SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for exec
FCC crackdown on cellphone subsidies leaves millions without service
The Ajit Pai-era FCC has spent much of its energy cracking down on claimed abuses of the Lifeline subsidy program, but this anti-fraud effort may be hurting low-income households more than it helps. The investigative news outlet Center for Public Integrity has used FCC data to determine that nationwide enrollment for cellphone subsidies has dropped by about 2.3 million people, or 21 percent, since 2017. The cuts have been particularly severe in places like the District of Columbia, where 49 percent of Lifeline users lost their subsidies between March 2018 and June 2019. Mississippi, Wyoming and Puerto Rico also lost a third or more of their enrollment in the same time frame.
Some of the problems may stem from a verifier system that was approved in 2016. It was meant to automatically check whether people qualified for Lifeline service and reduce fraud, but its incomplete access to benefit databases appears to have rejected people who were eligible for the program. Enrollment has plunged in those six states where the verifier launched, although a connection to the Medicaid database (and ideally state databases) might solve some of these problems.
However, the current FCC's crackdown (including ongoing support of the verifier) is raising concerns that it's simply interested in cutting off support for poor people, in sync with a presidency that has focused on cutting other benefits for low-income homes. There are particular concerns that changes due in December may prompt carriers to quit Lifeline and leave customers without access. Networks are supposed to help Lifeline recipients by providing more data and phasing out support for call minutes, but they're expected to complain when the subsidy amounts to less than $10 per month.
Based on a story from USA Today
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:43AM (8 children)
Cell phones aren't a necessity, they're a toy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by jasassin on Thursday November 07 2019, @03:57AM (3 children)
You sound butthurt that geriatric people are getting subsidies for a device that is necessary to communicate with doctors offices and family to ask them for a ride to appointments. Before you go off about land lines, those too will be subsidized anyway. I'm not sure where you're going with this. Cell phones are more useful than a land line. If their car breaks down on the road, for example, they can call Triple A or a family member for help. Also, a lot of elderly people don't have computers, so they can use their phone to look up information.
I'm usually on the same page as you, but in this case you are being a dick.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 07 2019, @11:25PM (2 children)
I'm butthurt that they don't want to earn their ability to walk and talk like the rest of us. They want me to fucking pay for it. They want me to work harder so they don't have to. Fuck them.
Also, being as we've done without them for around two hundred millennia, your argument is shit. The convenience of others is not something I'm willing to work more hours for.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Friday November 08 2019, @05:37AM (1 child)
There are numerous reasons why geriatric people can't walk, and there's no earning that ability back when you get that old with conditions that simply arise from old age.
You mean back when generations lived in the same small village? Times have changed. People live further away from their parents and grandparents. It's no longer a matter of waiting for the hunter gatherer to come back. Your argument is shit.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 08 2019, @11:25PM
"walk and talk" were not two separate abilities but the combination of the two. If they're not mobile, they don't need their phone to be either.
Dude, I mean the entirety of human history up to the late 90s. Something does not suddenly become necessary simply because it's convenient. And with the abysmal quality of cellular voice compared to landline voice, it's not even very fucking convenient.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:34AM (3 children)
Try applying for a job without a cellphone. They will send you your interview time by SMS. If you don't respond in kind within a couple of minutes you get roundfiled as having skipped the appointment.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @11:43AM
Wrong. Most will send a proper e-mail notification that can be responded to within a day or so. Any idiots that try to rely only on SMS, you probably don't want to work for.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:37PM
Actually, that would be incredibly evil. That would exclude the increasing number of people who work (but are still looking for other jobs) in secure areas where cell phones are forbidden. It would also be a problem for people who drive a lot, where cell phone usage is ILLEGAL. Of course, it would exclude poor people who choose not to purchase an expensive smart phone just for that use, and check e-mail on library/friends/company computers. - which is sort of what the article is about, but subsides are NOT the answer. No problem if someone sends a text IN ADDITION to an e-mail or other communications methods, but locking people in to one proprietary method is very, very, wrong.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 07 2019, @11:27PM
I've never had an employer text me about acquiring a job. After the fact for day to day operations when they knew I had a cell phone, sure. It was not remotely a job requirement for anyone I've ever worked for though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.