Republicans want to kill the FCC's plan to subsidize internet for the poor

[Victorious Secret]

 

The 'Obama phone' debate rages on

 

 

Oh Republicans, will you ever stop being silly and start serving the needs of the people (the people who aren't Fortune 500 CEOs that is). 

 

The irony is that they are against a program that was created under the leadership of one of their own, so them opposing it really doesn't make much sense. But it kinda does, when you consider who is paying Republican campaigning fees these days (all the big ISPs and telecoms). 

 

IMHO, subsidized internet isn't a bad thing. Getting people cheap access to the internet is beneficial for all facets of life, especially for education purposes. Wouldn't even need programs like this if ISPs weren't trying to abuse their customers, to be honest. 

 

 

The FCC's proposal is an overhaul of the agency's "Lifeline" program, which provides subsidies on phone service to poor Americans — a program that's been widely criticized by Republicans as an "Obama phone" hand-out. (This is erroneous: the program was actually created under Ronald Reagan.) Republicans have already moved to crack down on the Lifeline phone program in some parts of the country, claiming that it's rife with fraud. But while the FCC has indeed moved to mollify those concerns, the crackdown in some parts of the country has been detrimental to poor Americans relying on the program.

 

With that backdrop, it may not be too surprising that Republicans were ready to criticize the move, as National Journal reports. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune has already called the program an example of "waste, fraud, abuse, and a pervasive lack of accountability," according to the Journal, while Sen. David Vitter said the "FCC has failed to manage Lifeline efficiently in its current form, and I cannot support any expansion of a program that has so few safeguards in place to protect the legitimacy of the program and the American taxpayers who pay into it."

 

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/29/8685557/republicans-fcc-internet-subsidy

 

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/fccs-internet-for-the-poor-plan-sets-up-fight-with-republicans/

[TheSLSAMG]

Who is footing the bill for it? That's my question.

[Guest Kloaked]

That's the Republican's job is to always go for the opposite of what the Dem's want, even if it's for progress.

 

Jesus Christ can these people just grow some balls already.

[Guest]

Did you just steal @XTankSlayerX's profile pic? (His old one)

[XTankSlayerX]

Did you just steal @XTankSlayerX's profile pic? (His old one)

...

 

I "Stole" his mate...

[Jaybird]

I think the Obama phone was a stupid plan. There is no reason people should get a free phone. A phone is a luxury not a right.

[Misanthrope]

Well they had that program already after Katrina I believe and if anything it brought up more clients (and henceforth profits) for ISPs in the end as many customers end up upgrading down the line and such.

 

It's amazing that ISP greed do not even let em see things that are good for them and their business in the long run.

[Joe With The Glasses]

That's the Republican's job is to always go for the opposite of what the Dem's want, even if it's for progress.

 

Jesus Christ can these people just grow some balls already.

 

I'm pretty sure it's much more complicated than "Oh look those Democrats want this passed? Let's stop them!". There's a lot of money and politics involved in subsidizing Internet for the poor. My opinion is that we need to focus on how expensive Internet-services are in the U.S. before we can even think about using tax-payer money to pay for it. 

[dlf]

Anything to stop people from getting information . . . .

[___]

Lots of money flow through these congressmen, they have to think about there future job as a bitching lobbiest and the money the companies will pay them. Honestly I don't see this necessary, so no. Sorry but there are already public places to use the internet, even for poor people! For free!

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

I think the Obama phone was a stupid plan. There is no reason people should get a free phone. A phone is a luxury not a right.

It does come in handy when applying for a job. 

[ivan134]

Who is footing the bill for it? That's my question.

The internet is a necessity in today's world. You can't even fill a job application today without internet. When poor people turn to crime because there are no opportunities, you foot the bill anyway, and it costs more then. Give them the resources to better themselves, and the cost that you pay regardless, reduces since they also pay tax when they work. It's about long term solutions.

[Trik'Stari]

I'm conflicted. I agree that ANY government program will be fraught with problems, but I also support the idea of cheap internet for everyone.

 

I have an idea, fire EVERYONE who works for the government, and then re-staff with people who are actually qualified, and not the most miserable and underqualified people that money can buy.

 

The internet is a necessity in today's world. You can't even fill a job application today without internet. When poor people turn to crime because there are no opportunities, you foot the bill anyway, and it costs more then. Give them the resources to better themselves, and the cost that you pay regardless, reduces since they also pay tax when they work. It's about long term solutions.

 

That's a good point. But there needs to be some sort of measure that forces people off of welfare at some point, when they can fend for themselves (which is the point of welfare)

[Real_PhillBert]

The internet is great, but it is a luxury. You do not need the internet to survive. 

 

I'm all for helping poor people, but I draw a line at luxuries. I pay for my internet, but I don't see why I should also have to pay for other peoples internet. 

[Trik'Stari]

I just remembered something worth pointing out.

 

Back in 1996 we subsidized the internet, specifically the ISP's to upgrade their infrastructure, which they didn't do, and instead spent the money on buying each other. So I can kinda see why the republicans are against this.

 

Afterall, it won't be the government providing the internet, it will be the ISP's, and we've already seen what they do with government funding. Not a damned thing.

[Real_PhillBert]

The internet is a necessity in today's world. You can't even fill a job application today without internet. When poor people turn to crime because there are no opportunities, you foot the bill anyway, and it costs more then. Give them the resources to better themselves, and the cost that you pay regardless, reduces since they also pay tax when they work. It's about long term solutions.

 

Internet access is not in your home is not a necessity. There are literally millions of public wifi locations in the us that you can use. 

 

Internet access in your home is a luxury, not a necessity. 

[TopWargamer]

Helping the less fortunate afford Internet access is not a bad thing morally, but financially...well...let me say this, can the US really afford it? We are $18.2 trillion in debt (http://www.usdebtclock.org/). We're already struggling as it is. If certain cities or states want to implement this, fine, whatever, go ahead, but on a national scale? No.

 

As thoughtful as it may seem, it's going to make our economy worse, and prices will rise from this. Who pays for the subsidized Internet? The people, through taxes. When there's not enough money to fund all of these subsidized programs, guess who's going to have to pay for it - the people, through higher taxes. Again, the thought is very nice, but we really can't afford to do it...

 

Most people have Internet already. If somebody doesn't have much money yet still has Internet, then well, that person is probably doing fine enough to afford Internet access. If the person is struggling to the pay the Internet bill, and if he needs it that badly, then make financial cuts. Work with what you have.

 

If cutting out Internet has to happen, you can still get Internet access just about anywhere... There's many places with open WiFi such as a fast food chain, you could go to a friend's house, and then of course there's the public library... 

[TopWargamer]

Anything to stop people from getting information . . . .

Oh please, that's not it at all. Somebody could always read a newspaper, go to the public library, or go somewhere that plays the news on their TVs. Plus there's always public access television, although you need an antenna for that. 

[Kyuubixchidori]

I love when the industries get subsided for infrastructure and stuff, no one bats a eye. the poor need help? everyone loses their shit. 

 

 

how I look at is, if we are talking about the very basic internet that costs next to nothing and helps people get jobs/spend money on food and such, sure why not. 

[ivan134]

I'm conflicted. I agree that ANY government program will be fraught with problems, but I also support the idea of cheap internet for everyone.

 

I have an idea, fire EVERYONE who works for the government, and then re-staff with people who are actually qualified, and not the most miserable and underqualified people that money can buy.

 

 

That's a good point. But there needs to be some sort of measure that forces people off of welfare at some point, when they can fend for themselves (which is the point of welfare)

 

The U.S. is pretty horrible at getting people off welfare. Cost of living has gone up and minimum wage has been stagnant. Tax cuts for the rich, instead of people that actually spend money and drive the economy. Spending more than the next 10 countries combined on defense instead of investing in education and infrastructure. U.S. is only a 1st world country because of it's wealth, otherwise we rival 3rd world countries on social issues.

Internet access is not in your home is not a necessity. There are literally millions of public wifi locations in the us that you can use. 

 

Internet access in your home is a luxury, not a necessity. 

I don't know about where you live, but here in Massachussets, there are no 24 hour wifi locations. So what do you do if you work all day? For example how do you attend online classes, or even complete homework from a community college? if we ever get 24 hour wifi locations, then I'll come over to your side of the argument. As of right now, your insinuating that people should only find jobs where they work at night.

[ivan134]

I love when the industries get subsided for infrastructure and stuff, no one bats a eye. the poor need help? everyone loses their shit. 

 

 

how I look at is, if we are talking about the very basic internet that costs next to nothing and helps people get jobs/spend money on food and such, sure why not. 

Well CEOs told us that the reason they make as much money as an entire country's GDP is because they work that much harder than everyone else. People who work 3 jobs and can barely keep the lights on are lazy.

[Mattrixx]

Wouldn't even need programs like this if ISPs weren't trying to abuse their customers, to be honest. 

Seems to me that we should be doing something about the ISPs instead of just going the default route of more subsidies.

[Mattrixx]

Back in 1996 we subsidized the internet, specifically the ISP's to upgrade their infrastructure, which they didn't do, and instead spent the money on buying each other. So I can kinda see why the republicans are against this.

And not just then. Verizon and At&t were both given massive tax breaks to up their infrastructure in many states. They did absolutely nothing.

It's not just them, and it's not just then.

[patrickjp93]

For a rare instance, I'm inclined to agree with the GOP. The poor can go to public schools or libraries for internet and apply themselves there to better their learning and lives. Only a few edge cases, mostly linked to disability, should really need any subsidy.

[Trik'Stari]

The U.S. is pretty horrible at getting people off welfare. Cost of living has gone up and minimum wage has been stagnant. Tax cuts for the rich, instead of people that actually spend money and drive the economy. Spending more than the next 10 countries combined on defense instead of investing in education and infrastructure. U.S. is only a 1st world country because of it's wealth, otherwise we rival 3rd world countries on social issues.

I don't know about where you live, but here in Massachussets, there are no 24 hour wifi locations. So what do you do if you work all day? For example how do you attend online classes, or even complete homework from a community college? if we ever get 24 hour wifi locations, then I'll come over to your side of the argument. As of right now, your insinuating that people should only find jobs where they work at night.

I don't see minimum wage as a solution, as prices just rise to match it, leading to never ending inflation. Spending money on education and infrastructure would work far better.

 

And not just then. Verizon and At&t were both given massive tax breaks to up their infrastructure in many states. They did absolutely nothing.

It's not just them, and it's not just then.

Oh I know the phone companies were involved, but I included them in my statement.

 

We pay companies to do things, and then they just....don't...do anything. Politicians don't do anything because that same money gets kicked back to them as "political donations". We seriously need to change the rules governing corporations and politicians. Prevent corporations from making political donations, prevent politicians from taking them (by having actual elections held in a subsidized public forum, instead of these dog and pony shows where the real election goes on in some back room) etc.