FCC to Propose $1.7B Subsidized Internet Access for the Poor

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The FCC is formulating a plan to get low-income families access to broadband Internet service. The addition of broadband will join the telephone subsidy, providing telephone service that has been in place for over 30 years.

The effort is the F.C.C.’s strongest recognition yet that high-speed Internet access is as essential to economic well-being as good transportation and telephone service.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah. Can't wait for the shitfest this thread will become.
 
10 years from now it will be 30 billion and everyone will jump in.
 
techrat said:
Yeah. Can't wait for the shitfest this thread will become.
Click to expand...

At this point, Internet is more important than the phone...especially when you can use google hangouts to make calls over the internet (for free).

Hopefully this doesn't turn into a huge infrastructure project. It shouldn't, since those in cities should be in areas served by ISPs and most rural areas probably have some wireless coverage, which should suffice for internet usage, especially as they turn off 3G networks, which is the goal for all providers (because it's ultimately cheaper to use LTE/VoLTE than 1x/3G/LTE and CDMA or GSM).
 
NO FUCKING WAY! This will probably be just corrupt as the Obama phones.

Have people donate to the project if they want to, but it's time the taxpayers quit paying for shit like this.
 
More freebies to those that don't or wont work. Just make sure they're legal kthx.
 
Scythe said:
NO FUCKING WAY! This will probably be just corrupt as the Obama phones.

Have people donate to the project if they want to, but it's time the taxpayers quit paying for shit like this.
Click to expand...

Stupid guberment never should have funded the creation of the internet in the first place, amirite.
 
They weren't wrong, keep Obama in president, they not just gunna get you an Obamaphone, they gunna do MORE!

We already have free public libraries, how about instead we get, *gasp*, JOBS for the poor. The poorest neighborhoods are usually the dirties too, so how about instead of paying for their internet, allow them to make money to buy internet by giving them plastic bags and letting them pick up trash? Something like the public works program, have them build some parks, man soup kitchens, and so forth. Anything to change the mindset of "gimmeegimmeegimee" entitlement to actually contributing to society. Otherwise we end up with a non-ending cycle of this bullcrap.
 
Not everyone can be a Dr or a Lawyer either or a Chemical Engineer. So should the poor and the slower ppl be allowed to make as much money as everyone else too? GOD put ppl on this earth to be Janitors, cooks, garbageman whatever and other ppl are Dr's , Lawyers accept the fact were ALL Human and not everyone everywhere can be ALL the same were not able to do that because were Human People..........
 
Scythe said:
NO FUCKING WAY! This will probably be just corrupt as the Obama phones.

Have people donate to the project if they want to, but it's time the taxpayers quit paying for shit like this.
Click to expand...

Protip. It was Reagan who pushed for telecom deregulation and George HW Bush who signed the "Obamaphone" bill into law.

And it's an entirely self funded program. No taxes are used for the Lifeline Service. Less than 2 Billion is spent on this program yearly. As opposed to 6 Trillion (and counting) funneled to war profiteers like Haliburton and wasted on the mid east.

But hey, any excuse to froth at the mouth and be angry, facts be damned...
 
Scythe said:
NO FUCKING WAY! This will probably be just corrupt as the Obama phones.
Click to expand...
Just as long as it's not as corrupt as ObamaGameWorks or ObamaHalliburton I think we can survive it.
 
As long as you are willing to work full time I don't have a problem with programs like this. In many jobs that make minimum wage are working harder than people who make 100k a year.
 
Excuse me while I channel my inner rage..

FUCKING NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Especially since they specifically state "broadband" internet.
 
Which are essentially taxes.


Nope, if they have enough to own a computer, tablet, or phone, they have enough to afford bottom tier internet service. What do they need it for anyway? It's not like they have any intention of breaking free of their self imposed chains of poverty. All this would be doing is making the freeloaders more comfortable. Freeloading should be uncomfortable and shameful. Since it is not, I can see no good reason to offer them an additional incentive to continue to freeload.
 
GORANKAR said:
Freeloading should be uncomfortable and shameful. Since it is not, I can see no good reason to offer them an additional incentive to continue to freeload.
Click to expand...
Which would be a good rule IMO, that in order to qualify for welfare, you have to work X-hours for the state, which demonstrates that you are applying some effort. The problem is, there will be people that simply refuse, or are alcoholics and what not and so you don't even want them around as they create negative productivity. The only solution to that I can think of is soylent green. We're all about recycling and reducing carbon footprints. *shrugs*
 
GORANKAR said:
Which are essentially taxes.


Nope, if they have enough to own a computer, tablet, or phone, they have enough to afford bottom tier internet service. What do they need it for anyway? It's not like they have any intention of breaking free of their self imposed chains of poverty. All this would be doing is making the freeloaders more comfortable. Freeloading should be uncomfortable and shameful. Since it is not, I can see no good reason to offer them an additional incentive to continue to freeload.
Click to expand...

That sounds like an incredibly privileged point of view. Being greedy and having more than you need should be uncomfortable and shameful, but in this twisted world we see the majority of people (or maybe it's just all of the loud mouths?) demonizing the poor instead.

Most people who are poor either don't have the resources or the oppertunities to get out of poverty, that coupled with incredible amounts of corporate greed results in what we have today. This is rarely about people "being lazy", "wanting to be poor", or "freeloading", but about saying poor people are bad because they are poor.
 
Well, we don't have wifi at McDonald and all those other restaurants. Starbucks coffee is another place to get free internet. Why does the FCC need to do this.. I tell ya, More Taxes on everyone!!!!! so we all can be poor under the ruling class of the ultra rich.
 
Ducman69 said:
Which would be a good rule IMO, that in order to qualify for welfare, you have to work X-hours for the state, which demonstrates that you are applying some effort. The problem is, there will be people that simply refuse, or are alcoholics and what not and so you don't even want them around as they create negative productivity. The only solution to that I can think of is soylent green. We're all about recycling and reducing carbon footprints. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Are you ok with the same being applied to people who aren't poor and get handouts? What about farming, corporate, and military welfare? Yeah, I didn't think so. I love how you guys can sit around all day talking about how it's not fair that poor people get help, when they need it, while turning a blind eye to the much larger amount, going to the people who really don't need the help.
 
bigdogchris said:
As long as you are willing to work full time I don't have a problem with programs like this. In many jobs that make minimum wage are working harder than people who make 100k a year.
Click to expand...

Sure they are.

I bet they have the same levels of stress flipping that burger, or checking your groceries, or possibly digging that trench....

Harder is a subjective term. You want to determine it only by physical output levels? Or perhaps the mental prowess of counting change is to much for them?

I don't agree with this type of taxation to cover it when there are other outlets they can use to get free broadband.
 
Ducman69 said:
They weren't wrong, keep Obama in president, they not just gunna get you an Obamaphone, they gunna do MORE!

We already have free public libraries, how about instead we get, *gasp*, JOBS for the poor. The poorest neighborhoods are usually the dirties too, so how about instead of paying for their internet, allow them to make money to buy internet by giving them plastic bags and letting them pick up trash? Something like the public works program, have them build some parks, man soup kitchens, and so forth. Anything to change the mindset of "gimmeegimmeegimee" entitlement to actually contributing to society. Otherwise we end up with a non-ending cycle of this bullcrap.
Click to expand...

Or fixing roads and bridges...oh wait, conservatives are against that...and I'm sure they'd find a reason to not pay them for cleaning up streets. "Fuck paying those bastards, they need to learn to cleanup after themselves."
 
timta2 said:
That sounds like an incredibly privileged point of view. Being greedy and having more than you need should be uncomfortable and shameful, but in this twisted world we see the majority of people (or maybe it's just all of the loud mouths?) demonizing the poor instead.

Most people who are poor either don't have the resources or the oppertunities to get out of poverty, that coupled with incredible amounts of corporate greed results in what we have today. This is rarely about people "being lazy", "wanting to be poor", or "freeloading", but about saying poor people are bad because they are poor.
Click to expand...

Privileged!!?? LOL, I got tired of eating hamburger helper without the hamburger and did something about it. Dems and some poor people sure like to call hard work "privilege" these days.
 
timta2 said:
Are you ok with the same being applied to people who aren't poor and get handouts? What about farming, corporate, and military welfare? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, I don't even know where to start with you. Please show me a corporation, military, or farmer that sits on their asses contributing nothing to society because of sloth and laziness and is demanding handouts. :rolleyes: If its not painfully obvious, what bothers me are the welfare queens and the like, that sit at home their entire lives, never lifting a finger to support themselves and just pop out babies because more children means more money and more comfortable living.

Do you really not get it, or is it inconvenient to make the distinction? If a soldier is giving his all for his country and is terribly wounded in combat and needs to live off welfare for the rest of his life, I have absolutely no qualms about that and he deserves to live in the same type of comfort (or as close as we can manage) that he otherwise would have afforded himself as an able bodied man. If a surfer bum refuses to work because "like whatever maaaan" and just collects welfare payments never contributing anything to society, or some big mamma has seven children from three different baby daddies and says she needs disability because she's too fat to walk, and never in her life had the slightest intention of working, should they be treated differently?

Somehow it seems to me like you can't understand there is a difference.
 
Point is, if I can get to a point where I am financially comfortable, so can other underprivileged people.
 
nilepez said:
Or fixing roads and bridges...oh wait, conservatives are against that...and I'm sure they'd find a reason to not pay them for cleaning up streets. "Fuck paying those bastards, they need to learn to cleanup after themselves."
Click to expand...

We threw $800 billion dollars at infrastructure projects and by the sounds of you, we got nothing to show for it. So you want to throw another $800 billiion at it so it can end up in your Party's crony's pockets again?
 
For those here that support this kinda crap what is the limit? We're seriously heading down a socialist road here. Now maybe that's ok with you I don't know, but it's certainly isn't what I want. I worked 2, 3 jobs after I got married. It was frikin tough. Didn't have a lot, but I didn't ask for anyone to GIVE me anything. I just don't see where this giving everything away is going to help in the long run. At some point we'll be like Greece. But, hey we can't all agree on everything so why do will all have to be alike and have everything the other person has.
 
jpm100 said:
We threw $800 billion dollars at infrastructure projects and by the sounds of you, we got nothing to show for it. So you want to throw another $800 billiion at it so it can end up in your Party's crony's pockets again?
Click to expand...

Better than throwing 6 Trillion that ended up lining the GOP's pockets.
 
gman said:
For those here that support this kinda crap what is the limit?
Click to expand...
No limits, comrade!

What the FCC wants to do is alter the existing Lifeline Assistance program, funded by a surcharge on existing phone service, in order to allow the $9.25/mo subsidy* to be used towards broadband service. There haven't been any serious attempts to kill Lifeline, regardless of parties in control, since its creation under the Reagan administration.

Whether $9.25/month can make any meaningful difference in broadband availability for the poor is questionable. But I also think it doesn't really cause any harm since Lifeline isn't going away. This wouldn't really change anything as far as the funds are collected, only how it could be used.

* yes, those free government phones + monthly service are paid for with the same $9.25/mo. Consider that the next time you look at the non-data portion of your cell phone bill... pure profit. ;)
 
timta2 said:
Most people who are poor either don't have the resources or the oppertunities to get out of poverty, that coupled with incredible amounts of corporate greed results in what we have today. This is rarely about people "being lazy", "wanting to be poor", or "freeloading", but about saying poor people are bad because they are poor.
Click to expand...

No, most people are poor because they made bad choices: i.e. dropping out of school, using drugs (yes that includes pot), drinking heavily, having kids when they are young and unmarried, etc.

Yes, not everyone can be rich and live in a huge home on the beach and drive fancy cars.
But, making it into the middle class, and living a decent, comfortable life if not that hard.

It does take some hard work and self responsibility. Simple stay in school and get an education, work hard, wait to get married, don't have kids until after you are married and can afford it, and then stay married.
 
How about subsidizing cars? :rolleyes: Everybody needs transportation.
Obammy can buy me a house too!
 
GORANKAR said:
Point is, if I can get to a point where I am financially comfortable, so can other underprivileged people.
Click to expand...
This is a textbook definition of the hasty generalization logical fallacy. You're assuming that because you can do something, anyone can. You're assuming that everyone who is poorer than you, has worse health, had to support their family, or has less education all still have the opportunity to be as successful as you have been.
 
nutzo said:
No, most people are poor because they made bad choices: i.e. dropping out of school, using drugs (yes that includes pot), drinking heavily, having kids when they are young and unmarried, etc.

Yes, not everyone can be rich and live in a huge home on the beach and drive fancy cars.
But, making it into the middle class, and living a decent, comfortable life if not that hard.

It does take some hard work and self responsibility. Simple stay in school and get an education, work hard, wait to get married, don't have kids until after you are married and can afford it, and then stay married.
Click to expand...
Wrong, there are plenty of people poor because they made bad decisions, but most people are poor because THEY WERE BORN POOR and they don't have the opportunities to get out of it. In the USA, the economic class you were born into determines where you'll end up more than any other factor. If you want more social mobility so that you birth doesn't determine your fate so much, you have to go to places like Northern Europe.

"Getting into the middle class not being that hard" just SCREAMS ignorance, like you're lived in a bubble existence most of your life. It's like you have no idea what kind of advantages you've had in order to make a statement like that.
 
Some time in the future, it will become apparent to the rich (of some unknown percentage) that it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo at all costs. As we get closer and closer to automation, there won't be enough jobs for the majority. I'm just glad we're not at that point yet.
 
nutzo said:
No, most people are poor because they made bad choices: i.e. dropping out of school, using drugs (yes that includes pot), drinking heavily, having kids when they are young and unmarried, etc.
Click to expand...
Considering that typical unskilled wages (service industry, manufacturing, etc) hover at or below the poverty line even for a single person*, and that poverty rates in the US are far above drug use rates, that doesn't seem to be the primary reasons. It's a simple restatement of the "everyone can be king" and "blame the poor" unrealistic talking points. The economy depends on cheap labor, and lobbying and lack of jobs means there's little pressure to raise wages.

The best illustration is how bad it is for everyone, including the working poor: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/28/americans-poverty-no-work/2594203/ 80% of people aren't using drugs, having kids young and dropping out of high school. These are complex structural problems.

* full or part time
 
tetris42 said:
This is a textbook definition of the hasty generalization logical fallacy. You're assuming that because you can do something, anyone can. You're assuming that everyone who is poorer than you, has worse health, had to support their family, or has less education all still have the opportunity to be as successful as you have been.
Click to expand...

Not everyone, but most certainly can. Regardless of whether you want to call it a hasty generalization, or not.
 
jpm100 said:
We threw $800 billion dollars at infrastructure projects and by the sounds of you, we got nothing to show for it. So you want to throw another $800 billiion at it so it can end up in your Party's crony's pockets again?
Click to expand...

I believe 800 billion is every year. With the gubermint you always get your moneys worth.
 
timta2 said:
Are you ok with the same being applied to people who aren't poor and get handouts? What about farming, corporate, and military welfare? Yeah, I didn't think so. I love how you guys can sit around all day talking about how it's not fair that poor people get help, when they need it, while turning a blind eye to the much larger amount, going to the people who really don't need the help.
Click to expand...


This!
 
Criminals in prison get TV and internet access so why not! :rolleyes:

Seriously, this will only accomplish to have more people stay home and not look for work.
When the fed gives you housing,food stamps,welfare and now entertainment why even bother?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top