How is it even possible for three people at $9.25 a month to make off with $32 million?
Few jobs will not eventually be automated, and this also goes for almost all knowledge workers. Everyone here preaching "personal responsibility" will be singing a different tune when work disappears for their class and there will be no way to pay for food, housing, and essential services except with government handouts. Anyone who is not a capitalist (a real capitalist, not simply a supporter of capitalism, but someone capable of living comfortably solely off of invested capital), which is an even smaller group than the 1%, should think twice before they are so quick to denounce government subsidies for things like internet access. Eventually, you're going to need them, too.
1
Let them go to the library and use their resources. When will the liberals understand that America cannot continue to give the poor everything they want. Need to enact some laws to make those that claim poverty to perform some work or volunteer work. After having two kids on public assistance, make the parents, male and female, consent to steralization. We simply cannot continue to pay people to have more chilkdren and not hold them accountable. STOP making it better to be on the public teat than to workN!!!!!!
6
Tom Wheeler should resign. This is unmitigated PR to support yet another cable broadband consolidation which is anti competitive. Wheeler has been at the helm of unprecedented US consolidation of the us telecom and cable oligopoly. Shame on him and Obama for letting this happen. This article is a PR stunt to support the Charter Time Warner merger, with a bone to liberals like they care about the poor. the USA has the highest broadband charger and the most noncompetitive market in and developed country that what exists is systematic looting of the american consumer. So we get these appalling articles as if the FCC cares, rather than regulating the bloodsuckers or breaking them up
4
More important, I think, would be assuring that broadband is fully available geographically.
2
A few years ago I would think this was a good thing. Not now, my Father who is 66 years old and needed to retire a couple of years ago due to a medical condition. After working over 40 years all he gets is his Social Security and a small pension check for $90.00 a month from the company he worked for. When he applied for Life Line he was turned down surpassingly he was told his income was to high. He is on a waiting list for senior housing which he has been on now for a couple of years. So this will end up being like most programs where the people it is set-up to really help get pushed aside and told NO. My Father has a friend at the senor housing complex where he is on the waiting list, since he can no longer drive I took him over one day so he could visit. While there I was seeing people in their thirties living there and wanted to know why. I asked a person how he was able to be living there. he told me he was a recovering drug addict who was now disabled due to his drug use and how it messed up his mind. So wait my Father a disabled 66 year old with very little income must wait to get in and pay a large amount now from his social security check for rent, while a person who is physically OK, but mentally messed up due to drug addiction gets in. How does that work, just another program where the people it should help get pushed aside for some social worker who wants to lessen her work load and help a recovering addict.
I say NO, NO, NO ...
I say NO, NO, NO ...
5
The old regulated telephone system whereby people paid by what benefit they got rather than what it cost to provide was an excellent model. Basically all residential users paid one rate, corporations another. Then technologists started providing Voice over IP completely subverting the system, but of course, only for those with a good IP connection. So rural users are left out in the cold. Broadband is even worse. It was not subsidies that gave us the equitable model, it was regulation.
2
From each according to his means; to each according to his needs, eh?
Technology has been transformational just not in terms of productivity. It has given rise to a number of concerning developments both in terms of content and competition.
First Content:
1. Anyone can create and share content
2. Content consumption increases
3. Access to ‘unlimited’ content devalues content
4. Content becomes variable
5. Veracity of the content becomes questionable
Conclusion: Content is readily available, public consumes without questioning content, consumers with greater access to unreliable content become susceptible to misinformation without realizing it.
Caustic Conclusion: We are a nation of internet entitled but uninformed consumers of tripe.
Second Competition:
1. Increased reliance of consumers on technology
2. Providers see shifting of consumer patterns from one technology to another (cable to internet for content)
3. Decrease in established revenue stream
4. Consolidate with competitors to solidify customer base
5. Decrease in competition (actual and potential)
6. Maintain or increase price to stabilize revenue stream
Conclusion: Revenue is the only goal, not customer service nor innovation.
Caustic Conclusion: ISPs (or Banks or industry of your choice here) do not compete by providing superior product or service but rather by limiting consumer access to alternatives.
First Content:
1. Anyone can create and share content
2. Content consumption increases
3. Access to ‘unlimited’ content devalues content
4. Content becomes variable
5. Veracity of the content becomes questionable
Conclusion: Content is readily available, public consumes without questioning content, consumers with greater access to unreliable content become susceptible to misinformation without realizing it.
Caustic Conclusion: We are a nation of internet entitled but uninformed consumers of tripe.
Second Competition:
1. Increased reliance of consumers on technology
2. Providers see shifting of consumer patterns from one technology to another (cable to internet for content)
3. Decrease in established revenue stream
4. Consolidate with competitors to solidify customer base
5. Decrease in competition (actual and potential)
6. Maintain or increase price to stabilize revenue stream
Conclusion: Revenue is the only goal, not customer service nor innovation.
Caustic Conclusion: ISPs (or Banks or industry of your choice here) do not compete by providing superior product or service but rather by limiting consumer access to alternatives.
2
Lostin24- I was with you right up until the end. In a for-profit company, the goal is to make money. Making money means that you get to do good things like pay employees and owners. Service and innovation are means to an end. There is nothing wrong with that.
Companies grow by offering differentiated products and services- more, better, cheaper, faster- whatever is meaningful to the customer. We usually think of monopolies developing as a result of a company's successful quest for growth and market share. When it comes to ISPs, though, the monopolies are entirely of the government's creation. My choice of only one or two ISPs is because my local government only permits that company to operate in my town.
Companies grow by offering differentiated products and services- more, better, cheaper, faster- whatever is meaningful to the customer. We usually think of monopolies developing as a result of a company's successful quest for growth and market share. When it comes to ISPs, though, the monopolies are entirely of the government's creation. My choice of only one or two ISPs is because my local government only permits that company to operate in my town.
All of the problems associated with access to broadband services in the U.S. are due to the fact that broadband services are privately owned for-profit monopolies/oligopolies. In my area, for example, there is only one provider of high-speed broadband service, a corporate-owned monopoly which charges very high prices. Everyone should have the option of non-profit government-provided broadband service which, like our system of roads and post offices, would be able to provide service in rural areas that are rejected by for-profit broadband providers.
7
How much is considered "affordable access"? Does the Lifeline program provide only basic phone service (eg. limited number of voice calls, no sms or data plan)? What is the acceptable level of "broadband" that's considered "basic" to the poor? Does it exclude anyone who would use taxpayers' money to watch netflix? Most public libraries provide internet access these days anyways. Why don't the poor utilize that? If their public libraries don't have it, perhaps we'll have more bang for the taxpayers' buck by funding internet access in the public libraries (for all to use) instead. Does the GAO audit this Lifeline program for compliance and efficacy?
While we need reasonable social safety net, I don't consider broadband to be something that's life-and-death. This is the kind of nanny-state initiative that gets me up in arms, even though I'm generally liberal-minded.
While we need reasonable social safety net, I don't consider broadband to be something that's life-and-death. This is the kind of nanny-state initiative that gets me up in arms, even though I'm generally liberal-minded.
9
Let's see, I too am a liberal, but I did notice the homeless man and his woman friend pushing a shopping cart down our street was busy looking at his iphone.
And in the next breath we will be told to do more for the poor, because their problems are the result of our not helping them. I am poor in many financial ways, but I guess we have just enough to not get help, and we do not try, should we? But the cost of broadband internet is very high for us, as is a whole host of items that are of utility in nature, if not actual utilities.
And in the next breath we will be told to do more for the poor, because their problems are the result of our not helping them. I am poor in many financial ways, but I guess we have just enough to not get help, and we do not try, should we? But the cost of broadband internet is very high for us, as is a whole host of items that are of utility in nature, if not actual utilities.
4
5
I don't get it. Obviously, phone service is essential to living in today's world: without it, one can't look for a job, make a doctor's appointment, call a government agency, or deal with countless other necessities of everyday life. And having some kind of Internet access may also be necessary, given the number of things (e.g., completing a job application) that now require it.
But broadband? Most people use a high speed Internet connection to watch movies and TV shows on Netflix. That sure is nifty, but it's hardly a necessity. Can somebody explain why broadband should be subsidized with public funds?
But broadband? Most people use a high speed Internet connection to watch movies and TV shows on Netflix. That sure is nifty, but it's hardly a necessity. Can somebody explain why broadband should be subsidized with public funds?
6
Many of the comments here come from people who live in rural areas complaining about slow or otherwise poor Internet service. The speed of Internet response is dependent upon many different factors, of which the access line speed is just one of them. Internet service providers are going to set up their hubs where the largest number of people live and work; otherwise, Internet service in a country as vast as the USA would cost even more than it does, which is already another complaint of many commenters. Choosing to live away from other people is a decision that is going to make lots of services more difficult to obtain, and more expensive as well.
1
Rural Support
When the telephone was recognized to be an essential tool to participate in society, the government stepped to assure rural people that, even though it wasn't cost effective for the phone companies, they would be required to include those who don't live in high population areas, they would have phone services. Funding was set aside and companies were required to comply.
The biggest problem in ensuring equality in the digital world is that rural people often have no service. It's too expensive for ISP's to cover areas where not enough people pay for services. We need to require ISP's to cover rural (all) areas, and perhaps set aside funding to help make this possible.
When the telephone was recognized to be an essential tool to participate in society, the government stepped to assure rural people that, even though it wasn't cost effective for the phone companies, they would be required to include those who don't live in high population areas, they would have phone services. Funding was set aside and companies were required to comply.
The biggest problem in ensuring equality in the digital world is that rural people often have no service. It's too expensive for ISP's to cover areas where not enough people pay for services. We need to require ISP's to cover rural (all) areas, and perhaps set aside funding to help make this possible.
6
Yes, let's tackle the 'digital divide', but the place to start is by providing competition. We live only a few miles outside of Santa Fe, NM. There is no cable and Century Link has a monopoly. We pay the same but get only 1/3 the speed of those in Santa Fe where cable is available. There are wireless internet providers, but they are not price competitive because the FCC allows bundling of telephony, internet and services such as DirecTV. De facto regional monopolies is one of the reasons the US lags its global competitors in broadband services. Clearly the FCC is not doing its job.
3
Freeing the internet from the claws of the providers would also be a solution because more competitors will drive down the price. It's only possible here in the US that one has to pay rates connected to download speeds and gets lousy service on top of it. I'm surprised that the car industry hasn't copied that model yet and started pricing cars by speed rating.
4
Of course the GOP will oppose this. It will benefit the poor and poor people of color. Two groups the GOP has zero interest in.
5
Some people would, but others would oppose it regardless of whom it benefits because it's a bad economic decision by a nanny state that is already $18 trillion dollars in debt and continuing to spend money it doesn't have.
8
Why does everytime NY Times, LA Times and other media outlets publish articles about the poor, welfare, crime, etc. they have to show black faces? Are blacks the only poor people in this country? There are more poor whites than blacks. This is a prime example of negative stereotypes are perpetuated.
11
Bingo!
I fully understand the utility of having access to high speed internet. But I have to ask, why can't this be provided by local libraries or even after hours at public schools? Perhaps my city isn't typical; but just about every neighborhood has a library, and everyone has a school with high speed internet, WiFi, and computers. It may not be quite as convenient as having it at home, but it seems like it would be far more cost effective and much easier to control fraud. And in the age of being able to research and read just about anything online it seems this might better fully align a libraries mission to provide access to information to the public than just having walls and walls of books. Obviously don't get rid of physical books all together, but if some need to be set aside to increase space for more computers than I think it is worth doing.
3
More government handouts, which lead to greater dependency and continued poverty. Thirteen years ago when my firm closed I went to the local library that offered free access to do employment searches on line. I am a true believer in a strong safety net. In fact I donate both time and money to my local church that targets safety net programs and adult education. However, creating a depency class with taxpayer dollars just to make poverty a little more bearable has proven to be counter productive.
6
Email replaced faxing and long distance telephone calls as a free alternative to draw people online. Then before smart phones became prevalent, texting was the email alternative. Charging for data usage eventually has to happen because there is so much "garbage" consuming valuable data transmission space. Nothing is invented to forever remain free. Speculative rather than productive investment is what keeps the working poor from being compensated for their labors.
2
Instead of handing out free money or service we need to hand out job applications. Too many people in poverty has learned how to get free rent, food, phones, housing, and basic living needs free. Why work if you can live off of others. This knowledge of living off of others have been passed from generation to generation and will not stop until they are forced to support themselves. I have sympathy for all that are unable to work due to mental or physical issues that are real. If you are too lazy to work to feed your self then the problem will take care of it self. And just because some has worked hard to get ahead does not mean that these hard workers should have to pay for others that refuse to work and expect to have what the hard workers have in life. Work more if you want more.
6
I don't know what got "passed generation to generation" in your family, but I'm glad that I didn't get any.
The quaint idea that working hard in our new American will move you upwards is simply not true any more. The US is about the hardest developed nation regarding upward mobility.
Instead of blaming the poor, how about looking at the billionaires, who don't pay their fair share of taxes. Besides, do you really think another man can work hard enough to make hundreds or thousands of time what you do? Hey, maybe if you weren't so lazy, you'd be a billionaire.
The quaint idea that working hard in our new American will move you upwards is simply not true any more. The US is about the hardest developed nation regarding upward mobility.
Instead of blaming the poor, how about looking at the billionaires, who don't pay their fair share of taxes. Besides, do you really think another man can work hard enough to make hundreds or thousands of time what you do? Hey, maybe if you weren't so lazy, you'd be a billionaire.
8
You are wrong. One casn work hard in Americva today and make a living. Many people do it today. It has been proven over and over again, it the rich were taxed 100% there would still not be enough to pay for all the free rides for the poor. Make the poor that can work - work. If they refuse, cut them off the public teat!
2
whats is broadband and or high speed internet service. The term are used interchangeably here. How Many megs a second or whatever counts?
I currently live in an extremely remote part of western Oklahoma. I'm 72 and I teach some online courses as a part time adjunct for a New Mexico university. That income in combination with a small social security check keeps me just barely above the poverty line. I need a broad band connection to keep my job. My current internet connection averages $130 per month. That is because, in order to have the speed to handle online classes, I need a 4G connection from Verizon in which the charges are based upon the amount of data used as opposed to a flat monthly rate. I don't know how this whole idea of switching to charging by data as opposed to a flat rate came to be allowed/accepted. Clearly it has created a serious financial burden for anyone in my situation.
12
A flat rate on a service without factoring in the usage of that service is financially disastrous. If you use more of something, you should pay more than the person who uses less. If your next door neighbor uses the internet only to access their email once a day, why should they pay a flat rate that helps pay for those who use a lot of bandwidth?
I applaud what Tom Wheeler is doing here. I think it is a good idea to help poor people get broadband Internet, or any sort Internet at all, even dial-up, although that is an admittedly awful experience. Even though I don't like the idea of giving the telecommunications companies like Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile more federally-subsidized money, what should happen is the subsidizing of the Internet via wireless phone service, including wireless hot-spot devices for one's home. Computing has pretty much moved to smart phones and tablet computers for most consumers. These are replacing laptops and desktop computers, even though it is best for maximum productivity and versatility to own both a laptop and a smart phone.
I wish the telecos didn't object so vigorously to cities and municipalities installing robust, fast. all-city, wireless, wide-area networks (WLANs) for their citizens to connect to the Internet for free anywhere within its perimeters. There is some of this in a few cities, but I think it should be done everywhere in as many towns and cities as possible. Google has begun using Wi-Fi as an integral part of smart-phone calling, but theirs is a limited experiment in doing this, and it is a private company, not a public entity.
2
I've said before, I'll say it again. Let the Post Office become a government telco. No-frills universal access at affordable rates for everyone, a big boost in employment, plus keep all the Warners, Charters, Verizon's, T-Mobs and AT&T in check. Tom, please take this up with Barack.
4
During WW1 the federal government nationalized AT&T. Two years after the war it was returned to the stock holders bankrupt and years behind on service orders with no new plant expansion.
Government runs everything into the ground eventually.
Government runs everything into the ground eventually.
2
Not the Postal Service. Sure they run a deficit, but other than that, a fine example of both reach and service. See here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/how-the-post-office-made-ameri...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/how-the-post-office-made-ameri...
1
The USPS runs a deficit because the Congress is forcing it to pay into the pension system at an accelerated rate. Otherwise, it wouldn't have issues.
1
The Lifeline service program began in 1983, over the signature of Ronald Reagan, to provide basic phone service to poor people. During the G.W. Bush administration (I've forgotten which year), it was expanded to include cell phones. There was a lot of fraud - but it was perpetrated mostly by shady businesses, not beneficiaries. The FCC started to tackle Lifeline fraud early in the Obama administration - so early that the responsible Bureau Chief literally had her first meeting on the topic before she found her way to the cafeteria. At this point, there is comparatively little fraud left in the program. But don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Basic broadband Internet service is an absolute necessity for poor people. Without it, they cannot find or apply for a job (!!!), their kids can't do their homework, they can't take advantage of e-learning, the government agencies they interact with can't streamline their processes, and cost-saving tele-health services won't work.
The complainers are being penny wise and pound foolish. This reform will have long term cost benefits, as well as helping poor people to do all those things that conservatives keep saying that they should do, like get an education, get a job, and raise their kids to be independent.
Tom Wheeler is the best FCC chairman in recent memory.
Basic broadband Internet service is an absolute necessity for poor people. Without it, they cannot find or apply for a job (!!!), their kids can't do their homework, they can't take advantage of e-learning, the government agencies they interact with can't streamline their processes, and cost-saving tele-health services won't work.
The complainers are being penny wise and pound foolish. This reform will have long term cost benefits, as well as helping poor people to do all those things that conservatives keep saying that they should do, like get an education, get a job, and raise their kids to be independent.
Tom Wheeler is the best FCC chairman in recent memory.
4
more free stuff? what a waste of our money
7
I think Mr. Wheeler should also take an interest in preserving free, over-the-air television instead of slowly auctioning off more and more of the spectrum best suited for that purpose. I'm not opposed to the idea of paying for cable television if the non-broadcast offerings are important to you. But it's gotten to the point where over-the-air reception is so hit-or-miss (especially since the 2009 conversion to digital TV) that many people have no choice but to pay a cable company just for the supposedly "broadcast" channels.
4
While I wasn't born on Tobacco Road, I could sure as heck see it. Jonathan Swift said "I am not so much surprised at mankind's wickedness, but I am surprised at his lack of shame." I am a liberal democrat, always vote the ticket, but those in my camp have failed the poor by taking away their sense of shame and replacing it with subsidies that say your toddlers can take care of you until the child turns 18. Free broadband? Not even ridiculous as I thought that was understood and already implemented.
Let's move away from Tobacco Road up to Provincetown, MA. I can remember, on one of my visits, walking to the bus station with suitcase and two women offered me a ride. Had they tried that in an area of poverty, they would be on milk cartons with a caption "Have you seen me?" me below their faces. Flannery O'Connor had it right about the poor: "Help them you must, but help them you cannot." My mother worked two jobs. One she called hard, working in a sweat box factory where she lifted heavy machine parts all day, then went to what she called her "easy" job--waiting tables. Why? She wasn't going to shame her children by having them kept up by the government. Later I was able to go to school on loans, rejecting PELL Grants after as I started seeing them as a form of welfare. I also paid off my student loans. Not being "to the manor born," the next best thing is pride. "Free" costs too much--particularly to those who don't realize what they give up.
Let's move away from Tobacco Road up to Provincetown, MA. I can remember, on one of my visits, walking to the bus station with suitcase and two women offered me a ride. Had they tried that in an area of poverty, they would be on milk cartons with a caption "Have you seen me?" me below their faces. Flannery O'Connor had it right about the poor: "Help them you must, but help them you cannot." My mother worked two jobs. One she called hard, working in a sweat box factory where she lifted heavy machine parts all day, then went to what she called her "easy" job--waiting tables. Why? She wasn't going to shame her children by having them kept up by the government. Later I was able to go to school on loans, rejecting PELL Grants after as I started seeing them as a form of welfare. I also paid off my student loans. Not being "to the manor born," the next best thing is pride. "Free" costs too much--particularly to those who don't realize what they give up.
5
I was in solidarity with the young lady pictured, right up to seeing the unfortunate picture of her arm completely covered in tattoos down to her wrist,
I am afraid an opinion widely shared by the majority of potential employers. Having these multinational corporations subsidise the rapidly increasing number of poor and low-income citizens only makes sense, as the FCC and FTC refuse to require them to refrain from engaging in unbridled racketeering in their billing practices such as the recent discovery of decades of thinly disguised fraudulent charges on millions of phone bills.
I am afraid an opinion widely shared by the majority of potential employers. Having these multinational corporations subsidise the rapidly increasing number of poor and low-income citizens only makes sense, as the FCC and FTC refuse to require them to refrain from engaging in unbridled racketeering in their billing practices such as the recent discovery of decades of thinly disguised fraudulent charges on millions of phone bills.
4
I have received the Lifeline subsidy for two years for regular phone service. I am one of the 5% of Americans who do not, and cannot afford, a cell phone. This fall I moved to an area where I qualified for internet service at home from Century Link (via the federal government?) for $10 a month. I use the laptop inherited from one of my children. Before this I went to the public library to access the internet. For those of you who have never had low income and believe the myth that everyone can succeed to a good income and afford hi-speed internet, cell phones, and p.c.'s, think again. Open your eyes! Support efforts at the FCC to assist low income Americans to participate in the modern communication age. How do you think I am managing to get my low income view posted here?????? Viva the FCC!!!
14
I'm not poor and paying $14.95 a month for cable internet.I could pay more for faster service,but it works for basic internet browsing.I think most people could afford this,without being on welfare.
3
So for you it's about convenience? After all, wasn't the government providing you with free internet at the library?
5
Facebook should pay for it with some advertising income. They will directly benefit from it.
1
This is another government give-away that helps to entrap the poor in a poverty cycle. Why on earth should anyone work when everything necessary for life is handed out freely? I'm absolutely in favor of helping the needy, but that help must be a safety net, not a hammock.
5
I shopped for basic home Internet service, without TV or phone, just this week. FiOS wanted $55/month plus huge fees, cable was $50/mo. DSL requires a home phone so even that is $50+/mo. All wanted 2 year contracts for those prices. I only needed Internet for email and limited web use. I declined all offers and bought a 1-month pass on a local wireless service. The pricing sure resembles price-fixing doesn't it?
1
Just search "Obama phone scam" and you will be directed to dozens of stories about the abuse of the federal mandated free cell phone program. Is there any doubt that abuse will be coming here too. The Republicans should stop the mandated phone , and internet access. Reducing the consolidation of internet cable providers will make access affordable to all.
4
Soon, everything will be FREE in the United States !! A government
report states that 50% of all kids born today in the USA will be on
food stamps at some point in their life......
report states that 50% of all kids born today in the USA will be on
food stamps at some point in their life......
4
I'd love to see that government report.
2
The F.C.C. could help reduce broadband costs by reducing the monopolization of broadband services. Besides the poor not having access to broadband, the larger issue is the cost of broadband for the overall population.
34
Exactly! I decided to go without internet and cable at home because of the cost about 2 1/2 years ago and if the prices continue to stay at their current levels, I won't be getting it anytime soon.
2
In a truly free country that worked on a system of merit and earned rewards, individuals would have what they needed and wanted, based on their own initiative, motivation and persistence. Sadly, America has become the land where no one fails, everyone gets a passing grade, everyone gets a star and everyone can have what everyone else has. Why do we continue to insist on making "poverty" more and more comfortable? I know it has become unfashionable and politically incorrect to say it, but America is still a place where an individual, if they decide to flip the loser's script of "woe is me", can achieve anything they want to, without persistent, incessant and addictive government benevolence (handouts}.
22
Poverty is comfortable?
I'm scratching my head here, because the poor people I have known weren't comfortable at all. Some didn't even have a roof over their heads, and boy, you try living that way for a while.
It is amazing at how callous and clueless some people can be.
I'm scratching my head here, because the poor people I have known weren't comfortable at all. Some didn't even have a roof over their heads, and boy, you try living that way for a while.
It is amazing at how callous and clueless some people can be.
16
The only way this hypothetical utopia works is if you give everyone an equal chance from day one. Were you born into poverty? If so, your odds of pulling yourself up and "making it" are horribly lower than people not born into poverty. So people who are punished by the economic status that they were born into (gee, their fault!), never get the same chance as the person whose family is well entrenched in the system, with savings in the bank and a network of people who can pull them through tough times.
So if you are willing to give up all of your money, all of your connections, all of the positioning that your parents have given you (including the benefits of your skin color and ethnicity), then maybe you can start complaining about how unfair it is to be living in poverty. Until then, you can educate yourself about what it is really like to be living in poverty, and try to have some empathy. Or, if $100 a month in food money, bare bones health insurance, a minimum wage that doesn't allow you to pay your rent, and a flip phone are the wonders of the cush poverty life, try it out for yourself and see how you like it! The reality is that being in poverty is miserable, and the safety net only provides a minimum to ensure that you don't then turn to stealing and begging in order to survive.
We are a rich country, and providing basic necessities to our poorest citizens to give them a chance at survival is our moral imperative.
So if you are willing to give up all of your money, all of your connections, all of the positioning that your parents have given you (including the benefits of your skin color and ethnicity), then maybe you can start complaining about how unfair it is to be living in poverty. Until then, you can educate yourself about what it is really like to be living in poverty, and try to have some empathy. Or, if $100 a month in food money, bare bones health insurance, a minimum wage that doesn't allow you to pay your rent, and a flip phone are the wonders of the cush poverty life, try it out for yourself and see how you like it! The reality is that being in poverty is miserable, and the safety net only provides a minimum to ensure that you don't then turn to stealing and begging in order to survive.
We are a rich country, and providing basic necessities to our poorest citizens to give them a chance at survival is our moral imperative.
22
Clearly, GMHK, woe has never been yours.
1
The article is about some poor folks, but the bigger picture is service to areas that have NO cell service at all: much less internet speed even on copper lines. When I travel to the home where I intend to retire, me and several thousand other folks have NO cell service. We have a highway, small towns, otherwise normal, but NO Service on the cell phone. Others here have commented that the private companies won't provide the service, so how would it happen without some incentive. This woman won't really be getting much for free, the private companies will make millions in subsidies but I don't see much criticism of those private companies standing with their hands out waiting for the government handout instead of working to amortize an investment over time to make an honest profit. There will be profit in these rural services, just won't be instant obscene profit which is what investors want now.
12
Cellular service isn't a God-given right, it costs money and it isn't economical to put cellular towers in every cornfield and forest. We all make our choices and when you choose to live in a rural area, you give up some conveniences and are already heavily subsidized by the residents of urban areas, to the tune of several thousand dollars per person per year. If you really want service in a rural area, you should be willing to pay for it yourself, just as city residents typically pay for the extra expenses they incur.
9
Remember Josh, some folks "choose" to live in rural areas for reasons sometimes outside their control. For the impoverished, this is usually because it is the only place they could afford to do so, or because it is the only place they have found employment, or it is the only place that they have family and community support.
It is unacceptable to allow a digital divide to develop between the privileged and underprivileged, because that can only further deepen the cultural divide. If we want to be a nation of progress, if we want a buoyant economy, if we want to be a nation united, we need equal access to information throughout the population. Otherwise the poor will get poorer, further disenfranchised, and eventually, a greater burden on society.
Tom Wheeler has got it right.
It is unacceptable to allow a digital divide to develop between the privileged and underprivileged, because that can only further deepen the cultural divide. If we want to be a nation of progress, if we want a buoyant economy, if we want to be a nation united, we need equal access to information throughout the population. Otherwise the poor will get poorer, further disenfranchised, and eventually, a greater burden on society.
Tom Wheeler has got it right.
5
If this same argument had prevailed with regards to other infrastructure and utilities such as roads, electricity and phone, where would this country be today?
The lack of broadband is killing small communities like mine - businesses can't operate and increasingly the availability of good internet service is a factor when families decide where to live. Banking, managing health care, education - providers of these services assume you have internet access, and woe to you if you don't.
The lack of broadband is killing small communities like mine - businesses can't operate and increasingly the availability of good internet service is a factor when families decide where to live. Banking, managing health care, education - providers of these services assume you have internet access, and woe to you if you don't.
3
FCC takes the values of freedom and equality and that will associate idea of solidarity between several American generations from young workers and middle-aged people less individualistic and more solidarity with the vulnerable social class America
1
Ya know if "they" charged reasonable prices there would not be the need to subsidise the cost. It is long past time for Trust busting on all major business.
This program is just another top teir scam with a slightly different cloak to prop up the false economy. That false economy is made up of the false charges and overcharging that corporations force the public to pay for goods and services.
This program is just another top teir scam with a slightly different cloak to prop up the false economy. That false economy is made up of the false charges and overcharging that corporations force the public to pay for goods and services.
20
Funny after being hospitalized for over 5 months in the last 11 months my life has changed considerably This phone even though extremely valuable. Its not enough in Judy making dr appts and calling insurance for medical cabs I am out before tbd 3rd week. Now using my ss disability too pay for another phone is crazy. Wish it was at least 500 mins and with internet access. Being home bound it helps with rebuild ny life and maybe one day pt will help me get a paying job again. If I am lucky enough
5
Helping the poor to communicate free is the worst thing that can happen to the rich. They are the power.
3
They want everyone to communicate so the NSA can record everything that anyone has to say in order to keep on eye on the people and help the big corps market to us non-stop.
At the core of poverty is the inability to participate fully in the national economic & political life. Since the first Web browser, Mosaic, was introduced (free, incidentally) in 1993, the internet has become a critical portal to many aspects of that life, notably employment and education. An email address (also free)--and the ability to access it--is as much a part of one's identity as a phone number or street address.
Meanwhile, affluent and poor alike are afflicted by America's slide towards Third World status in both affordability and transmission speeds of broadband (not to be conflated with cell phone networks). Without a clear next-generation national telecom plan, the future of broadband is in the hands of the widely loathed cable TV industry whose coax cable used to be the best network for high-speed data transmission. No longer.
Coax has been outmoded by fiber optic cables. Fiber to the home delivers data at 100-1,000 megabits per second, vs 5-50 mbps via most phone or coax networks. Fiber also means new investment, and cable companies are not, will not become, eager investors in rendering their main asset obsolete.
To make next-generation broadband both available and affordable--a public utility akin to electricity, clean water, paved streets, and public schools--we need a telecom strategic plan that includes building community-owned networks of fiber-to-the-home like the one (among many) pioneered by Chattanooga. Time to Think Big, America.
Meanwhile, affluent and poor alike are afflicted by America's slide towards Third World status in both affordability and transmission speeds of broadband (not to be conflated with cell phone networks). Without a clear next-generation national telecom plan, the future of broadband is in the hands of the widely loathed cable TV industry whose coax cable used to be the best network for high-speed data transmission. No longer.
Coax has been outmoded by fiber optic cables. Fiber to the home delivers data at 100-1,000 megabits per second, vs 5-50 mbps via most phone or coax networks. Fiber also means new investment, and cable companies are not, will not become, eager investors in rendering their main asset obsolete.
To make next-generation broadband both available and affordable--a public utility akin to electricity, clean water, paved streets, and public schools--we need a telecom strategic plan that includes building community-owned networks of fiber-to-the-home like the one (among many) pioneered by Chattanooga. Time to Think Big, America.
17
According to the article's stats, one-third of the Lifeline bill -- now eliminated -- has been chalked up to FRAUD: people getting two accounts or more, not one. ("The number of participating households had fallen to about 12 million in 2014 from about 18 million in 2012, suggesting more households were being held to one subsidy.") Too much cheating on benefits already.
Maybe these recipients ought to work more if they want broadband service -- or go to their public library's computer area, where they might pick up a book or newspaper. They really need to do some soul-searching. Maybe Ms. Harmon, liberally quoted in the story, should in particular rethink her spending. Her tattooed arm, seen in a photo, must have cost something. What? A couple of months of broadband service? And maybe check the footgear, for $500 Nikes. I've seen panhandlers, by the way, with iPhones. What's up with that?
Just a suggestion. This is so misguided, but we have misguided leaders. Don't we already pay big taxes and have all those add-ons to cellphone bills to support poor and rural communities. It's time for people to pay if they want the luxury and convenience of broadband.
Maybe these recipients ought to work more if they want broadband service -- or go to their public library's computer area, where they might pick up a book or newspaper. They really need to do some soul-searching. Maybe Ms. Harmon, liberally quoted in the story, should in particular rethink her spending. Her tattooed arm, seen in a photo, must have cost something. What? A couple of months of broadband service? And maybe check the footgear, for $500 Nikes. I've seen panhandlers, by the way, with iPhones. What's up with that?
Just a suggestion. This is so misguided, but we have misguided leaders. Don't we already pay big taxes and have all those add-ons to cellphone bills to support poor and rural communities. It's time for people to pay if they want the luxury and convenience of broadband.
8
billappl - I can't speak to where you live, but where I am, Lifeline is strictly regulated and it is virtually impossible to double-dip, at least without very complicated levels of fraud that are simply not worth the under $10 subsidy. I know, because I have direct experience with the program.
And it's nice of you to assume that everyone has access to their library, is fully mobile, and has no physical issues that might limit their access to a public internet portal. But this is not so. Programs like Lifeline are designed to address this very fact. In fact, the primary purpose of Lifeline is to ensure that those in need have access to 911 service. Period. Or would you suggest those folks run down to the library when they need an ambulance?
And it's nice of you to assume that everyone has access to their library, is fully mobile, and has no physical issues that might limit their access to a public internet portal. But this is not so. Programs like Lifeline are designed to address this very fact. In fact, the primary purpose of Lifeline is to ensure that those in need have access to 911 service. Period. Or would you suggest those folks run down to the library when they need an ambulance?
3
Ben Franklin said that poverty should never be made easy. People learn by going through tough times. At one time in my life, I lived in a car. I so disliked living in a car that I made up my mind that I would never live in a car if there was anything I could do to keep me out of it. Me and my wife are now retired in NC, own our own home and car and have some dough stashed away. Lesson learned.
11
Will - don't make the assumption that everyone has a choice about their situation. I'm happy you did and were able to make something of your life. But there are many other thousands of people in this country that do not have the choice you enjoy and their circumstance will not improve, and in many cases is not even tenable, without some form of assistance.
"Am I not my brother's keeper?"
"Am I not my brother's keeper?"
2
These Republican complaints are beneath contempt. Let them clean their own house before they complain about the poor. The woman in the article "works full-time in construction" while she pursues a degree. Since when is pay for work in that industry so meager? $9.25, for crissake! Maybe Lloyd Blankenship could pay it, y'think?
5
"since when is pay for work in that industry so meager?" You live in Mexico, and you have to ask that question?
Good goal, bad plan. Establish a federal broadband service and provide it at low cost to all. That solves the NSA's problem because all data would automatically be monitored on the federal net. Those who choose to continue with their current providers get the legal protections associated with the 4th amendment but pay going rate. The competition from a federal service would drive prices down. Right now we get slow speeds for high prices relative to the rest of the world. The current situation is poor service for high price with little choice. It's terrible and should not be allowed to continue.
17
I'm sure the GOP Congress (and remaining Blue Dog Democrats) would whole heartedly support your idea... and maybe they get behind the idea of a fully modernized national infrastructure, too.
For what it's worth, I think your statement has tremendous merit.
For what it's worth, I think your statement has tremendous merit.
The rules for the subsidized cell phones are that they have to be used regularly, so that allows the government to verify the location of any and all of them, a big subset of food stamp recipients. Maybe through OneDoJ local law enforcement can get these records without a warrant. Also, they don't have smart phone features like bus route and timing assistance. And, if the user wants more minutes, the monthly cost for the extra minutes is high compared to regular commercial options for unlimited service. Training people to be afraid to talk because of using up their minutes probably isn't compatible with other social goals, like supporting seniors living alone and kids home alone after school.
1
'...don't have smart phone features like bus route and timing assistance...'
My phone, which I pay for out of my own pocket, does not have any of those features.
Is that a 'right' nowadays? Where do I sign up?
My phone, which I pay for out of my own pocket, does not have any of those features.
Is that a 'right' nowadays? Where do I sign up?
1
NYtimes is complicit as you can't comment on relevent articles. As most relevant, FCC Chair should remind congress what is more important to do. And that is to outline the investigative authority and punishment for misusing patriot act section 215. No wrong doing? What investigations, I say?
2
Hallelujah, Mr. Wheeler! I am surprised President Obama didn't think of this years ago, but thank heaven you have! There can be no excuse for NOT trying to achieve this basic part of a level playing field. Thank you, and don't let those "strong critics" out there deter you!
2
Here is a little known fact that all people should know, especially poor people...................By Regulation, any Mobile phone must be able to operate on the national 911 phone system to assure that anyone with a portable phone can access help without paying for service. What that means is you can buy any cheap mobile phone, and even if you don't pay for a phone service, it will work to call 911 free of charge. It wouldn't hurt to buy a cheap mobile phone for the express purpose of emergency calls.
3
What you said is only half truth. You do need a phone plan to have that emergency call service to work. Afterall there's nothing magical inside your cell phone, but it's the service provider who's mandated to connect your 911 calls. No one can stop you from buying a prepaid phone for that purpose, but one way or the other, you have to have a provider to connect your calls, emergency or otherwise.
I know a construction worker who, while unemployed during the recession, was forced to eat at a soup kitchen and was arrested because he couldn't afford to register the vehicle he needed to get part-time work. He wanted broadband too -- we discussed it -- but there were other things he needed far more and would have chosen instead.
Please, let people make their own choices about how to spend aid. When someone can't afford their diabetes medication or faces eviction and homelessness because he can't afford the rent, a broadband subsidy is almost a slap in the face.
Please, let people make their own choices about how to spend aid. When someone can't afford their diabetes medication or faces eviction and homelessness because he can't afford the rent, a broadband subsidy is almost a slap in the face.
9
Josh: I'm curious about something. What was the construction worker doing during the 20-year housing/construction boom prior to the recession? What did he do with his income?
Apparently, saving it for things like future rent or car registration fees wasn't something that came up during his years of high earnings. Now, why should I be taxed higher to provide "aid" for someone who shows no inclination to think about his future?
Apparently, saving it for things like future rent or car registration fees wasn't something that came up during his years of high earnings. Now, why should I be taxed higher to provide "aid" for someone who shows no inclination to think about his future?
6
Karlos, do you honestly think that construction workers make so much money that most can save enough to tide themselves through a multi-year recession? A few guys in old-line union jobs in New York City, perhaps, but not most. Hell, I know executives who earned six figure incomes who lost their homes in the recession.
I think your comment is an example of the naivete of the prosperous, in which sense it's similar to the "let them eat cell phones" naivete I see here. God, people, get a clue. Meet some people who are struggling. Ask them what it is they *actually* need, what they're struggling with. We're as ham handed with the poor as we are with third-world countries like Iraq.
I think your comment is an example of the naivete of the prosperous, in which sense it's similar to the "let them eat cell phones" naivete I see here. God, people, get a clue. Meet some people who are struggling. Ask them what it is they *actually* need, what they're struggling with. We're as ham handed with the poor as we are with third-world countries like Iraq.
6
'...I know executives who earned six figure incomes who lost their homes in the recession...'
Which only means they lived way above their means.
Which only means they lived way above their means.
I'm skeptical of the broadband-for-all approach. The cost for extremely rural areas is disproportionate. What's the cost per person for the five percent or less who live in the most remote regions of the US compared to the remaining population? Why don't we consider broadband-for-most? Also to be considered is what makes up most of that broadband traffic, entertainment or something other than entertainment.
9
I live in a place with no broadband; your 5% estimate grossly understates the number of people with no broadband options. Many areas are suffering serious economic ramifications of this lack of access. Presumably you feel that's fine, as long as 'most' are served. Is that true of electricity? Running water? I suppose as long as you have what you need, and telecoms are making outrageous profits, all is well.
4
We share that cost in the "fees" we pay. There is no disproportion. The cable companies have been collecting the money to run wire for decades.
Keeping that money in their pocket is why they are trying to make everyone use wireless. BTW Cable only exists at all as a business because it is better and more reliable than wireless.
Keeping that money in their pocket is why they are trying to make everyone use wireless. BTW Cable only exists at all as a business because it is better and more reliable than wireless.
We really need to also have more options and some real competition for internet access. Where I live (Washington DC), the only options are DSL from Verizon (top speed 6 Mbps and required also get phone service) or Cable from Comcast. Comcast is always raising rates. Both of these are about $65 a month plus modem rental fees or buy and supple your own. Verizon FIOS supplies only small parts of the city and has basically stopped deployment.
1
Internet service in the United States is over priced and not true broadband. While in the U.S.A provides are combining in other nations have mich more competition. Perhaps if we had more competition the costs for Internet service would be lower and the need to help costs would be reduced.
3
I just loved it when my 10 year old nephew received a "free phone" as his b/d gift. I still don't have one. Guess that's cause I have to pay for my own. His Mom and Dad had their own so now they're a three phone family.
5
The FCC wants to help the poor pay for internet service, but in rural areas, no amount of money will get you internet. Rich and poor alike are cut off from Broadband when the big companies, often monopolies, will only run lines if there are 20 households(customers) per mile. Here in the Adirondack mountains of New York, where satellites often don't work because of the terrain, much of my town does not have cell service or internet. I have one friend who rents a room in the neighboring village, where there is internet service, just so he can work. Other parents sit in their cars outside the closed public library at night so their kids can get online to do their assignments. The governor has proposed making internet available in every part of New York, but the private companies will have to be willing to help. Charter, our local carrier, just offered 55 billion to buy Time Warner, but it balks at running a line to a dozen homes in our town. Its not profitable for them.
9
And living in NYC means I do not have gorgeous views of the mountains.
Fortunately, I can decide to move elsewhere, with enough advance planning.
Or I could demand that the taxpayers create mountains views for me here in the city, so I will not feel disadvantaged.
Fortunately, I can decide to move elsewhere, with enough advance planning.
Or I could demand that the taxpayers create mountains views for me here in the city, so I will not feel disadvantaged.
1
I assure you that the FCC can multitask. The rural divide problem is being addressed through another proceeding on Universal Service reform. There are also several grant programs run by the FCC and Rural Utilities Service. It is also being addressed by the State of New York.
I'm afraid they can't force Charter (or Verizon or Comcast or AT&T) to invest in unconnected pockets, never mind vast unserved areas. Subsidize, maybe. But these are publicly traded corporations. Infrastructure is expensive to build, and revenue from those kinds of projects is small. If they can't show a timely return on investment, they can't be expected to do it.
The FCC is not ignoring your problem.
I'm afraid they can't force Charter (or Verizon or Comcast or AT&T) to invest in unconnected pockets, never mind vast unserved areas. Subsidize, maybe. But these are publicly traded corporations. Infrastructure is expensive to build, and revenue from those kinds of projects is small. If they can't show a timely return on investment, they can't be expected to do it.
The FCC is not ignoring your problem.
$200 tat on her arm but she needs free internet. Just how much is enough from the middle class?
21
And you know the tat on her arm cost $200 because . . ?
There is never enough!
1
Because I was working in one one day and asked how much. One of the salesmen I deal with had a sleeve, all of his arm is inked from his wrist to his shoulder and he has spent $7,000 so far. He'd like to finish it but he's married now with a kid and can't afford it. She's not married but she has the kids.
Common Sense isn't too common.
Common Sense isn't too common.
3
America is the richest country in the world, why can't it afford the internet for all? as most poor countries do. I do not understand how our rich companies do not want everyone to use the internet. How cheap.
6
What are you talking about? Have you ever been overseas? I have. If you want internet you pay for it.
1
Fellow citizens and taxpayers, your city, town, or county already collects fees from broadband operators (cable companies, especially) for allowing those operators to run cables through public property-- all those wires run on or under the city streets. Where do you think the money from those fees goes? Not to the Lifeline phone program, I assure you. But maybe it could, or should? We all need to promote a better understanding of where our tax money goes. I know that I wouldn't want to pay more taxes to subsidize another program for the poor...but maybe if government weren't so wasteful the money could be found in the taxes already levied.
4
Why get grumpy with the recipients of the service? Isn't this a boon for the providers? Isn't is reasonable to assume it might lead to increased job opportunities in the provider companies which might lead to some of the recipients finding employment where it didn't previously exist?
5
Hold the (individual free phones)!
Create neighborhood business centers where computers can be properly maintained and mentors are available to assist residents in their use.
If someone needs a device to summon police, fire or ambulance these can be checked out from the business center. This allows citizens to take responsibility for themselves and not be given everything for which there is no appreciation.
Create neighborhood business centers where computers can be properly maintained and mentors are available to assist residents in their use.
If someone needs a device to summon police, fire or ambulance these can be checked out from the business center. This allows citizens to take responsibility for themselves and not be given everything for which there is no appreciation.
5
Those centers already operate. They are public libraries.
1
While being able to access the Internet is important, I don't agree that free broadband is necessary or even a right. It's one thing to have an email, search for jobs on line; but you can do that at the library. Just like you can read books at the library. Not as convenient, I agree, but it is access.
The real issue here is how much should be given away for how many and for what use? I'm not willing to pay for netflicks viewed on a phone or tablet. Don't pay for that for myself, why should I pay for it for someone else. When I talk to young people, they believe they are entitled to watch movies, TV, have cameras built into their cell phones and post videos and pictures on FB, Instagram, etc. This is not a right and must NEVER be subsidized.
The real issue here is how much should be given away for how many and for what use? I'm not willing to pay for netflicks viewed on a phone or tablet. Don't pay for that for myself, why should I pay for it for someone else. When I talk to young people, they believe they are entitled to watch movies, TV, have cameras built into their cell phones and post videos and pictures on FB, Instagram, etc. This is not a right and must NEVER be subsidized.
12
This is a massive give-away to the telecommunications companies, otherwise Tom Wheeler wouldn't be promoting it. And by the way, stop calling these phones "Obama phones". They should be called Reagan/Bush phones.
8
I noted that the woman portrayed in the story has a nose stud (appears to be diamond) and arms covered in tattoos. And this bothered me. What if she'd had to choose between groceries and the piercing or tattoos? I became sad at the very thought. No one should go hungry in this country! That poor woman! But the solution is obvious. If my government can provide the least productive with free smart phones and now the internet, why can't it provide piercings and tattoos? Come on people! we need have Health and Human Service buy about a million tattoo guns and we can all sleep better knowing no American shall go to bed hungry because they were forced to make the cruel choice of tats or grub?
14
The cell phones are not smart phones. They are the basic minimum. I know, I had one. As for the rest of your hit piece against people in poverty, subsidizing luxury items such as tattoos and piercings is ridiculous.
And her nose piercing is a diamond? Really? Really? And hey look, she also has earrings. They need to be yanked away. And that scarf. And what about those glasses? They look prescription to me. probably $10,000 glasses! Yeah! That's the ticket!
And her nose piercing is a diamond? Really? Really? And hey look, she also has earrings. They need to be yanked away. And that scarf. And what about those glasses? They look prescription to me. probably $10,000 glasses! Yeah! That's the ticket!
2
Why does anyone associated with the right wing of this country hate the poor?
They have theirs and it's to hell with anyone who is in an unfortunate situation.
They have theirs and it's to hell with anyone who is in an unfortunate situation.
6
Internet is not a necessity.
2
Not the poor. The lazy. We support programs that allow people to work there way out of poverty. Not comfortably live in poverty. Example, I know I needed a college degree to get a job that pays well. needed money to pay for college. The National Guard had/has a program where students in the NG were exempt from state universities tuition, got the GI bill and got 90% of a education loan payment paid off during service years I didn't want to join the NG but it was a great way to pay for school. So I did. I also waited tables. I now have a great paying job and live well all funded by me. See how it works?
9
you are way off base......................like there are no rich Dems? no one hates the poor, but at some point the poor have to help themselves instead of mooching off the Feds/taxpayers for generations...
11
If you're sending 1,000 text messages a month you don't have much time to study or work.
11
Hey Charles, did you know that a lot of public agencies and even utilities are now reliant on text to communicate with their clients and customers? Text messages are not strictly "entertainment" any more than the internet is. For many, that is how you pay your bills now and access your banking information or "watch" your children while at work.
Please don't assume that living at or under the poverty line is all fun and games. Do not judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.
Please don't assume that living at or under the poverty line is all fun and games. Do not judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes.
1
There are a great number of poor in rural areas that do not have cell phones also but more importantly there is no service available. In states of emergencies such as Hurricane Irene, many citizens in upstate New York had no communications available since copper landlines are the only method of contacting others. Internet service is a non issue when there is no power during these emergencies. along with downed copper phone lines. Those insulated in Washington and State Houses of government have little understanding of what other outside of that "bubble" face.
10
When looking at Ms Harmon's cell phone, I wonder how much it cost to have those tats inked into her arm? Maybe the government should also start a program to help young single mothers need to self express with tattoos? Before too long Ms Harmon would even need a college degree to get by. When the government helps the poor with too many things they want, they just might want to stay poor.
19
Yes, the poor have it made, you should try it!
2
People want to be poor? Did you actually just assert that? Man, your hatred against the poor is intense. Here is a factoid for you: The poor are NOT buying lobster. The poor are NOT buying brand new cars, etc.... Fox News is lying to you.
3
Many low income people opt to have the dish network, which provides a cable TV-like service, but not internet. Let those people give up TV and pay for their own broadband internet service instead of benefiting from this program.
8
Satellite service is usually about $20. Cable internet is generally $75 that is without any TV.
1
The digital divide is just like all the other divides. It is intentionally maintained by rich people, who decide who gets assistance to move across it or not. To be on the good side of the divide is held as a sign of non-poverty status by most Americans. Thus, the connected majority have little interest in helping poor Americans achieve a status equalizer, because among other reasons it lowers the value of not being in poverty.
And, many Americans still process welfare assistance as essentially unfair—to the wealthy people meting it out to the poor.
Take that and add it to an American broadband market that charges outrageously high prices for awful speeds and service, and suggest that maybe it would be nice to give poor Americans low-price or free broadband (they might use it to get entertained after all!), and you are asking for class-war wrangling of a particularly vile nature.
Example, someone claiming to be "liberal" comments: but the woman in the article has a tattoo! What kind of values and priorities must she have! Fix those, oh poor tattooed woman, and then we can talk about giving you some digital divide crumbs.
I don't know what kind of values and priorities having a tattoo signifies. But I know the kinds of values and priorities the USA has been perpetrating as a nation for a long time now, and handing out free broadband and tattoos for the poor would be a small but meaningful move towards a more civilized posture on the part of the American government.
And, many Americans still process welfare assistance as essentially unfair—to the wealthy people meting it out to the poor.
Take that and add it to an American broadband market that charges outrageously high prices for awful speeds and service, and suggest that maybe it would be nice to give poor Americans low-price or free broadband (they might use it to get entertained after all!), and you are asking for class-war wrangling of a particularly vile nature.
Example, someone claiming to be "liberal" comments: but the woman in the article has a tattoo! What kind of values and priorities must she have! Fix those, oh poor tattooed woman, and then we can talk about giving you some digital divide crumbs.
I don't know what kind of values and priorities having a tattoo signifies. But I know the kinds of values and priorities the USA has been perpetrating as a nation for a long time now, and handing out free broadband and tattoos for the poor would be a small but meaningful move towards a more civilized posture on the part of the American government.
17
Pay for it yourself. I have no tattoos. When I was young I was poor, very poor. No choices, tattoo or food. Food or school. I chose school and did without. No new clothes, no new shoes, etc. I was thin too. Guess why?
3
'...I don't know what kind of values and priorities having a tattoo signifies...'
It signifies that a person's disposable income is spent on other than necessities.
It signifies that a person's disposable income is spent on other than necessities.
2
The "priorities" are that she has enough money to ink herself up but not this internet service that she apparently so needs...all at the expense of the American taxpayer. Might I also suggest we remind people that having those "kids (she is a single mother of at least more than one child at the tender age of 23!), BEFORE they can afford one (dare we suggest they get a proper job or college degree first!) is a sure fire way to stay impoverished for the rest of your life!
We ALL have a finite amount of money at the end of the day, and yes, we must PRIORITIZE how we spend it, how many kids we have...etc. etc. Why, simply because they have less money, are they not required to prioritize?
It's not $9.25/mo. I am worried about, really it isn't. It's that ADDED to everything else this single mother of several children is already likely to be receiving...Preschool/HeadStart, food stamps, housing, medical care, likely electricity...and on and on...at the expense of someone else. And, really, while maybe she's not "comfortable," what does she pay for on her own? And will that cycle every stop with her children.
Many kids on free tuition at my kid's college are "shocked" that we pay a housing/food bill each month...they think it is normal for all your life's needs to be covered by the government (they are also, btw, the same kids who choose the most expensive room choice...A Private single room!~Genius!)
We ALL have a finite amount of money at the end of the day, and yes, we must PRIORITIZE how we spend it, how many kids we have...etc. etc. Why, simply because they have less money, are they not required to prioritize?
It's not $9.25/mo. I am worried about, really it isn't. It's that ADDED to everything else this single mother of several children is already likely to be receiving...Preschool/HeadStart, food stamps, housing, medical care, likely electricity...and on and on...at the expense of someone else. And, really, while maybe she's not "comfortable," what does she pay for on her own? And will that cycle every stop with her children.
Many kids on free tuition at my kid's college are "shocked" that we pay a housing/food bill each month...they think it is normal for all your life's needs to be covered by the government (they are also, btw, the same kids who choose the most expensive room choice...A Private single room!~Genius!)
3
The Lifeline program, subsidized by the taxpayers, carries with it an imperative degree of responsibility on the part of the cell phone users. Regulation will be extensive due to the possibility of abuse of these phones for criminal purposes or, in the worst case scenario, terrorism. Social justice and economic equality are as noble a concept as is national security.
1
The IWW and FDR live on! The march of unfunded, soul killing socialism continues. No democracy required or accepted in these Democrat led decisions. Faceless, unelected Democrat operatives will take care of it. They know best how to spend your grand kids money and effect their future.
5
Free wifi is not a right in this country or anywhere in the world. This type of taxpayer funded service is another reason why Americans can not make the association of work equals income. It's priorities.
6
Why should we limit these types of entitlements/benefits to just on segment of society. My suggestion is that congress create an omnibus bill. Lets create free, dental care, free medical care, free broadband, free phone and cell service, free tv , free public transportation, free legal services to insure equal justice for all, etc , etc. And once that is done lets open the immigration doors to every person in the world who wants to come here and provide them with free airline or boat tickets to get here and of course give them all these free services mentioned above. Opps, I know that something is missing...perhaps who is going be taxed to pay for this. It will be hard
4
Changes to this corporate entitlement should include telecommunication companies footing some of the bill. And that would include simply not passing any costs back onto consumers. $1.7 billion simply given to them without oversight and accountability should not happen. Most Americans would agree that the services they offer are not truly worth the money they charge for them.
4
Looking at this Mr. O'Rileys comment, the Republican critic of life line, that it is " in serious need of review" reminds me of Lee Atwater's comment about how discrimination is affected in post-racial America: We need to review that, we need to cut that."
No they don't use the words that used to be used but the effects are certainly the same.
No they don't use the words that used to be used but the effects are certainly the same.
Telecom companies must know how lucky the are in the U.S. compared to anywhere else in the world. The middle class, wealthy and poor in Europe start at much more powerful gigabit broadband at considerably lower price because those nations have telecom companies competing. If we have to subsidize now to help folks get a leg up because we presume entrenched interests won't change, then fine. But let's not act like the starting point of the discussion isn't at absurd levels.
6
The first and most glaring question, which this report ignores (as do all the comments so far) is, why is this an FCC function? The power to tax and spend is a legislative function. No one votes for the FCC commissioners. It is beyond sad that we have abandoned our Constitutional principles such that we start off a policy discussion by discarding them. It's not new though, we throw to the courts a range of political questions, we are doing it now with so-called fast-track, we do it routinely with the Fed and it's enormous role in our national economy and family economies, etc. These boards regulate, and sometime adjudicate, but taxing Peter to pay Paul, no matter how sensible or worthy it may seem to some, is not a power an unelected person or panel legitimately has in our system. This is an issue for Congress. Period.
4
Of course, this is a noble cause and a good idea, but how is 9.25 going to truly impact a 60 dollar a month bill for broadband? Now it seems to be just an incentive for poor people to pony up 50 bucks to the cable bandits. It seems to me to be a duping of poor people to bring about a windfall profit for the broadband providers.
6
I agree that having reliable Internet access can be an economic boon. Comparison shopping, easy access to financial account information and access to government sites and forms (read: IRS, Social Security), just to name a few can certainly help with achieving and maintaining financial stability.
My smartphone and access to the Internet played a huge role in purchasing our house.
My smartphone and access to the Internet played a huge role in purchasing our house.
2
If only the government didn't end up spending more for equipment and services than private citizens do for the same...
1
Aside from wholesale tax reform, blanketing the nation with bona fide high speed internet is our country's path to prosperity collectively and individually. Whether as individuals or businesses, the nature of our work has changed and high speed internet is a must.
5
High speed internet is virtually a human right in this society. We should nationalize the system...or at least exert local government control. The cost should be born by the nation as a whole. Think of it the way we do highways. If we provided super fast internet and really good universal educational opportunities to ALL our citizens our global competitive would be untouchable.
Bernis Sanders might agree.
Bernis Sanders might agree.
5
I might agree too. Good comment !
1
Why is Comcast charging $70 per month for access to the internet? They gouge and the governments and agencies that supposedly oversee them do nothing.
26
Go look at their their Moody's report. 10.48% return on invested capital is not indicative of gouging.
The typical broadband bill is 50 to 60 dollars per month. If the Federal government subsidizes each new subscriber at $9.25 per month, that means they will be promoting poor people to pay about 40 dollars per month. What that means is that the Government subsidies totaling 1.7 billion dollars will be leveraging 8.5 billion dollars to the broadband companies.
Aparrantly this is really a windfall profit more than a subsidy.
Aparrantly this is really a windfall profit more than a subsidy.
11
I think everyone should have Internet and cell everywhere as public infrastructure and that it will pay for itself by making society more productive and efficient. I think the communications that the Internet and related technology facilitate ultimately will help prevent wars and will greatly reduce government and business corruption.
1
Break up the monsters, Comcast, Verizon especially. Cable is out of reach for the elderly and poor. I made less than the yearly Federal wage and paying for companies that are too big to fail is not my idea of a wise investmentof my limited resources.
17
Just what the country needs...more subsidy for a service the government was never intended to provide. When will the largess ever stop? Why of course, when the money runs out!
9
I'm fine with this but I think if they should regulate the broadband providers and get everyone a fair deal so programs like this would be needed a lot less.
6
12 million Americans? Great. Let's start working on subsidies for Stawberry sundays.
7
The Internet is a utility necessary for students, adults, and an informed citizenry. A further issue to consider is how expensive broadband subscriptions and cell phone plans are in the U.S. Living in Europe in 2014 I paid 25 euros a month (about $30 at that time) for unlimited talk, text, Internet access on my phone with no contract! We need more access to competitors to Verizon and Comcast who are hurting the middle class as well as low-income Americans.
28
There is a competitor the company is called Cricket Wireless $30.00 for unlimited service. I have used the service for many years with no problems
1
Wonderful news! So weird to learn about something actually designed to help those who most need help.
6
There's no point to working and trying to save any more. No matter what the government will find some way to use your earnings for someone else.
My wife bused tables in he college cafeteria, cleaned rat cages in the lab and made beds at the Jersey Shore to pay for her schooling and still graduated cum laude.
Of course she didn't own a car, lived in the dormitory, ate her meals in teh cafeteria and didn't have a kid to support.
My wife bused tables in he college cafeteria, cleaned rat cages in the lab and made beds at the Jersey Shore to pay for her schooling and still graduated cum laude.
Of course she didn't own a car, lived in the dormitory, ate her meals in teh cafeteria and didn't have a kid to support.
5
This is a startling and wonderful development! The digital divide is real and is exacerbating the economic divide. And a dividend of providing internet to all is that it will simultaneously increase the flow of information to voters…. which might be the underlying reason for the pushback from the Congress. An informed electorate might be appalled at some of the legislation being passed and might even vote some people out of office.
9
Another 2 billion down the drain.
8
Take all the money for government services & require some type of work to get the service!
If it's a phone & internet then maybe a few hours work at a post office... Sweeping for example.
If it is housing then more time working.
I could list thousands of ways to work.
At a homeless shelter
At a animal care service
In a government office helping another employee.
Maybe they would end up with part time or full time jobs at the place of work if they did good & liked the work. And they might make more money to buy more things.
It's called capitalism!
If it's a phone & internet then maybe a few hours work at a post office... Sweeping for example.
If it is housing then more time working.
I could list thousands of ways to work.
At a homeless shelter
At a animal care service
In a government office helping another employee.
Maybe they would end up with part time or full time jobs at the place of work if they did good & liked the work. And they might make more money to buy more things.
It's called capitalism!
2
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Karl Marx would be proud of how his little form of extreme anti-Capitalism is coming back to life in the bowels of our "progressive" country.
Karl Marx would be proud of how his little form of extreme anti-Capitalism is coming back to life in the bowels of our "progressive" country.
7
Wheeler is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. This program, which on the surface seems humane, is really a gift to his old pals who run America's internet oligopoly, and for whom he used to lobby. By extending Lifeline to the poor, the internet companies can expand their customer base while still charging obscenely high prices for a mediocre service.
Where I live, I pay the equivalent of about $35/month for a package that includes high-speed internet, basic cable TV, and unlimited telephone including calls to the US and 100+ other countries. And this in the socialist bastion of Europe, where prices are low because regulators legislated away communications monopolies and (gasp!) forced competition. And imagine, even at such low prices, Europe's ISPs almost all manage to still turn a profit.
When socialist European regulators embrace the free market in this way - a very Republican notion - while Republicans in Congress on the one hand blather on about the wonders of the free market while on the other block any effort to break up their sponsors' communications oligopolies, you begin to see the hypocrisy.
If Wheeler were really sincere, he would be forcing intense competition, which would lower prices for ALL consumers, making it affordable even for the poor without subsidies.
Where I live, I pay the equivalent of about $35/month for a package that includes high-speed internet, basic cable TV, and unlimited telephone including calls to the US and 100+ other countries. And this in the socialist bastion of Europe, where prices are low because regulators legislated away communications monopolies and (gasp!) forced competition. And imagine, even at such low prices, Europe's ISPs almost all manage to still turn a profit.
When socialist European regulators embrace the free market in this way - a very Republican notion - while Republicans in Congress on the one hand blather on about the wonders of the free market while on the other block any effort to break up their sponsors' communications oligopolies, you begin to see the hypocrisy.
If Wheeler were really sincere, he would be forcing intense competition, which would lower prices for ALL consumers, making it affordable even for the poor without subsidies.
63
Yes, don't know about Wheeler's motivation but we desperately need competition, which could be achieved if the cable and telephone monopolies, a legacy of exclusive franchising, were barred from direct sales to the consumer. They would then own the network as regulated utilities and service providers could compete on price and service, just like in the days of dial up Internet access, when robust competition pushed the price of Internet service down and gave us unlimited, untimed service (thank you, AOL).
1
Yes!
Lower prices to all of us!
Lower prices to all of us!
1
Wheeler can't "force" intense competition. He's actually been doing everything in his power to encourage it.
1
Free phones, free broadband, what's next, free cars? The free phone program is rift with corruption, fraud and abuse. Estimates are that the fraud in the free phone program is costing us about $6 billion a year. As in all things government, it is always the case.
6
You want to talk about government waste, how about the Defense Dept.?
There's the Nuclear Submarine program (Trillions wasted there, and they are not nearly done yet), The F35 fighter jet....how many billions and billions wasted there? Oh, and don't forget the contractors, like Halliburton for example. Just "bing" Defense Department waste and fraud.
If we could cut the fat out of Defense, we would be literally rolling in money.
There's the Nuclear Submarine program (Trillions wasted there, and they are not nearly done yet), The F35 fighter jet....how many billions and billions wasted there? Oh, and don't forget the contractors, like Halliburton for example. Just "bing" Defense Department waste and fraud.
If we could cut the fat out of Defense, we would be literally rolling in money.
1
In my view broadband or any other Internet service, cell phone provision, and cell phone service is not a right, entitlement, or need for those that cannot provide it by their own work and productivity. If you cannot afford access, how do you afford a computer or tablet? If you want a computer and access, use that desire as a springboard to productivity and provide that "luxury" for your self. Don't look to your productive, tax paying fellow citizens to "give" it to you.
8
Kind of unfair to those who can't find work, particularly when trust fund babies use our money to jet around the world, never having worked a day in their lives. They're the real welfare recipients.
2
I live in Rural Kentucky. There is no access to broadband where I live; only satellite internet which costs $90.00 a month, more than my telephone and electric combined.
My job is seven days a week on a farm, where I work very hard, and am very productive, by the way, at $700 every two weeks. That's about $1400 a month before taxes.
There's rent - $550.00, electric - $120.00, gas for the truck to get to work - $100.00, school expenses for the kids - $50.00, food - $420.00, clothes maybe once every 6 months, ($250 divided by 6 equals $41.00). then there's insurance on the truck - $100.00 a month, plus any extra stuff like doctor visits. Lets say the extras, including my landline which is $36.00 come to $150.00.
Grand total of monthly expenses is $1467.00.
Guess there's no money for internet. or anything else, for that matter.
Well, there are two questions here.
If internet and telephone are not needed for my work and productivity, how do I make more money? Remember, I work seven days a week. My boss doesn't give yearly raises - only year-end bonuses, like at Christmas.
The other question is - should my salary be higher so that I can afford internet and telephone? Then, perhaps I could take online college courses, or canvas for a better job, like one that lets me stay home and work?
My job is seven days a week on a farm, where I work very hard, and am very productive, by the way, at $700 every two weeks. That's about $1400 a month before taxes.
There's rent - $550.00, electric - $120.00, gas for the truck to get to work - $100.00, school expenses for the kids - $50.00, food - $420.00, clothes maybe once every 6 months, ($250 divided by 6 equals $41.00). then there's insurance on the truck - $100.00 a month, plus any extra stuff like doctor visits. Lets say the extras, including my landline which is $36.00 come to $150.00.
Grand total of monthly expenses is $1467.00.
Guess there's no money for internet. or anything else, for that matter.
Well, there are two questions here.
If internet and telephone are not needed for my work and productivity, how do I make more money? Remember, I work seven days a week. My boss doesn't give yearly raises - only year-end bonuses, like at Christmas.
The other question is - should my salary be higher so that I can afford internet and telephone? Then, perhaps I could take online college courses, or canvas for a better job, like one that lets me stay home and work?
2
Coming from the perspective of a 20-something non-traditional medical school student I would have to say that in today's information based economy both mobile phone and broadband internet access aren't a luxury, but rather a necessity.
It would be impossible for many young people like myself to become well-educated, connected, and socially connected to people of all classes without access to both. I think everybody should have access so they can have opportunities to improve themselves.
Even if our country can't get behind mobile phones for all, it should be able to get behind broadband for all. The government laid most of the cable lines and phone lines that we use today and lease them so private companies can make a profit. Most areas are under a monopoly with only one ISP leading to obscene prices. We don't have a choice in America when it comes to who we buy our broadband from. As of today, the government has laid fiber optic networks but I don't know of any ISP has chosen to use it due to licensing arguments over who could provide service using it. Maybe our nation or at least one state can all kill off greedy ISPs by making fiber optic broadband a public utility. After all, does it make sense to let a private company profit while providing service using public government leased networks? Maybe we will see another tech boom with the increase in bandwidth!
It would be impossible for many young people like myself to become well-educated, connected, and socially connected to people of all classes without access to both. I think everybody should have access so they can have opportunities to improve themselves.
Even if our country can't get behind mobile phones for all, it should be able to get behind broadband for all. The government laid most of the cable lines and phone lines that we use today and lease them so private companies can make a profit. Most areas are under a monopoly with only one ISP leading to obscene prices. We don't have a choice in America when it comes to who we buy our broadband from. As of today, the government has laid fiber optic networks but I don't know of any ISP has chosen to use it due to licensing arguments over who could provide service using it. Maybe our nation or at least one state can all kill off greedy ISPs by making fiber optic broadband a public utility. After all, does it make sense to let a private company profit while providing service using public government leased networks? Maybe we will see another tech boom with the increase in bandwidth!
55
Huh? The government didn't lay phone, cable, and fiber optic lines. They were laid and are owned and maintained by private telephone and cable companies. I agree that the current monopolies, a legacy of exclusive franchises, are wrong, but this comment is just misinformed.
1
Seriously Alex, "connected, and socially connected to people of all classes."
This is your rationale for free service? I suppose you spend hours each day dialing random numbers in hopes of connecting to a person of a different class than you. And exactly what sort of class are you and "what difference would it make" for telecommunication service?
Good luck in your medical career, I do warn you your ideals may run headlong into fiscal reality when you personally experience the fraud.
This is your rationale for free service? I suppose you spend hours each day dialing random numbers in hopes of connecting to a person of a different class than you. And exactly what sort of class are you and "what difference would it make" for telecommunication service?
Good luck in your medical career, I do warn you your ideals may run headlong into fiscal reality when you personally experience the fraud.
2
And a 'free' phone and a 'free' computer and 'free' cable service and a 'free' flat screen television with all the premium channels, because being 'socially connected' is a human right that others must pay for.
That said, cable companies are monopolies that should be broken up, as that is the reason cable and broadband bills are outrageously high.
That said, cable companies are monopolies that should be broken up, as that is the reason cable and broadband bills are outrageously high.
3
State and municipal governments seem reluctant to provide city-wide broadband at low cost, yet where it has been done the results are terrific: lower cost, higher quality, and more universal service. What's not to like?
11
It's worked out well for many communities, not so well for others. And it's certainly not simple. Most of all, it requires political will.
1
Low-income people need internet service in order to keep up with the Kardashians and watch World-Wide wrestling just like the rest of us.
11
We had that back in the '80s with over-the-air TV.
We still have it.
We low-incomers would NEVER watch that on a computer! :+)
We still have it.
We low-incomers would NEVER watch that on a computer! :+)
1
Now so many essential documents are only available on line for things such as taxes and collge internet is essential. I do not know how much slower my internet is than Broadband but it is probably a lot.
6
As the two previous posters have noted, our duopoly ISP system has led to high prices and poor service. Getting real wireline competion would go a long way to lowering cost per Mbps(Megabit per second) and per MB(MegaByte). When AT&T merged with Bell South they had an interesting merger condition. Affordable internet service to any Bell South POTS(Plain Old Telephone Service) location that could utilize DSL. AT&T did not market the program the way it should have, but it did provide many people with their first affordable internet service. I think it was $10 for 768 Kilobits per second down and 128 Kilobits per second up, but it was good enough to do essential World Wide Web tasks. That is the kind of servvice offering we still need today. We need a carrot and stick approach witht he telephone companies. Ideally the telephone companies would have completed ADSL2+ deployments to all POTS locations in such a manner that the top 24 Mbps data transfer rate would be available at any POTS location. The Customer Premises Equipment(CPE) could be single or dual WAN(Wide Area Network) modems. Bonding two telephone lines together could get you 40 Mbps.
4
The GOP only worries about fraud when there's a danger the 47% could become better informed or might vote in larger numbers. They could care less about bank fraud, wage theft, tax evasion, fraudulent 501c groups, voter suppression, lack of accountability in military spending, the list is endless. GOP concern about fraud is fraudulent.
45
What exactly does this have to do with this article. If democrats were better informed they would realize that their party has been taken over by the 30% that want socialism. Compare every democrat president since Kennedy and see what change has taken place. Your party is socialism. You are giving away your freedoms and mine. Wake up.
2
Uh oh! Another "handout to lazy people" for the G.O.P. to defund.
5
As we move to make more and more things "free" we remove many of the incentives for work. God help the poor if the middle class decide they want freebies too. Then there will be no one left to pay for these things. And yes, the middle class pays for these "free" phones with every single telecom bill.
16
We pay for the "free" computers given in class so apparently we owe everyone free WFI to go with it. I wouldn't even mind paying for free phones etc. if they were actually regulated and given only to the people that qualify but my 10 year old nephew does not need a phone. If we continue this way no one will bother to work. Who will pay the taxes for the freebees??
2
Believe me, the poor people I've known weren't lacking an incentive to work, life in poverty is pretty unpleasant. They can't get jobs, or have a disability that prevents them from working, like our cleaning lady who has been unable to work for half a year due to serious illness.
If anyone lacks an incentive to work it's the trust fund babies who live comfortably on the fruits of everyone else's labor merely because of the money that daddy made. Each of these rich welfare recipients takes far more resources from us than the poor guy who can't find a job.
If anyone lacks an incentive to work it's the trust fund babies who live comfortably on the fruits of everyone else's labor merely because of the money that daddy made. Each of these rich welfare recipients takes far more resources from us than the poor guy who can't find a job.
2
Clearly you are oblivious to the many government programs that undergirded the building of the middle class.
Ever hear of any of these government programs that came out of the New Deal - the GI Bill, FHA mortgages, Social Security, Public Works Programs, etc.
I would even bet that you are the beneficiary of some of them.
Ever hear of any of these government programs that came out of the New Deal - the GI Bill, FHA mortgages, Social Security, Public Works Programs, etc.
I would even bet that you are the beneficiary of some of them.
3
Reliably, commenters are already issuing dire warnings about "fraud" (the horrifying prospect of a dirt-poor family using subsidized Internet access partly for entertainment), and trotting out the "poor choices" meme (how dare someone who, at some point in the past paid for tattoos, ever hope for assistance, since she's obviously used money for a non-essential?!).
If only America paid the same close attemtion to corporate fraud and other poor choices among the 1%ers, which cost us taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue and never-to-be-repaid damage to our personal finances.
The poor are such an easy target. If we can pretend poverty is their own fault, and not a phenomenon carefully built into our political and social system, we ourselves will be magically preserved from ever becoming poor ourselves, since bad things happen only to bad people. And we can feel so rightsous about denying aid.
If only America paid the same close attemtion to corporate fraud and other poor choices among the 1%ers, which cost us taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue and never-to-be-repaid damage to our personal finances.
The poor are such an easy target. If we can pretend poverty is their own fault, and not a phenomenon carefully built into our political and social system, we ourselves will be magically preserved from ever becoming poor ourselves, since bad things happen only to bad people. And we can feel so rightsous about denying aid.
76
Largely, it is the fault of the poor. There, I said it. I am mean and selfish, but lightening did not strike.
1
It's not about the poor. It is about the fraudsters and gamers and the many that take advantage of anything and everything the governmet implements to 'help' those in need.
For example - Medicare! The fraud and abuse in Medicare is rampant, and well known. Billions stolen every year. Old people are not committing this fraud, criminals well below the age of 65 are committing this fraud.
But there is something else about this nonsense for broadband. I'm not going to pay for gigibites of information to stream to someones subsidized phone. Not going to pay for a computer or tablet so that someone can watch TV or movies. It is not the right of anyone, poor or otherwise, to expect to be entertained with hard working tax dollars. They don't NEED it.
For example - Medicare! The fraud and abuse in Medicare is rampant, and well known. Billions stolen every year. Old people are not committing this fraud, criminals well below the age of 65 are committing this fraud.
But there is something else about this nonsense for broadband. I'm not going to pay for gigibites of information to stream to someones subsidized phone. Not going to pay for a computer or tablet so that someone can watch TV or movies. It is not the right of anyone, poor or otherwise, to expect to be entertained with hard working tax dollars. They don't NEED it.
2
I am often struck by how frequently news stories, even on things like important health information, end with statements such as, "you can find that information on our web site." At such times I wonder about those without access including both many of the older elderly (who could perhaps afford it, but never engaged computers) and the poor. I also know that schools now post all sort of information for parents either on their web site or through emails to parents. Access is important. My only question is whether less than $10/mo is enough.
34
The affordable access to the telecommunications services specially the Internet as proposed by the F. C. C. Chief appears to be a sure way of citizen empowerment in the context of a globalised world and knowledge economy, hence to be welcomed.
33
Broadband and phone service should be offered, provided that there is strict compliance and periodic reviews to preclude individual and family fraud, for the same budgeted amount per verified user, and for the same program amount, that is already approved, but not more. Unfortunately, I've seen abuses first hand, with the latest, most expensive phones, and subscriptions, which are for pure entertainment, and not for basic, necessary, emergency and academic uses.
15
The abuse is how much all Americans pay for what is modest speed broadband. Our poor could afford it if the prices were anything resembling reality. Americans pay so much for the basics of broadband and healthcare, two sectors that over price what they do and under deliver, while causing the need for subsidies.
2
Would be great if that worked, but there is no enforcement of laws. Sadly, fraud is one of the last things the government is truely interested in. They can tell you what you ate for dinner and what email you read and what internet site you visited, but have no idea how they paid a corner shop millions for thousands of wheelchairs when a major national supplier doesn't sell as many in a year.
When you're identity is stolen, the government has no ability (?) to arrest the person using your social security number AFTER they have been told it has been stolen.
It's a pipe dream at best to believe that the government can stop fraud from the social subsidy programs - 2 of every 5 free cell phones are fraud- that's close to 50%!!!
When you're identity is stolen, the government has no ability (?) to arrest the person using your social security number AFTER they have been told it has been stolen.
It's a pipe dream at best to believe that the government can stop fraud from the social subsidy programs - 2 of every 5 free cell phones are fraud- that's close to 50%!!!
2
I'm not poor but have a farm in Michigan. It spite of repeated promises from telecom to wire rural America in exchange for merges, we still don't have broadband. We don't have cell service unless I stand on the chicken coup facing south. Our Republicans just cut a deal with AT&T to strip our land lines without demanding in exchange they keep their promise to provide broadband to their rural constituents. Try internet satellite. Cost? three times what I pay for broadband in Washington. Reliability? Watch the lightening rods for inclement weather. Speed? I could milk old Bessie waiting for a page to load.
89
You have it made, we have to drive 10 miles and then stand on a chicken coup facing south to even get any cell signals..
1
I know many people in situations similar to yours. There are was to increase both reception and transmission of the cellular signal. companies such as 3Gstore.com, wirelessnwifi.com, and weBoost.com have various solutions to weak signal situations.
Why is ATT responsible for taking care of all land lines? Did they even install them all or do they lease from the gov't. Of course you blame the republicans maybe you should blame Bush? It may surprise you to realize that democrats voted this in too.
1
I'm sympathetic to a program like this. Since my daughter is a teacher, and iPads are replacing books both in the classroom and for home study, I know how important broadband connectivity at home really is. Of course, all over our nation internet service really is lousy, but still, the kids need whatever our country can provide, no matter income levels.
I must say, though, that the picture contained in the article of the lady holding out her cell phone and saying how good the Lifeline program is... even as a dyed-in-the-wool old liberal, I couldn't help but notice the tattooed arms, which I assume weren't done for free. I'll sound very conservative here, but if she has money for the tats, uh, why can't she pay for the phone? She probably can't afford the phone under any circumstances, but my advice to her would be to re-establish some priorities.
I must say, though, that the picture contained in the article of the lady holding out her cell phone and saying how good the Lifeline program is... even as a dyed-in-the-wool old liberal, I couldn't help but notice the tattooed arms, which I assume weren't done for free. I'll sound very conservative here, but if she has money for the tats, uh, why can't she pay for the phone? She probably can't afford the phone under any circumstances, but my advice to her would be to re-establish some priorities.
55
She might have a friend who does tas and got them free or at a cut rate. I have tatoos obtained this way. Also, the tats she has probably cost only as much as one month of broadband
3
Yes! I'll bet her kids have tats too as well as high cholesterol levels from eating all that lobster and shrimp.
For what it is worth, I responded differently to Ms. Harmon's tattoo. My first imagining, only my imagining, was, reaching for the stars. A bold and admirable act in present day America. Of course, I don't know what the tattoo may signify for Ms. Harmon, but I think it is lovely. Everyone deserves a bit of beauty in their lives and I don't at all resent the possibility that my tax dollars may assist this single mother to improve she and her children's circumstances through school. Reach for the stars, Ms. Harmon.
7
We don't need help in that way so much as we need an internet that actually works at real high speeds not the garbage we have now and the price must be cut by %60.
69
The FCC complaint dept is a waste of tax dollars. TDS in northern GA upsold customers to "turbo" speed. They have NEVER provided that service and do not even have the equipment in place to supply it. Despite numerous complaints, FCC does nothing but forward them to the perpetrators. No fines, no charges, no demand to supply advertised speeds, and no retroactive refunds.
There are people who need and deserve help. Out of work vets, those whose jobs are now in another country. Take some of the FCC budget and help those with genuine need.
There are people who need and deserve help. Out of work vets, those whose jobs are now in another country. Take some of the FCC budget and help those with genuine need.
1
You know what is really sad about America we have one of the worst broadband speeds of the developed world it is sad.
90
It is high time for those who endlessly repeat this untrue statement to look into the facts and stop. Average connection speeds reported by Akamai show the US as #11 after countries with greater population densities that make widespread deployment of high speed service both easier and less costly. Julie R's comment above is suggestive, and there are large areas between the Mississippi and the Rockies where conditions are similar or worse.
Things could be better, but it is not obvious that they will be made so by anything the FCC is likely to dictate, especially if they get involved in subsidies or rate regulation.
Things could be better, but it is not obvious that they will be made so by anything the FCC is likely to dictate, especially if they get involved in subsidies or rate regulation.
It's not just broadband, we're behind in so much. We should look to the world and stop the American Exceptionalism thing. It only describes how exceptionally provincial we are.
6
Ah, but it is the most profitable. $$$
1