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

Re:other people's money

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF ?
If a person is very poor, they don't need cell phones, cable TV, beer, fast internet, lottery tickets, just to name a few.
What they need is to gain skils and obtain a steady job or make one.
It's not easy but it shows what a person is made of.
I lived the poor life, it trully sucked.
Sometimes I only had a half a stick of butter and some crackers two days before payday.
No free shit, no payday loans.
Being poor was the hardest thing I experenced but it was an education.
I learned I didn't want to be poor.
I learned many people around me talked shit but didn't try do better.
There's no hand outs or magic to make a person become unpoor.
It takes long hours of work, night classes but mostly getting off the ass and doing stuff is the road to become better.
Free stuff paid by taxes taken from hard working people is just a fancy way of stealing.
Give free broadband to some paid by taxing people who work to pay for broadband ?
Fuck NO !
 

Have You Looked for a Job Recently?

[mx b]

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

In a way, it is. Your first comment is actually a little more correct than you realized.

I hunted for a job last year for quite some time before I got my new gig. Let me share some thoughts on the current job climate:

1. (1) Many companies specifically say they do not fool with paper applications anymore, you are directed to submit resumes to their online HR portal.
2. (1.5) For that matter, I don't see "Help Wanted" signs very much either. Job openings are posted online, so to even see if a job is available, you often have to check online.
3. (2) An email address is as required as a phone number (perhaps more so?) these days when applying for jobs. Correspondence such as setting up interviews was done almost entirely in email in my experience. They may have called?... or may have thought since I didn't respond to their email, I wasn't available, and moved on to the next candidate.
4. (3) A LinkedIn or Facebook is used to "verify" you are a real person that doesn't seem too crazy or weird, and that your public profile matches your resume (catching obvious liars). It was heavily insinuated to me that applicants without an online presence were basically treated as homeless drug addicts (i.e., "what are you hiding if you're not online?")

So, to get a job, it's quickly becoming a requirement to have internet access. If we ever expect to help people improve their lives, we have to be willing to give them a leg up to get started. Getting a decent job is a start to better things, so if jobs require internet access, I am all for making it a "right".

Furthermore, I think there is an even greater reason why to do this. While it is possible to call one's congressmen, you'd have to know what to call about. I never receive snail mail copies from my legislators, but I receive email newsletters and follow them on Twitter. Without internet, you would probably have much less of a chance of being informed as well as being able to interact with your representatives. Arguably, since democracy is one of the most important aspects of our society, I would say that allowing access to representatives is a fundamental right, and if those representatives now do a lot of their business and work online, we must require online connections for all.

Re:Have You Looked for a Job Recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll not argue with those points, but we have libraries with Internet access for just such purposes.

I'm not heartless, but government programs FORCIBLY take money from the people who are working to give it to those who are not. Some assistance is necessary, but it needs to be run on an absolutely lean budget because it's not SUPPOSED to be comfortable when you're out of work. It should be a situation that you want to get out of immediately.

Public internet access can be provided at the library.

Food stamps should be replaced by government funded soup kitchens (not literally soup, but mass cooked meals available to the poor for "free").

Welfare? Replace it with work programs. Those who do not have any viable job skills are to attend vocational training programs (free and government ran) to attain the skills needed to enter the workforce. Those who already have enough skills until they can find another job are to perform other duties. Running the aforementioned vocational training centers, providing childcare for the attendees of them, or farming in order to support the above mentioned soup kitchens (or staffing them).

Any children you already have will be supported and allowed to live with you while receiving assistance. Any NEW pregnancies while on assistance must be aborted (it'll be free) OR you forfeit all assistance and custody of ALL children until you're capable of financially supporting them yourself.

A tad harsh - perhaps, but we've got to get people working again. Government assistance should be very rare, and very temporary.

About the only thing I'd support near total subsidization of is daycare. A lot of otherwise capable people are not able to work because they can't afford daycare or would break-even if paying it. If picking up that tab gets more people into the workforce, then I'm all for it.

Re:Have You Looked for a Job Recently?

[Linsaran]

I'm not sure when the last time you went to a library was, but they're a relic of a bygone age, I've seen at least 3 of them shut down, and another 2 lose their accreditation because they couldn't afford to be open more than 3 days a week. Sure, you could let people go to the library, but then you have to fund the library. Whether that would be cheaper budget wise than paying for a 5gb per month broadband connection, I don't know, but the public library system as it is now is not sufficient to really support someone looking for work.

I imagine the biggest reason that the government doesn't run soup kitchens / have a bunch of work programs is that the overhead to oversee / manage those sorts of programs just ultimately ends up costing more than just giving people food.

Re: other people's money

[Actually, I do RTFA]

assume a perfectly reasonable per month/subscriber cost of $25

$9.25, as per the article

a program that spends $[9,250]/month

Diverts the already being spent monies from being spent on a landline to a broadband connection

for two years ... an associate's degree

Well, by classes I intended more professional or at your own speed... so I didn't think it would take two years, But associates degrees take 18 months if you go straight through.

So, by your logic, that's 9.25 * 18 * 1000 = 166500. But, over a 20 year career ( short) if that person makes back 700/mo (not unreasonable, with $300 for foodstamps, $350 for section 8, $50 for medicaid) it pays for itself.

Seems good to me. I mean, not perfect, but self-substaining.

Re:other people's money

[sharkbiter]

We keep on giving away money to people without the understanding that what we are giving has a price attached to it. Do we even worry about the effect that it's having on the very people that are receiving it?

Should we, (being givers), not teach those that receive our generosity what it means to be a recipient? Why do we have 6 generations of welfare recipients with each generation that's added not caring in the least where the money is coming from?

I walked from Potomac Avenue to the Navy Yard yesterday and came upon an entire community that relies upon government funded housing. They just hang out all day in a small park chatting with one another. They don't look like they're incapable of any sort of work.

I've worked for my living from the age of twelve to the present (decades, I won't say how many). Should I go and join them for awhile and see what it's like to have all my troubles taken care of by the government?

I'm just confused about all of this.

Re:other people's money

[KermodeBear]

For now. In a few years I fully expect additional funds to be appropriated so that people can have both services subsidized.