Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Communications United States

A Program for Cheaper Internet for Low-Income Americans Launches Today (theverge.com) 101

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
Starting today, eligible US residents can apply for help with their internet bills under the new Affordable Connectivity Program. The program launched today with $14.2 billion from the bipartisan infrastructure law passed in November. From a report: Households can apply to take up to $30 a month off their internet service bill. For households on qualifying Tribal lands, the discount is up to $75 per month. The program could help to connect millions of people to the internet who haven't had access to it at home, especially in communities that have historically faced more barriers to getting online. Almost a third of people living on Tribal lands lacked high-speed internet at home in 2017, according to a report by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). That's compared to just 1.5 percent of city-dwellers without high-speed internet access. On top of limited infrastructure, cost is often another barrier. The United States has the second-highest broadband costs out of 35 countries studied by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). And American Indian and Alaska Native people have the highest poverty rate of any race group in the US, according to the US Census Bureau.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Program for Cheaper Internet for Low-Income Americans Launches Today More

A Program for Cheaper Internet for Low-Income Americans Launches Today

Comments Filter:

  • Step backward, not forward (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scifiman ( 751848 ) on Friday December 31, 2021 @05:07PM (#62132107)
    Before the re-authorization and rename, this program was giving eligible families $50/month, not $30.

    • The program could help to connect millions of people to the internet who haven't had access to it at home.

      Right, because there are soooo many households who currently aren't online solely because they can't spring for $30/month...

      • You do realize that there are 79 million families in the United States that are so poor, they need help (SNAP benefits) just to afford food.

        • You do realize that there are 79 million families in the United States that are so poor, they need help (SNAP benefits) just to afford food.

          No, but I realize there are only 79 million families in the United States. Are you contending that every single one of them needs SNAP just to afford food?

          Did you even stop to think in the slightest before you made that claim?

          • Actual number is 39.8 million families.
            The cost is $79 billion

            he made a reasonable error.

            • Still an exaggerated inaccuracy. SNAP is claimed to "reach" 38 million people, not 38 million families. That's about 12% of the population.

              79 million families would be the entire U.S., 38 million families would still be almost half the country. I'm assuming you just didn't think about the scale of what you wrote.

              • It was not him. He only posted explaining it was a reasonable error, which it was. Then he made a reasonable error, not an "exaggerated claim," it was a mistake. Yes, he did not think about the scale of what he wrote. it is quite possible to correct someone without ascribing an agenda.

                Also, it's a bit over 42 million Americans as of last year.

      • $20 Unlimited cell phone plan with 5 GB of data.

        • Doesn't sound unlimited with 5gb of data.

          How much of that 5gb can be tethering? What provider are we even talking about?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cfalcon ( 779563 )

      > Before the re-authorization and rename, this program was giving eligible families $50/month, not $30.

      While you are correct, you are missing a pretty big shift: before, this was to help Americans that were fucked by the pandemic and resulting job loss. Those Americans now need to "requalify". Unless I misread, it is becoming a permanent welfare thing. So while the summary was incorrect, it does still point out that this is new in the sense that previously it was a temporary government program, and n

    • What was the former program called?

  • This happened before (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Thaelon ( 250687 ) on Friday December 31, 2021 @05:08PM (#62132109)

    Are we going to get what we paid for this time?

    We gave telecom $200,000,000,000.00 already and have nothing to show for it unless you're an investor.

  • In other words (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dsgrntlxmply ( 610492 ) on Friday December 31, 2021 @05:12PM (#62132119)

    A modest benefit for designated categories of end users, with the actual money going to the same oligarchs who continually take government money, and lie about using it to provide useful connectivity. Native enclaves even locally, have had special challenges with Covid home schooling, because a Chromebook, even if supplied under grant or subsidy, is useless without connectivity.

    Follow the money.

    • Re: In other words (Score:2, Troll)

      by kenh ( 9056 )

      This effort will not expand service into previously unserved areas, it will simply make the rates current customers (and new customers) in well-served areas pay cheaper bills.

      This program does not fund infrastructure.

      Almost a third of people living on Tribal lands lacked high-speed internet at home in 2017, according to a report by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). That's compared to just 1.5 percent of city-dwellers without high-speed internet access.

      First off, that's a 5 year-old statistic - that's quite old for such a dynamic industry as ISPs.

      And I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to learn that high-earners in densely populated areas are better served by ISPs than the native Americans living in near-poverty on tribal lands with little to n

      • Not necessarily, If a provider has calculated that providing service to an area is not worth it because not enough households would sign-up due to cost, then this can changes the calculus.

        • It's a "chicken it the egg" problem.

          Subsidizing service will help with customer retention, but it is unlikely to shift the dynamics enough to justify wiring a previously unprofitable area.

          The issue is rural customers with great distances between residences - for these customers the issue isn't the monthly cost of service, it's the investment the ISP must make to serve the address.

          There are countless customers more than happy to pay the standard rate for service, but their ISP won't invest the, in some cases

  • are caps allowed for users on this?

  • All they had to do was give 10 billion to SpaceX to speed up Starlink deployment by increasing the number of satellite production lines and this problem would be solved, especially for rural areas.

    • All they had to do was give 10 billion to SpaceX to speed up Starlink deployment by increasing the number of satellite production lines and this problem would be solved, especially for rural areas.

      Starlink has been promising internet to my rural area for going on three years now. Their website said, "late 2020" in early 2020. Then it said "early 2021" in late 2020. Then it said "late 2021" in early 2021. I just checked and it says they will provide service in "mid-2022".

      Maybe Elon should spend a little

  • Who pays? (Score:3)

    by colonslash ( 544210 ) on Friday December 31, 2021 @05:26PM (#62132165)
    The telecoms are going to use this as an excuse to jack up prices on everyone else, making many times what it costs them, just like they took much more money than they spent for rural internet for decades.

    Can we please stop this corporate welfare?

    • Can we please stop this corporate welfare?

      How else would these companies survive if not for the welfare payments? They are so poorly mismanaged the only way for them to survive is with yearly taxpayer handouts.

      • These companies don't need to survive. Internet access is important enough to people that if the mishandled monopolies the government props up went out of business, other lean and well managed businesses would take their place.

  • Another scam to fatten the telcos, while ignoring what is needed to make the internet really open..

    Demand common carrier, kids, or you'll get nothing

  • Pepperidge Farm remembers (Score:4, Informative)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Friday December 31, 2021 @05:43PM (#62132209)

    There was a time we, the taxpayers, were promised 45 Mbps bidirectional roadband service for about $40 monthM.A [newnetworks.com]

    And look at how well that turned out. The obvious solution is to give ISPs more taxpayer money for the great service they're providing.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The people that pay *NO* taxes will get free internet, while taxpayers continue to be fleeced. Please explain to me why this isn't backward, and please be *specific*.

      • In today's society, the internet is a tool to help get one's self out of poverty.

        Job searches and online learning require network connectivity.

        Also a society should help the most vulnerable so they can get back on their feet and potentially become more successful.

        • In today's society, the internet is a tool to help get oneself out of poverty.

          And yet I'm reminded of all the failed but well-meaning aid programs in Africa. Apparently, technology can't do everything.

        • Also a society should help the most vulnerable so they can get back on their feet and potentially become more successful.

          (Score:5, Funny)

        • Can you recommend some research that points to poverty being reduced by providing broadband access not previously available? I see research showing correlation, not causation.

          It'd be particularly interesting to see how broadband access mediates known causative factors (e.g. single parenting, inter generational unemployment, incomplete education, criminality).

          • Subsidized internet access is less about "helping poor people out of poverty" and more along the lines of making sure people who are only qualified to work the sort of low-paying crappy jobs that no one wants, have the means to apply. Here's a hint: people sitting in their comfortable McMansion with a nice fat Google fiber connection aren't going to be applying to work that that fast food joint with the "Sorry, closed due to staffing issues" sign in the window.

      • The people that pay *NO* taxes will get free internet, while taxpayers continue to be fleeced.

        Please explain to me why this isn't backward, and please be *specific*.

        As soon as you can explain why companies who pay no taxes continue to fleece the taxpayers by receiving bailouts and yearly subsidies.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by theCoder ( 23772 )

          As soon as you can explain why companies who pay no taxes continue to fleece the taxpayers by receiving bailouts and yearly subsidies

          I don't agree with the OP, but I will point out to you that every single US company out there pays thousands of dollars every year for each employee they have. Direct and to the IRS. Plus various other taxes such as property, sales, and licensing (like registering the business). You should see the taxes that are added on a businesses electric bill! I doubt there is any US

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by quall ( 1441799 )

        Because democrats.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by theCoder ( 23772 )

        People who pay no taxes generally have no(*) money. Since they have no money, they have, well, no money to pay for things like Internet connectivity. As a society, we think everyone should have access to the Internet because of all the great things it enables (like learning new skills, applying for jobs, and access to cat memes). So we subsidize the people with no money so they can access the Internet. See also subsidized food, medicine, and education for their kids.

        (*) or very little money compared to

    • With inflation, that $40 internet is now $65, which is the approximate cost of lower tier internet. Guess what the price will be 15 years from nowâ¦

  • This Is Bullshit (Score:3)

    by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Friday December 31, 2021 @06:35PM (#62132295) Journal

    Subsidizing is the same thing as rewarding monopolies who charge ever more and deliver ever less, more money. If those companies were slapped back like they should be, the prices wouldn't be so high, and people could better afford internet services. This is just another way for paid off politicians to subsidize the carriers.

    • You sound just like Ajit Pai. So, how do you accomplish this without regulating the industry? They, the lobbyists payed you all that money to find out how and you decided that their way of less regulation and forced acquisitions to drive up prices was fine.... exactly, bullshit.

  • A Program for Cheaper Internet ...

    In this case, "cheaper" just means less expensive ... :-)

  • In California, poor people have to pay for other poor people's help, but get none ourselves.

  • Break the oligopoly and let smol bois operate FTTH.
    I know it works because that's happening here in Brazil. In the 00's we had such (or worse) broadband oligopoly as in America (we still have it in mobile), but for some reason legislative ease emerged in broadband providing, specially FTTH. Maybe Big Telecom slept on it, or they concluded that the real money was on mobile. Anyway that brought the advent of a lot of "small guys" fiber ISPs. And with them, some very welcome concurrency.
    My example: I live in a

  • Everyone can have cheaper broadband & better infrastructure if federal, state, etc. governments stopped guaranteeing telcos monopolies. One way to do that is to stop them from blocking municipal broadband services. It's a well documented & understood strategy of the telcos. Some background reading (keyword search): https://duckduckgo.com/?q=telc... [duckduckgo.com]

  • Municipal broadband seems like a perfect solution here. They could even hire and train some local people.

  • internet service with somebody else forced to pay the bill, at gunpoint. It's receipt of stolen goods.

    Yet another program that takes money from one guy's paycheck and re-directs it, against his will, into the pocket of some other guy who has done NOTHING to earn it. If the taxpayer so paying refuses, the government will garnish his wages, and if he finds a way around it, the government will take his home and government employees will show up to drag him from it, and if he resists, a government employee will

    • Your beef seems to be with the concept of "rule of law"
      Nobody's gonna check your vaccine passport in Mogadishu, friend. Enjoy the flight.

      • "Rule of Law" is generally recognized as:

        [a] Fixed, written laws that are freely available for all to read (no secret laws or laws that get quickly changed to entrap somebody)

        [b] The laws being equally enforced, so that nobody in high positions is above the law and nobody in low positions is deemed exempt - all are equal

        [c] The laws are independently adjudicated, so that the people making arrests, the people prosecuting and judging, and the jailers are free of conflicts of interest, and the laws are not enf

        • How does ANY of what I wrote indicate a lack of respect for the Rule of Law.

          LOL.

          internet service with somebody else forced to pay the bill, at gunpoint. It's receipt of stolen goods.

          Taxation is constitutional. It is therefor legal.
          Allocation of that tax money according to the will of the democratically elected government is legal.
          Therefor, 1 of 2 things is true.
          1) Your beef is with the rule of law.
          2) You have some sort of psychological disturbance that prevents you from grounding your perceptions in reality.

          Yet another program that takes money from one guy's paycheck and re-directs it, against his will, into the pocket of some other guy who has done NOTHING to earn it. If the taxpayer so paying refuses, the government will garnish his wages, and if he finds a way around it, the government will take his home and government employees will show up to drag him from it, and if he resists, a government employee will pull a gun and shoot him. It's simply armed-robbery-by-proxy, so some lazy jerk can watch cheaper porn.

          You seem to think that you cannot be forced to do things against your will, or that doing so is not legal.
          Again, 1 of 2 things is true.
          1) Your beef is with the rule of law

  • In most of the world, if you want cheap internet, you just use your mobile phone as a hotspot.

    Here in Australia, you can get unlimited calls and a few GB of data per month for $10-$20.
    Students might pay A$30/month (like us$20+tax) for a plan with more data so they can watch some youtube.
    The only reason you need to pay more is to get lots of streaming video services like Netflix.

    There used to be a problem where poor people would sign up for cheap plans and get hit with huge excess data charges. But now when

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Bumbul ( 7920730 )
      Sounds terribly expensive over there as well.... In Finland, a typical mobile connetion gives 300MBps with no data cap nor bandwidth limiting for 20 euros per month.

  • Better idea (Score:3)

    by Gabest ( 852807 ) on Saturday January 01, 2022 @12:32AM (#62132903)

    Just make it more expensive for others! Then you can say it got cheaper.

  • maybe the problem is "tribal lands" (Score:3)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Saturday January 01, 2022 @10:07AM (#62133609) Journal

    I'd call for a 200-year statute of limitations on Indian treaties, because clearly, the idea of keeping people segregated into their own nations isn't providing them any benefit.

    There are legions of abjectly poorer people (200k last month) desperate enough to break the law get into the US, mostly so they can have a shot at building a life for their families.

    I'm coming to believe the state of permanent penury endured by natives (those not fortunate enough to get rich-by-casino, who thereafter seem...surprisingly deaf to the sufferings of those who are ostensibly their people?...) is caused by the segregation and enforced backwardness of populations mired in history.

    Set them free into the US. Set them free of tribal elders, marginal lands, and shotgun shack existences where the only solace is alcohol and drug abuse.
    The people who made those agreements are long dead, as are their children. Likewise will I be by the time 200 years has elapsed, so I can't conceivably benefit personally.

    But I could be happy knowing that they would eventually be free.

    • Ugh.
      There is no forced segregation.
      Native Americans are not confined to Tribal Lands, they are US citizens.

      I'm coming to believe the state of permanent penury endured by natives (those not fortunate enough to get rich-by-casino, who thereafter seem...surprisingly deaf to the sufferings of those who are ostensibly their people?...) is caused by the segregation and enforced backwardness of populations mired in history.

      You're right. But nothing is enforced. Even the segregation is some self-imposed cultural aspect.

      Set them free into the US.

      They are.

      Set them free of tribal elders, marginal lands, and shotgun shack existences where the only solace is alcohol and drug abuse.

      They are.

      But I could be happy knowing that they would eventually be free.

      They're the most free class of US citizen there is.

      I don't want to opine too much about the cause of their plight, but I suspect you nailed it above. The part you're off-the-rails about is that there is anything at all enforcing those things other than their own culture.

      • Sorry, I misimplied by using the word segregation - I meant it only in its literal meaning, minus the baggage.

        You are entirely correct, the 'segregation' is NOT legislative...it's THEIR OWN culture. It's a self-destructive cult of noble sacrifice or whatever.

  • The previous program allowed $50 for poor households, so all thsi does is cut in down $20. Gee thanks... They announced it like it was a it was a big thing, not a cut back.

  • Correct headline: average Americans will have to pay more for either internet or taxes to support more social programs.

  • There are many more ways to make money and above all that many have to do with forex. I am currently occupying a brokers page that helps me a lot to find easier ways to make money is the page of http://usforexbrokers.com/comp... [usforexbrokers.com] with which you can quickly and easily earn money without any problem and above all that it is a simple way to earn money.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close