Broadband's Underused Lifeline For Low-income Users (axios.com) 55
The federal government's main program to keep lower income people connected is only serving one-fifth of the people it could help, even during a pandemic that has forced school and work online. From a report: Millions of Americans still lack access to the high-speed internet service that's become vital as people remain stuck at home and reopenings reverse. The Lifeline program, administered by the Federal Communications Commission, provides a $9.25 monthly subsidy (more on tribal lands) to companies that provide phone or broadband service to low-income consumers, generally at no out-of-pocket cost to the customer. Less than a fifth of the 38 million households that qualify for the program are actually enrolled. And despite a recent uptick, enrollment remains down sharply from the Obama era. "It's very clear that the program is needed now more than ever," Democratic FCC Commissioner Geoffrey Starks told Axios. "It's a program that is severely underutilized, and it has got to really meet the moment here."
Maybe the "eligible" are taking care of themselves (Score:3)
Many of these social programs measure their success by how many people are enrolled as opposed to how many people become self sufficient and leave the program. This article says nothing about actual need. It just says that there are many people eligible for a subsidy who haven't enrolled for it.
I say, good for them. They are taking care of themselves. And maybe the Lifeline program managers should focus on helping those who really need the help.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For such poor, the COVID relief money pays better than working [wsj.com]. That is, they already got a pay rise...
Given that the Median Income for a family of 4 (Score:1)
It's also starting some interesting conversations. e.g. if we can afford to pay these folks that much when they're _not_ working why are they paid so little when they _are_ working...
The several trillion dollars we gave Wall Street almost instantly kind of shoots holes in the "we're broke" counter argument.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We can only afford it once — twice maybe. We cannot keep doing it.
Not that that's a good excuse to rescue them, but Wall Street pays back [politifact.com]...
Now, back to the point: the working poor, who "need cheap Internet because of COVID", have gotten a pay-increase due to COVID. Which shoots holes through the "we need to sponsor their Intern
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We CAN'T afford to pay them that much. That's why we had to borrow the money.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The several trillion dollars we gave Wall Street almost instantly kind of shoots holes in the "we're broke" counter argument.
Nobody gave Wall Street several trillion dollars. TARP was structured as a capital investment that was designed to be paid back within a few years to avoid a jump in the capital costs. The US Treasury bought fixed dividend paying perpetual preferred shares and warrants in the banks. The American taxpayer made a bundle when they were paid back in a few years.
But TARP funds were also diverted to other things without those terms.
Lastly the TARP total investment was around 500 billion.
Re: (Score:3)
In the current year, 2020, literal trillions of dollars have been spent in order to prop up the stock market, including buying corporate junk bonds.
Re: (Score:2)
In the current year, 2020, literal trillions of dollars have been spent in order to prop up the stock market, including buying corporate junk bonds.
What are you talking about?
Cost us $23,553 each (Score:3)
The covid stimulus cost $2 trillion (of borrowed money).
There are 150 million tax payers to repay that.
We're each on the hook for $13,333.
If you can affors do that again, go ahead. Head on down to the bank and borrow $13,333 and give it away to people working at Taco Bell ot whatever.
Except those numbers aren't quite accurate. 44% of the people who file tax returns don't pay any income tax; their "refund" is more than was withheld. Only 85 million people actually pay income taxes. $2 trillion needs to b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you accidentally posted on the wrong page because we're not talking about anything at all related to military, but I'll go ahead and answer your question anyway.
Ten of the eleven carriers are the Nimitz class. Thry entered service in 1975 at a cost of $8.5 billion each. They've lasted 45 years so far, so that's $189 / year ($16 million / month).
Anyway, what we're talking about here is GP's suggestion to spend $2,000 million / month so that over half the population can sit on their butt playing vide
Re: (Score:2)
That says more about the salary levels than the relief fund.
Re: (Score:2)
Government bureaucrat says "My program is needed more than ever, but it's severely underutilized!"
Well, genius, ever consider that's because they don't actually "need it more than ever"? Maybe even that it's more trouble than it's worth to most people who even could use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, genius, ever consider that's because they don't actually "need it more than ever"?
I'm sure they did. But the numbers don't bear that out given current unemployment rates.
Maybe even that it's more trouble than it's worth to most people who even could use it.
Yeah, it's a huge hassle to call the phone company and talk to them for a few minutes! How does anyone ever do it!
Re: (Score:2)
It's an income based program, so if they're eligible, it's because they're extremely poor. They're likely not signed up simply because they don't know the program exists.
So they are managing without it, right? That's called being self-sufficient.
Stop finding ways to make them less so.
Re: (Score:2)
But you have no idea whether people are "self-sufficient" or if they're suffering as a lack of the service. You're just creating your own story based on what you want to believe. It would be lovely if 30 million poor people simply made themselves self-sufficient, but in the US, that's somewhere between wishful thinking and complete fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not trying to "make anybody self-sufficient".
But you have no idea whether people are "self-sufficient" or if they're suffering as a lack of the service. You're just creating your own story based on what you want to believe. It would be lovely if 30 million poor people simply made themselves self-sufficient, but in the US, that's somewhere between wishful thinking and complete fantasy.
Well, I grew up at the poverty line, but my parents refused the public assistance they were eligible for because their generation would never take charity. They made do with what they had. That mentality is actively discouraged by well-meaning people who don't realize they are crippling people they purport to help.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe your outcome would have been even better if they had accepted more assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe your outcome would have been even better if they had accepted more assistance.
My siblings and I have all done very well, thank you. We all did fine in public schools. None of us had any college debt,
I made more last year than my dad did in twenty. We are your millionaires next door. We just don't show it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an income based program, so if they're eligible, it's because they're extremely poor.
Many people with little or no legal income are not poor.
Some people live off their savings. Others have mostly cash income that goes unreported.
Also, very few people in America are "extremely poor". The poverty line in America is more than what 85% of households earn worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true when you factor in health care, housing, and education. The standard of living in the US is actually quite low compared to other modern countries.
Re:Maybe the "eligible" are taking care of themsel (Score:5, Informative)
That's not true when you factor in health care, housing, and education.
List of countries by cost of housing [numbeo.com].
Housing in America is more affordable, as a fraction of income, than in any other country in the world except Saudi Arabia.
Housing in America is also far more spacious. American households have twice as many square meters per person as Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Maybe the "eligible" are taking care of themse (Score:2)
The two most likely reasons for not signing up are a) ignorance of the existence of the program, or b) they are willing to pay for better service than the lifeline program offers.
Many low-income families (not all by any stretch, but many), live in high-density housing, and as such likely have access to better internet service than a rural person, since the sunk-cost per household passes is much lower in high-density neighborhoods.
Sometimes people do unwise things (Score:2)
> b) they are willing to pay for better service than the lifeline program offers.
That comports with my limited knowledge and experience. One might say "that would be dumb to pay for 50 Mbps when you can get 10 Mbps for free. Nobody would do that if they're broke". The uncomfortable fact is that when you consider people who never advance beyond "would you like fries with that" jobs, people who make bad decisions are over represented in that group.
Re: (Score:3)
Enrollment down sharply... is a bad thing? (Score:1)
Wouldn't lower enrollment be a sign that people who at one point qualified as low income might no longer be low income, and therefore are no longer eligible? Why does this FCC commissioner believe this to be a bad thing? Are we now trying to give out government subsidies to people who don't need them?
Maybe what's actually happened is that our economy is doing far better during the present time (even with the COVID insanity) than it was during the Obama reign, and so fewer people need to enroll in such pro
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is a bad thing if it is your job to hand out freebies, or are the head of an organization that is tasked with giving out freebies.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe what's actually happened is that our economy is doing far better during the present time (even with the COVID insanity) than it was during the Obama reign
The DJI and such are irrelevant to whether more people need this service than ever. Unemployment is at record levels, so we know that more people qualify and could benefit from lifeline service. It's not even a question.
Re: (Score:1)
Until about 3-4 months ago, unemployment was at record LOW levels. Even now, many of the unemployed are making more on unemployment than they were while they were working, due to the COVID bonuses. So, unemployment doesn't necessarily qualify someone as low income and eligible for such programs. Many of those laid off will also be returning to work as things start to re-open. The DJI and overall markets aren't really irrelevant here at all... strong companies tend to hire people, and even with people be
Re: (Score:2)
Until about 3-4 months ago, unemployment was at record LOW levels.
No, it wasn't. The reported unemployment rate was at a record low number, but that's because it doesn't count people who have given up looking for work, who are no longer eligible for UI, etc. It's a stupid lie that only stupid people believe.
Re: (Score:1)
Unemployment numbers have ALWAYS been done that way... if people weren't looking for work, it wasn't for a lack of available work. For the past couple years, everywhere I go I've seen "Now Hiring!" signs. In the middle of Wisconsin, several different small business owners told me they had shortened their hours and started closing specific days simply because they couldn't find anyone to work those shifts. Every one of them said "we would love to be open longer, we just can't find the people to work."
The
Re: (Score:2)
"Every one of them said "we would love to be open longer, we just can't find the people to work.""
Usually that's code for "we won't hire monkeys, but are only willing to pay bananas."
"The unemployment rate is, and always has been, "People who are looking for work and can't get it.""
Would you care to buy a bridge? I have several to offer you.
Re: (Score:1)
Hah... no... these places would've taken a barely warm body. Most of their existing employees were barely warm bodies. When every. single. business in town is hiring and says they can't find people to work, it's doubtful that they're all paying crap wages.
This mirrors my own experience working for a company that pays quite well... we have a terrible time finding people who are even remotely qualified to fill the roles open. When unemployment in our sector was actually high, it was rather easy.
You seem t
Re: Is anyone surprised? (Score:3)
He said low-income, not low-brow.
People want faster speeds. (Score:2)
A lot of these "broadband" for low income homes have great prices, but a lot of the speeds that I have seen are so slow it really only is only useful for the most basic of web use these days. Video streaming classes would probably be too much for a lot of these? Good enough to put out resumes for jobs and finding jobs though so that's always good.
In my area the cost of 100Mbps is around 40 dollars for introductory prices and goes up to like 65 after a year or two. There are cheaper plans for 50Mbps too, I t
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of these "broadband" for low income homes have great prices, but a lot of the speeds that I have seen are so slow it really only is only useful for the most basic of web use these days.
There's plenty of people whose best option is "up to 5Mbps" DSL from ATT, unless they happen to have LoS to a local WISP. And it costs sixty bucks a month. Meanwhile, people just a street over can get gig cable for a hundred bucks. Or any of several other steps in between 0 and 1 Gbps, for less. IIRC none of them are less than 100Mbps, and that plan costs less than sixty dollars.
5 Mbps is actually enough for one person to do pretty much any one thing besides bulk data transfer in a timely fashion. You can s
It's a $9 dollar subsidy (Score:4, Informative)
and comcast wants $12+ to rent there gateway! (Score:2)
and comcast wants $12+ to rent there gateway!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not gonna get them a computer to use, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Computers are a dime a dozen. I've got three whole systems in storage that I would give away if someone asked nicely, although only one of them is good for anything more than browsing, and that one only barely. And I was proud of that one back in the day — it's a Phenom II X6 1045T with an Asus video card... 460 or something? I forget. But now even my hottest potato is a total turd by modern standards, and all those old machines are bad jokes. Some kid could get their classwork done OK, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: It's a $9 dollar subsidy (Score:2)
The Lifeline program, administered by the Federal Communications Commission, provides a $9.25 monthly subsidy (more on tribal lands) to companies that provide phone or broadband service to low-income consumers, generally at no out-of-pocket cost to the customer.
The ISP typically, but not always accepts the $9.25/mo subsidy as payment in full - most low income households can afford "no out-of-pocket cost to the consumer."
I'm glad it is under subscribed (Score:3)
This program is saving me $100 a month on my internet connection and a landline. When I first started getting notices about the program I mostly ignored them because my income exceeded the requirements. Finally though I called and was told because I lived in a low income neighborhood I did qualify.