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.
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".
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.
Tax me. I just got a bmw. I can afford it.
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.
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.
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.
If you read the full article, this $9.25 subsidy only applies to people ALREADY receiving it for phone service. The only change described in the article would be to allow those people to apply the subsidy to cell phone or broadband service instead. I assume there would be a few people that currently qualify but don't receive the subsidy because they don't have a land line, but $9.25 would barely cover the cheapest broadband plan the companies would offer.
~~
$9.25, as per the article
Diverts the already being spent monies from being spent on a landline to a broadband connection
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.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
>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 ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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.
For now. In a few years I fully expect additional funds to be appropriated so that people can have both services subsidized.
Love sees no species.
You realise this won't cost you a cent right ? This is the exact same subsidy Reagan instituted with no increase. Just permission to allocate it to a different service.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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.
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...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
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.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!