Ajit Pai Faces Heat Over Proposal To Take Away Poor People's Broadband Plans (arstechnica.com) 196
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Democratic senators yesterday asked Ajit Pai to abandon a proposal that the senators say would take subsidized broadband plans away from "millions of Americans." The Federal Communications Commission chairman's plan for the Lifeline subsidy program would force most users of the program to find new providers. But such users could have trouble finding replacement plans or similar prices because Pai's proposal would prevent all telecom resellers from offering Lifeline-subsidized service. "Your proposal impacts over 70 percent of current Lifeline-recipient households by eliminating their wireless providers from the program, leaving less affordable and fewer Lifeline options, while making it more difficult for the companies trying to serve Lifeline customers," Senate Democrats wrote in the letter to Pai yesterday. "Instead of cutting the program, we should ensure Lifeline reaches more Americans in need of access to communication services." The letter was written by Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Cory Booker (D-NJ).
Re: (Score:2)
You've got little concept of poverty (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything we ought to be doing more for these people. And to devil with religious objections and let's just give them free birth control already.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's bullshit, total a
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
That has got to be one of the most stupid misunderstandings of religious conservative people I've ever read.
Hint to you: No they don't.
Re:You've got little concept of poverty (Score:5, Insightful)
It’s called prosperity theology and it’s well practiced in the current U.S. political climate.
”https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology” [slashdot.org]
It’s hard to otherwise explain the intensely unchristian position of religious conservatives towards the poor.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're going to walk around saying that Christians hate poor people because a few assholes are assholes and label themselves (notice - *themselves*) Christians while assholing - I'd hate to see what you say about Muslims over the Jihadists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"...Jesus famously fed the hungry, but people also like to ignore that he said that people who do not work should not eat. It's a matter of personal responsibility and true fairness."
I was raised Christian. I would love to hear some quotes which support this. I can do a bit off Googling, oh here's one: https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/tenets [thesatanictemple.com].
"One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason."
oops, that's satanism.
Christian life is one of giving. Your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they take online classes how?
Oh, boy. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm responding to someone who is like "why don't they get educated to get a better job." The appropriate answer to that is "how are they going to get educated without being able to take online classes."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: $9.25? (Score:1)
So are thousands of dollars of increased costs due to unreasonable efficiency and emissions requirements, but the same people having a conniption over the loss of Obama's internet welfare don't give fuck number one about the costly consequences of the regulations they advocate.
This is socialist economics 101: you use government to wreck the economy so that people are starving and destitute, then offer government handouts to convince them that you're the only one who can help.
I think they learned the tactic from abusive husbands; first you punch your wife in the face, then you offer her an ice pack and tell her how much you love her. Do it just right and she'll never leave you.
Reality of the reason (Score:5, Informative)
"A new GAO report found massive fraud within the Federal Communications Commission's Lifeline program, which subsidizes cellular and broadband service for low-income Americans. The agency's three-year audit of the Lifeline program, begun in June 2014 to May 2017, found that more than one-third (36%) of Lifeline customers could not be confirmed as actually eligible for the program. The GAO also found that $1.2 million annually went to fictitious identities or recipients who were dead."
As said by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo, but ignored in this piece of brillent and honest reporting, âoeWeâ(TM)re currently letting phone companies cash a government check every month with little more than the honor system to hold them accountable, and that simply canâ(TM)t continue.â
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
could not be confirmed
So, what you're saying is that we need to confirm everyone and we're good? Damn, that sounds like a plan to me.
Of course, that's not what you are implying, is it? Why is that?
Re:Reality of the reason (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a couple of other solutions and some actual criticisms about the Pai is putting out, but those were reasonable and came about around two weeks ago when this first came out.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do they pass a means test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] as a US citizen for eligibility?
That would stop a lot of the fraud.
Prove citizenship. Prove the income. Then a US citizen gets some support for a phone service.
Weasel word ? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I pay for it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Why not? If you cannot afford food, shelter, medicine, the ability to travel to work, electricity, water, heat, internet, phone service, texting, or other basic need, you should absolutely ask (and expect) the someone to provide it.
Sorry. (Score:1, Flamebait)
I don't believe it's my responsibility as a taxpayer to give poor people broadband. Seriously.
If they need to watch YouTube that bad, go to the public library.
Re:Sorry. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Sorry. (Score:1)
I don't believe it is my responsibility as a taxpayer to fund wars in other countries.
You're wrong. If there's one thing that you as a taxpayer have had the responsibility to pay for throughout the history of mankind, it's war. You may as well not believe that fire is hot, or that water is wet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
your lack of empathy is built on the asumption that they are poor because they didn't try hard, yet circumstance is the most significant factor in determining an individuals wealth and even after that it can be easily modelled probabilistic. It's a common fallacy for anyone with any kind of success, they attribute it to personal effort and skill (not that substantial success can't be done with either, but they alone are not enough).
Re: (Score:1)
So...honesty=flamebait.
Good ol' slashdot. Being reddit before it was kewl.
Re: (Score:2)
We have POWER and PHONES in the rural areas because of taxes placed on the city folk who have larger numbers but did not prevent the taxes imposed upon them to help the redneck racist inbred buggers who constantly preach about picking themselves up by their own bootstraps. City dwellers seem to have empathy and a better grasp on reality; not all, we have plenty of isolated selfish pricks that manage to not learn anything despite having more opportunities to open their eyes.
The phone taxes were shifted to pa
Re: (Score:1)
"Some old 56k modem is not going to get you thru a lot of online job application forms"
I would cheerfully contribute my taxes to a single study just to refute this ridiculous claim, trotted out everytime someone wants to justify free internet for poor people.
Exactly what % of the packet traffic on their computers is "filling out job applications" LOL? You could literally mow 2 people's lawns in a month and get 5 meg broadband around here. That's maybe 3-4 hours work. They can afford broadband.
(Hint: they
ok (Score:2)
Yes, the USA is messed up in a lot of ways and refuses to intelligently discuss anything; maybe in the past, but no longer.
I have a cabin. It's in a rural area that didn't even get cell service until about 8 years ago. There is no internet, just a lousy old noisy phone line. I doubt dial-up would even go full speed. Maybe some slow cell internet is possible up there now but it's not that cheap. The locals seem to have many accidental fires and thefts and I'm beginning to think it's the two primary sources
Re: (Score:2)
Shit like that is why I can't go to the public library anymore. I'm not interested in being panhandled.
Human right (Score:1)
So in 2016, the UN Human Rights Council forgot to Cc Ajit Pai on the condemnation of "intentional disruption of internet access by governments", and that "the same rights people have offline must also be protected online" (source [wikipedia.org]).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so what (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, please! Stop!
You have absolutely zero clue WTF you're talking about!
I *HAVE* a "Lifeline" plan!
You know what it consists of, you moron?
You get a 3G soapbar TracFone with text messaging. That's it. It's the cheapest TracFone plan. That's their precious "internet access for the poor". And guess what else? Text messages cost a significant fraction of the also-very-limited minutes (64? DR) each month if you use texting at all frequently. Cheaper minute-cost-wise to voice call. Coverage is crap as well as is
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:so what (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break...
The library is often not open during hours where people who worked 7am to 6pm can go there. Libraries are cutting back due to funding cuts. Got to fund wars, Homeland Security theater, and mass incarceration after all.
And, practically, the Internet is a necessity these days if you're looking for a (better) job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:so what (Score:5, Informative)
And yet my taxes are supposed to pay for this?
Yep. It's called being part of a society. If you don't like it, feel free to go buy your own island or live in a cave or something.
The more one makes, the more privilege they enjoy and therefore the more they should have to give back to society. Just because your paycheck is bigger doesn't mean you work any harder. In fact, I'm willing to bet you have it much easier.
Re:so what (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you failed economics class.
The rich are rich because somebody created more wealth than they took and the rich were able to siphon enough in order to become rich. Honestly, it's not that hard, or do you really believe that Bezos, Gates and Buffet are that much more effective at working than the typical people working for minimum wage?
The rich themselves don't create jobs because that would make no sense. They're net takers from the economic system so if it were just them, there would be a continual drain on the economy until it fell apart completely. The reason for new jobs to be created is that somebody is willing to pay for the good or service that the job provides.
Places where that's not the case wind up like Venezuela where the economy has more or less ground to a standstill as all the profits are being siphoned off by a handful of very powerful individuals.
Re: (Score:1)
And your economics is tinted by Marxist bull. That the rich keep a portion that is larger than those they employ is not a wrong thing, despite your rhetoric.
Exactly what entitles these rich to take this portion of wealth? Is it because they won the birth canal lottery? Do we anoint these people as the new royalty so that they may pass their wealth from one generation to the next so as to make it possible for their prodigy to also keep their portion?
parasite (pr-st)
n. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
n. One who habitually takes advantage of the generos
Re: so what (Score:1)
If you grew up poor enough to know what hunger is like, there's pretty much zero chance that you didn't rely on all kinds of socialist programs to survive. Welfare, free school lunches, subsidized heat, electricity, healthcare, etc. Basically, you suckled at the public teat until you succeeded. And, now that you've gotten yours, everyone else in a rough spot can just crawl into a corner and die, right?
Also, what's this garbage about accusing the GP of being a parasite and trying to take your money? I get th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Okay so you're selfish. No problem, lots of people are selfish. They want to know why they should pay taxes for the benefit of others. It's kind of simple really. It's because an orderly society is better for you!
Without welfare, you get more crime. The USA already incarcerates more people per capita than any other nation. A smart nation (e.g. any other nation on the planet) would spend more on mental health, on education, on healthcare, and on basic services such as internet access available for a reasonab
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm not reading that wall of puerile text."
means you don't deserve to be listened too either.
Re: (Score:2)
"means you don't deserve to be listened too either."
Yeah, you got that AC on some nice mental jujitsu. Not the post I'm replying to, but your 'wall of text,' lol
How can AC post slashdot if no internet?? AC not very good at ..probably most-everything, but talks themselves up to make lonesome life feel less so. OK, that sounds raw, but damn, have you ever met a person that _just can't be satisfied_ with anything?? They utterly drain the lifeforce out of you.
Re: so what (Score:2, Troll)
The reality is if you don't like society then you are free to move away from it, with your money, and become a hermit.
Right, so we don't need social programs to help the poor, because if they don't like being poor they should just move the fuck away from our society. That sound about right to you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:so what (Score:4, Insightful)
Ajit Pai would only be interested in "investing" in public WiFi if Comcast and Verizon were interested in rolling it out as some sort of paid expansion to their customers existing service plans. The guy is their corporate plant, remember?
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast does this already with its "public" WiFi from customer's home routers
Re: (Score:3)
Same reason I have to pay for part of your services.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because a society with some degree of equality and opportunity for everyone is about a million times better than the fifth world nations that have been taken over by warlords.
The USA can go one of several ways. Currently it's going the way of the police state, but some of us would rather see it go a different path. Paying for some degree of public good with your taxes is, really, a trivial price to pay for a smoothly-functioning society.
Re:so what (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you pay for roads that everybody can use and some may be using more than you? Is this a serious question?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously think before you speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually yes. The big issue with this, other than corruption which is the real reason it is going away, is because the "privatize everything" see a benefit to them. But city wide public access points benefit everyone, not just the poor. So they would the benefits that affect them.
I'm against the subsidizing up private internet feeds for any one but would be more than willing to get behind a public wifi system.
Re: (Score:1)
libraries are subsidized too.
Re: (Score:2)
the library is free
This is marked down I guess because it comes across as mean or dismissive but it is a valid point. You are paying for a multitude of separate plans. There are common APs scattered across a city that are already available. Obviously having broadband is nice but I spent most of my childhood without it in my home and managed to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It is because SJW don't want to debate the issue and let their argument stand on its merits. I'm glad this service is going away, yet I proposed a reasonable alternative that benefits everyone. Yet SJW are yowling about a free service being taken from the poor and not willing to even entertain the ideal I put forth that would benefit the poor greater as well as everyone else.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
An the SJW here on /. have just proven my point for me. Instead of debating my point that taking this subsidy and putting into public wifi that would benefit everyone. They would rather mod my posts down as flame bate so no one will see it at all. Typical SJW thinking.
Re: (Score:1)
That's because it's a stupid debate you have. Why? Because that isn't happening. All that's happening is the subsidy is going away. No one's debating that replacing it with something better is good. Is utterly pointless to debate what giving unicorns to everyone in place of the subsidy would do, too.
Re: (Score:3)
But yet here you are whining an moaning about it going away and still not bring up the point.
Simple question. Would this money not be better spent on public Wifi for everyone?
Re: (Score:3)
sure yes, like I already said but you had your had to far up your arse to realise.
Now answer this simple question: is that going to happen?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The poor can get fucked so far as they're concerned. The Religious agenda is that Poor People must have angered God, and He is punishing them for their transgressions (whatever the fuck they supposedly were) so you don't 'help them', that would be going against God's Will.
As a conservative Christian, I can't thank you enough for telling me what I believe and what my agenda is. You're really providing a great public service to me and all of my peers by letting us know exactly what our motivations are and why we hold the positions we do. Honestly, I'm glad you did, because I was evidently quite incorrect about these things! I guess it must have been the obviously fake news that "residents of middle-American, conservative, moderate-income, religiously active regions" give the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
You have a good point. In doing so you have put forth the first issues that must be over come. The way to do that would be to figure out a way to see where it would benefit everyone. Easier said than done.
I can't say anything to your argument about religious agendas. I agree with you, but I don't have answer at this time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So we should be happy because this subsidy is being removed and you proposed an alternative. How very generous. How many people are going to actually be able to make use.of your alternative?
Why am I arguing? If you're complaining about SJW, then you have beyond all reasonable sounded doubt demonstrated that you're a total plonker.
Re: (Score:3)
So we should be happy because this subsidy is being removed and you proposed an alternative
Yes, you should. Because, unlike you, I'm actually proposing a answer to the problem. Where all you are doing is bitching and moaning about something being taken away. Where my solution would benefit everyone, yours benefits no one.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow you're proposing something! That's incredible, no one ever has any ideas.
So poor people should be grateful to you when they lose broadband because you took positively minutes out of your busy schedule and wrote a slashdot post. If you spend as much as fifteen minutes a day here I'm sure we'll have all the world's problems fixed within a decade.
Re:so what (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously having broadband is nice but I spent most of my childhood without it in my home and managed to survive.
Yeah and people lived without electricity and indoor plumbing too. Spreading broadband is exactly the kind of public communication/education/modernization project like the postal service, public libraries, rural electrification etc. was meant to achieve. When I grew up, my parents had a full encyclopedia because back then it was an edge to have a "mini-library" at home, even though this was an urban environment where the public library was reasonably close. Today just Wikipedia alone is vastly superior and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But we don't live in that world do we? Unemployment benefits are insurance, yes; social insurance, because it's good for society as a whole for people to not be homeless, because the
Re: (Score:3)
I spent 6 months unemployed recently. Republican lawmakers in state have made collecting unemployment from a fund I've been paying into for 30 fucking years impossible for someone who wants to continue a career that pays well. Instead of looking for work in my field, I would have to spend all my time looking for menial labor and be able to PROVE it in order to collect benefits. Fortunately, I was able to make it through without doing that.
Fuck the GOP and anyone who supports them sideways with a fucking ban
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot is full of commies who love the idea of taking other person's hard EARNED money and giving it to others.
Slashdot is full of lazy zero information fools who think they are smart because they can express a statement of philosophical disposition rather than doing any research or otherwise offering objectively useful evidence to support their positions.
Nobody is citing studies saying access to x leads to y outcomes. Nobody is offering reasoned arguments based on merit. It's all my world view is x therefore y should be done or my world view is x therefore FUCK YOU.