Low-Income Homes Drop Internet Service After Congress Kills Discount Program (arstechnica.com) 240
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The death of the US government's Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is starting to result in disconnection of Internet service for Americans with low incomes. On Friday, Charter Communications reported a net loss of 154,000 Internet subscribers that it said was mostly driven by customers canceling after losing the federal discount. About 100,000 of those subscribers were reportedly getting the discount, which in some cases made Internet service free to the consumer. The $30 monthly broadband discounts provided by the ACP ended in May after Congress failed to allocate more funding. The Biden administration requested (PDF) $6 billion to fund the ACP through December 2024, but Republicans called the program "wasteful."
Republican lawmakers' main complaint was that most of the ACP money went to households that already had broadband before the subsidy was created. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel warned that killing the discounts would reduce Internet access, saying (PDF) an FCC survey found that 77 percent of participating households would change their plan or drop Internet service entirely once the discounts expired. Charter's Q2 2024 earnings report provides some of the first evidence of users dropping Internet service after losing the discount. "Second quarter residential Internet customers decreased by 154,000, largely driven by the end of the FCC's Affordable Connectivity Program subsidies in the second quarter, compared to an increase of 70,000 during the second quarter of 2023," Charter said.
Across all ISPs, there were 23 million US households enrolled in the ACP. Research released in January 2024 found that Charter was serving over 4 million ACP recipients and that up to 300,000 of those Charter customers would be "at risk" of dropping Internet service if the discounts expired. Given that ACP recipients must meet low-income eligibility requirements, losing the discounts could put a strain on their overall finances even if they choose to keep paying for Internet service. [...] Light Reading reported that Charter attributed about 100,000 of the 154,000 customer losses to the ACP shutdown. Charter said it retained most of its ACP subscribers so far, but that low-income households might not be able to continue paying for Internet service without a new subsidy for much longer.
Republican lawmakers' main complaint was that most of the ACP money went to households that already had broadband before the subsidy was created. FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel warned that killing the discounts would reduce Internet access, saying (PDF) an FCC survey found that 77 percent of participating households would change their plan or drop Internet service entirely once the discounts expired. Charter's Q2 2024 earnings report provides some of the first evidence of users dropping Internet service after losing the discount. "Second quarter residential Internet customers decreased by 154,000, largely driven by the end of the FCC's Affordable Connectivity Program subsidies in the second quarter, compared to an increase of 70,000 during the second quarter of 2023," Charter said.
Across all ISPs, there were 23 million US households enrolled in the ACP. Research released in January 2024 found that Charter was serving over 4 million ACP recipients and that up to 300,000 of those Charter customers would be "at risk" of dropping Internet service if the discounts expired. Given that ACP recipients must meet low-income eligibility requirements, losing the discounts could put a strain on their overall finances even if they choose to keep paying for Internet service. [...] Light Reading reported that Charter attributed about 100,000 of the 154,000 customer losses to the ACP shutdown. Charter said it retained most of its ACP subscribers so far, but that low-income households might not be able to continue paying for Internet service without a new subsidy for much longer.
And the price increases didn't help... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever there is a natural monopoly of a critical service, and the established player is more interested in protecting that monopoly than providing decent service... that's time to nationalize it.
Even if it's just government management doling out contracts, you can keep it fairly lean and competitive. Free market's great until someone has an unbeatable advantage, then regulation is the only way to keep it within reasonable bounds.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Real competition would be really good. Starlink is a sort of step that way but putting a constellation in orbit and maintaining that, not to mention the little phased array earth stations seems intrinsically more expensive. Fiber seems to be just making gentleman's agreements about dividing regions up into almost exclusive territories. In some developing nations I've stayed in it's possible to get fiber broadband for about $30 a month. No data caps, 200mbps or faster. Typically 2 or 3 ISPs competing.
Re:And the price increases didn't help... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And the price increases didn't help... (Score:5, Informative)
Developing nation inhabitant here.
I pay 50 bucks a month (actually a bit less) for:
- Gigabit fiber (two separate providers)
- Cable TV with almost 200 channels, including all extra options (MAX, cinematography channels, adult channels, etc).
- 4 (four) unlimited data mobile phone subscriptions, with roaming (which I never use) and thousands of free minutes to EU and beyond.
There are three ISPs with coverage in my area, and I receive flyers from the third one (the one I am not subscribed to) which is looking to get me as a customer.
I also can choose between five different TV providers, four via cable, the fifth via aerial antenna. Prices are very similar, TV channel grid is very alike, but I chose the one I am subscribed to now simply because my wife wanted some specific TV channels only this provider had.
My current ISP also has 10g Fiber in the works. Currently you can "pre-order", meaning that you send them a notification via their webpage that you want it. It costs... 11 bucks a month, plus 70-ish bucks setup fee. I guess they are waiting for the local NetCity buried cabling project to reach our relatively distant neighborhood. By the way, that project doesn't cost customers a thing, it's all being covered by the city. Fortunately, my close neighbors who live on a close street already received a mail notification that the project will reach them soon.
Competition is very good for customers here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I have an apartment in southeast asia that I spend quite a bit of time in on the regular. My ISP costs $29 a month (varies with exchange rate ofc) for 200/200 service and I'm not even in a major metro area, I'm near the dang beach. This service also includes a VoIP phone line that I don't use. There are multiple other ISPs available but these guys seem to have the better international peering contracts.
If they can do it in a place where the municipal water may or may not be potable, America SHOULD be a
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding that ideally the government would be in the business of preventing monopolies, not promoting them. But here we are instead, and now that the regulators are well and truly captured they want to find a new way to wring more money out of the citizens, this time with men, guns, and the taxes they bring.
Re: (Score:3)
It costs billions to install fiber. Once that's built, the cost of operating is low. Once a company has built up their network, for another one to built on the same footprint... well, they can, but why? Why would you spend so much in capital and then enter into a price war with the incumbent? You don't. You leave th
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why you don't have vertical markets, where the company that lays the fiber does not also serve as the ISP. Split those two up and then you get more competition. Mom and pop ISPs can rent time on the infrastructure.
When AT&T was broken up, the existing lines were required to be available to competition at fair prices. That's why there were lots of smaller ISPs providing DSL, not just the single phone company in the area. Providing a common infrastructure allowed for competition. Whereas today
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about it is you can get all of that in the US - if you're in the right location.
US internet can be highly variable depending on your locale. If you're in a major city, you've got plenty of options. If you're in a small city or town, you probably have broadband available but likely only 1 or 2 choices for it. If you're in a rural area, you MIGHT have 1 option of varying quality (eg, may parents are rural - they are still on a DSL line and nothing better appears to be on the horizon for them). I
Re: (Score:2)
Some good family friends live about 80 miles from the capital, in a hilly region, rural area. They have available broadband and cable TV. 500 Mbit line, for 7 bucks a month, cable TV is 7 more bucks a month.
They don't have liquified natural gas available, though, and water supply is spotty. Go figure...
Re: (Score:2)
Some developing countries have a huge mess with massive bundles of cables strung up on poles, so naturally many countries want to avoid that.
A lot of developing countries face high costs for legacy ipv4 and/or the requirement to use cgnat, those services could be cheaper if they were ipv6-only but then they would lose access to the long tail of sites like slashdot that are still stuck on 1980s networking protocols. The providers can compete because all of them face the same costs.
Any new ISP starting up tod
Re: (Score:2)
Real competition would be really good. Starlink is a sort of step that way but putting a constellation in orbit and maintaining that, not to mention the little phased array earth stations seems intrinsically more expensive.
Exactly - we don't see them tearing down cell phone towers or re-running fiber after putting them up. It's what I have as StarLink's Achilles heel. You have to keep having launches and putting new devices in orbit - forever.
Fiber seems to be just making gentleman's agreements about dividing regions up into almost exclusive territories. In some developing nations I've stayed in it's possible to get fiber broadband for about $30 a month. No data caps, 200mbps or faster. Typically 2 or 3 ISPs competing.
It's the first adopter problem. And perhaps coupled with the lesser number of users.
Re: (Score:2)
Har-de-har har. Did you just cut and paste from some playbook?
Show me actual competition. Most of the country, you have a "choice" of one provider, period. And from the first post, it's clear that the private companies wanted *more* money, thus utterly and completely disproving your bs.
Republicans have same complaint about food stamps (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, just about all food stamp recipients were already eating food before joining that program. Talk about wasteful...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. When I had food stamps I just thought it was cool to have $200 in groceries every month.
Sure I'm aware people sell them or blow the whole thing on an alaska king crab or whatever.
You dont want to control how poor people spend their charity do you?
This won't be popular to say but yes. Food stamps are a simple and basic line of defense against tumbling down the poverty rabbit hole. It takes some time to get into the culture of grifting your welfare into drugs so putting up a small barrier means it's easy to keep that grocery thing handled. The decision making proce
Re: (Score:3)
We could solve the personal food stamp fraud problem by requiring a photo ID scan. Most of the time when people lose their EBT card they lose their ID, too. In CA if you qualify for SNAP you can get a free ID card, you get the voucher from the same social services office where you request EBT replacement. Unfortunately the DMV is not as prompt about reissuing ID as social services is about printing a new EBT, it can take weeks to get one which is frankly pathetic and unacceptable, so this plan can't reasona
Re:Republicans have same complaint about food stam (Score:5, Informative)
Obesity in the poor is not necessarily due to "poor life choices". Ther are other factors contributing to it.
1) Being in a food desert. If there are no grocery stores nearby, you are stuck with a long trip that you can ill afford or buying from the local convenience store, which doesn't have healthy foods (and is more expensive to boot!).
2) Lack of energy/time. At the end of a long day, you don't have the energy to cook up a meal from scratch, so microwave/easy cook meals are the goto. These quick meals tend to not be healthy.
3) Eating healthy is expensive in both time and money. Cheaper foods tend to be less healthy.
4) Lack of free time to exercise.
5) Lack access to medical care.
Re: (Score:3)
3) Eating healthy is expensive in both time and money.
This is one from among the many weird aspects of US culture. Here in Brazil healthy food is much cheaper than any kind of processed food.
Sometimes Americans watch YouTube videos of typical recipes down here, and many comment, flabbergasted, that "making such meals must cost a fortune!" No, they don't. They cost at most the same as a BigMac combo, and that's for the extra-fancy stuff, the more typical fresh foods meal costs half that or less.
Whatever the cause of the weirdly high prices for fresh foods in th
Re: (Score:3)
Reminds me of what I heard of Scottish food. Shipping food to Scotland was common after the war, and of course it was cheaper and easier to ship canned food rather than fresh. So then there's a generation that grew up eating mostly only packaged foods. Also the post war food shortages were a problem, which could be solved by the backward gardens which were also rarer up in Scotland.
Healthy diets can be expensive because they're not made in bulk. Not a problem if you've got the vegetables available locall
Re: (Score:3)
you've had decades to improve on that situation?
You've never been poor, have you?
Re: (Score:3)
There is also good evidence that people who become poor are then at higher risk of becoming obese; that being poor causes obesity (not the other way around).
Politicians often use the "poor people are fat, lazy, and dumb" slur to justify reducing spending on food programs which only makes things worse (especially for poor children), because cutting food programs increases obesity, decreases
I don't understand this mentality... (Score:5, Insightful)
If one is a farmer, you know:
* If you don't feed your animals, they start dying, and you won't get much at market.
* If you let them get really sick and it is contagious, your other animals get sick, and you won't make much at the market.
* If you let a rabid animal tear through your herd/flock, you won't have much at market.
* If you allow predators at your flock, you won't have much to sell.
* If you don't take care of sick or lame animals, you lose stuff in the market.
This also applies to governments. You don't take care of the people, they become disaffected, and opportunistic "diseases" start happening like extremism. It doesn't take much effort to keep things going, and provide basic food, Internet and other items to the population. Not doing so means that in 20 years, you now have to deal with constant insurgencies which can be impossible to put out, or just consume the country entirely.
Re:I don't understand this mentality... (Score:4)
Aw, come on, this is all fake news. The government should be really small, just big enough to give pork to me and my friends, everyone else could very well bootstrap and work harder. No fish for you, I'll just give you a free lecture how to get one from the sea if you live inland.
Re: (Score:2)
People aren't animals, and this isn't Animal Farm.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me you don't understand analogies without saying you don't understand analogies.
Also tell me you don't understand that humans are just another species of mammal on this planet ...
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me you don't understand analogies without saying you don't understand analogies.
Also tell me you don't understand that humans are just another species of mammal on this planet ...
They're probably part of the same group who thinks the opening ceremony at the Olympics were a stick in the eye of Christians [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you are uber educated and this was some tongue in cheek. But if you don't actually know what Animal Farm is, the GP is talking about how we don't want to walk down the path that leads to the end of that book. Like that's the perfect book to apply here: get rid of your caretaker and "boot strap" yourselves... leads to being worse off as someone gets in power and leeches off the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. That's why what the OP posted is known as an "analogy".
Your understanding of how to read the english language is ... well here's a car analogy: You'd be like a Reliant Robin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans think the poor should suffer because they are poor and obviously they must deserve being poor because they are. That is essentially virtue signalling and sadism and not rational at all.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the Jewish and Christian bibles are so emphatic about helping the poor, to prevent exactly the problems that we see now.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how some some groups of religious followers do not even know their holy book. My point is that "Prosperity Gospel" is a result of virtue signalling and sadism, thinly veiled as a (faulty) interpretation of their religion. You do find the same disdain for the poor in non-religious people as well.
Re: (Score:2)
This also applies to governments. You don't take care of the people, they become disaffected, and opportunistic "diseases" start happening like extremism.
True, but how about forcing Comcast (Xfinity), Charter and all to lower their prices. Broadband in the US has been subsidized for decades, and in many cases all they did was buy back stocks. Time to say, you price will be cut by 30% until the subsidizes are paid back to the tax payer. Prices can only be raised and the official inflation rate minus 1%.
So some people really really really really (Score:5, Interesting)
For those people and make a devils bargain sometimes.
They demand a lower caste or class be maintained. Someone who has to show them respect no matter what. Someone who they're walking down the street has to step aside from them. That sort of thing. If you ever wondered why somebody who didn't own slaves would fight in the American civil war that's why. And I don't mean that is some abstract thing we literally have writings where they more or less talk about it.
This is kind of the essence of the right wing. You have a hierarchy and there's somebody above you and if they say jump you have to say how high on the way up but in exchange for that people beneath you have to do the same.
There are military manuals about this. They were written to talk about how to determine when the people at the bottom are numerous enough that you can use them to destabilize a country. It's around 10%. Which is right about where the black population in America is. So you maintain an under class around that percentage and you're going to get a certain percentage to the population that will basically allow you to do anything to them so long as they're not at the bottom.
LBJ said it best. Convince the man that he's better than any black man and he'll let you pick its pocket. Other countries do it too they just don't usually use skin color. But it's the same trick
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. An actual +10 Insightful. Your position is my position.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think of citizens as farm animals to be fattened for the slaughter, and government as the farmer, that of course makes perfect sense.
If you think of citizens as independent people, capable of taking care of themselves, of making their own decisions, and government as a referee who ensures people play by the rules, it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think about it, this can be an impersonal way to think about it, but "farming" citizens means you have educated engineers, and other people who can keep the economy going... or at the minimum, a population that one can get good soldier material from.
It isn't the best of analogies, but it does apply, and having a good "crop" of citizens is an important thing. Look at Europe as an example about quality of life.
Re:I don't understand this mentality... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, doing nothing to take care of citizens will leave a few people really rich and happy, but a rotting base. One always can throw in the words "socialism" or "communism" for anything that is more than living in Somalia, but there is a wide gap between the Little Red Book versus providing social services. For a country to function, the people have to be looked after with some social safety nets in place, and having a population that has access to the Internet can mean one that can find a way to educate itself. Without it... that just isn't going to happen.
A lot of people will do cool things... if given the chance, somehow. With the fact that jobs are getting more scarce, and definitely not expanding, while population expands, governments are going to have to do something... otherwise after a while, it creates a petri dish for revolts.
Re: (Score:3)
We need the government off our backs and out of our daily lives.
Agreed, which is why the government has no business telling women they can't get abortions, especially after they've been raped.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
Get out and vote in your state to change this!!
Re: (Score:3)
can you tell me where the cutoff line is between removing an unwanted growth and infanticide?
At birth, as taught in the Bible.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to clarify things, what do you think is the government's job?
Re: (Score:2)
If talking Federal US govt, that's easy...
Lemme just pull out my copy of the US Constitution, you know, the document that enumerates the limited powers and responsibilities of the US Federal Govt....
That pretty much covers it...nice simple topics like national defense, secure the borders...give it a read.
Re:I don't understand this mentality... (Score:4, Insightful)
What about "promote the general Welfare"? There's nothing in there about "securing the border" either unless you think that's part of defense (defending against immigrant families?).
Re: (Score:3)
ILLEGAL immigrants is what I was referring to..and in the numbers they are swarming the borders and coming across unchecked I think easily qualifies for the moniker "invasion".
And that concept didn't even EXIST until a century ago, certainly not something you'd find in the constitution.
It's a historic document so you have to make some assumptions about modern society such as the existence of the internet and immigration, but you can't just pick and choose and pretend that you're following the original document to a T
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly as long as the government sees a net gain in healthy citizens I couldn't care any less about why the government does what it does.
As someone afflicted with several chronic diseases let me give you a bit of insight: Quality of life is EVERYTHING. I would gladly trade 20 years of longevity for the rest not being this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly as long as the government sees a net gain in healthy citizens I couldn't care any less about why the government does what it does.
As someone afflicted with several chronic diseases let me give you a bit of insight: Quality of life is EVERYTHING. I would gladly trade 20 years of longevity for the rest not being this shit.
As someone that does not suffer with chronic diseases, but has had to tolerate living in this country his entire life, I feel exactly the same way. I'd take a shorter life if some of it could be a little less shit.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone with no chronic diseases, except now, getting OLDER....living in the US entire life too, I must say, overall, I've had a GREAT ride!!
I've had ups/downs...a good break a couple times, the rest of the time, I worked and achieved a lot of what I've wanted to do. I have a decent place to
Re: (Score:2)
As someone with no chronic diseases, except now, getting OLDER....living in the US entire life too, I must say, overall, I've had a GREAT ride!!
I've had ups/downs...a good break a couple times, the rest of the time, I worked and achieved a lot of what I've wanted to do. I have a decent place to live, I eat well, (love to cook)...I have pretty much all the adult "toys" I want to have fun with.
I look forward to as many years to come living here.
I just hope the country I grew up in, that is changing on me...just at least lasts long enough for me to be done with it.
I hope we can move back to a better time, for the benefit of everyone and away for the whacko edge we're riding now....
But while my life has been far from perfect and everything I wanted, I dunno that I'd trade anything in it...it's been a fun and interesting ride so far.
I'm sorry it's been so bad for you...maybe stand back and try to look on things with more humor and positivity for the future.
A positive mind helps positive outcomes....I've seen it.
To all that I say, meh. Been told my whole life how grand everything is if you just ignore all the filth surrounding you and bury your head in happiness rather than accepting that we've created a world that breeds misery upon misery. It's a bit equivalent to telling the clinically depressed to "just try being happy." Oh hell, why didn't we think of that? Because happiness, the few times I've stumbled across it, leads to complacency, which leads to creating misery for others. And frankly, I'd rather be miser
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
no, that's how authoritorian governments work. in a free country, the government works for the people instead of "farming the citizens".
5G (Score:2)
Effectively this was free money for the ISPs as these people were not consuming bandwidth but the govt was paying the ISPs for said bandwidth. I am surprised Republicans - the party of big business went
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Add this cash to all the money they get for buildouts that never happen . . .
Re: 5G (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you live in an area with even moderate population density and everyone there decided to move from their dedicated wired services to the shared pool of wireless spectrum the service would be massively overloaded and completely unusable.
Wireless only works when there aren't many users in a given area.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone in this world has their world revolve around their smart phone.
One LARGE subsection of people that fit into this....are the elderly, or older citizens in the US.
Many depend on internet connections that their tablets connect to....and maybe their televisions stream from, home alarm systems....?
And while I don't consider myself elderly...and don't qualify for this (yet) if it ever comes back...I
means testing (Score:2)
What Democrats do when they don't really care about a program and know that Republicans will roll it back.
If Democrat Congresscritters ever legalize abortion, it will surely be means-tested, too.
Re: (Score:3)
If Democrat Congresscritters ever legalize abortion, it will surely be means-tested, too.
Yes, they'll make sure only pregnant women will be able to get one.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Err...I dunno.
I mean, to do that, they'd first have to be able to define what a "woman" is and that capability seems to elude them these days.
It was being abused (Score:2)
The government should be regulating the price, not subsidizing it with our tax money.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you think the government should simply save "your tax" money on a secret account, instead using it for something sensible and reasonable?
So why pay taxes? For what actually do you, or would you pay taxes?
Why do you even have a government? Seems you do not need one.
Good news (Score:2)
This should make them much more intelligent.
Re: Good news (Score:2)
European prices are lower than that subsidy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where in Europe. In most of Europe, fast internet has at least been acknowledged to be a basic utility to which people have a right, even though there still are lots of places – even in the rich parts of the EU – where it is difficult to get.
Re: (Score:3)
You must live in a very cheap area. Germany here. 200 mbit fiber, no TV package included, just shy of 40 euros a month.
Re: (Score:2)
I also live in Europe and my internet costs £70 p/m
basiic internet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, it would be great if a lot of things were free, but as it has been said by one wiser than myself, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
I haven't yet seen anyone who complains that healthcare, internet or whatever else should be free volunteering to work in those services without compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
Basic internet should be free for all, same with basic power and basic food, but then there is reality and it sucks!
Ummmm, no single "thing" should be free. Free things builds disease. Access should be simple and unfettered, but not entirely free as providing a service is not free.
Economics MUST be based in Reality or everything eventually spins out of control. Yes, Reality can suck quite badly sometimes. Deal with it and stop making it my problem.
$6 billion / 100,000 = $60,000 (Score:2)
How about we increase competition instead? Lower prices and better service would do wonders for everyone, plus it would save a lot on subsidies if we still want to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
The capital expenditure to enter the market at all will continue to limit new competitors. The compromises enforced on the telecoms since the breakup of AT&T's telephone service monopoly has lowered service quality considerably, though it has permitted competition with some very odd compromises of forcing providers to carry each other's traffic at federally regulated rates.
Re: (Score:2)
The capital expenditure to enter the market at all will continue to limit new competitors.
That is not the primary limiting factor. Even competitors who could afford to enter regional markets are prohibited from doing so by right-of-way agreements which are exclusive. All such agreements should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be a combination of. Open up the highways to many. Let the carriers be no different than UPS or FedEx. And let the ISPs be a separate business.
However, this would not be enough for many people, they would still need subsidies. How you subsidize is another matter. We can open up more community centers that provide many services to the community and include high speed internet. We can consider this a basic necessity and use food stamps. Etc etc.
But a sub is always needed and we need to remove
Re:$6 billion / 600 =10 Million (Score:3)
Mobiles (Score:3)
Most people drop landlines and use mobiles.
The poor more so.
In the UK we discovered how many poor households had no landline internet and tghe whole family shared one mobile, mums mobile.
We found that during COVID lockdowns as we told the kids to study from home only to find a large portion who had no device or relied on expensive mobile data that would simply run out after a week and they wait for mum to top up the mobile next month.
My own cousin for example. The house still has a landline physically connected but due to the monthly costs of broadband over it she failed to meet payment deadlines and disconnected it while bringing in the debt collection agencies. Owed over a grand (£1000) and due to also having owed more than a grand on her also disconnected mobile and also owing the bank £1500 in loan repayments for a loan she had in 2014 there was no way with her income that the internet was a priority.
To make sure she could have some connectivity, could call in an emergency etc I gave her a PAYG SIM that I topped up monthly with £25 giving 80GB of data at full speed and then unliomited data at ADSL speeds after that. She consumed the 80GB within a week usually, watching streamed TV. The low speed unlimited data was enough for whatsapp and other low bandwidth usage and if she stayed awake, after 12AM she got full speed again till 7am.
An old mate of mine, lives in a flat. She ditched TV so she could avoid the cost of the TV license and she ditched the landline, she and her sister never bothered with broadband, they see it as old and odd :D They just use the mobiles.
So many do that and put up with the crappy mobile signals.
BUt thats where they, including the poor, put the money. Not in a landline with 200Mb or more or even less, and no caps, but in a smart phone they can carry about and flash about like its a fasion accessory. Then into the expensive PAYG data or expensive contracts, plust the expensive streaming.
Me as a frugal bastard however has a mobile that was released in 2018 as my "latest upgrade". It uses a PAYG SIM and I own the mobile outright, in fact it was a FREE aquistion from where I work in IT as we were scrapping them. I pay £6 a month on that SIM for 1GB of data which is all thats needed for a month of whatsapp, wikipedia, reddit and a few other bits.
My home has a landline providing both voice and data. The broadband is 200Mb down and the costs has recently increased so I shall me talking to the retentions dept.
It's always weird ... (Score:2)
...watching people respond exactly as desired to propaganda, all the while thinking that they are the brainy rebels, lol.
First of all, what your poor neighbors do with their internet, on average, is watch vapid Tiktok stuff, not learn to code, learn second languages, etc. (Not much different from what most of your non-poor neighbors do with it either, but still true.)
Secondly, those new rims they just got, or, depending on where you live, what they just paid to jack that pickup chassis way up into the air
Dropped all internet? (Score:3)
Shouldn't this read "Low-Income Homes Drop *Charter* Internet Service..."? Does Charter (or anyone else) know that those people lack internet service now? Or did they move to a different provider? Or did they choose to use cellular?
Related: $42 billion (Score:4, Insightful)
Related: didn't the US recently spend $42 billion to provide internet access, without actually connecting anyone to the Internet? $42 billion would pay an awful lot of internet bills.
Whatever contracts were issued under that program need audited by the GAO. There should have been performance and penalty clauses. If there were not, then certain politicians and bureaucrats need prosecuted for fraud.
I think it's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
...that so many people here reflexively support/defend what is, after all, a fat subsidy to isp companies.
Think about that.
If we want poor people to have broadband, that's fine: make it conditional for isp licensure that they have to provide to verified individuals internet connects at a minimum speed for low or no-cost (we all know that aside from the install, there's basically no cost to running internet access)?
Why are we insisting that the government hand isp's money?
Cell phones? (Score:2)
I wonder how many of those with loss of subsidized internet have smart phones with internet on the phone. I'm under the impression that a lot of the "poor" have fancy cell phones and would rather lose lots of things before they lose their phone. Just a guess, but this program being dropped seems like it's probably redundant for many if not all of the recipients. I know lots of people that only use the internet to watch streaming services and get their news on their phone...on facebook!
Easier to mislead and control the poor this way (Score:2)
Tattoos (Score:2)
Tattoos are a higher priority than home internet.
Wasteful? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I mean you're not wrong but fox news and newsmax were purpose built to spread propaganda where as most mainstream press, especially before fox and before the internet, existed to deliver news while not being immune to bias, political pressure, bad information, and so on.
Fox is so bad that all other news had to become worse in order to compete. That's special.
Wonderful Post Anon (Score:2)
I actually don't pay attention to the news but when I did I often put statements to the test, reading books on the topics, checking wikipedia, pulling out a calculator to crunch numbers.
Nowdays I have my one vote a passport full of visas and a portfolio set up for the sole purpose of fleeing the country if things go badly. Dunno dumb america hope you can get your shit together before I have to dump my shit off at goodwill and get on a plane but if not I'll laugh and cry at your self inflicted pain from a
Re: (Score:3)
And with a childish retort like that, I can believe you’re a real libtard helping destroy America.
Crazy how people don't take you seriously when you post stuff like this:
and a DEI hire/Batman villain known as The Cackler
I guess people should respect your feelings and ideas while you call them libtards and rattle off shallow talking points.
Re:Subsidy (Score:4, Insightful)
OMGosh, Just fund the blue states. Tell customers in red states, they asked for it. Red state congress members will approve right away, am I wrong?
Only if you lower the taxes charged the red states, so they're not paying for a blue-state-only giveaway.
Heck, I'm sure some the red staters would be happy to eat subsidized food paid for only by blue states. (Others, of course, would refuse to accept it on moral grounds. Yes, I know such people.)
Re: Illegal (Score:2)
we have a Zionist controlled government borrowing money from a Zionist owned central bank at interest, and they spend it on the military industrial complex & give billions away to foreign governments, what is wrong with this picture? What could go wrong?
Re:Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
$6 billion to provide Internet access to private homes? Cmon now. Especially when (so far) only 154k subscribers have dumped their service without the subsidy. Do you think it's reasonable to spend $6 billion to provide Internet access to such a small number of homes?
$6 billion is enough to provide $30 monthly to over 16 million homes for an entire year.
Re: (Score:2)
Find the enumerated power that says congress can do this and I'll be more likely to believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I should get the government to pay for my mailbox I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Clause 2 is not an independent enumerated power. It is a clarification. The power to spend is a power further limited and strictly restrained by the rest of the Constitution, which includes the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, two sections of the Bill of Rights which clearly and specifically dictate the federal government is forbidden to exercise any power not specifically granted to it.
The purpose of the Constitution is to frustrate, vex and restrain the federal government. The Constitution forbids, prohibits a
Re: Illegal (Score:2)
Youâ(TM)d still have the possibility of impeachment. Though using it for partisan reasons is not a good one, as is shown.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The president has legal immunity for official acts taken while exercising his Article II powers as Commander in Chief.
and inflicts the storm troopers of the Christian Right on America.
There is no official power to inflict the storm troopers of the Christian Right in Article II.