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 Nine providers were approved under the new system late in former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's term, but Pai rescinded those approvals in February.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.
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 lifeline subsidy does not come from your income taxes, but from a fee charged to telephone subscribers. This is used to make sure that poor people can call 911 and can participate in our society sufficiently so that they can get a job, go to school, and make use of government services that were formerly only available by phone or personal visit.
These days, getting a job requires use of the internet and you can't really hang around the library for the entire time you're trying to get work. So, it makes sense to give poor people some basic connectivity.
I believe the actual motivation behind this move is the same one that is behind making it more difficult for poor and disenfranchised people to vote - even though there is no evidence of significant voting fraud in the USA: Poor folks and minorities might vote Democratic. Suppression of the Black vote has historically been an important part of Republican strategy, this is just one of many reports on that issue. Having gerrymandered them into the most odd-shaped electoral districts, it becomes time to make sure they can't get news online or participate in democratic discourse.
Bruce Perens.
Leaving aside McCulloch v. Maryland, and the other cases about the ability of the government to regulate trusts and interstate commercial entities in general, I would say that "broadband pipe" could easily fit within the definition of a "postal road".
Your ad here. Ask me how!
..."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.
It's like politicians don't understand that poor people vote too.
Of course they do. That's why they gerrymander districts, "steal" Supreme Court nominations, and attack access to voting rights under the pretext of near non-existent voter fraud.
Poor people are poor for a reason. They are red-lined into neighborhoods of poor people. They and their children are raised to execute suboptimal reasoning. That makes them manipulable voters, and ineffective in protecting their self interest. Then they knock up the local poor girl, and the cycle perpetuates itself.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
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?
Amen! In fact I have long mocked the founders for bothering to write the rest of the document.
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.
When did regulate ever mean "to make regular". The word "regulate" comes from the Latin "regula" which means "to rule", and even as early as Middle English, meant "to direct, to make rules". You're just inventing a fake etymology to further a false argument about what the framers of the Constitution intended.
"Regulate" meant the same in 18th century English as it does today.
"regulate (v.) Look up regulate at Dictionary.com
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating."
http://www.etymonline.com/inde...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Keep telling yourself that. The constituency is largely lazy, self-centered, and couldn't be bothered to vote. Many simply refuse to see the world beyond their own Big Mac. Most of what remains that fall into these categories seem to be extremely malleable and impressionable and will believe anything they're told when it comes from a person who aligns with their limited worldview. Then there is the small fraction of people who understand the issues, can articulate the problem, form solutions, and execute to achieve results. Sadly, these people seem to exist in relatively small numbers and don't seem to be making much of a difference. By and large, they are being out-bred by mouth-breathers at an alarming pace.
With a 55% voter turnout in the 2016 presidential race, it's no wonder we are where we are.
I'm 41 and I do not see any of this mess being fixed in my lifetime. Good luck to the next generations. You're going to need it. The Age of the Dominant Ego has arrived.
Beware of the Leopard.
The biggest barrier to the spread of private broadband is the cost of acquiring right-of-way. But I can envision a government approach (not a "solution" but a major addition of network capacity) that costs ZERO for right-of-way.
Bury fat broadband along the Interstate Highway System, starting with segments that connect major markets. Let there be taps at exits, access to which would be leased to local ISPs willing to lay connecting fiber. Such a National Internet Backbone could pay for itself the way Hoover Dam did.
If you're going to spend public funds on Technology X, infrastructure always bets a subsidy.
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.
Uh, I'm not sure you actually got what is going on. FCC is going to cave on it's previously-ongoing legal defense of an extension to include broadband in the lifeline communications subsidy. FCC will stop approving broadband providers who wish to participate in the program and will instead allow states to make this decision. States don't actually have the constitutional responsibility to govern communications, that is given to the Federal government by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934. States are unlikely to have a program to approve broadband lifeline subsidies in place at present because it's a Federal responsibility, and even given the FCC Chairman's odd justification states aren't necessarily going to be eager to take this on.
Bruce Perens.
And were born in the... 60's? Maybe a bit earlier. Fact is, social mobility has gone down over time.
no, yes, yes, no
I think it's obvious that soda is a luxury, that a phone is required for 911/social connections/job hunting and that broadband is required for online education/social connections/job hunting.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
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.
People like you get to make choices. The poor (who are not people like you) don't choose. They "are red-lined", "raised", and end up knocked up.
No it doesn't. The "general welfare clause" is widely understood to be limiting what precedes it. That is, it doesn't give government an additional power "to promote the general welfare". Instead it means that the enumerated powers in the Constitution may only be exercised for the purpose of promoting the general welfare (as opposed to the welfare of specific groups).
If it applies to the poor at all, the general welfare clause says that government may not redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, since that doesn't promote the general welfare, but helps one group of people at the expense of another, something that the authors of the Constitution clearly did not want.
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.
You keep citing the 1934 law. It's been changed a few times in the last 80 years. Most recently in 1996. Here's a key part of the text of the statute currently governing these funds for the last twenty years:
--
telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, in a manner determined by the State to the preservation and advancement of universal service in that State.
--
That's the law and has been for 20 years - states direct the program based on their particular needs. New Jersey wants cheap high speed service in the hood, Montana wants usable service in the boonies.
Chairman Wheeler didn't really give a shit what the law said, he was pretty open about that. It's pretty silly to be citing what the law was in the 1930s as if it controls how funds are authorized to be spent today, though. Things have changed since 1934 and Wheeler's attempt to ignore the Congressional appropriation was and is unlawful.
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.
I know there will be a lot of back and forth as to denying access to the poor, etc. This is more about making it harder for ISPs to get the money than it is for poor people to get internet service. The system was being abused, severely. As an ISP myself, I have seen other ISPs abuse the lifeline system by putting wireless into nursing homes on the back of a single broadband connection (not even their broadband because they are an ISP in name only, they have no real gear) but collecting the $10/mo off every single patient in the nursing homes, including those not using the internet because they are in a coma. If that wasn't enough they also were profiting off lifeline by providing 'phone service' to every resident as well and collecting that money when they only pulled in a single T-1 to the facility and oversubscribed those ports 20:1. So $400/mo for the ATT voice T-1 with 24 DS0 channels, and $120/mo for a TWC broadband connection. ~300 residents for phone and internet.that they dont even maintain the equipment for. It is disgusting to know that all of our tax hikes are bankrolling his shit. His entire company is a fake company on paper with 4 employees and he's done this with over a dozen nursing homes. The nursing homes sign off on it because they share in the profits (by way of getting free internet/phone service for the business side of things as a byproduct).
in the whitehouse would give a crap about anyone but himself and people he hopes to make money from? Do you think he became a billionaire by caring about other people, especially people of lower socioeconomic status than himself?
You have almost 4 years to mull it over. Hopefully, you'll learn from your mistake and do the right thing next time.
Everyone hates the poor
I don't hate the poor, but I am getting sick of their ingratitude. When was the last time they said "thanks, taxpayers, for the food stamps?"
It's always "more more more more," and then you do something completely innocuous like have the FCC tell some ISPs they're talking to the wrong agency and need to get their state governments to sign off on expansion of subsidized services instead and you have frothing at the mouth idiots screaming about how the FCC or Republicans or somebody "HATES THE POOR." It's all so tiresome.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
How about providers have to offer a 1 or 2 mb solution to anyone who wants it for 10$ a month
love is just extroverted narcissism
The problem with your math is that 99.6% of the people being served are not all of the people who need to be served, only the ones that states have gotten to.
Bruce Perens.