FCC Unveils Proposal For Low-Income Broadband Subsidy

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Federal Communications Commission is proposing a budget of $2.25 billion a year for a monthly subsidy for low-income Americans to get broadband Internet access. The commission votes on the proposal March 31.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said he wants to give those receiving the subsidy a choice of using it for phone services, high-speed Internet, or both. But households will get only a single $9.25 a month subsidy that would apply to both services. The program currently helps about 12 million U.S. households afford landline and mobile phones, according to agency estimates.
 
I really think that ABSOLUTELY ANY "subsidy" - wealth redistribution programs - should have very, very, very stringent rules as to who can be approved to receive them.

1st. How much does the applicant need to survive? (Food, clothing, a place to live)
2nd. Is the person able bodied and able minded? If so, they MUST be actively looking for a job that will pay what they need.
3rd. If the person is not able bodied or able minded, is there a type of job they can do to bring in at least some money?
4th. Pre-approval AND monthly drug testing is required - if you fail, then all handouts are cut off.

On top of this, the recipient of such monies is not allowed to spend money on anything except needs. If they have extra money to blow on alcohol, cable, 22" rims, whatever, then the amount they spent on those is payed back by a reduction in future handouts.

The tax payers should not be forced to pay for these types of programs for those deadbeats who refuse to work and/or will not control their spending habits.

In short, these types of programs should be used ONLY when necessary AND to help get people back on their feet. The deadbeats who refuse to work to earn their own living should be completely cut-off from any and all welfare type programs.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why something like this would be subsidized, you can get free internet at the public library. It's not an essential service, it's a luxury item, just like a cell phone (which they also mention).
 
But without free intarwebz from the comfort of their couch, how will all the unemployed Sanders fans get online?
 
cyclone3d said:
1st. How much does the applicant need to survive? (Food, clothing, a place to live)
2nd. Is the person able bodied and able minded? If so, they MUST be actively looking for a job that will pay what they need.
3rd. If the person is not able bodied or able minded, is there a type of job they can do to bring in at least some money?
4th. Pre-approval AND monthly drug testing is required - if you fail, then all handouts are cut off.
Click to expand...

The amount of taxpayers money (it's NOT government money) that goes to support drug users is staggering.
It doesn't mater how many restrictions you put on the benefits, they find a way around them.
That's why every time a state passes a law to do drug testing, some liberal judge over turns it.

The work requirement is also a good idea.
Every state that has implemented a work requirement has seen a huge drop in the number of people claiming welfare.
That is also why the leftist groups always fight and try to over turn work requirements.
 
nutzo said:
The amount of taxpayers money (it's NOT government money) that goes to support drug users is staggering.
It doesn't mater how many restrictions you put on the benefits, they find a way around them.
That's why every time a state passes a law to do drug testing, some liberal judge over turns it.

The work requirement is also a good idea.
Every state that has implemented a work requirement has seen a huge drop in the number of people claiming welfare.
That is also why the leftist groups always fight and try to over turn work requirements.
Click to expand...

I suspect that some poor kids may benefit from internet access as far as learning opportunities go. The issue I have with so many of these programs is I feel like they are addressing issues from the wrong side. Is the solution to 'I can't afford internet' really to give them free/discounted internet? I'm sure it's been debated for years and maybe it is the best we can do as a society but it bothers me anyways.
 
oh and don't forget the price of service going up so the company gets the free money....
 
if I have to pay $100 a month for crap internet in the country, b/c companies can't be bothered to build out to me(profit motive). Then I'm sure as hell not going to donate MORE of my tax $ so some person can get better internet than I can, on my dime, F THAT.
 
Broadband subsidies are a great idea, but not in this regard. It simply means pouring more money into major telecoms and other corps who will pocket the money, do a halfass job, whine about "OMG guys the gov't", while claiming a huge tax break for the "charitable" program they set up with taxpayer money! . All for what - a $9 / month credit for the people who need it? That's a paltry benefit if I ever saw one. No, time to end this garbage. Lets not forget that we're also subsidizing a MUCH larger amount in infrastructure funds to these same bloody corporations...We've been subsidizing the likes of ATT, Verizon, Comcast and others with our tax dollars already and they've dicked around, taken our money, and only expanded where it was maximum profitability to do so and/or after a whole lot of bitching. Meanwhile, they use their finances to force exclusivity agreements - even suing municipal broadband initiatives! We pay for much of it in taxes, then have to pay higher and higher fees for mediocre service.

Iv'e said it before and I'll say it again - there is a simple solution that should make everyone happy - except for the oligarchical plutocrats, of course. Take public ownership (national, state, and local ) all communications infrastructure, broadband and mobile. We paid for it, we should own it! Allow We The People to own the fiber and the towers in the same way we own the Interstate Highway System, and other public roadways. Public road projects were the only way to get the ubiquitous quality roadways that allowed this nation to rise to prominence in the past century, compared to patchwork ill-maintained roads or private tolls that only went where it was profitable to do so. Now, the private sector is welcome to rent access / offer services on the public infrastructure (ie run as ISPs), but there will be no more exploitation by a handful of companies who use the high cost and utter stupidity of having to roll out an entire secondary set of cable. Prices will be much lower, access will be greater, performance will likely skyrocket - so long as we build in plans to update and maintain ( and don't allow those who somehow hate the idea of public utilities defund the whole thing ) Hell, if we make it a works project alongside our physical infrastructure restoration it will further bolster our economy and leave us with information infrastructure that will really make a difference in our society (think oi the Rural Electrification Project another example with a few parallels as to circumstance)

Don't get mad at the person getting a tiny $10 off - they're not living well on your dollar, trust me. Instead, focus on those private corporations who profit in the extreme from controlling that which was built with your tax money, while charging you exorbitant fees to use it and lobbying to put an end to things like Net Neutrality, enriching themselves at the cost of the public good.
 
Xaeos said:
Broadband subsidies are a great idea, but not in this regard. It simply means pouring more money into major telecoms and other corps who will pocket the money, do a halfass job, whine about "OMG guys the gov't", while claiming a huge tax break for the "charitable" program they set up with taxpayer money! . All for what - a $9 / month credit for the people who need it? That's a paltry benefit if I ever saw one. No, time to end this garbage. Lets not forget that we're also subsidizing a MUCH larger amount in infrastructure funds to these same bloody corporations...We've been subsidizing the likes of ATT, Verizon, Comcast and others with our tax dollars already and they've dicked around, taken our money, and only expanded where it was maximum profitability to do so and/or after a whole lot of bitching. Meanwhile, they use their finances to force exclusivity agreements - even suing municipal broadband initiatives! We pay for much of it in taxes, then have to pay higher and higher fees for mediocre service.

Iv'e said it before and I'll say it again - there is a simple solution that should make everyone happy - except for the oligarchical plutocrats, of course. Take public ownership (national, state, and local ) all communications infrastructure, broadband and mobile. We paid for it, we should own it! Allow We The People to own the fiber and the towers in the same way we own the Interstate Highway System, and other public roadways. Public road projects were the only way to get the ubiquitous quality roadways that allowed this nation to rise to prominence in the past century, compared to patchwork ill-maintained roads or private tolls that only went where it was profitable to do so. Now, the private sector is welcome to rent access / offer services on the public infrastructure (ie run as ISPs), but there will be no more exploitation by a handful of companies who use the high cost and utter stupidity of having to roll out an entire secondary set of cable. Prices will be much lower, access will be greater, performance will likely skyrocket - so long as we build in plans to update and maintain ( and don't allow those who somehow hate the idea of public utilities defund the whole thing ) Hell, if we make it a works project alongside our physical infrastructure restoration it will further bolster our economy and leave us with information infrastructure that will really make a difference in our society (think oi the Rural Electrification Project another example with a few parallels as to circumstance)

Don't get mad at the person getting a tiny $10 off - they're not living well on your dollar, trust me. Instead, focus on those private corporations who profit in the extreme from controlling that which was built with your tax money, while charging you exorbitant fees to use it and lobbying to put an end to things like Net Neutrality, enriching themselves at the cost of the public good.
Click to expand...

Yep

This is pretty much exactly what I was going to post but didn't finish writing. Just like roads and highways which we use to connect to one another. The people (government) should own communication lines. Communication lines have become more important to our day to day lives in some cases than roads themselves. Just like the Interstate Highway system, the communication lines from town to town, city to city, and street to street should be owned by the people. Not corporations who get in the middle to make a dime off of every person from their employees to customers in any way that they can. Big business is not there for good. They are there to make a buck in a niche they've carved out or had handed to them by their government friends and lobbyists. Where do you think all of that money comes from? Your pocket and the government which guess what, people forget, but the government is owned by the people. They wouldn't like you to think so. But they are public servants of you and I. It sure doesn't seem that way. But they are. And it is.

Like Xaeos said, if you think these people have it easy for the most part, go join them! Go make a bad decision and get yourself in a bind you're stuck with for the rest of your life. Yeah, there are some bad apples in the system. There are some people that don't deserve a dime but get one anyways. But for the most part, that assistance does wonders for some people and families. You wouldn't believe it, but some parts of this country are literally third world. You wouldn't think places like it could exist in America. But they do. You also wouldn't believe the number of people that use assistance from you, her, him and him too from day to day. Everyday people you'd never expect. People within your neighborhood. People within your family. And people on this very forum.

Life isn't easy. But we should all strive together to make what has the potential to be a really shitty fucked up place the best we can.
 
OK, so let me get this straight. They want to charge us an extra $2 billion in fees, to subsidize 5% of the people in this country, or about 16 million, for $9.25 each. That's only $148 million in subsidies. Where does the other $1.85 billion go? My bet, more useless government bureaucrats.
 
We have this here. Poor families receive laptops, a GSM modem, and a guy from the city hall comes over to set it up.
This pretty much failed because:
- even very low income people already have data plans included in their smartphones, and even very low income people have smartphones (!),
- the people who received aid are not monitored well enough or at all, so many people sold of their 'gifts'.

At my job we do the same but for people with serious disabilities.
They submit an application and include a sheet with specs of the equipment they would like. On my order they began including exact specs down to CPU, GPU, monitor model, printer model...
And they have to explain what kind of work they're planning on taking up.
So, when a professional translator puts a high end GPU in their application, we take note and he has less chance of receiving the help.

As part of my job, I have to visit some of the disabled people at their homes along with the social workers and make sure the gear from their 'wishlist' is there and installed and that no components were swapped or sold off. And, yeah, these are people in wheelchairs and I'm a fucking softie so I did turn a blind eye in one case or two when the case wasn't that serious.
 
cyclone3d said:
I really think that ABSOLUTELY ANY "subsidy" - wealth redistribution programs - should have very, very, very stringent rules as to who can be approved to receive them.

1st. How much does the applicant need to survive? (Food, clothing, a place to live)
2nd. Is the person able bodied and able minded? If so, they MUST be actively looking for a job that will pay what they need.
3rd. If the person is not able bodied or able minded, is there a type of job they can do to bring in at least some money?
4th. Pre-approval AND monthly drug testing is required - if you fail, then all handouts are cut off.

On top of this, the recipient of such monies is not allowed to spend money on anything except needs. If they have extra money to blow on alcohol, cable, 22" rims, whatever, then the amount they spent on those is payed back by a reduction in future handouts.

The tax payers should not be forced to pay for these types of programs for those deadbeats who refuse to work and/or will not control their spending habits.

In short, these types of programs should be used ONLY when necessary AND to help get people back on their feet. The deadbeats who refuse to work to earn their own living should be completely cut-off from any and all welfare type programs.
Click to expand...
Sounds like drug testing welfare recipients. Sounds good, until you realize it'll cost you more to find the abusers than you'll save. Also, you're ignoring that the vast majority of food stamp recipients (which are the people who are likely eligible for this program already work at least one job.
 
fuzzylogik said:
yeah, sure this program won't suffer from abuse. right?
Click to expand...

That is my biggest concern with any program like this.

I'm cool with social programs designed to fit a need and help out people that don't have the means to help themselves. So long as the 1) the program is not abused, 2) the funding is only used on the original stated goal, and 3) only for as long as the original goal is still considered worthwhile.
 
dgingeri said:
OK, so let me get this straight. They want to charge us an extra $2 billion in fees, to subsidize 5% of the people in this country, or about 16 million, for $9.25 each. That's only $148 million in subsidies. Where does the other $1.85 billion go? My bet, more useless government bureaucrats.
Click to expand...


Good catch!
 
nilepez said:
Sounds like drug testing welfare recipients. Sounds good, until you realize it'll cost you more to find the abusers than you'll save. Also, you're ignoring that the vast majority of food stamp recipients (which are the people who are likely eligible for this program already work at least one job.
Click to expand...

That's why I think we need to just move to some type of universal minimum income. The cost involved with administering, measuring, distributing, punishing, arbitrating, falsely accusing, blah blah blah, 5000 different programs probably costs more than just giving people more money in total, with no strings, to allow them to purchase all these things each program is individually tailored to. Or not - but at that point, they've been given the money, and we can truly say that have the full opportunity so long as the minimum is set at a sufficient level. Most reasonable lefties are looking for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I know this idea is gathering some momentum among the libertarian set as well.

The big major caveat is how to structure it so that you don't kill all incentives for work, and can somehow scale income. For example, doesn't make sense to take part time work making $15k/year if the minimum is $30k/year; does the government/worker take a 50/50 split so you can still earn more money, but not all of it? 25/75? Other options? First $10k over the minimum doesn't replace the UMI, next $10k over the UMI replaces it at 50/50, etc etc...
 
dgingeri said:
OK, so let me get this straight. They want to charge us an extra $2 billion in fees, to subsidize 5% of the people in this country, or about 16 million, for $9.25 each. That's only $148 million in subsidies. Where does the other $1.85 billion go? My bet, more useless government bureaucrats.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a good question. It's not a full $2.2B they're requesting; they currently get $1.5B (serving 12M households) and want to increase that to $2.2B to serve an additional 5M households. But seems insane that it costs $2.05 billion to distribute $157 million.
 
There isn't a job resume or governmental form that can't be transmitted through dialup.
 
Monkey God said:
But without free intarwebz from the comfort of their couch, how will all the unemployed Sanders fans get online?
Click to expand...

That's cute. Funny thing about subsidies; giant corporations like Boeing, Intel & Alcoa take billions in subsidies and no one bats an eye. God forbid we subsidize things that would benefit a great deal of people that is increasingly becoming a utility and necessary for every day life. Many of the phone lines used to connect our country were the products of subsidies. I happen to think that in the long run giving some folks internet access that may have never had it is a better use of my tax dollar than helping to pad Boeings pocket a little more. Access is an amazing thing and has changed our world, there's no reason that folks in this country shouldn't have access.
 
Those saying it internet isn't a necessity now are SERIOUSLY out of touch with reality. If you haven't been unemployed in the past 5 years, it is impossible to find a job without internet. Likewise going to the library isn't an option for everyone due to distance and availability. Now granted all they need is something basic like 1mb (sorry dialup is no longer realistic) and I have absolutely no objection to their being mandatory drug testing and the like to have said services. However saying it isn't a necessity is just ignorant at this point.
 
Zigmorph said:
That's cute. Funny thing about subsidies; giant corporations like Boeing, Intel & Alcoa take billions in subsidies and no one bats an eye. God forbid we subsidize things that would benefit a great deal of people that is increasingly becoming a utility and necessary for every day life. Many of the phone lines used to connect our country were the products of subsidies. I happen to think that in the long run giving some folks internet access that may have never had it is a better use of my tax dollar than helping to pad Boeings pocket a little more. Access is an amazing thing and has changed our world, there's no reason that folks in this country shouldn't have access.
Click to expand...

Because the aerospace industry generates more growth in our economy that deadbeat losers too lazy to work who just want to sit around all day on the internet paid for by taxpayers. Fuck them.
 
nilepez said:
Sounds like drug testing welfare recipients. Sounds good, until you realize it'll cost you more to find the abusers than you'll save. Also, you're ignoring that the vast majority of food stamp recipients (which are the people who are likely eligible for this program already work at least one job.
Click to expand...

So basically it is ok to let the drug abusers work the system so they can keep doing drugs on my dime?

And no, I am not ignoring the food stamp recipients. If they really and truly need help to survive, then sure, give them that help, but make sure that that type of help steers them towards actually working towards being able to fully support themselves/their family without having to be on the goverment's teet.

Like I said before, the whole point should be to help people get back on their feet, and not let the deadbeat leeches continue to work the system so they can keep doing nothing but steal my hard-earned money.

Screw the people that refuse to work.

In my area, you can get subsidized housing if you make less than $100,000 per year. How's that for tax dollars going to waste in order to support the loser's bad habits and sense of entitlement?

Do you actually even know how many of these people are on welfare just so they can buy booze and drugs?

My mother used to work at a grocery store and they would have welfare recipients come in and use the food stamps to buy food and then use cash to buy tons of alcohol. If you really want your tax dollars to go towards alcohol and drugs then you go right ahead and support the current screwed up system.

I, however, will not.
 
I think I should get a subsidy for having a full time job for over 15 years straight. Where is my precious reward other than paying a shit ton in taxes so others can benefit?

I think people who are poor should do community service for free internet. Fuck giving people anything without at least putting some work into it. There isn't a town or city in America that couldn't be helped by more volunteer work. If I am going to pay for other people, I should get a cleaner town with more community programs out of it.
 
Last edited:
Xaeos said:
Broadband subsidies are a great idea, but not in this regard. It simply means pouring more money into major telecoms and other corps who will pocket the money, do a halfass job, whine about "OMG guys the gov't", while claiming a huge tax break for the "charitable" program they set up with taxpayer money!
Click to expand...

Yep this divide and conquer strategy to make people hate the individual "leechers" on welfare is pretty effective politically, but it ignores the reality that the biggest leechers of all are large corporations.

That's not to say there aren't some people exploiting the welfare system, but that's not where the real meaningful exploitation is happening.
 
My girlfriend gets free 5 megabit internet from google. (I assume some previous tenant or the apartment complex forked over the $300 installation fee.) If Google can do this, I don't see why the other companies can't provide comparable service for $10/month.
 
For those who raged and never read the article;

Since last year, the FCC has been considering revamping the $1.5 billion annual program, called Lifeline

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said he wants to give those receiving the subsidy a choice of using it for phone services, high-speed Internet, or both. But households will get only a single $9.25 a month subsidy that would apply to both services.

There isn't any "free" internet going to anyone on "your" dime.... And really, it's a win for the internet service providers as they end up with more customers, at a slightly reduced rate of course.
 
Ocellaris said:
I think I should get a subsidy for having a full time job for over 15 years straight. Where is my precious reward other than paying a shit ton in taxes so others can benefit?
Click to expand...

It's called "not being poor".

I think people who are poor should do community service for free internet. Fuck giving people anything without at least putting some work into it. There isn't a town or city in America that couldn't be helped by more volunteer work. If I am going to pay for other people, I should get a cleaner town with more community programs out of it.
Click to expand...

Do you feel this way about all poor people, including the working poor that make up 65% of the poor in the US, many of whom hold down several jobs? Do you include the poor who can't work, such as senior citizens and the disabled?

Also, I'll note that the poor tend to take the jobs that people like you don't want. Which mostly involve cleaning. Janitorial work, housekeeping, child care, nursing aides - you know, the people that take care of the senior and infant family members you don't have time to deal with because you're working.
 
Is there no branch or twig of government that isn't used to buy votes?
 
Zigmorph said:
For those who raged and never read the article;

Since last year, the FCC has been considering revamping the $1.5 billion annual program, called Lifeline

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said he wants to give those receiving the subsidy a choice of using it for phone services, high-speed Internet, or both. But households will get only a single $9.25 a month subsidy that would apply to both services.

There isn't any "free" internet going to anyone on "your" dime.... And really, it's a win for the internet service providers as they end up with more customers, at a slightly reduced rate of course.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because once you start something like this, the amount never creeps up. This is a typical foot in the door practice. "Oh, its so small no one will notice", this year.
 
TwistedAegis said:
That's why I think we need to just move to some type of universal minimum income. The cost involved with administering, measuring, distributing, punishing, arbitrating, falsely accusing, blah blah blah, 5000 different programs probably costs more than just giving people more money in total, with no strings, to allow them to purchase all these things each program is individually tailored to. Or not - but at that point, they've been given the money, and we can truly say that have the full opportunity so long as the minimum is set at a sufficient level. Most reasonable lefties are looking for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I know this idea is gathering some momentum among the libertarian set as well.

The big major caveat is how to structure it so that you don't kill all incentives for work
Click to expand...

The problem is that it WILL kill the incentive for many lower income people to work. Why work if someone will hand you money instead, especially with no strings attached.
It will be a boon for the all the places selling booze, and also for the drug dealers.

Most people are poor because they make bad decisions.
I have no problem helping the small number that had a tragedy in their life, or a run of bad luck. I'm not ok helping people who refuse to learn from their mistakes and continue to make bad decisions.
Giving people who make bad decisions money will not solve their problems, it will just allow them to make even worse decisions.
 
TwistedAegis said:
That's why I think we need to just move to some type of universal minimum income. The cost involved with administering, measuring, distributing, punishing, arbitrating, falsely accusing, blah blah blah, 5000 different programs probably costs more than just giving people more money in total, with no strings, to allow them to purchase all these things each program is individually tailored to. Or not - but at that point, they've been given the money, and we can truly say that have the full opportunity so long as the minimum is set at a sufficient level. Most reasonable lefties are looking for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. I know this idea is gathering some momentum among the libertarian set as well.

The big major caveat is how to structure it so that you don't kill all incentives for work, and can somehow scale income. For example, doesn't make sense to take part time work making $15k/year if the minimum is $30k/year; does the government/worker take a 50/50 split so you can still earn more money, but not all of it? 25/75? Other options? First $10k over the minimum doesn't replace the UMI, next $10k over the UMI replaces it at 50/50, etc etc...
Click to expand...

I think increasing the minimum wage would be a good first step, but plenty on here will argue that that's bad (even though the Minimum is below it's historic average.
 
jpm100 said:
There isn't a job resume or governmental form that can't be transmitted through dialup.
Click to expand...
And there's probably not a website that can't be viewed in a few minutes either, but for all practical purposes, Broadband is necessary to use the internet. I haven't used dialup in 16 years and my original 1.5 Mbps connection would be painfully slow today (and I suspect what they'd get isn't much better than that, though providing better would cost the ISPs the same amount).
 
cyclone3d said:
So basically it is ok to let the drug abusers work the system so they can keep doing drugs on my dime?
Click to expand...

Fine, spend 3 billion to save 1 billion. It's your money.

cyclone3d said:
And no, I am not ignoring the food stamp recipients. If they really and truly need help to survive, then sure, give them that help, but make sure that that type of help steers them towards actually working towards being able to fully support themselves/their family without having to be on the goverment's teet.
Click to expand...

Dramatically increase the minimum wage and you might get there. Wally World is changing it's ways, but for decades it's told it's employees to apply for food stamps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top