even happen, but could have. This is not even close to the rage-bait induced title, but when your day job is pretending to be Johnny Bananas or reporting on what Clownfart69420 had to say on Twitter, why report the real news, when you can anger people, get clicks and make it fit your narrative?
racist definition: “characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”
So you’re admitting that they are racists. Got it.
You are correct that the last 2 paragraphs are somewhat divergent from the main topic, however you fail to include the header above the 2 paragraphs, ‘Vermont legislature proposed distributing housing money by race’ That news item certainly bears reporting.
This publication will often combine topics that are similar, as most readers can differentiate topics. Mr. Bielawski’s report also states that 96% of Vermont residents fall into one of the groups that are being “prioritized” for broadband access. Perhaps Mr. Bielawski is pointing at “Vermont’s Digital Equity Plan” and the farce that a plan need to be created for “Equity”. In reality, as the infrastructure is built and made ready, the provider is not going to miss an opportunity to provide service to anyone that wants it. Perhaps your indignation is wrongly directed. I purport that the idea the tax dollars need to be spent on “Equity Plans” is the problem- as well as a fraudulent and wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. Everyone that wants broadband will have the opportunity to purchase it, as the infrastructure is built. For those “disadvantaged peoples” that cannot afford it, don’t fret. There will be tax dollars given to them, in subsidized services.
In order to install such policies isn’t it necessary to first define the terms of qualification? Im assuming “black” individuals fall into the “ethnic minority group”. So then we must define what is “black”. To some this may seem a ridiculous statement but in a country with folks of all ethnicities and offspring mixed with any combination of ethnicities isn’t it one that needs to be answered when it determines one’s eligibility for certain tax payer funded programs? For example, if a light “white” individual and “black” individual have a child, is that child “white” or “black”? Some would quickly answer “black”. To them i’d ask, if that child had their own child with a lighter skinned (“white”) individual, is the baby “white” or “black”? Until what/when? Says who? If the parameters around qualification for home loan, healthcare, or broadband access can not be quantified, they are not real, can not hold up in court and therefore are nothing more then legislation founded in virtue signaling. My personal belief is the concept of race is a ridiculous social construct designed to divide and promote tribalism. We can describe individuals as light skinned or dark skinned the same as tall or short….but really it’s all subjective. One race. Human race. We are all God’s children.
Amen. to that last part.
“Race is a ridiculous social construct designed to divide and promote tribalism. We can describe individuals as light skinned or dark skinned the same as tall or short….but really it’s all subjective. One race. Human race. We are all God’s children.”
Broadband in Vermont – the fairytale continues, but now bundled in a pretty, politically correct DEI bow – just in time for the holidays! I’m still waiting for the breakdown of where the multi-millions for this fallacy has gone to since Governor Douglas began this never-ending odyssey. Starlink went up in 2019 hooking up 2 million subcribers available in 60 countries. Here’s your sign. Where did all the broadband money go? Should be the first question and only question to the distinquished panel of grifters and co-conspirators.
It seems even more offensive to favor criminals (the “formerly incarcerated”) over the law-abiding. But didn’t Vermont explicitly put whites at the end of the line for the Covid vaccine? That was blatantly unconstitutional and the state should have been sued.
They put white people at the end of the line because the United Nations, World Bank and World Health Organization said to do so, as marginalized people needed to receive care first to correct health outcomes, which are seem as descriminatiry. People no longer have to take accountability for their poor health, as all unequal outcomes are directly attributed to systemic racism according to the UN.
It would actually be nice if they meant what they imply but sadly they do not. Again a bunch of rich white people telling us all what for. So there must be a scam or payoff for them somewhere in this. Just like the solar scam.
My wife and I are some of the poorest in Vermont living because of disability on SSI and SSD. We are getting the least they can give us. Other states would have done more, but not here. When the Federal give the State takes away. Just ask about the “increases” SS has given and ask where did it go. Our last increase was $8. (yes for both of us)
We are going to get high speed internet because of an existing grant to the ISPs not us. (tahat and a demand from the solar people) The lines they are placing NOW are , hate to tell ya, is mostly for the solar panels (the ones owned by the big corps) , not for rural people. I have been waiting for over a year and still nothing but talk.
When you speak with the techs installing the system you find the truth.
We also find that some companies will restrict the bandwidth, because the state subsides internet for some people and apparently they do not “deserve” high speed internet, like the immigrants in Burlington do. Much like when I had Bluecross/Blueshield and was told , by the state, I could not afford it (which I was and did) so they took it away and then gave me that bad excuse for healthcare ( the beginning of the one payer obamacare garbage) that put me in the condition I am in now.
I was told by our ISP that we would be restricted to 100MB of the proposed 1GB of bandwidth just outside my door. (yes a fiber line) How does that help me? It discriminates. I could start an internet business with bandwidth like that and plan to so. No more SSI once I take off, but not at 100MB, that is a joke and unworkable.
BTW, most of the “rural” internet in this area is around the “rich” peoples places. in town center along where the higher property values and so on. Don’t believe me look at the maps the companies provide for coverage. That data, if you know the area, speaks for itself.
Oh, and if and when you get it I suggest a VPN and password out your wifi if you have not already. Because they Will be watching what you do.
They also need to make a solid definition of what is considered “high speed” internet in 2023. The rate ( up and down) for most on DSL is a joke and the state, as of my last research has not set even a minimum standard for it.
I think the whole “black/ minority” thing is insulting, like affirmative action but for internet. Another example of the bigotry of low expectations, like being too stupid or poor to have ID.
I do not believe there are many in rural VT that are not “professionals” telecommuting and teleconferencing that even USE the internet even if offered. I know many who have DSL and even a few who still use dial up.
Vermont Expat here for the humorous daily read of literally insane goings-on in Vermont. Thank you Vermont Daily Chronicle – you provide by far the best chuckles-per-dollar ratio out there right now. Everyone should subscribe for these daily gems.
You know it used to be, when you were poor, you just didn’t have sh!t. No one moaned and groaned. We literally just didn’t have it. If you wanted something you worked your hiney off getting it or getting money for it.
I don’t believe people are discriminated against based on their external characteristics. I do believe that if it is not cost effective for a company to run a line out to your little cabin in the woods where you retired, or the shack you rent from that defunct motel, then guess what, you aint getting high speed internet or cable. Used to be the same way for phone and electricity…. back in the day. Don’t believe me…. the town of Victory VT got electricity in 1963. The neighbor across the hollow from me just electrified their home in 2020. Big old farmhouse, no electricity. Not even solar.
Why did my neighbor not have electricity? Because it was frickin’ expensive to run a line all the way up their road and the previous owners didn’t have 50 grand laying around to do it. The new owners did.
But now we are going to give money to people to get broadband internet based on either immutable characteristics or lifestyle choices? You know it’s one thing if a company wants to give me a discount as a Veteran, it’s quite another to choose me over someone else because I served and they did not. No one is going to salute that if you run it up the flagpole…(sorry for the lame pun)
And I cannot imagine anyone with any dignity being okay with this plan. But I guess there are a bunch of people out there with no dignity….
During the “pandemic,” Vermont only offered a major round of assistance to sole proprietors & self employed individuals who were women or minorities. I was shocked that no one noticed. Guess some of us who lost businesses have privilege or something.
Margaret Cheney Welch – yes, Pete’s wife – who is one of three unelected, unaccountable people that make up the Public Utility Commission, an independent, three-member, quasi-judicial commission that regulates the siting of electric and natural gas infrastructure and supervises the rates, quality of service, and overall financial management of Vermont’s public utilities: electric, gas, energy efficiency, telecommunications, cable television (terms of service only, not rates), water, and large wastewater companies – is placing the ‘responsibility of privilege’ on Vermonters who can’t heat their homes or pay for groceries.
As you read this article, think of the 20+ million new illegal economic immigrants flooding through our open borders in the last three years which the Democrats are promoting to change the nation’s electoral complexion.
“Covered Populations include people who live in low-income households (income up to 150% of poverty level), aging individuals (60+), people who are members of racial or ethnic minorities, veterans, people with disabilities, people with a language barrier or who have low levels of literacy, incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals, and people who live in a rural area. 96% of Vermonters fall into at least one of these categories.”
We’re reaching a tipping point in spending more than we produce.
These grants will often just channel taxpayer funds into regional or national monopolies that are shipping customer service jobs overseas and deeply price-gouging the public even when they allow discounts. Other jurisdictions have addressed this issue in alternative ways that we ought to consider, including:
🔴 forcing the local telephone & cable monopolies to share their lines with competitors on a pro-rated basis so competition can bring the price down
🔴 create public municipal mesh networks and wireless co-ops where access to the local web is free and the municipal network becomes a marketplace where long-distance providers compete for your internet business
—The one thing we must NOT do is hand over more cash & wireless spectrum to the incumbent monopolies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifi.net
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ah
https://blog.althea.net/case-study-nevada-city-ca/
Vermont already had a BIPOC-first policy for COVID vaccines based on a supposed (or simply assumed) notion that BIPOC persons were dying of it at rates higher than the general population. It was based on Gov. Scott’s policy of putting the most resources toward those most likely to lose their life. The statistics later determined that BIPOC people in Vermont were actually at risk of death at LOWER rates than the general population. Was this policy based on real statistics or race-based assumptions? And I thought we weren’t supposed to use “statistics” on human behavior especially relating to race, since it often exposes uncomfortable facts. The retail Cannabis licenses were to be awarded preferentially to BIPOC persons due to the supposed historic disproportional targeting of Black individuals by the “war on drugs”. Now with this broadband proposal, can we just be honest and start calling this racist favoritism what it really is: REPARATIONS.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Racketeering is Social Justice.