Slashdot Mirror
Ajit Pai Faces Heat Over Proposal To Take Away Poor People's Broadband Plans (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Democratic senators yesterday asked Ajit Pai to abandon a proposal that the senators say would take subsidized broadband plans away from "millions of Americans." The Federal Communications Commission chairman's plan for the Lifeline subsidy program would force most users of the program to find new providers. But such users could have trouble finding replacement plans or similar prices because Pai's proposal would prevent all telecom resellers from offering Lifeline-subsidized service. "Your proposal impacts over 70 percent of current Lifeline-recipient households by eliminating their wireless providers from the program, leaving less affordable and fewer Lifeline options, while making it more difficult for the companies trying to serve Lifeline customers," Senate Democrats wrote in the letter to Pai yesterday. "Instead of cutting the program, we should ensure Lifeline reaches more Americans in need of access to communication services." The letter was written by Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Cory Booker (D-NJ).
Correct, library is free, FCC do everything it can to keep everyone in the dark. It is like Donald TRUMP try to make people stupid so he win again in 20/20.
Give me a break...
The library is often not open during hours where people who worked 7am to 6pm can go there. Libraries are cutting back due to funding cuts. Got to fund wars, Homeland Security theater, and mass incarceration after all.
And, practically, the Internet is a necessity these days if you're looking for a (better) job.
libraries are subsidized too.
the library is free
This is marked down I guess because it comes across as mean or dismissive but it is a valid point. You are paying for a multitude of separate plans. There are common APs scattered across a city that are already available. Obviously having broadband is nice but I spent most of my childhood without it in my home and managed to survive.
For those interested in the truth, the reason for the change was because
"A new GAO report found massive fraud within the Federal Communications Commission's Lifeline program, which subsidizes cellular and broadband service for low-income Americans. The agency's three-year audit of the Lifeline program, begun in June 2014 to May 2017, found that more than one-third (36%) of Lifeline customers could not be confirmed as actually eligible for the program. The GAO also found that $1.2 million annually went to fictitious identities or recipients who were dead."
As said by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo, but ignored in this piece of brillent and honest reporting, âoeWeâ(TM)re currently letting phone companies cash a government check every month with little more than the honor system to hold them accountable, and that simply canâ(TM)t continue.â
Yeah, why would anyone be upset over losing a subsidy when they can just go to Walmart and pay more? Seriously, what the F does this have to do with Walmart? Stupidity reigns.
I'm with you, I think investing in the betterment of society as a whole is for retarded cucks. I got mine and like you, I live in a vacuum, so my neighbor's well-being or lack thereof doesn't effect me one way or another.
..on the poor, poor put-upon ISPs, to have to give a discount (yes, I know, such an obscene word, I might get censored for using it!) to people just because they couldn't manage their lives properly and afford full price! Only smart White people really deserve the Internet anyway, what would a bunch of minorities (blacks, latinos, brown people, you know, non-white people) do with it anyway, they couldn't possibly understand it! It's not like it's possible for them to become educated by using the Internet, and since we don't want those people voting in our lilly-white elections anyway, there's no need for them to have any source of information about candidates or ballot issues anyway, it'll just confuse them! Also no need for them to have news sources, either, that'll just get them all upset when the Police and ICE enforce the Law of the Land on non-whites who forget their place in society! Nope, these people don't need Internet anyway, at least not until they learn better (and they never will, LOL!).</sarcasm>
I'd post this under my login, but I know damned well it'll get modded down as (-1, Uncomfortable Truths), and I'll get flamed to ash by the racists, white supremcists, bigots, other Trump supporters not previously mentioned, and so on, so why bother? Anybody with two eyes can see what the play is here: more profits for fat, price-gouging ISPs, and more side-channel attacks on voting rights by way of preventing people from having access to information sources; keep the poor people poor and stupid, so they're easier to control, and keep the best stuff for Rich White People, because they can. Fuck Rich White People (and I AM A MIDDLE-AGED WHITE DUDE so STFU), fuck the ISPs, fuck Ajit Pai, and fuck the entire gods-be-damned Trump Administration for the systematic destruction of everything that's good in this whole damned Country.
Shut up faggot
the library is free
This is marked down I guess because it comes across as mean or dismissive but it is a valid point. You are paying for a multitude of separate plans. There are common APs scattered across a city that are already available. Obviously having broadband is nice but I spent most of my childhood without it in my home and managed to survive.
APs that are unavailable except during core work hours and may be available (depending on demand) on weekends. And while having internet access was not a big deal in previous decades, there was also no assumption that everyone had internet access in previous decades... Suppose you were going to look for a different job. You aren't allowed to use the internet. How would you do it? Do you think someone using the internet is going to have an advantage over you?
I put "internet" in place of "broadband" in my response. Do non-broadband internet access options still exist outside of smart phones? DSL is broadband. Is dial up even a thing anymore?
And yet my taxes are supposed to pay for this?
Yep. It's called being part of a society. If you don't like it, feel free to go buy your own island or live in a cave or something.
The more one makes, the more privilege they enjoy and therefore the more they should have to give back to society. Just because your paycheck is bigger doesn't mean you work any harder. In fact, I'm willing to bet you have it much easier.
I am so glad that you said this. I had NO IDEA Ajit Pai was proposing investing in Public Wifi. Now we can all rejoice!
I don't know why you've been downreddited to invisibility - we're all already paying for everyone to have access to information (books, magazines and the internet) via the public library system. I'm not expected to pay for private books for the poor, why am I expected to pay for their personal internet connections?
Yep. Keep the un(der)educated poor people poor and un(der)educated cradle-to-grave, because poor and dumb is easier to control, especially when they don't have access to a wide selection of news sources to keep themselves informed. It's a very old authoritarian tactic.
Honest question. Why is it that everyone wanting to make the world a better place is so unpleasant to anyone that disagrees with them or is even willing to entertain a devil's advocate position? Is is just that once you decide you are in it for the greater good any behavior is justifiable toward that end even when it is unnecessary?
there's folks in the rust belt for who that $9.25 subsidy is the difference between eating that week and not. If you're in one of the blasted out cities in America where the manufacturing base moved to Mexico post NAFTA it's not uncommon. If you're lucky you work 20/week at a burger king for just enough money to keep the lights on. Should they have internet? A lot of them do so their kids can do their homework. They skip meals for it.
If anything we ought to be doing more for these people. And to devil with religious objections and let's just give them free birth control already.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yes it would, but are you going to get the right-wing "privatize everything" crowd to get behind a new public service?
Seriously think before you speak.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I grew up without broadband also, BECAUSE IT DID NOT EXIST. Today it is basically a requirement for job searching.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Lifeline is a program for people who have low income. $30 a month might now seem like a lot to you but it's a lot for some.
What was his reason for doing this?
Also, does lifeline really have millions of users?
Ajit Pai is saving millions of dollars to US govt so that it can then use trillions of dollars to bailout corporations.
So for the cost of a pair of Air Jordan Nikes they all seem to wear you get the gear and the bandwidth.
Seems like if you have your priorities in order you don't need welfare Internet.
Democrats appear to believe that whenever one of them is in power he or she is fully validated to push MORE "free" stuff and bigger government, and when they lose elections and somebody else is in power ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL to hand out less "free" stuff or make government smaller. The hubris these politicians show is simply amazing: what they said in response to Ajit Pai is that HE (not one of them, or on their losing team) must actually INCREASE the freebies!!!!!
These people seem to believe in totalitarian marxism - it's the only conclusion available since ever-increasing wealth redistribution and ever-increasing government regulation and control leads to only that singular destination. Ever growing government only leads to totalitarianism. Ever increasinf freebies only leads to maximum wealth redistribution. Any other conclusion is completely irrational.
The masks are finally off; these people are no longer supporters of our Constitutional Republic and the freedoms it offered. They are now the party of "free beer" and NOT "free speech" (notice all their speech codes and boycotts?).
You mean some people are going to have to start paying their own way? Heaven forfend!
They might have to get a job. How can we expect them to find a job when unemployment is at 3.9%?
All the free stuff is getting taken away because the greedy people who work to earn paychecks think they should be able to keep their wages. Why even vote Democrat anymore?
There are a TON of places you can get free wi-fi...just because someone can't afford broadband, why should I have to pay for it? I can't afford a bunch of things, but I'm not asking for anyone else to pay for it. The problem with these programs, the ones that REALLY could benefit from it, aren't the one's TAKING ADVANTAGE of it!
Most of those people are welfare receiving red state trump voters
To quote Lucky Ducky: "GOTCHYA!"
Or that maybe it isn't free, but propped up by local taxes and if you're from 'out of the city' you are required to pay a fee to have a library card and enjoy its services.
Or at least, in the areas I've lived it has been the case.
but it's a lot for some
So are thousands of dollars of increased costs due to unreasonable efficiency and emissions requirements, but the same people having a conniption over the loss of Obama's internet welfare don't give fuck number one about the costly consequences of the regulations they advocate. Your concern is fake and you're not fooling anyone.
It's probably because your Devil's Advocate position is fucking stupid, not to mention completely out of step with reality. States that invest a greater amount of money in their residents are more prosperous than those that don't. That's why red states tend to be financial black holes reliant on their wealthier peers to stay afloat. Dunno how many times it needs to be explained to you, because obviously the last time didn't work either. Maybe you're just that dumb.
Then you move on to some "well we didn't have horseless carriages when I was a youngster" mumbo-jumbo, as if times, technology, and expectations don't change and an absurd pace.
Apparently you failed economics class.
The rich are rich because somebody created more wealth than they took and the rich were able to siphon enough in order to become rich. Honestly, it's not that hard, or do you really believe that Bezos, Gates and Buffet are that much more effective at working than the typical people working for minimum wage?
The rich themselves don't create jobs because that would make no sense. They're net takers from the economic system so if it were just them, there would be a continual drain on the economy until it fell apart completely. The reason for new jobs to be created is that somebody is willing to pay for the good or service that the job provides.
Places where that's not the case wind up like Venezuela where the economy has more or less ground to a standstill as all the profits are being siphoned off by a handful of very powerful individuals.
I don't believe it's my responsibility as a taxpayer to give poor people broadband. Seriously.
If they need to watch YouTube that bad, go to the public library.
-Styopa
Yes, your taxes pay for part of it. The idea being that those people might get a job if they have access to creating resumes, access to job postings, etc. Otherwise, you get robbed of all your stuff because you didn't pay enough taxes to the police for them to stay at your house all day keeping the poor out.
It is because SJW don't want to debate the issue and let their argument stand on its merits. I'm glad this service is going away, yet I proposed a reasonable alternative that benefits everyone. Yet SJW are yowling about a free service being taken from the poor and not willing to even entertain the ideal I put forth that would benefit the poor greater as well as everyone else.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
It is hard to imagine if you are in the middle class, but *millions* of americans don't have $150 to spend and definitely can't add $30 to their monthly budget.
Fuck Ajit Pai.
Fuck Ajit Pai
We're pissing and moaning over losing a $9.25 subsidy?
That's how I feel when people complain about a few hundred dollars. Some people feel that way about few thousand. For others even a $1 is a significant amount. People have different needs and incomes. I use 2-3TB of local data a month. Why don't you try ditching your Internet and using only a 3G phone with 2GB of data? And no using internet from work as most people living in poverty don't work in places where they can easily use a computer. If you're actually a developer with a steady job you have internet either at home or the office and use more than 2GB of bandwidth.
You were being called out because your idea lacked any kind of depth of thought, and when people who know what they're talking about stepped in you cried "MUH SJW's" (that's really sad by the way, are you a child?). Run the numbers for public WiFi deployment versus a broadband subsidy with pre-existing infrastructure. Go ahead, show your work in front of the class.
An the SJW here on /. have just proven my point for me. Instead of debating my point that taking this subsidy and putting into public wifi that would benefit everyone. They would rather mod my posts down as flame bate so no one will see it at all. Typical SJW thinking.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Slashdot is full of commies who love the idea of taking other person's hard EARNED money and giving it to others. My compassion stops when one is reaching into my pockets to pay for free stuff for others WITHOUT my consent!
So we should be happy because this subsidy is being removed and you proposed an alternative. How very generous. How many people are going to actually be able to make use.of your alternative?
Why am I arguing? If you're complaining about SJW, then you have beyond all reasonable sounded doubt demonstrated that you're a total plonker.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That's because it's a stupid debate you have. Why? Because that isn't happening. All that's happening is the subsidy is going away. No one's debating that replacing it with something better is good. Is utterly pointless to debate what giving unicorns to everyone in place of the subsidy would do, too.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Yeah sure who gives a fuck if half a dozen generations down the road the Earth is becoming unlivable so long as you can keep driving your clownishly large SUV that gets 8 miles to the gallon and leaves a trail of smoke behind it everywhere you go! Moron.
And yet my taxes are supposed to pay for this? Wouldn't a better solution be to take that subsidy and invest it in public wifi? That way instead of unfairly benefiting the few, it could fairly benefit the many?
If that were the alternative being proposed, sure. It's not. I mean I guess we could end all subsidies that benefit the poor and don't just benefit everyone if we'd like to exacerbate social stratification problems.
And since you can only really get low level local jobs without the internet, it's a win-win for Republicans.
Slashdot is full of commies who love the idea of taking other person's hard EARNED money and giving it to others. My compassion stops when one is reaching into my pockets to pay for free stuff for others WITHOUT my consent!
Move to Somalia you piece of shit.
You just sound like someone borne with an aluminium spoon with a lack of imagination and perspective to empathise with those borne with a wooden one, I feel like plucking you from your comfortable suburb and subjecting you to the life of the 50% that live well beneath your means so you can wake the fuck up... and that's just amerika. Captcha: angered
My taxes! My taxes! Oh dear me, my taxes!
Boo fucking hoo. Welcome to society. Maybe a 3rd world country is more your pace.
But yet here you are whining an moaning about it going away and still not bring up the point.
Simple question. Would this money not be better spent on public Wifi for everyone?
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Your 'alternative solution' is a non-starter. Why, you ask? Because U.S. ISPs won't allow it, for one; they demand everyone PAY, PAY, PAY, and they price-gouge everyone compared to so many other countries. Another reason is the Conservative and Religious agendas. Conservatives will not put up with ANYTHING that even remotely looks like socialism or welfare, and 'money for the poor' is Socialism so far as they're concerned; the poor can get fucked so far as they're concerned. The Religious agenda is that Poor People must have angered God, and He is punishing them for their transgressions (whatever the fuck they supposedly were) so you don't 'help them', that would be going against God's Will. So either way no 'free' anything for The Poor -- and that would definitely include 'free public WiFi internet'. It's just never going to happen, not in the current socio-political climate.
Mod this guy up, because it's a totally valid point.
Actually yes. The big issue with this, other than corruption which is the real reason it is going away, is because the "privatize everything" see a benefit to them. But city wide public access points benefit everyone, not just the poor. So they would the benefits that affect them.
I'm against the subsidizing up private internet feeds for any one but would be more than willing to get behind a public wifi system.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Have you ever been out of work and your Unemployment Benefits checks were all that kept you from being homeless? How would you feel if that had been taken away from you because it's 'socialism' or 'communism'? You think you'd be spouting the bullshit you're spouting here if you'd been homeless? Likely not. Now all we're talking about is a few bucks a month to help poor people have internet so maybe they can get a job (try getting a job without internet these days) or maybe their kids get a decent education and are NOT POOR when they're adults. Sound more like an INVESTMENT, now, instead of welfare handouts? Get correct.
to "Progressives protest removal of government interference in telecommunications" Is anyone really surprised? Lets go further and remove government market cornering too so that ISP lobbying can't prevent people in those 'undesirable' areas from building out their own competing infrastructure.
Why did my taxes have to pay to subsidize yours?
A head shaker and he is seriously out of touch with reality.
You'd probably find those aren't real Nikes.
The poor can get fucked so far as they're concerned. The Religious agenda is that Poor People must have angered God, and He is punishing them for their transgressions (whatever the fuck they supposedly were) so you don't 'help them', that would be going against God's Will.
As a conservative Christian, I can't thank you enough for telling me what I believe and what my agenda is. You're really providing a great public service to me and all of my peers by letting us know exactly what our motivations are and why we hold the positions we do. Honestly, I'm glad you did, because I was evidently quite incorrect about these things! I guess it must have been the obviously fake news that "residents of middle-American, conservative, moderate-income, religiously active regions" give the most to charity (source: Almanac of American Philanthropy) that had me so mixed up. I'm so glad we've got you here to set the record straight. I should have realized that it's not simply that we have different opinions on how to best help the poor, it's that we are ACTIVELY ROOTING FOR THEIR DESTRUCTION. Yes. Makes complete sense.
Facebook's product is people using the service and the government wants to watch and listen to everything, so they can get together and offer free internet service. Perhaps Amazon can get in on it too. The modem can be an Echo and a wifi access point that forwards everything to the interested parties.
Forget the $9.25 subsidy and go with "free." Everyone likes free, even if it comes with a few strings attached.
You have a good point. In doing so you have put forth the first issues that must be over come. The way to do that would be to figure out a way to see where it would benefit everyone. Easier said than done.
I can't say anything to your argument about religious agendas. I agree with you, but I don't have answer at this time.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
I'm not reading that wall of puerile text.
The reality is if you don't like society then you are free to move away from it, with your money, and become a hermit. I'm not sure what your money will be worth if you do that, so there you have it.
So we should be happy because this subsidy is being removed and you proposed an alternative
Yes, you should. Because, unlike you, I'm actually proposing a answer to the problem. Where all you are doing is bitching and moaning about something being taken away. Where my solution would benefit everyone, yours benefits no one.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
The selfish a-holes who take every opportunity to whine about any public money being spent to improve society should realise that the children of poor people deserve the same as the children of rich people and spending a tiny amount of money to level the playing field of life for those children who didn't have the luck of birth will only benefit the whole of society in the long run.
Grandma's DSL is still about 384/3Mb on a good day. Never mind the packet loss. And the phone service is on u-verse. And she's paying too much for catv too from cable one. Her area 75020 seems forgotten, bullied by local affiliates they can no longer get channels from DFW which is only two counties south. Cell service in her neighborhood is unreliable and drops to 2G or 3G with no data at times. This is not a rural market but it is not exactly thriving.
Twc/Spectrum in my neck of the woods has ingress and noise issues from cellular signals disrupting some bonded channels, unburied and unterminated lines on poles flopping in the breeze. This in a city of 275000 and has had too many outages taking out VoIP and TV service. Forget paying for POTS any more. The Telco rolled out FiOS a decade ago yet I've seen some crappy CPE which you might as well use 4G it's so unreliable.
These companies know how to extract the maximum while providing adequate service.
I would be in favor of some FCC quality control. I hate big government but the industry shows us it needs a heavy hand.
You pay into unemployment just for that reason. Really, when you collect unemployment, especially if you have been working a decade or more, they are just giving you your money back.
What an asshole. His twatter photo is probably goatse.
Have you ever been out of work and your Unemployment Benefits checks were all that kept you from being homeless? How would you feel if that had been taken away from you because it's 'socialism' or 'communism'?
Piss poor analogy. Unemployment is an INSURANCE not a HAND OUT. You / employer explicitly pays into when you work.
It would be the same as if my straw hut burnt to the ground and my insurance company refused to pay up because "socialism" or "communism".
Therein lies your mistake. This is not at all the goal of that 'everyone' you refer to. Signaling their virtue (without actually doing anything) is.
Honest question. Why is it that everyone wanting to make the world a better place is so unpleasant to anyone that disagrees with them or is even willing to entertain a devil's advocate position? Is is just that once you decide you are in it for the greater good any behavior is justifiable toward that end even when it is unnecessary?
It's a very good question. Human society largely evolved in situations where cooperation was crucial and where defectors - those who didn't take their fair share of societal burden - would be a threat to the survival of the entire society. Societies who just allowed the defectors to continue unchallenged would gradually die out, whilst those which challenged them strongly and disallowed their defection would survive. You can see this effect in the way that chimpanzee justice very much matches human.
Of course, people who silently avoid the obligations society expects of them are bad, however, people who actively encourage other members of the group to defect are a much greater threat to the wellbeing of the society. It's natural that strongest inherrent reactions should be reserved for htem.
And your economics is tinted by Marxist bull. That the rich keep a portion that is larger than those they employ is not a wrong thing, despite your rhetoric.
Exactly what entitles these rich to take this portion of wealth? Is it because they won the birth canal lottery? Do we anoint these people as the new royalty so that they may pass their wealth from one generation to the next so as to make it possible for their prodigy to also keep their portion?
parasite (pr-st)
n. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
n. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
As opposed to you people, you don't actually do anything AND act like retards in public. Very nice, thanks for offering yourself up as an example 'tard.
The same people rejoiced when trump put the tariffs in place. They are ass backwards hypocrites. Nothing new.
..yeah, you've got the strength of your convictions SO MUCH that you post as Anonymous Coward. Trollolol. Lurk Moar.
I'm actually proposing a answer to the problem.
No you aren't, you just waved your magic wand around and said WHAT IF THING without actually discussing THING, how you plan on deploying it across, you know, the entire nation, paying for it, maintaining it, staffing it, etc. Please, if you're going to try talking with adults you're going to need to do better.
"I'm not reading that wall of puerile text."
means you don't deserve to be listened too either.
The two things go hand-in-hand is the problem, and you're not going to convince these people that they should part with their money or their power, not anytime soon, and not easily.
Same reason I have to pay for part of your services.
You people are truly sickening. Seriously.
The reality is if you don't like society then you are free to move away from it, with your money, and become a hermit.
Right, so we don't need social programs to help the poor, because if they don't like being poor they should just move the fuck away from our society. That sound about right to you?
Actually you don't understand, EMPLOYERS pay into the Unemployment fund. If they had their way they'd say 'fuck that' and not pay at all, screw you if you're unemployed, they don't care, and that's one more bit of leverage they'd have over you: do as we say, take what we give you, or you'll be HOMELESS and DIE in the streets.
But we don't live in that world do we? Unemployment benefits are insurance, yes; social insurance, because it's good for society as a whole for people to not be homeless, because then they can't get work again, and the viscious cycle continues indefiintely.
A little subsidy so people who are desperately poor can afford Internet? That's also social insurance, guaranteeing that at least their children will have the benefit of the Internet for their education.. and also so that the working adults of the household can have a better chance of getting better work, or work of any kind when they find themselves out of work. Try getting a job these days with no Internet; you basically can't.
It's a small amount of money per household and you're not seeing the big picture. Or do you want more homeless people in your city, actually begging for handouts, so their kids don't starve? Or do you just not give a shit about anyone but yourself?
Obviously having broadband is nice but I spent most of my childhood without it in my home and managed to survive.
Yeah and people lived without electricity and indoor plumbing too. Spreading broadband is exactly the kind of public communication/education/modernization project like the postal service, public libraries, rural electrification etc. was meant to achieve. When I grew up, my parents had a full encyclopedia because back then it was an edge to have a "mini-library" at home, even though this was an urban environment where the public library was reasonably close. Today just Wikipedia alone is vastly superior and available to anyone with an Internet connection. Maybe broadband isn't strictly a necessity, but if it's not a flat rate or low cap or occupies the phone line or is so slow it impacts the rest of the house you'll see it curbed. At least that's how it was when I was on dial-up as a teenager.
Personally I see the Internet as the biggest and best equalizer ever made, even if you live on the most remote farm in the smallest Podunk in the middle of nowhere and you got broadband there's no excuse to be ignorant or blame your town's poor quality or lack of institutions for it. You had a world of information at your fingertips and if all you used it for is cat videos that's on you. And compared to everything else, it's probably a relatively cheap social program if you can turn even a few kids from future welfare recipients to tax payers. Maybe a few adults too, I'm more doubtful there but with the Internet you can waste less time using online services. You can waste ridiculous amounts of time navigating phone menus many levels deep to reach a script monkey or going to a physical office to stand in line.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There are plenty of conservatives and religious types that believe all such things should be banned and you should just be left to starve.
Slashdot is full of commies who love the idea of taking other person's hard EARNED money and giving it to others.
Slashdot is full of lazy zero information fools who think they are smart because they can express a statement of philosophical disposition rather than doing any research or otherwise offering objectively useful evidence to support their positions.
Nobody is citing studies saying access to x leads to y outcomes. Nobody is offering reasoned arguments based on merit. It's all my world view is x therefore y should be done or my world view is x therefore FUCK YOU.
You don't really think things through, do you? They're not taking online classes. They're using smart phones to look up the answers to things they don't understand and that their overworked/underpaid teachers didn't have time to teach them. And yes, that's a huge pain in the neck compared to using a computer to do it. But they can barely afford a $100 smart phone. So they make do.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"means you don't deserve to be listened too either."
Yeah, you got that AC on some nice mental jujitsu. Not the post I'm replying to, but your 'wall of text,' lol
How can AC post slashdot if no internet?? AC not very good at ..probably most-everything, but talks themselves up to make lonesome life feel less so. OK, that sounds raw, but damn, have you ever met a person that _just can't be satisfied_ with anything?? They utterly drain the lifeforce out of you.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Ever been hired by a poor person?
Ajit Pai would only be interested in "investing" in public WiFi if Comcast and Verizon were interested in rolling it out as some sort of paid expansion to their customers existing service plans. The guy is their corporate plant, remember?
Oh, please! Stop!
You have absolutely zero clue WTF you're talking about!
I *HAVE* a "Lifeline" plan!
You know what it consists of, you moron?
You get a 3G soapbar TracFone with text messaging. That's it. It's the cheapest TracFone plan. That's their precious "internet access for the poor". And guess what else? Text messages cost a significant fraction of the also-very-limited minutes (64? DR) each month if you use texting at all frequently. Cheaper minute-cost-wise to voice call. Coverage is crap as well as is text-service uptime. Maybe that's better in other areas, but it's held true in most of my State.
TracFone has been making bank off the government while foisting-off cheap junk and crap service onto the poor for way too long. This could be done far better for far, far less cost to taxpayers.
My lawn. Off of it, get.
I'm not reading that wall of puerile text.
The reality is if you don't like society then you are free to move away from it, with your money, and become a hermit. I'm not sure what your money will be worth if you do that, so there you have it.
Society decided it wanted President Trump, and he wanted Ajit Pai. He ran on a platform of self-reliance. Society decided it does NOT want the bullshit you're selling - yet you keep selling it. How about you take your dreadlock-wearing, patchoulli-oil smelling SJW ass, build a vegan life-raft, and sail off to somewhere you can commune with others about the evils of modern society...
Yep. It's called being part of a society. If you don't like it, feel free to go buy your own island or live in a cave or something.
Being part of society means you have to either get along or LEAVE. You can't petition for change or work to build consensus for a different course of action. Your ONLY option if you don't like something: LEAVE.
The more one makes, the more privilege they enjoy and therefore the more they should have to give back to society.
I re-read parents comment you are replying to then read what you said. No discernible overlap exists.
The actual comment was "And yet my taxes are supposed to pay for this? Wouldn't a better solution be to take that subsidy and invest it in public wifi? That way instead of unfairly benefiting the few, it could fairly benefit the many?"
This was someone advocating a different way of allocating limited funds not bitching about paying taxes or what their tax burden should be.
How did this strawmen get modded so high? I hope meta mods are paying attention.
Just because your paycheck is bigger doesn't mean you work any harder. In fact, I'm willing to bet you have it much easier.
What's your point? How is this relevant? Nobody gives a fuck how hard anyone works. Why even bring this up?
So are thousands of dollars of increased costs due to unreasonable efficiency and emissions requirements, but the same people having a conniption over the loss of Obama's internet welfare don't give fuck number one about the costly consequences of the regulations they advocate.
This is socialist economics 101: you use government to wreck the economy so that people are starving and destitute, then offer government handouts to convince them that you're the only one who can help.
I think they learned the tactic from abusive husbands; first you punch your wife in the face, then you offer her an ice pack and tell her how much you love her. Do it just right and she'll never leave you.
Mmmm going to have buttsex with you now cause I am a faggot mmmmmmm
Here we go again.
Idiot claims he's better than everyone else and demands to keep everything to himself, while simultaneously claiming he only got there through the generosity of others.
Don't bother explaining society to him, for all of his intelligence and superiority have left him unable to comprehend anything that involves "others benefiting from him" or "himself indirectly benefiting from the benefits of others" as a good thing for him.
Care to explain why broadband is a requirement for job searching?
I did mine using linkedin and cell phone.
How many bps you need to find a job these days?
The rich are rich because somebody created more wealth than they took and the rich were able to siphon enough in order to become rich.
Honestly, it's not that hard, or do you really believe that Bezos, Gates and Buffet are that much more effective at working than the typical people working for minimum wage?
The rich themselves don't create jobs because that would make no sense.
They're net takers from the economic system so if it were just them, there would be a continual drain on the economy until it fell apart completely. The reason for new jobs to be created is that somebody is willing to pay for the good or service that the job provides.
Wealth itself isn't the problem. It's the allocation that matters.
You can live in a lavish mansion, own fleets of yachts, G6's, exotic cars and host orgies every day.
You can make capital investments in production of new value.
Or you can keep your billions under a rug sitting idle.
Only one of these activities hurts the economy and pushes up GINI coefficient disproportionately harming those on the lower end of the income scale.
Only the hoarding of tens of trillions of idle dollars is harmful to the economy.
are utter BS. Full stop. I live just north of Houston, Texas, the 4th largest city in the US. I work in IT and make a modest salary (IT salaries in TX are very low comparatively). I'm surrounded by people who buy the largest Ram and Chevy trucks and SUVs, designer jeans, high-end sneakers, and eat out several times a week. Their kids all have the latest iPhones or Samsung gadgets. And they all complain about not having enough. What the hell is wrong with America? These people bitch and complain about everything under the sun, all the while living in a 1st world country with plenty of food, clean water, daily showers, and decent-paying jobs. But it's never enough. Never. I'm sick and tired of hearing about it all.
At least they are aborting this fiasco while it's only costing tens to hundreds of millions in fraud and abuse before it grows to social security or welfare-system fraud levels. The telecom industry has been using this to prop up their rates on a fat gubbermint check for too long, they should be reducing their rates instead, as the technology allows. Telecom fraud, welfare fraud, voter fraud -- one can only conclude that the SJW fools are either frauds themselves of the dupes of it.
I spent 6 months unemployed recently. Republican lawmakers in state have made collecting unemployment from a fund I've been paying into for 30 fucking years impossible for someone who wants to continue a career that pays well. Instead of looking for work in my field, I would have to spend all my time looking for menial labor and be able to PROVE it in order to collect benefits. Fortunately, I was able to make it through without doing that.
Fuck the GOP and anyone who supports them sideways with a fucking bandsaw.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Phones were supposed to be used to answer calls from MDs office, banks, etc. However the phones are used for texting friends etc. Most of the time I try to call like end up getting phone out of minute messages or mailbox full. It's a nice idea but abused.
You forgot the tax cuts making the 1% a whopping 82% of the cuts as profit
Actually, Hillary won the popular vote. Society wanted her.
The college system (ie a small handful of people) decided to vote Trump in
How old are you? I don't mean that insultingly.
Almost nobody uses phones for calling now. Most Banks will charge for paper statements. The list goes on.
Just because you didn't grow up in the same world doesn't mean the requirements to be competitive stayed the same
Look everyone, it is the ghost of Ayn Rand! Don't worry Ayn, when you suddenly decide you need a bailout late in life the rest of us will still be here to help like before. Because as much as you want to say "LIFE ISN'T FAIR, SO SCREW EVERYONE" thankfully some of us aren't assholes and try to make the world a better place.
If you grew up poor enough to know what hunger is like, there's pretty much zero chance that you didn't rely on all kinds of socialist programs to survive. Welfare, free school lunches, subsidized heat, electricity, healthcare, etc. Basically, you suckled at the public teat until you succeeded. And, now that you've gotten yours, everyone else in a rough spot can just crawl into a corner and die, right?
Also, what's this garbage about accusing the GP of being a parasite and trying to take your money? I get this mental image of a crazy old man on his porch in his rocking chair with a shotgun, pointing the gun at everyone who walks by one the sidewalk and screaming "keep on walkin'" at people just minding their own business. NEWSFLASH: people can have opinions about social programs without personally taking money from those programs.
Okay so you're selfish. No problem, lots of people are selfish. They want to know why they should pay taxes for the benefit of others. It's kind of simple really. It's because an orderly society is better for you!
Without welfare, you get more crime. The USA already incarcerates more people per capita than any other nation. A smart nation (e.g. any other nation on the planet) would spend more on mental health, on education, on healthcare, and on basic services such as internet access available for a reasonable cost.
Unfortunately the USA spends most of it's money on corporate cronyism, the military, and prisons. If the poor had any brains they'd have worked out a way to be born rich, etc. Fuck you, got mine.
Well isn't that great. At least you got yours, until the mob gets desperate enough to take what's yours.
P.S. It does work. There's nations where they have less crime, higher quality of living, more personal wealth, longer lifespans, and higher happiness than the USA. Perhaps this will come as a shock to you, but they also have cheaper faster broadband access!
Because a society with some degree of equality and opportunity for everyone is about a million times better than the fifth world nations that have been taken over by warlords.
The USA can go one of several ways. Currently it's going the way of the police state, but some of us would rather see it go a different path. Paying for some degree of public good with your taxes is, really, a trivial price to pay for a smoothly-functioning society.
Why do you pay for roads that everybody can use and some may be using more than you? Is this a serious question?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Should be easy to test this. Simply take your number, say $400k, and we can round up everybody that makes $400k or more (or whatever number you like) and toss them in a hole, and see what happens.
The librarly is not free. We make it free of charge by funding it through other means - donations and as a budget item. The second one is funded by involuntary taxation.
The library is, therefore, subject to the same cost-cutting measures as any other public program.
No never. Most white males have worked since they were 10, usually creating their own job. Yep it's hard. Try it. What is yo problem Jackson kan't keep a job? A mamazboi slakker?? A loonsville knacker ?? Do us a B0jangles and quite wrangles.
Rather bitchboi the wealthy creat value-producing structures within which even feebs-like-you can generate useful output. By yourself you are useless. Get that fact Bosco? You're without productive ability. Somebody needs to drag you by-the-nose so your pathetic effort actually produces some exchangable work. Under the guidance of a wealthy sharpster you can produce something-of-value ... then and only then so appreciate the trickle-down drops of water as a pure gift from your wealthy master.
I can still beat your ass to within an inch of your life. You live because I allow you to, so take that as a pure gift from your mightier master.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak
So in 2016, the UN Human Rights Council forgot to Cc Ajit Pai on the condemnation of "intentional disruption of internet access by governments", and that "the same rights people have offline must also be protected online" (source).
You obviously know nothing about how politics actually works. Have you ever known or talked to any electors? It's an almost entirely ceremonial role handed out each election cycle to prominent citizens and party activists. You are just making up a bogus excuse to ignore the fact that approximately half the country voted Trump.
Communism worked so well murdering 94 million people in the 20th century; it almost hit an even 100 million. Wow, those are some IMPRESSIVE numbers. The modern left wants to give it one more go!
http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-century
"could not be confirmed as eligible" does not mean in my book "are fraud". Sounds to me you interpret it that way when the report does not explicitely state it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
sure yes, like I already said but you had your had to far up your arse to realise.
Now answer this simple question: is that going to happen?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Wow you're proposing something! That's incredible, no one ever has any ideas.
So poor people should be grateful to you when they lose broadband because you took positively minutes out of your busy schedule and wrote a slashdot post. If you spend as much as fifteen minutes a day here I'm sure we'll have all the world's problems fixed within a decade.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
In all fairness, it is not just Trump. Many administrations before intentionally kept people dumb enough to not ask any tough questions, but smart enough to be off welfare and happy with baseball and a six pack.
There is an alternative: homeschooling. Regulations are fairly lax, but still reasonable in most states. A lot of paperwork in NY and total insanity in PA. Some states even reimburse for homeschooling and offer the books for free. Especially in rural regions it is cheaper that way than bus students for hours to a school. Of course, if the parents already work full time jobs and a few side jobs just to get by then this isn't really an alternative.
Calling everyone richer than you a parasite is pathetic. Not considering inheritance, rich people are rich because they contribute more to society either by providing a service few other can (artists, actors) or by taking on more risk and responsibility than others are willing to (CEOs)
Don't worry, we're working hard to eliminate libraries too. LOL you fucking libtards. Are you tired of losing yet?
The fraud skyrocketed when they opened up the program to cellphones. Resellers have only motivation to sell you the phone not actually see if you qualify.
It was a lot harder to lie about who you where or sign up for multiple accounts when lifeline only applied to POTS and DSL.
Taxation is theft.
How did you think they were going to pay for that extra $1.50 a week you earn through the tax break?
The only way to pay for the current budget is to slash expenditures. Every bit of government will be cutting spending and/or going private over the next three to seven years (except the military, of course).
Hope you don't have any parents or grandparents that rely on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. 'cause they're gonna be shit out of luck.
#MAGA*
*Offer applies to rich people and corporations, only. The government reserves the right to terminate, at anytime and without any warning, your personal greatness should you fail to demonstrate unwavering personal loyalty to der Führer.
If you want to live in a society, you play by that society's rules otherwise GTFO.
Did Bill Gates win the birth canal lottery? How about Bezos? How about the hundreds of thousands of new millionaires created? You aren't very bright.
Believing that a person's misfortune is evidence he/she has done something wrong to anger God is an idea from pagan polytheistic religions, and it is specifically debunked by an ENTIRE BOOK within the Bible. That book is called "Job" (that's after the book of "Esther" and before "Psalms" for people who've never bothered to READ a Bible but like to comment on it.)
In fact, your entire post is so completely wrong that it's quite clear you know nothing of substance about the Bible, Christianity, the Religious Right, etc but, like many millenial snowflakes, you have very high self esteem and confidence and think you can get by in life looking smart while regurgitating crap that was spoon-fed to you by a bunch of losers who were themselves thoroughly steeped in willful ignorance.
Incidentally, all of humanity before the 1990s lacked the internet and yet somehow they were not all "poor, generation after generation". It's also interesting that, all propaganda to the contrary, now that nearly everybody can get on the net, most only use it for porn, facebook, and entertainment; a 12-year-old today with net access is no more likely to lead a better life than a 12-year-old in 1980 without net access was. Access to the internet is NOT a panacea, it's not even all that important for a good life.
Let me guess, you saw a whacko like Creflo Dollar on TV pushing nonesense like the sham-wow guy and you concluded he was a legitimate representative of anything? I remember when idiots who knew little about the so-called religious right assumed that scammers Jim and Tammy Faye were good examples of Christians and were rather shocked to see no grief among the religious right when THOSE television scam artists collapsed.
Prosperity Theology is not theology at all. It's anti-Biblical nonsense that is attractive to desperate people at home late at night worrying about how they are going to get through the next month, just like a lottery ticket or a pull on a one-arm-bandit in Las Vegas seem to offer hope to the down-trodden. It's illusory and it's pushed by scam artists. Just because a scam artist pretends to be religious, that does not make him so any more than a counterfeit artist becomes a legit example of a treasury department engraver.
You want a REAL explanation for what you characterize as an "intensely unchristian position of religious conservatives towards the poor."?
Here it is:
1. Most government programs to "help" the poor do no such thing; they make the poor dependent on handouts (because that makes them a politically-captive population which is valuable to certain politicians) while encouraging all sorts of bad behaviours AND doing it all with money obtained from others by armed robbery.
2. Government has, over the past half century, actively undermined actual Christian charities. Oh, the government has allowed tax deductions for "charitable giving" but it has repeatedly banned and/or regulated a huge amount of activity that used to be routinely carried out across the nation by various Christian charities.
3. Many of what we now call "the poor" are NOT actually poor at all, and most are bringing a lot of their own problems onto themselves by their own bad behaviors. Previous generations of Christian charities would help these people but insist that, as part of the arrangement, they discontinue their bad behaviors. It's unethical and untenable to expect one person to restrain himself and sacrifice to provide the resources to support another person who refuses to restrain himself.
4. Many of the current poor in the US are illegally in the country. Aiding them not only makes one complicit in the lawbreaking and the general collapse of the rule-of-law, but it also encourages further lawbreaking, the import of more illegals AND further strains the systems that are already costing the economy BILLIONS of dollars while failing to provide adequate support for the intended poor beneficiaries.
Jesus famously rescued a prostitute from being stoned to death by saying to the crowd (essentially) "let the guy who has comitted no sin throw the first stone" ... but what many poverty pimps like to ignore is the rest of what he said. Jesus then addressed the prostitute he saved and said "go forth, and sin no more". He clearly knew that as a human being she'd certainly sin again, BUT he was instructing her to clean up her act. Jesus famously fed the hungry, but people also like to ignore that he said that people who do not work should not eat. It's a matter of personal responsibility and true fairness.
It's simply immoral to make one person provide from his own labor for another person who refuses to labor.
Food is not free. Housing is not free. Healthcare is not free. These things can only appear free if somebody is given them while somebody else pays the bill. When governments do this sort of redistribution, they do it by force.
Somebody opposing left-wing, immoral, massive government programs is NOT the same thing as opposing/hating or being "unChristian" to the poor. The Chrisitan way of dealing with the poor is to voluntarily help those who truly need help and that includes helping them to see how they got into a situation where they needed the help and helping them reform so they can eventually not only provide for themselves but be the one to help others.
That "trillion dollar tax reform" lets people KEEP THEIR OWN MONEY.
The damned Obamaphone program STEALS money from taxpayers and gives it to other people who have done nothing to earn it.
STOP confusing letting a person keep his own money, with giving a person somebody else's money! These are two fundamentally different concepts.
When a robber sticks you up in a back alley, he's at least more honest and less intrusive than government.
A robber points a gun at you and plainly states "your money or your life". You hand over your cash and he is gone, probably never again to be seen by you.
A government tells you to fill out a bunch of forms and "voluntarily comply" with a tax system. If you fail to hand over the loot, the government will try to take it through back-handed means (get it from your bank or your employer). If you manage to prevent that theft, the government will send people to take your stuff (like your house) and if you do not cooperate, they will try to toss you into jail. If you refuse to cooperate, they'll pull guns and if you still resist they will kill you. Oh, and assuming you survive THIS tax year, the government will be back next tax year (and the next and the next, etc) and they'll eventually try to rob you further when you die.
Or is it just a move in the vein of "F*** the Flyover States"
NRRPT/RCT
He might have... when he flipped burgers at McDonald's.
Yes, the USA is messed up in a lot of ways and refuses to intelligently discuss anything; maybe in the past, but no longer.
I have a cabin. It's in a rural area that didn't even get cell service until about 8 years ago. There is no internet, just a lousy old noisy phone line. I doubt dial-up would even go full speed. Maybe some slow cell internet is possible up there now but it's not that cheap. The locals seem to have many accidental fires and thefts and I'm beginning to think it's the two primary sources of income up there. (No business goes out of business there, they have a fire.) Seriously, the only jobs up there are tourism related - the farmers are all on corn welfare.
I have also done some online job applications involving session timeouts and rather large downloads. Will internet get them jobs so they can still boink their sisters without being noticed? I think not. But maybe they'll learn something? Me, I'd like access when I'm up there-- but you see, I go up there to ESCAPE like all the tourists.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Comcast does this already with its "public" WiFi from customer's home routers
horror vacui