FCC Proposes To Extend So-Called "Obamaphone" Program To Broadband

jfruh writes: The FCC's Lifeline program subsidizes phone service for very poor Americans; it gained notoriety under the label "Obamaphone," even though the program started under Reagan and was extended to cell phones under Clinton. Now the FCC is proposing that the program, which is funded by a fee on telecom providers, be extended to broadband, on the logic that high-speed internet is as necessary today as telephone service was a generation ago.

Comments

other people's money

[fche]

It hasn't run out quite yet.

Re:other people's money

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not, either way, you're going to spend the money.

Here's the thing about those phones. They prevent trouble. They give people opportunity.

You don't do that? The cheapest thing that can happen is somebody dies in a way that isn't even suspicious enough to keep a cop from drinking his coffee.

Then you're out a burial plot at most.

More expensive? Yeah, people end up being in prison where we pay even more to keep them there than if we just supplied them with weed and beer and cheap food.

Or worse yet. Revolution and riot. You know why the Roman leaders needed the bread and circuses? Because otherwise the out of work population of Rome would be pissed. Why did they lose work? Because the land-owners wanted slave-worked plantations, not citizen-owned farms.

You give a man something to do? Where they can be appreciated and respected? You'll get results. You piss people off and convince them they're hated, well, at a certain point, even the lowest worm will realize you're not better than they are.

And you won't always be the cat with the sharpest claws.

Re:other people's money

[fche]

... then that one in a thousand will help subsidize the 999 until the money runs out

Re:other people's money

[ShanghaiBill]

Please send me more of your "society" dollars - I'll make sure they're well-spent.

Between 2008 and 2014 the Fed used Quantitative Easing to create $4 trillion dollars out of thin air. If you want your share, go re-finance your house for 3.5%. You're welcome.

Re:other people's money

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a person prove himself/herself to me before any money is given. You earn respect. Welfare and other social programs have already proven to be a liability instead of an asset.

Re:other people's money

[silentcoder]

>What they need is to gain skils and obtain a steady job or make one.

Have you TRIED to get a job without a phone number ? What century do you think this is ?

Re:other people's money

[dywolf]

ah yes.
once again, the "if you're poor, it must be a moral failure on your part" argument.
which is total BS ignorant of reality.

Re:other people's money

[Rob Y.]

Medicare - before the new drug benefit that was explicitly barred from seeking good deals. Seems socialism's better than its reputation - except when crafted by Republicans who want it to look bad...

Re:other people's money

[laird]

To support your point, note that the unemployment rate goes up and down quite dramatically over time based on the economy, i.e. job availability. That pretty much proves that when people are unemployed it's because they can't find work, not that they're not willing to work.

Eliminate all tax withholding

[Anonymous Coward]

If people making $30,000 a year knew they paid over $1000 a month in taxes, the US government wouldn't have the resources to be so overweening.

Make people actually have to hand their money over to the government instead of never seeing it and could have an honest discussion over how much government the US REALLY wants.

If you don't like that, you really have to ask yourself how much you actually support the rule of "we the people".

Amazing

[Snotnose]

I find it amazing that not only is cable TV a "right", deserved by all, now broadband is also a "right".

/ Yo dude, check out my guv'mint subsidised Facebook post!
// Yo dude, you should look into some guv'mint subsidised belts
/// Yo dude, check out the brusin' I layed on my baby mama for telling me I should buy a belt!!

Re:How about import duties?

[epyT-R]

The point of tax isn't to punish people for being rich. It's to fund needed state operations as defined by its charter. In the case of the US, the state has greatly exceeded that charter. The last thing we need is yet another tax that reenforces this behavior. It's time washington works within a budget like everyone else. Once those ivy league lawyer brats learn to do that, then we can talk about what is needed and what isn't.

Re:More ambiguous fees

[Ryanrule]

no, its because your telecom company is lying to you. those fees are part of the true cost, but they separate them out. they could charge you an electricity fee, and a building rental fee, and a lunch for executives fee if they wanted. but those wont score poli points. you plumber could charge you a "damn your shit stinks fee" if he wanted, and exclude it from his advertised fee. its a loophole. and your dumb ass fell for it. dont vote, you are not qualified.

Re:How about import duties?

[Bartles]

When you spend more than you make, do you force your employer to give you a raise to cover the difference? No, you spend less. Its called living within your means, and you have zero understanding of what that means. Just because the government can alter its means to support its lifestyle does not mean that its a good idea.

Re:Ronnie Phone

[Tablizer]

It's odd how it seems to politically matter who does something more than what is being done. Examples:

"GOOD" (or neutral) WHEN BUSH DID IT:

Corporate welfare
NSA
TSA
DHS
deficits
stimulus
bombing
medicare part D
golfing
hugging Saudi oilers
saluting with things in hand
feet on desk
subsidized cell-phones

"BAD" WHEN OBAMA DID IT:

Corporate welfare
NSA
TSA
DHS
deficits
stimulus
bombing
medicare part D
golfing
hugging Saudi oilers
saluting with things in hand
feet on desk
subsidized cell-phones

Re:How about import duties?

[epyT-R]

You cannot regularly exceed your budget and expect to remain operational. Governments are no exception. The problem here is that the politicians running things are borrowing on the backs of the taxpayer, not on their own.

And what's the problem?

[thesandtiger]

I say guarantee basic services (phone, basic cable, broadband), basic accommodations (place to live, food), and basic health (medical insurance) for those who need it. Provide life and job skills classes open to anyone who wants to attend. Make state university free of charge for those who qualify (via academic track record and testing), vocational training (plumbing, culinary, whatever) free for those who don't qualify for university.

Spread the housing across a given community, rather than concentrating it in one place, to prevent things like a project mentality and generational poverty mindset.

It would be vastly less expensive than the costs we pay for police, prison and emergency services, safer for everyone else, and overall reduce human suffering.

Most people would be happy to work an actual job and pay taxes in order to have "better than the bare minimum" for all of the above and the ability to do things like have food that isn't just staples, go on vacation, have more living space, etc.

For people who don't want more, or who can't work for more, at least this would keep them off of the streets to some extent, and keep them from getting so desperate they resort to crime just to survive.

I have zero problem with my taxes going to pay for such things because, not being an idiot, I'm aware that the alternative (what we have right now) is VASTLY more expensive by pretty much every metric.