21 ms·

The FCC is stopping 9 companies from providing subsidized Internet to the poor

224 points by ncw96 10y ago

jackmott 10y ago
Next up, net neutrality gone? ugh I hope not. It will be a tragedy.
- adrr 10y ago
  Removing net neutrality will open the ISPs to being charged to access services like facebook and google. The big services hold all cards. This what happens on the cable tv side. Content is king.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    Except most people are conditioned to pay for content on cable. Not so the internet. It will be interesting to see how many people would pay extra to their ISP to access Facebook.
    - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
      You assume they will be charged extra by the ISP, or more correctly that they will know about it. It'll probably end up like most people's cable bill: a large block of charges that are mostly not understood by most people. Also keep in mind that most services don't actually want to charge the ISPs for access to their content, they just want access. Facebook doesn't want to charge your ISP to reach you reliably, nor does Netflix, they just want to be able to do it.
      - djrogers 10y ago
        > You assume they will be charged extra by the ISP Given that ISPs aren't charities, yes - the cost will be passed on. And the first time a major ISP agents in a dispute about the charges and access is blocked, everyone will know - look at the various ESPN/cable/directv disputes over the years.
  - wmf 10y ago
    Netflix and Riot Games are paying ISPs, not vice versa. I guess they aren't the king after all.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    ATT/Verizon/Comcast: Nice startup ya got there... be a shame if anything happened to your packets wink. That is the future without net neutrality. The large ISPs will charge content providers. It will start slowly and only affect the largest services (like Netflix) but when they need to juice the quarterly numbers they'll start working their way down the list. Because we don't have competition in this country they will just start severely degrading traffic from anyone they want to make pay. Pai has made no proposal for actual broadband competition. In fact he thinks we already have "robust" competition among ISPs: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fccs-pai-broadband-competition-underplayed/140624 http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fccs-pai-br...
    - equalunique 10y ago
      Have you ever rented a VPS, Colo space, or served up content from a cloud service? Practically every service already charges for outbound data. The idea that somehow net neutrality will lead to an increase in those charges seems unlikely to me.
      - trome 10y ago
        If you have an ASN in North America you can get settlement free peering with most networks. That means all you pay for is the hardware/power cost to transport your content. Usually this is fairly unbalanced, and providers will compensate eachother (reach a settlement) if data is too skewed in one direction, almost always in the datacenter's favor (as ISPs are really upstream light). Comcast, Verizon and others have recently tried to turn this on its head by witholding peering upgrades to Netflix, who wasn't even charging them a dime for all this data that their customers requested! This is not net neutrality, and performance degradations like this made Comcast uncompetitive in my neck of the woods since I have Fiber available by rare happenstance. That being said, my fiber provider (Centurylink) has even worse peering with Comcast, such that loading xfinity.net is a chore on gigabit fiber, let alone the Xfinity Go app. These performance issues caused me to cancel my TV service with them and get a different provider that worked better on my kids tablets, and so long as providers play games to throttle eachother, stories like this will be common.
    - 10y ago
- stuartd 10y ago
  If you don't get any internet at all because you can't afford it, net neutrality is irrelevant.
  - yewhdriof 10y ago
    Net neutrality is relevant, and so is affordable Internet.
- doctorshady 10y ago
  Pai is getting to that - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/fcc-rescinds-claim-that-att-and-verizon-violated-net-neutrality/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/fcc-rescinds-cla...
naranana 10y ago
The author of this story flatly ignores the fact that the Lifeline program -- by law -- was never meant to subsidize broadband. It was VERY explicitly intended to subsidize only basic telephone service. Read the law. If Congress wants there to be a broadband subsidy for the poor, it needs to specifically authorize one. The current law simply does not provide for it, and the FCC needs to obey the law.
- dforrestwilson1 10y ago
  This is correct. There are rural programs like CAF to subsidize the construction of internet connections in rural communities. I'm not sure if anything exists (or needs to) for the urban poor.
  - yewhdriof 10y ago
    It needs to exist; you're indifferent to it because you don't benefit.
    - dforrestwilson1 10y ago
      No I'm indifferent because networks to urban poor communities already exist. It's much cheaper for a provider to build out inside of a city than out to a town in the middle of nowhere. Rather than assuming motives you should assess the actual cost/benefit.
- yewhdriof 10y ago
  A law to subsidize broadband access to the poor... Good idea; when's it coming?
- Steko 10y ago
  Landline Modernization Order[1]: Legal Authority 38. The principles listed in section 254 of the Act make clear that deployment of, and access to, telecommunications and information services are important components of a robust and successful federal universal service program, including the directive to address low-income needs.86 In section 254[2], Congress expressly recognized the importance of ensuring that low-income consumers “have access to telecommunications and information services, including . . . advanced telecommunications and information services” and that universal service is an “evolving level of telecommunications service.”87 ... 41. Our approach is also supported by section 254(c)(1)(A). Under that provision, the Commission considers whether a given supported service is “essential to education, public health, or public safety.”97 We explain above the importance of BIAS to education and healthcare, among other things, along with the need for discounts in order to enable low-income consumers to realize those benefits.98 We therefore conclude that BIAS is essential for education and public health for low-income Americans. 42. Section 254(c)(1)(B) directs the Commission to consider whether the service at issue has “through the operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers.”99 footnote 92. ... Even before that, however, during the time the Commission had classified BIAS as generally an information service, it recognized the possibility of broadband Internet access transmission being offered on a common carrier basis as a telecommunications service. See, e.g., Appropriate Regulatory Treatment For Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless Networks, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 5901, 5913-14, para. 33 (2007);[3] [1] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-38A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-38A1.pd... [2] 47 U.S. Code § 254 - Universal service https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/254 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/254 [3] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pd...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ironchief 10y ago
There is a great "Tech Policy Podcast" that covers this issue and why Ajit Pai made this decision. Very much worth a listen, I think he is much more reasonable and inline with HN than you might think. [1] More specifically, are his 5 reasons for dissent on this [2] Basically this program has NO budget so costs have spiraled "From 2008 to 2012, Lifeline spending grew from $821 million to over $2.1 billion, an increase of over 160%." It also subsidizes way too many households instead of helping those most in need. "Roughly 42 million households are currently eligible for the Lifeline program. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, that is 34% of all households in the United States. Notwithstanding the decline in economic fortunes since 2009, that is too many. The federal government should not be subsidizing broadband service for one-third of our nation’s households. If we are going to expand the program to include broadband, Lifeline should target our neediest citizens. Yet the Commission proposes nothing of the sort." [1]http://podcast.techfreedom.org/e/153-trump-picks-ajit-pai-for-fcc-chair/ http://podcast.techfreedom.org/e/153-trump-picks-ajit-pai-fo... [2]https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-71A5.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-71A5.pd...
- jandrese 10y ago
  How is the fact that over a third of the US can't afford Internet in 2017 not the story? That's horrible.
  - csallen 10y ago
    I could be wrong, but I believe the issue is not that 34% of households can't afford Internet, but that the eligibility requirements for this problem are so lax that they cover 34% of households, despite the fact that many of them can afford Internet on their own. From the linked document: "The average annual household income of those eligible for Lifeline support is roughly $38,000. Numerous families with incomes at that level already subscribe to broadband."
    - yewhdriof 10y ago
      You could be wrong.
DannyBee 10y ago
Ya know, it's interesting to me how many people on HN suddenly have knowledge of esoteric telecom laws (which, if you look at past telecom discussions, this didn't happen), and just happen to have handy links and quotes and such less than 30 minutes after this was posted to HN at all. I'm sure everyone stopped and took the time to read up on strange corners of telecom law just in case this came up, so we could have a vigorous intellectual discussion.
- hawkice 10y ago
  This is a very peculiar tone to use in describing a detail-oriented fact-based discussion. I didn't know _anything_, if the other comments didn't help contextualize this I'd not get much value from the story at all.
- bogomipz 10y ago
  Or another interpretation is that a tech news site like HN has many people who regularly and closely follow policy and regulatory developments in Telecom, cable and the FCC.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    That's certainly another possibility, though it seems some of them are either totally brand new (IE < 12 hours) , or been around forever and never posted in any of those types of discussions previously, but suddenly are first to comment on this one with, like i said, very well prepared comments and quotes and links to things from lobbying organizations that strongly support the policy position taken here. I feel like i'm allowed to find that a little odd. But yeah, you are right, it could be that they just decided, this second, this is the place they wanted to jump in first.
    - ironchief 10y ago
      Haha, nope I'm just a normal person who listens to that podcast on the way to work and did some internet searching to dig up his dissent. Maybe I need a more popular hobby? I feel like more of us should be reading the background information instead of ad hominem accusations of astroturfing.
sundvor 10y ago
I just found it somewhat ironic that the photo used to illustrate "internet for the poor" was a top of the line Macbook Pro.. Making it easier for everyone to access the Internet should definitely be a priority though. I'm especially thinking about educational benefits for kids in poor families.
dirkg 10y ago
This is not surprising at all. Our govt is now very firmly anti-consumer, anti-poor/middle class, anti-public service, and things will only get worse. Meanwhile the rest of the world gets free public health, close to free Internet access, open research and actual science, while we increase spending on an already ludicrous and nonsensical defense budget justified by imaginary threats.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > Our govt is now very firmly anti-consumer, anti-poor/middle class, anti-public service, and things will only get worse. > Meanwhile the rest of the world gets free public health And the US system is more expensive to the US government. http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-internationally/ http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-com... (We need to be careful with this next infant mortality stat. The US has stricter reporting) > While the USA outspent the UK on healthcare (£6,311 and £2,777 per person respectively) in 2014, average life expectancy at birth in the USA was 78.8, compared with 81.4 in the UK. > Despite spending, by far, the largest amount on healthcare, the USA was among the 10 OECD countries with the lowest life expectancy.
lsiebert 10y ago
Okay, I just want to get clarity. Is there anyone on here that thinks that universal high speed broadband that's affordable to every American isn't going to be good for everyone long term? Increased opportunity, access to online resources, jobs, training, education, etc. Because we can debate HOW to do that effectively, if subsidies are effective or just increase costs overall, if we agree on the what. But if we don't agree that universal high speed broadband internet is a good thing, then talking about the How to do that is farcical at best.
- babyrainbow 10y ago
  > Is there anyone on here that thinks that universal high speed broadband that's affordable to every American isn't going to be good for everyone long term? Increased opportunity, access to online resources, jobs, training, education, etc. I do. Internet, day by day is becoming a channel to deliver more and more targeted ads. I think the free internet provision is driven by this need, and not out of a honest urge to "empower" the poor. So in other words, if you give free internet to poor who is uninitiated, you are paving way for their oppression and exploitation....
- kalleboo 10y ago
  There's this guy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13565278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13565278
- kem 10y ago
  The FCC under Pai could start by starting to support local municipal broadband efforts. That wouldn't solve the problem, but it would be a start. This wouldn't get anywhere in the US in the current climate, but I think it's time for public broadband ISPs to start being created/funded at a national level. My personal dream is to see something like this being undertaken through the auspices of the USPS. The handwringing over the USPS's relevance in the age of the internet, when there's such lack of competition in ISPs, seems short-sighted to me. I think the original founders would have supported broadband being offered publicly through federal programs, especially given that the internet was a publicly developed product; the Postal Clause in the US Constitution arguably was intended to address this issue, as there's no way constitutional authors could have anticipated the internet. So, when the constitution enables congress "to establish post offices and post roads," I think public ISPs are what they had in mind. It seems natural for me that the USPS would become a point of development for public ISPs. I love seeing small private ISPs--there's some in our area--but, at least when I've seen them, they often seem to be holdovers from anomalous circumstances during the initial boom of the internet. They started when it was possible to compete, and have maintained a foothold by doing things well, but haven't been able to expand.
witty_username 10y ago
Subsidized internet presumes that poor people would want to spend the money on internet rather than something else. A better way is the NIT (negative income tax) which simply gives money to the poor and lets them decide how to spend it.
throw2016 10y ago
Here is a suggestion because this problem has festered for decades and is going to get persistently worse and poison any meaningful and informed discussion in the public sphere. Issues are being hijacked by funded groups pushing specific corporate interests and agendas masquerading as operating in the public interest. 2 issues need to be addressed urgently. And study, paper or public statements in the media from such groups should explicitly mention details on their formation, their employees, day-to-day organizational funding and all other funding. Anyone being paid to say something should declare they are being paid to say that. Names like 'techfreedom', 'netfreedom' and other 'orwellian' names cannot be used unless they are a verified public service organization with a verifiable source of public or community funds with no corporate funding. Anything claiming to represent the public interest should do exactly that and cannot be a deceptive hijack of their interests. If funding dries up there will be no shills.
josefresco 10y ago
78 comments and not a single mention of voter suppression. This is a long term strategy by the GOP - see gerrymandering.
tyingq 10y ago
This program from AT&T is interesting: https://www.att.com/shop/internet/access/#/ https://www.att.com/shop/internet/access/#/ It doesn't appear to be subsidized by Lifeline. Instead, they check if you are already on the SNAP supplemental food program. If so, you get internet access for either $5 (up to 3mb/sec) or $10 (up to 10mb/sec) a month. I would think that those prices would make it affordable well below the $38k/year figure. Of course, not everyone has access to this one ISP. I wonder if others have similar non-Lifeline subsidized programs.

224 points by ncw96 10y ago

jackmott 10y ago

Next up, net neutrality gone? ugh I hope not. It will be a tragedy.

adrr 10y ago
Removing net neutrality will open the ISPs to being charged to access services like facebook and google. The big services hold all cards. This what happens on the cable tv side. Content is king.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Except most people are conditioned to pay for content on cable. Not so the internet. It will be interesting to see how many people would pay extra to their ISP to access Facebook.
  - 464192002d7fe1c 10y ago
    You assume they will be charged extra by the ISP, or more correctly that they will know about it. It'll probably end up like most people's cable bill: a large block of charges that are mostly not understood by most people. Also keep in mind that most services don't actually want to charge the ISPs for access to their content, they just want access. Facebook doesn't want to charge your ISP to reach you reliably, nor does Netflix, they just want to be able to do it.
    - djrogers 10y ago
      > You assume they will be charged extra by the ISP Given that ISPs aren't charities, yes - the cost will be passed on. And the first time a major ISP agents in a dispute about the charges and access is blocked, everyone will know - look at the various ESPN/cable/directv disputes over the years.
- wmf 10y ago
  Netflix and Riot Games are paying ISPs, not vice versa. I guess they aren't the king after all.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  ATT/Verizon/Comcast: Nice startup ya got there... be a shame if anything happened to your packets wink. That is the future without net neutrality. The large ISPs will charge content providers. It will start slowly and only affect the largest services (like Netflix) but when they need to juice the quarterly numbers they'll start working their way down the list. Because we don't have competition in this country they will just start severely degrading traffic from anyone they want to make pay. Pai has made no proposal for actual broadband competition. In fact he thinks we already have "robust" competition among ISPs: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fccs-pai-broadband-competition-underplayed/140624 http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fccs-pai-br...
  - equalunique 10y ago
    Have you ever rented a VPS, Colo space, or served up content from a cloud service? Practically every service already charges for outbound data. The idea that somehow net neutrality will lead to an increase in those charges seems unlikely to me.
    - trome 10y ago
      If you have an ASN in North America you can get settlement free peering with most networks. That means all you pay for is the hardware/power cost to transport your content. Usually this is fairly unbalanced, and providers will compensate eachother (reach a settlement) if data is too skewed in one direction, almost always in the datacenter's favor (as ISPs are really upstream light). Comcast, Verizon and others have recently tried to turn this on its head by witholding peering upgrades to Netflix, who wasn't even charging them a dime for all this data that their customers requested! This is not net neutrality, and performance degradations like this made Comcast uncompetitive in my neck of the woods since I have Fiber available by rare happenstance. That being said, my fiber provider (Centurylink) has even worse peering with Comcast, such that loading xfinity.net is a chore on gigabit fiber, let alone the Xfinity Go app. These performance issues caused me to cancel my TV service with them and get a different provider that worked better on my kids tablets, and so long as providers play games to throttle eachother, stories like this will be common.
  - 10y ago
stuartd 10y ago
If you don't get any internet at all because you can't afford it, net neutrality is irrelevant.
- yewhdriof 10y ago
  Net neutrality is relevant, and so is affordable Internet.
doctorshady 10y ago
Pai is getting to that - https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/fcc-rescinds-claim-that-att-and-verizon-violated-net-neutrality/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/fcc-rescinds-cla...

naranana 10y ago

The author of this story flatly ignores the fact that the Lifeline program -- by law -- was never meant to subsidize broadband. It was VERY explicitly intended to subsidize only basic telephone service. Read the law. If Congress wants there to be a broadband subsidy for the poor, it needs to specifically authorize one. The current law simply does not provide for it, and the FCC needs to obey the law.

dforrestwilson1 10y ago
This is correct. There are rural programs like CAF to subsidize the construction of internet connections in rural communities. I'm not sure if anything exists (or needs to) for the urban poor.
- yewhdriof 10y ago
  It needs to exist; you're indifferent to it because you don't benefit.
  - dforrestwilson1 10y ago
    No I'm indifferent because networks to urban poor communities already exist. It's much cheaper for a provider to build out inside of a city than out to a town in the middle of nowhere. Rather than assuming motives you should assess the actual cost/benefit.
yewhdriof 10y ago
A law to subsidize broadband access to the poor... Good idea; when's it coming?
Steko 10y ago
Landline Modernization Order[1]: Legal Authority 38. The principles listed in section 254 of the Act make clear that deployment of, and access to, telecommunications and information services are important components of a robust and successful federal universal service program, including the directive to address low-income needs.86 In section 254[2], Congress expressly recognized the importance of ensuring that low-income consumers “have access to telecommunications and information services, including . . . advanced telecommunications and information services” and that universal service is an “evolving level of telecommunications service.”87 ... 41. Our approach is also supported by section 254(c)(1)(A). Under that provision, the Commission considers whether a given supported service is “essential to education, public health, or public safety.”97 We explain above the importance of BIAS to education and healthcare, among other things, along with the need for discounts in order to enable low-income consumers to realize those benefits.98 We therefore conclude that BIAS is essential for education and public health for low-income Americans. 42. Section 254(c)(1)(B) directs the Commission to consider whether the service at issue has “through the operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers.”99 footnote 92. ... Even before that, however, during the time the Commission had classified BIAS as generally an information service, it recognized the possibility of broadband Internet access transmission being offered on a common carrier basis as a telecommunications service. See, e.g., Appropriate Regulatory Treatment For Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless Networks, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Rcd 5901, 5913-14, para. 33 (2007);[3] [1] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-38A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-38A1.pd... [2] 47 U.S. Code § 254 - Universal service https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/254 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/254 [3] https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-30A1.pd...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ironchief 10y ago

There is a great "Tech Policy Podcast" that covers this issue and why Ajit Pai made this decision. Very much worth a listen, I think he is much more reasonable and inline with HN than you might think. [1] More specifically, are his 5 reasons for dissent on this [2] Basically this program has NO budget so costs have spiraled "From 2008 to 2012, Lifeline spending grew from $821 million to over $2.1 billion, an increase of over 160%." It also subsidizes way too many households instead of helping those most in need. "Roughly 42 million households are currently eligible for the Lifeline program. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, that is 34% of all households in the United States. Notwithstanding the decline in economic fortunes since 2009, that is too many. The federal government should not be subsidizing broadband service for one-third of our nation’s households. If we are going to expand the program to include broadband, Lifeline should target our neediest citizens. Yet the Commission proposes nothing of the sort." [1]http://podcast.techfreedom.org/e/153-trump-picks-ajit-pai-for-fcc-chair/ http://podcast.techfreedom.org/e/153-trump-picks-ajit-pai-fo... [2]https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-71A5.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-71A5.pd...

jandrese 10y ago
How is the fact that over a third of the US can't afford Internet in 2017 not the story? That's horrible.
- csallen 10y ago
  I could be wrong, but I believe the issue is not that 34% of households can't afford Internet, but that the eligibility requirements for this problem are so lax that they cover 34% of households, despite the fact that many of them can afford Internet on their own. From the linked document: "The average annual household income of those eligible for Lifeline support is roughly $38,000. Numerous families with incomes at that level already subscribe to broadband."
  - yewhdriof 10y ago
    You could be wrong.

DannyBee 10y ago

Ya know, it's interesting to me how many people on HN suddenly have knowledge of esoteric telecom laws (which, if you look at past telecom discussions, this didn't happen), and just happen to have handy links and quotes and such less than 30 minutes after this was posted to HN at all. I'm sure everyone stopped and took the time to read up on strange corners of telecom law just in case this came up, so we could have a vigorous intellectual discussion.

hawkice 10y ago
This is a very peculiar tone to use in describing a detail-oriented fact-based discussion. I didn't know _anything_, if the other comments didn't help contextualize this I'd not get much value from the story at all.
bogomipz 10y ago
Or another interpretation is that a tech news site like HN has many people who regularly and closely follow policy and regulatory developments in Telecom, cable and the FCC.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  That's certainly another possibility, though it seems some of them are either totally brand new (IE < 12 hours) , or been around forever and never posted in any of those types of discussions previously, but suddenly are first to comment on this one with, like i said, very well prepared comments and quotes and links to things from lobbying organizations that strongly support the policy position taken here. I feel like i'm allowed to find that a little odd. But yeah, you are right, it could be that they just decided, this second, this is the place they wanted to jump in first.
  - ironchief 10y ago
    Haha, nope I'm just a normal person who listens to that podcast on the way to work and did some internet searching to dig up his dissent. Maybe I need a more popular hobby? I feel like more of us should be reading the background information instead of ad hominem accusations of astroturfing.

sundvor 10y ago

I just found it somewhat ironic that the photo used to illustrate "internet for the poor" was a top of the line Macbook Pro.. Making it easier for everyone to access the Internet should definitely be a priority though. I'm especially thinking about educational benefits for kids in poor families.

dirkg 10y ago

This is not surprising at all. Our govt is now very firmly anti-consumer, anti-poor/middle class, anti-public service, and things will only get worse. Meanwhile the rest of the world gets free public health, close to free Internet access, open research and actual science, while we increase spending on an already ludicrous and nonsensical defense budget justified by imaginary threats.

DanBC 10y ago
> Our govt is now very firmly anti-consumer, anti-poor/middle class, anti-public service, and things will only get worse. > Meanwhile the rest of the world gets free public health And the US system is more expensive to the US government. http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-internationally/ http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-com... (We need to be careful with this next infant mortality stat. The US has stricter reporting) > While the USA outspent the UK on healthcare (£6,311 and £2,777 per person respectively) in 2014, average life expectancy at birth in the USA was 78.8, compared with 81.4 in the UK. > Despite spending, by far, the largest amount on healthcare, the USA was among the 10 OECD countries with the lowest life expectancy.

lsiebert 10y ago

Okay, I just want to get clarity. Is there anyone on here that thinks that universal high speed broadband that's affordable to every American isn't going to be good for everyone long term? Increased opportunity, access to online resources, jobs, training, education, etc. Because we can debate HOW to do that effectively, if subsidies are effective or just increase costs overall, if we agree on the what. But if we don't agree that universal high speed broadband internet is a good thing, then talking about the How to do that is farcical at best.

babyrainbow 10y ago
> Is there anyone on here that thinks that universal high speed broadband that's affordable to every American isn't going to be good for everyone long term? Increased opportunity, access to online resources, jobs, training, education, etc. I do. Internet, day by day is becoming a channel to deliver more and more targeted ads. I think the free internet provision is driven by this need, and not out of a honest urge to "empower" the poor. So in other words, if you give free internet to poor who is uninitiated, you are paving way for their oppression and exploitation....
kalleboo 10y ago
There's this guy https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13565278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13565278
kem 10y ago
The FCC under Pai could start by starting to support local municipal broadband efforts. That wouldn't solve the problem, but it would be a start. This wouldn't get anywhere in the US in the current climate, but I think it's time for public broadband ISPs to start being created/funded at a national level. My personal dream is to see something like this being undertaken through the auspices of the USPS. The handwringing over the USPS's relevance in the age of the internet, when there's such lack of competition in ISPs, seems short-sighted to me. I think the original founders would have supported broadband being offered publicly through federal programs, especially given that the internet was a publicly developed product; the Postal Clause in the US Constitution arguably was intended to address this issue, as there's no way constitutional authors could have anticipated the internet. So, when the constitution enables congress "to establish post offices and post roads," I think public ISPs are what they had in mind. It seems natural for me that the USPS would become a point of development for public ISPs. I love seeing small private ISPs--there's some in our area--but, at least when I've seen them, they often seem to be holdovers from anomalous circumstances during the initial boom of the internet. They started when it was possible to compete, and have maintained a foothold by doing things well, but haven't been able to expand.

witty_username 10y ago

Subsidized internet presumes that poor people would want to spend the money on internet rather than something else. A better way is the NIT (negative income tax) which simply gives money to the poor and lets them decide how to spend it.

throw2016 10y ago

Here is a suggestion because this problem has festered for decades and is going to get persistently worse and poison any meaningful and informed discussion in the public sphere. Issues are being hijacked by funded groups pushing specific corporate interests and agendas masquerading as operating in the public interest. 2 issues need to be addressed urgently. And study, paper or public statements in the media from such groups should explicitly mention details on their formation, their employees, day-to-day organizational funding and all other funding. Anyone being paid to say something should declare they are being paid to say that. Names like 'techfreedom', 'netfreedom' and other 'orwellian' names cannot be used unless they are a verified public service organization with a verifiable source of public or community funds with no corporate funding. Anything claiming to represent the public interest should do exactly that and cannot be a deceptive hijack of their interests. If funding dries up there will be no shills.

josefresco 10y ago

78 comments and not a single mention of voter suppression. This is a long term strategy by the GOP - see gerrymandering.

tyingq 10y ago

This program from AT&T is interesting: https://www.att.com/shop/internet/access/#/ https://www.att.com/shop/internet/access/#/ It doesn't appear to be subsidized by Lifeline. Instead, they check if you are already on the SNAP supplemental food program. If so, you get internet access for either $5 (up to 3mb/sec) or $10 (up to 10mb/sec) a month. I would think that those prices would make it affordable well below the $38k/year figure. Of course, not everyone has access to this one ISP. I wonder if others have similar non-Lifeline subsidized programs.