Slashdot Mirror
FCC Votes To Subsidize Broadband Connections For Low-Income Households
Mark Wilson writes: Today the FCC voted in favor of updating its Lifeline program to include broadband. This would mean that households surviving on low incomes would be able to receive help paying for a broadband connection. It might not be as important as electricity or water, but having a broadband connection is seen as being all but essential these days. From helping with education and job hunting, to allowing for home working, the ability to get online is seen as so vital by some that there have been calls for it to be classed as a utility. The Lifeline program has been running since the 80s, and originally provided financial help to those struggling to pay for a phone line. It was expanded in 2008 to include wireless providers, and it is hoped that this third expansion will help more people to get online.
It appears the subsidy would help pay for it, but not make it free or mandatory. If the people who persue the subsidy can meet somehwere in the middle on the cost of broadband they probably have some sense to themselves economically and likely are at least marginally techincally competent.
This may even lead more companies to try to compete in the market of providing broadband to low-income areas, which would be a good thing as well.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
From helping with education and job hunting, to allowing for home working
All noble and good. But will the government even bother to follow up and see if it makes any difference? It's one thing to help people improve their place in life, but if all this does is provide free entertainment I'm not so sure. Maybe there should be at least some strings attached to it.
Really? Cuz I guarantee you the people who oppose this are not looking out for you and are protecting their own interests. Why not afford yourself the same treatment?
But you aren't supposed to watch porn at the library! Something about modesty laws, damn you big government!
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
You have to jump though some pretty shitty loops at my local library to prove you're a city tax payer. If you're not then you can't use the computers.
Do you mean ReaganPhone from the mid 80's or BushPhone from 2005 when it was expanded to cellphones (with the first phone issued during the last few weeks of Bush's administration)?
Well that's great.
As long as your local library exists.
And is accessible when you need it.
And close enough for you to get to.
And has a working computer available for you in the time frame you have.
No. That's not so great. That sucks.
...subsidizing a non-essential good for other people.
The downside is the federal government sticking its nose into something that's none of its business, in defiance of the 10th Amendment.
No, there aren't. The "welfare queen" narrative is 1% fact to 99% fantasy.
So is this new retarded fucking share button on Slashdot BETA 2. FIRE YOUR DESIGNERS Slashdot and find someone with half a fucking clue.
Can the FCC subsidize the removal of the new share button on slashdot?
What the hell is the bureaucracy doing making these kinds of decisions? Whether this is good policy or not is a separate question, but the FCC should not be taking on additional mandates like this without direction from Congress.
Wikipedia cites some pretty reliable looking studies under its 'Welfare Fraud' article.
US Department of Labor reports 1.9% fraud rate in 2001. LA Times reports that 24% of new applications have some form of "inaccuracy", which is anything from colossal lies to small mistakes.
Your turn. Cite some opposing statistics.
I understand the reason that people might want to consider this, but on the other side of the fence is a company that will benefit from all that extra cash from new customers who could not otherwise afford the service. What will the company who benefits do in return for all this extra revenue coming from tax dollars? If the answer is "nothing" then I'd be in favor of dropping the idea.
Government interventions where they pump money into markets on behalf of the poor do three things:
1) They help the poor.
2) They harm the middle class.
3) They have no impact on the wealthy.
Education, housing, medical care - government pumping money into the system just drives up prices to the detriment of those with moderate incomes.
Then Wall Street can step and say, "Hey, debt! I mean how much is your life (or your kid's future) worth to you? That's how much it'll cost ya."
Mark my words. Internet service will get more expensive because of this. Just like everything else that receives subsidies.
Typical government thinking it can make things cheaper just by waiving a wand...
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
A huge chunk of this is from Oklahoma, where vendors have been using looser tribal laws to sign people up without proper (or any) verification.
I'm not entirely sure any of the stated goals *requires* broadband.
One can easily job-hunt on the web at 1meg.
-Styopa
Then surely you're against any sort of state assistance to anyone, as your "slippery slope" argument applies to that. Get a grip.