Even in emergencies, no, especially in emergencies, especially in the US, we now should understand that everything they do is likely constrained by the ideology which they are trying to sell the entire world on. In many cases, the world may have already signed on to this ideology but not realize it. So the US has to "show them the way". This is a way that's designed to maximize economic advantage (profits) in every situation. Thas whats seen as good now.
Period.
In every case where a decision is made, that's the decision that gets made. That's really changed everything. Its the missing link to understanding policy now. Understand that and everything falls into place. So all sorts of what seem like inexplicable, bad decisions are being made, but they all make sese if you understand this. This is being done because the alternative, the way this were before would lead to slippery slopes where profits would have tob be abandoned in favor of non-profitable policies. Because of economic shifts in the world eventually that would lead to changes they feel pose an existential threat to corporations. So they have made that impossible behind the scenes by international agreements between powers without any discussion in the media at all.. without telling almost anybody. Because almost everybody who hears about them disagrees with it. Irregardless of their feelings beforehand. Because they fly in the face of the most basic common sense.
I will try to keep this short.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "minimal trade restrictiveness"? Its part of something called competition policy?
I don't want to derail the thread so I will make this explanation very short. Of the various ways to get broadband into an "underserved community" whatever policy a government that subscribes to this ideology undertakes -has to interfere as little as is possible with international trade and investments. Like the investments that foreign firms might make in US telecommunications infrastructure, or vice versa. (its reciprocal- that's the key to understanding why its being done so aggressively)
For example, powerline networking may be crap but that's actually good if you want to up-sell *better* more profitable services to the people who can afford better.
Most importantly, whatever they do "regulation" can't exceed the most minimally trade restrictive means possible to accomplish the goal. It cannot make investors lose the value of their investments in a country. If it does they may have to be paid that money, the future expected lost profits they expect lose, in advance, to free the country from that particular policy constraint. So they can carve it out forever in writing. They likely can't do anything that could be seen as causing "crowd out"- that broadly means anything where some government activity might inadvertently reduce the profits expected by some investor.
Throwing a wrench into their 'legitimate expectations'.
A trade agreement is like a permanent irrevocable (after three years or similar) contract where a government agrees to put the international investors interests first ahead of all others, permanently, with only the very narrowest exceptions allowed for certain conditions. Also, only deregulation is allowed, re-regulation is prohibited except under the very narrowest of exceptions (which are admitted to almost never apply)
Such as situations that threaten human lives, etc. as long as that goal is not inconsistent with the goal of the agreements. The deals come first.
It might be argued successfully that internet access is a necessity of life (although I doubt if that argument would succeed, frankly, when so many other similar arguments for far more essential things have not.) , but if it was allowed "to help communities", it must be "minimally trade restrictive" which is defined legally- its a legal standard. Another standard is "not more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service". So foreign firms must be allowed to assist in the effort, as they might be cheaper.
When government procurement/subsidies are involved, A community cannot monopolize the jobs when a foreign firm might be able to come in and accomplish the goal for less using their workforce. Local community groups helping might be seen in a negative light if they prevented the use of large numbers of foreign workers from countries who might have signed on to trade agreements knowing hat they could provide those kinds of services for less money than domestic firms would. And they could. That knowledge of the eventual payoff in jobs may have kept them in the talks for 20 years of negotiations. An entire generation of people may have pursued certain courses of studies in college and grad school knowing that these agreements would attempt to funnel certain kinds of jobs to them. At least these are the arguments we can expect to hear made if changes are proposed to these deals.. now after 20 years.
When do they kick in? When governments are involved. If a service is completely private and commercial wit no government involvement at all, or when its completely noncommercial and free everywhere in a country, supplied by the government with no competition, like healthcare in Canada, (but not drugs or some kinds of care) they don't apply.
But everything that is in between those two extremes, they do.
Which is almost everything, they do.
When a circumstance meets those conditions, whatever they do, if it is at all possible to minimize its impact it must be designed to be "minimally trade restrictive" or they may be sued in special courts. (If a country can claim to be injured, say by having the opportunities they have long expected taken away from them)
Tendering and procurement must follow a certain framework such as to ensure that all WTO members get an opportunity to bid on the provision of the service.
An index is being set up, the "Services Trade Restrictiveness Index" to offer governments, which oftentimes don't understand these binding agreements, (because they are relatively new, having been set up in the 90s but delayed because of ongoing negotiations) guidance in what the "best practices" would be for them to stay out of trouble in a host of different areas.
Hams may need to make the case that somehow protecting their activities generates more economic advantage, but that may open a can of worms because those same services might be seen as offering poor countries opportunities for economic development. So, discouraging hams by encouraging devices that made ham bands unbearably noisy, might be framed as a necessary evil, and claimed to help the cause of economic development for countries that might hope to replace them in provision of emergency services. Which may become more and more dangerous and costly because of chemical spills, etc. as weather becomes less predictable.
I think the emergency aspect is an important one, but it may actually be seen as decreasing the "legitimate" profit-making opportunities of commercial firms under the circumstances (after all, in emergencies, companies have a right to charge more - this is another change-)
for hams to help communities in emergencies because they don't charge money, if otherwise government might be forced to seek the (expensive) services of commercial firms.
Not charging money, i.e. giving away a service somebody might charge for, is framed as a sort of theft.
That might be framed as a loss. I don't know. But from what I know, its entirely possible, even probable, I think.
This is what I mean by it not making sense to most of us.