Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.

Millions Could Lose Cheap Phone Service Under FCC's Overhaul of Lifeline

posted by takyon on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the flatline dept.

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

Millions could lose cheap phone service under FCC's overhaul of Lifeline

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, appointed to the post by President Donald Trump, wants to remove a majority of wireless providers that participate in the Lifeline program in an attempt to eliminate "waste, fraud, and abuse." If such a move were made, the "chaos would be magnificent," said David Dorwart, the chairman of the National Lifeline Association (NaLA), a trade organization that represents Lifeline businesses.

Roughly 10.7 million Americans receive text, voice, and data under the program, and 70 percent would have to look for a new service provider under the proposal, according to NaLA, if an affordable option is even available. The program cost about $1.3 billion dollars in 2017, and the funding comes from the Universal Service Fund, which is collected from phone subscribers by service providers.

[...] The proposal, introduced by the commission in November of 2017, would limit the Lifeline program to providers that own their networks. This would effectively eliminate "resellers," or providers who instead lease space on a network. Such providers service more than 70 percent of Lifeline participants. The program has been criticized in the past for fraud. It has been the subject of several reports from the Government Accountability Office, which highlighted "significant risks" for abuse.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Millions Could Lose Cheap Phone Service Under FCC's Overhaul of Lifeline | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 56 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:35PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:35PM (#730484)

    You're assuming there's some societal benefit to letting the poor and sick survive, that justifies subsidizing them?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Insightful=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:58PM (3 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:58PM (#730497) Journal

    I hope you never get in a condition in which the question you raise has you as a subject. You will be surprised how fast you'll find an answer that doesn't even take economy or social aspects into account.

    Mind you, in a dog-eat-dog society, it's almost inevitable you will get to the stage of "sick" sooner or later.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:11PM (2 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:11PM (#730538) Journal

      How often does the average American find himself in an emergency situation - AND NO ONE AROUND HAS A PHONE THAT CAN BE USED TO SUMMON HELP?!?!?!

      Even in the pre-cell-phone days, there was generally someone around who could run or drive to a nearby house to call the cops, or fire department, or whatever.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:40PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:40PM (#730546) Journal

        How often does the average American find himself in an emergency situation - AND NO ONE AROUND HAS A PHONE THAT CAN BE USED TO SUMMON HELP?!?!?!

        Yeap, right. Let this cost be supported by good passers-by Samaritans. Surely there will always be one around.

        Based on the reaction, I have a feeling you'd be tempted to call Reagan a commie [wikipedia.org]

        Since 1985, the Lifeline program has helped low-income people pay for phone service; first landlines, then cellphones, and as of 2016 it also offers the option of Internet connectivity.[39] It provides a subsidy of up to $10.00 a month for Americans below 135% of the poverty line for this service.

        Oh, wow! $10/mo tax burden to help some maybe send her/his application to a job via Internet.
        Cut it quick, we must offer no chances, even to those that may take them. Let them struggle, it's their fault they are in this situation. </sarcasm>

        Ah, yes, here's another idea. While at it, cut off the Rural health care [wikipedia.org] too; from his farmlet, Runaway1956 will never need telemedicine that he cannot pay. Since he doesn't need it, it necessary follows nobody needs it too. (grin)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:40PM (#730547)
        Furthermore, any old cell phone, without SIM, can be used to call 911. As people change phones every 2-3 years, there is plenty of old phones. I have one laying around, for example. It has a replaceable battery.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:59PM (#730498)

    Yep. It's called, "not being a dick when you've got it, because someday you might be on the other end of the soup bowl." Believing it can't happen to you is the most delicious fantasy.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @10:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @10:37PM (#730522)

    You're assuming there's some societal benefit to letting the poor and sick survive, that justifies subsidizing them?

    Whenever I hear someone say something like this, I immediately think of this from Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol:

    “Spirit,” said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, “tell me if Tiny Tim will live.”

    “I see a vacant seat,” replied the Ghost, “in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die.”

    “No, no,” said Scrooge. “Oh, no, kind Spirit! say he will be spared.”

    “If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,” returned the Ghost, “will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

    Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.

    “Man,” said the Ghost, “if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!”