Slashdot Mirror
FCC To Halt Expansion of Broadband Subsidies For Poor People (arstechnica.com)
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced today that the FCC will be "dropping its legal defense of a new system for expanding broadband subsidies for poor people, and will not approve applications from companies that want to offer the low-income broadband service," reports Ars Technica. The Lifeline program, which has been around for 32 years and "gives poor people $9.25 a month toward communications services," was voted to be expanded last year under FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. That expansion will now be halted. Ars Technica reports: Pai's decision won't prevent Lifeline subsidies from being used toward broadband, but it will make it harder for ISPs to gain approval to sell the subsidized plans. Last year's decision enabled the FCC to approve new Lifeline Broadband Providers nationwide so that ISPs would not have to seek approval from each state's government. Nine providers were approved under the new system late in former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's term, but Pai rescinded those approvals in February. There are 36 pending applications from ISPs before the commission's Wireline Competition Bureau. However, Pai wrote today, "I do not believe that the Bureau should approve these applications." He argues that only state governments have authority from Congress to approve such applications. When defending his decision to revoke Lifeline approvals for the nine companies, Pai said last month that more than 900 Lifeline providers were not affected. But most of those were apparently offering subsidized telephone service only and not subsidized broadband. Currently, more than 3.5 million Americans are receiving subsidized broadband through Lifeline from 259 eligible providers, Pai said in today's statement. About 99.6 percent of Americans who get subsidized broadband through Lifeline buy it from one of the companies that received certification "through a lawful process," Pai wrote. The remaining 0.4 percent apparently need to switch providers or lose service because of Pai's February decision. Only one ISP had already started providing the subsidized service under the new approval, and it was ordered to notify its customers that they can no longer receive Lifeline discounts. Pai's latest action would prevent new providers from gaining certification in multiple states at once, forcing them to go through each state's approval process separately. Existing providers that want to expand to multiple states would have to complete the same state-by-state process.
See this very article for an example of government's transienceâ"or see Obamacare, which the new administration is trying to pull down.
The only way to get a robust solution is to build one that is self-reinforcing; that is, the only way is to build a solution that is *profitable*, so that there is an incentive to maintain and improve it.
If your solution depends on ideology or is just a way to buy votes for a particular election, then your solution is a house of cards built on a foundation of blowing sand.
WE do.
It's called, TAXES.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
When that "stuff" is a luxury yacht, or three month-long vacations in luxury resorts every year, okay.
When the "stuff" that the poor get less of is the very "stuff" that enables everyone to be more productive, participate more fully in our culture and democracy, find and get better jobs, develop more marketable skills, learn new things, then you're not just being callous and cruel, but also self-destructive and anti-freedom.
Throwing procedural hurdles in front of the disadvantaged is even more salt being rubbed into the open wound.
Make America Dumb & Poor Again.
I wonder how many Trump voters are going to get aced out of broadband based on this ruling. Seriously, there are no words to describe the pathological in-sensitivity of Trump and his goons.
Let them drink Starbucks!
Seriously, I think local access (rural vs. urban) is a bigger issue than rich/poor. There are lots of free options if you're in an urban area, you only have to expend a little effort.
Think 1930's rural electrification. And, that's coming from a (small "l") libertarian. If ISPs want to make profit from using public resources (RF spectrum, physical rights-of-way), make them build extended networks. Otherwise, let them negotiate with every landowner (including governments big and small) whose property their services cross.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The more stupid shit they do to try and take from the poor while giving to the rich, the more likely it is that they'll get their stupid asses thrown to the curb in the next election cycle. It's like politicians don't understand that poor people vote too.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
..."and to provide for the general welfare"...
That clause alone justifies laws. regulations, and taxes aimed to improve the lives of the poor. It makes economic sense too because keeping poor people poor does not benefit the wealthy. A rising tide raises all boats.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
PSA to all those who don't seem to understand this: In today's society access to affordable broadband is required for both education and work. You can't do homework or apply for a job without it anymore. Subsidies like this are an investment in the future of this country, my own experience taught me that. I grew up in a very poor household and if not for similar programs I wouldn't have been able to go to college. Instead of flipping burgers for minimum wage I managed to build a solid career for myself and become a productive member of society.
While you are correct that people need access, and that many people need assistance in getting access, the issue should be at the State level as FCC Chairman states. The Federal Government was never intended to be the source of Welfare systems, that is a function of the State.
For some reason, over the last 70 years or so, all social welfare programs have been pushed to the Federal Government. This has caused a massive amount of bloat and comes with an excessive amount of problems. Social Security is a great example of a good idea, but the bureaucracy has completely destroyed the system. Instead of actually saving the money people put in, it has been spent as discretionary funds. There is no money in Social Security, and nothing has been saved since the very early 1970s. People paying in today are the only source of paying people that collect. There is no interest on the money as was promised, and no guarantee that you will get what you are supposed to get. Being 20Trillion in cash debt and 220Trillion in debt when you include entitlements, there is a good chance that you won't get yours.
People should really read the Federalist papers and see where the Founders said power should go and why. They knew that a bloated Federal Government leads to what we have today. Massive corruption, massive cronyism, massive waste and fraud, and it's extremely difficult to remove at that high of a level.
That is not to say that States don't run a risk of corruption, but the corruption at a more local level has numerous benefits. The Federal Government can investigate and charge for corruption at the State level, where they won't touch their own for fear of harming their own budgets. People unhappy with the State Government have more direct control of the elected officials.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If a poor person needs to use high speed broadband (they have computers, right?) then they can go straight to the public library and use it. For free.
Because public libraries are funded by money that poofs into existence?
When you say Government, why do you assume everything should be a Federal issue? You do realize that the United States is founded as a Federation of States where the States are supposed to handle the majority of powers. This includes Social Welfare.
Perhaps the moderation is overly done, because while we can agree that Social welfare programs I (and the foundering documents and history) would disagree that the onus should be on the Federal government to provide those programs.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You don't have to be lucky to have a job, just willing.
There are about 6M job openings primarily in transportation, food and professional services, a number that has grown for a few years now and roughly the same number as people currently unemployed, a number greatly exceeding the number of people unemployed for over 6 months. Additionally the rate of people quitting their jobs across the US has increased.
You think with the availability of unemployment income, placement help, free schooling and tax funded on-the-job training, those numbers would have equalized by now. The problem I find, as I know many owners in these businesses starving for workers, is that they are competing with government benefits or their applicants can't even be bothered to show up to work not high or drunk.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Actually, you haven't yet given me any evidence that you're a racist. I haven't looked at your previous postings here or elsewhere on the net, and you didn't say enough in this one. But I certainly would say you were a racist if you convinced me that you were, and the last time I checked the constitution, it gave me the right to do so. This is a Slashdot discussion, and Slashdot is not actually obligated to provide a podium for my first amendment speech, but they generally have done so.
Regarding whether I can tell you that you have to pay the telephone lifeline subsidy fee, the fact is that it's still required, the money is just not going to pay for internet any longer. It still pays for phones for poor people. So, yes, I factually state that you have to pay it.
Now, I understand that you're just trying to express a vague tax-revolt sort of sentiment. I get that, even though I obviously don't agree with it. But IMO you need to put more thought into it. If you can express it better, it might be worth arguing about. That's what democratic discourse is.
Bruce Perens.
This comment should be framed and nailed to the walls of Congress.
I moved from a big city to a rural area with no broadband provider. Eventually, the mom and pop local cable company went digital, so there's kinda-sorta broadband. A few hundred down, less than a hundred up, $65/month, absurd amounts of downtime or sub-dialup-speeds.
I can manage; I replicate remote servers locally to keep working through outages. But for kids trying to do their homework and people job hunting etc., it's a huge disadvantage. Digital ghetto.
Democratic discourse is more than just directing schoolyard words at people. I looked over your words and didn't find a political argument, just abuse aimed at "the left" and at me.
Try to come up with a cogent political argument. Play with the grown-ups instead of sounding like a kid.
Bruce Perens.
We do have the issue that Congress granted the responsibility to regulate communications to the FCC with the Communications Act of 1934. So, this is not really a state issue at all. I also question that all 50 states are uniformly set up to make this approval, or are interested in taking it on.
Bruce Perens.
But poor people definitely get the same public education.
Not even remotely true. Income inequality resulting in public educational inequality is one of the biggest problems in the US today.
But I think your point was that Internet access should be a basic utility (more like electricity or water, which as long as you don't live in Flint, are much less variable than education) which I totally agree with.
With a large percentage of the 6M jobs, does not supply sufficient salary to live within a commutable distance.
So while there's jobs available, they're unavailable to those who needs them the most.
Actually, we do. We counted the votes, and not just the Electoral College votes, but the votes in every district across the entire country.
If you are trying to say that people would have voted differently if the rules for counting votes were different, that might have been true if the rules gave the people a different way to actually influence the vote, for example the Condorcet method or its variants that are commonly called "ranked choice" or "instant run-off".
But you seem to be saying that the popular vote would have been substantially different if there was no electoral college. Which is difficult to buy given the polarity of this election. There wasn't much middle ground.
Bruce Perens.
I was with the guy until he took a turn down moron lane. I wasnt a privileged child, I grew up poor, to the point that i started a life of crime young(fortunatly i was smart enough to learn something to better myself while doing so). I have seen people sell food stamps for money. normally drug money. I feel that the subsidies need to be spend on the ACTUAL poor, and the people that arent able to learn and provide for them self. The fact is thats not the majority of the people on welfare. And thats why i would like to see welfare abolished. If they did so, And there were some honorable charities that took care of the real needy, I would gladly give that money automatically out of my check every week to the charity. The fact that I came from the bottom, And my family did everything we could to stay off of welfare, makes me sick to drive past the place and see almost a party outside of the government building. and im not exaggerating, I live in Las Vegas. Anybody that lives here will tell you the same about the welfare office if they have ever been near it. I went from a life of crime, went to prison did my time and came out a new man. with no will to break laws. I just want to work and provide for my family. I would also love to help people that really need it(and I do a lot actually) when possible.