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.
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...
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.
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.
~~
>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 *
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 *
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...