Slashdot Mirror
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.
It hasn't run out quite yet.
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".
Tax me. I just got a bmw. I can afford it.
My tea party brethren insists that the Obamaphone is a government-issued iPhone. Swear by the Lord (give me a witness!), it's an iPhone. Not a wussy 8GB iPhone, but honest-to-God 128GB iPhone. But whenever I ask to sign up to get my very own government-issued iPhone, everyone stops talking about how all those moochers have the Obamaphone.
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.
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!!
Overreact much?
Cable TV isn't considered a right and the Government does not give it away to poor people. Poor, can't afford Cable TV? Life sucks, you get over the air.
Nice try though.
Be seeing you...
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.
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:
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.
Just for the record, the "Obamaphone" program has a name. It's called the "Lifeline Assistance Program" and was started in the 1980s by...Ronald Reagan. It has nothing to do with Obama.
https://www.fcc.gov/guides/lif...
http://www.snopes.com/politics...
http://gawker.com/5947133/the-...
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's time Washington works within a budget like everyone else.
Yet we vote out every politician who offers to balance the budget by raising taxes, vote in every politician who promises to expand services without a word on balancing the budget, and borrow trillions of dollars to maintain the status quo. If you want to change Washington, look in the mirror.
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.
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.
... no answers are a priori correct.
I like your post, but aren't all answers correct only a posteriori?
Not all answers. Some are pulled out of a posterior.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
You don't need broadband to call 911, or answer a job call-back, or answer a call from your kid's school.
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.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Please. the government isn't even close to living outside its means. Extreme deficits only came about because politicians started to insist on cutting taxes. This country had no trouble paying for everything the government did, even while providing almost precisely the same services and social programs we currently do. and the economy and the average citizen not only was doing fine, but was more prosperous than he is today, even with the higher tax burden.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.