Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Votes To Subsidize Broadband Connections For Low-Income Households

Posted by samzenpus on from the getting-up-to-speed dept.

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.

13 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. I don't see the downside of this by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I don't see the downside of this by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, I'd like Broadband and I'm willing to pay for it.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:I don't see the downside of this by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seattle is a special case: apparently, your Internet access is fucked up because you keep electing shitty city councilpeople who make rules that ISPs hate. You should quit doing that.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:I don't see the downside of this by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Funny

      I spend a lot of money to live in a nice location in downtown Seattle, and cable TV and Internet are not available on my block. DSL is spotty, and since I live on the top floor, there's no way to make it work. The cabling to the building and inside the building is just too old.

      Doesn't sound like such a nice location to me.

  2. Re:Do they ever follow up? by Ionized · · Score: 4, Insightful

    in at least some cases the cost of following up is greater than the amount saved by booting those that abuse the system. see: drug testing for welfare recipients

    so, is the money actually what's important to you? or are you just a hardass that can't stand to see someone get something for free on principle?

  3. The downside is taxpayers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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.

    1. Re:The downside is taxpayers... by knightghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spoken like a true Anonymous Coward.

      Internet access is nearly as important as electricity in our modern age. I'd place it as more important than phones. A phone can call a friend... the internet shows you the world.

    2. Re:The downside is taxpayers... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spoken like a true Anonymous Coward.

      Internet access is nearly as important as electricity in our modern age. I'd place it as more important than phones. A phone can call a friend... the internet shows you the world.

      If you feel that way, volunteer your own money. You seem to be a spendthrift when it comes to using other people's money.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    3. Re:The downside is taxpayers... by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd place it as more important than phones. A phone can call a friend...

      Or a phone can allow the school to call you when you child is taken ill. Or your child can call you when they are in trouble and need help. Or the hospital can call you to tell you your child is there. Or you can call the police when you need help. Or you can call home to get someone to come bail you out of jail. Or ...

      None of which "being online" does very well at.

      "Being online" is nice. Some people have restructured their lives to make it more important to them, but that's their choice, not a requirement.

      ... the internet shows you the world.

      Yes, very nice when you don't have enough money to drive to the next city over, to see the world of places you can never afford to go. Will "the internet" show you directions to the library where you can use a public internet system?

    4. Re:The downside is taxpayers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe you believe that the "social compact" requires some, most likely not you, to have their money taken and then given to what YOU believe in. Since this "social compact" is not law, how about we just go with the Constitution. And if YOU wish to be charitable and donate broadband access to people, you do that. My funds earmarked for charity will go elsewhere.

  4. Who needs Congress? by tsotha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Do they ever follow up? by Wycliffe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Whether you agree or disagree with drug testing, the cost is just a ruse. Not only could you test randomly, you could do like the IRS does audits
    and only test 1 in 10 or 1 in 1000 people making the cost negligible. You could also use the already existing anonymous welfare fraud reporting
    system for people to report suspected drug users so you could more carefully select which people you "audit".

    The big thing I hear about with drug testing though is that it hurts the children but if the parent is on drugs and we are not going to take the children
    away then maybe a compromise would be to continue to give them food stamps but at the same time continuously monitor them for drug rehab
    because it's not good for the children to be in a house with a drug addict either.

  6. meh by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not entirely sure any of the stated goals *requires* broadband.
    One can easily job-hunt on the web at 1meg.

    --
    -Styopa