8 ms·

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

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.
  - aianus 10y ago
    $38k to support a whole household sounds pretty poor to me.
    - csallen 10y ago
      I agree, but the question at hand is not whether or not $38k is "poor", but whether $38k is "too poor to afford the internet".
      - bluejekyll 10y ago
        I grew up in a family of 6 on 38k a year, I can guarantee that's too poor, even in the country. That was in the 80's, it must be even worse now. At those incomes all your financial decisions are about food and housing, and hopefully getting clothing donations. Let alone trying to think about educating your kids to try and get them out. This is a lifeline to people, and helps educate their children. We should be doing more as a society to help those at the bottom.
        nugget 10y ago
        I was raised in similar circumstances and I wouldn't even consider it poor, let alone ''too poor''. $38k in 1985 is around $80k today. Sufficient to cover 4 kids in most rural and inland suburban parts of the US. This is Dave Ramsey's middle class, middle America audience. For these families it's not what they make, it's what they spend that determines the outcome.
        gowld 10y ago
        1985 dollars are not relevant to a 2017 program.
        luck_fenovo 10y ago
        He is responding to someone who claimed that 38k in the 1980s was too poor to raise a family on period, it's a tangent but you're complaining to the wrong person imo
  - icantdrive55 10y ago
    There's two ways to become eligible. A. Program based (enrolled in Medi-cal, SSI, Food stamp program. (These programs are not easy to qualify for.) B. Income based (1-2 household: can't make more than 25,900. That includes all income, including gifts. If you have 10 family members you can make $74,900. I don't think it's "so lax". They credit a little under $10 bucks a month. So it's a landline, or a lousy cell phone. You still end up paying the rest of the bill. It's not free. (The cell phone providers take the subsidy hoping/praying the customer will go over their credit. "Then we can bill the lousey service!" I can't imagine a internet provider service for that less than $10 credit. (There must be a catch?) People complain about the free phones some poor poeople get. It's a horrid cell phone. If you qualify, get the landline, and it's only for local calls. These days government programs know a lot about households. The Internet has stopped a lot of the fraud. People are very poor, but so many Americans believe the poor are cheating in some way? Those days are kinda over. Big brother knows everything--yea! The Rebublicans stil believe the slackers are cheating the system. Sad.
    - jacobolus 10y ago
      There are some folks cheating the system like those right-wing militia ranchers who “adopt” dozens of orphaned children and then make them do hard labor, while collecting state support for it.
      - enraged_camel 10y ago
        This sounds about as real as the "welfare queens driving Cadillacs" myth.
        jacobolus 10y ago
        e.g. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/get-the-government-s-hands-off-my-foster-kid-subsidies http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/get-the-government-s-han... Obviously this isn’t a widespread problem though, and should be dealt with on a case by case basis.
    - hermannj314 10y ago
DannyBee 10y ago
If by "great", you mean "a podcast by a lobbying organization that is strongly against net neutrality, etc", then yeah, it's "great". https://techpolicycorner.org/trumps-opportunities-on-tech-policy-86de51496937#.8ne2tuq8c https://techpolicycorner.org/trumps-opportunities-on-tech-po... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/09/05/opponents-of-net-neutrality-have-begun-some-grassroots-organizing-of-their-own/?utm_term=.e95cee49559c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/09/05... These are the folks behind "don't break the net", which some folks may remember (http://dontbreakthe.net/ http://dontbreakthe.net/) and in case, you want to engage substantively, it's funny who benefits by shutting down lifeline: Those "spiraling, out of control costs" are paid for by the universal service fund. Where would that money otherwise go: https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund "High Cost Support Mechanism - provides support to certain qualifying telephone companies that serve high cost areas, thereby making phone service affordable for the residents of these regions. " So - right into the hands of the telecom companies. Which is precisely why they (and techfreedom!) lobbied to kill Lifeline. It cuts into the money they get from USF. Where they take it to claim they need it to serve rural areas, while simultaneously, wait for it, lobbying states and others to pass laws banning those municipalities from serving themselves. Because then they'd be free of this crap. Meanwhile, strangely, rural broadband penetration and speed still sucks for real, and the telecoms (and again, techfreedom!) strongly oppose things like "defining broadband as 10mbps" or anything that would demonstrate this. Additionally, the dollars not going to subsidize lifeline go back to them double, because they also get the money from the higher telephone bills. Kind of a neat racket, if you can get it. In case you want to argue that there are other programs that are getting the money anyway, the one i cited gets billions in funding given to phone companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect_America_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect... That's the one of the famous ones that has pretty much given phone companies billions and gotten us nothing actually in return. Personally, i'm fine with that money all going to anyone but a telecom company, even if they aren't "low enough income" for you or whatever.
- TheOsiris 10y ago
  is there such a thing as neutral on this? you're either for or against net neutrality. the only neutral people are those people who are not involved/don't care. and I don't really care to hear from those people. also the universal service fund is paid for by you and me. the rate we pay is calculated based on what they need to spend and not vice versa. so if we don't pay for 1/3rd of us households we will pay less tax and the fund will be smaller
whyileft 10y ago
Your lawn looks great! How did you manage to get natural grass looking so green in the winter? I heard its pretty expensive[0] [0] http://upvotes.club/buying-hacker-news-growthhackers-upvotes-expensive-compared-reddit/ http://upvotes.club/buying-hacker-news-growthhackers-upvotes...
- mattnewton 10y ago
  I see what you did there. :) But even if it's true, that's not super constructive, and the readership benefits more from an argument against gp's position. Please don't do this, hn isn't Reddit. Still, have an upvote.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
xenadu02 10y ago
No he isn't. He thinks broadband competition in the US is "robust"[1], which is farcical on its face. Ajit Pai is a decidedly anti-consumer, anti-competition commissioner. His job is to make sure ATT, Verizon, Comcast, et al make as much money as possible. Period. [1]http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fccs-pai-broadband-competition-underplayed/140624 http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fccs-pai-br...
- edoceo 10y ago
  I cancelled Comcast but am still long on $CMCSA. It's horseshit. But, my upside can be donated to a school.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    If you don't think customers matter, you're simply a bad investor, and you won't have any upside. (It really is that simple.) This isn't a moral statement, just that you are unlikely to have upside. If you want to benefit schools, go ahead and donate, but becoming a stakeholder in a company that hates its customers and vice versa is unlikely to serve your stated goal, in my opinion.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      I can't believe 3 people downvoted this :) Customers who hate your guts is not a good formula for the medium term. (Long-term, companies can change - customers like Microsoft a lot more these days.)
    - Clubber 10y ago
      You are absolutely right, but I think there are ways around it that Comcast and friends have figured out. Obviously carving out territories and sticking to your territory is a big one. No competition for what many consider a necessity. Imagine if the electric company did the same thing? What are you going to do? Live without power?
      - 10y ago
ndespres 10y ago
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%." Sounds like a very successful program that many in need are benefiting from. I'm glad the USF I pay every month is being put to good use.
JohnTHaller 10y ago
"Notwithstanding the decline in economic fortunes since 2009" is a rather unsubtle way of attempting to rewrite history and pin the Great Recession of 2007-2009 due to the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 on Obama. So, no, he's not as reasonable and inline with HN folks as you think.
- gowld 10y ago
  2009 is when the program costs started to increase. The statement is saying that even in light of declining fortunes, 34% of the public is too much.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ethbro 10y ago
    No, the statement contains one fact and one opinion. The fact is bullshit. "Notwithstanding the decline in economic fortunes since 2009, [34%] is too many." Here's US GDP per capita. Notice a "decline in economic fortunes since 2009"? World Bank: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita St. Louis Fed: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA A stronger case could be made for median income, but even there, we're better off than we were in 2009. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
    - deelowe 10y ago
      None of this adds any support to the case that a 160% increase in costs is reasonable or expected. In fact, the data points you've presented further call this into question.
      - ethbro 10y ago
        What you're talking about is the opinion. I was talking about the fact cited.

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.
- aianus 10y ago
  $38k to support a whole household sounds pretty poor to me.
  - csallen 10y ago
    I agree, but the question at hand is not whether or not $38k is "poor", but whether $38k is "too poor to afford the internet".
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      I grew up in a family of 6 on 38k a year, I can guarantee that's too poor, even in the country. That was in the 80's, it must be even worse now. At those incomes all your financial decisions are about food and housing, and hopefully getting clothing donations. Let alone trying to think about educating your kids to try and get them out. This is a lifeline to people, and helps educate their children. We should be doing more as a society to help those at the bottom.
      - nugget 10y ago
        I was raised in similar circumstances and I wouldn't even consider it poor, let alone ''too poor''. $38k in 1985 is around $80k today. Sufficient to cover 4 kids in most rural and inland suburban parts of the US. This is Dave Ramsey's middle class, middle America audience. For these families it's not what they make, it's what they spend that determines the outcome.
        gowld 10y ago
        1985 dollars are not relevant to a 2017 program.
        luck_fenovo 10y ago
        He is responding to someone who claimed that 38k in the 1980s was too poor to raise a family on period, it's a tangent but you're complaining to the wrong person imo
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  There's two ways to become eligible. A. Program based (enrolled in Medi-cal, SSI, Food stamp program. (These programs are not easy to qualify for.) B. Income based (1-2 household: can't make more than 25,900. That includes all income, including gifts. If you have 10 family members you can make $74,900. I don't think it's "so lax". They credit a little under $10 bucks a month. So it's a landline, or a lousy cell phone. You still end up paying the rest of the bill. It's not free. (The cell phone providers take the subsidy hoping/praying the customer will go over their credit. "Then we can bill the lousey service!" I can't imagine a internet provider service for that less than $10 credit. (There must be a catch?) People complain about the free phones some poor poeople get. It's a horrid cell phone. If you qualify, get the landline, and it's only for local calls. These days government programs know a lot about households. The Internet has stopped a lot of the fraud. People are very poor, but so many Americans believe the poor are cheating in some way? Those days are kinda over. Big brother knows everything--yea! The Rebublicans stil believe the slackers are cheating the system. Sad.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    There are some folks cheating the system like those right-wing militia ranchers who “adopt” dozens of orphaned children and then make them do hard labor, while collecting state support for it.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      This sounds about as real as the "welfare queens driving Cadillacs" myth.
      - jacobolus 10y ago
        e.g. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/get-the-government-s-hands-off-my-foster-kid-subsidies http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/get-the-government-s-han... Obviously this isn’t a widespread problem though, and should be dealt with on a case by case basis.
  - hermannj314 10y ago

DannyBee 10y ago

If by "great", you mean "a podcast by a lobbying organization that is strongly against net neutrality, etc", then yeah, it's "great". https://techpolicycorner.org/trumps-opportunities-on-tech-policy-86de51496937#.8ne2tuq8c https://techpolicycorner.org/trumps-opportunities-on-tech-po... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/09/05/opponents-of-net-neutrality-have-begun-some-grassroots-organizing-of-their-own/?utm_term=.e95cee49559c https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/09/05... These are the folks behind "don't break the net", which some folks may remember (http://dontbreakthe.net/ http://dontbreakthe.net/) and in case, you want to engage substantively, it's funny who benefits by shutting down lifeline: Those "spiraling, out of control costs" are paid for by the universal service fund. Where would that money otherwise go: https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund "High Cost Support Mechanism - provides support to certain qualifying telephone companies that serve high cost areas, thereby making phone service affordable for the residents of these regions. " So - right into the hands of the telecom companies. Which is precisely why they (and techfreedom!) lobbied to kill Lifeline. It cuts into the money they get from USF. Where they take it to claim they need it to serve rural areas, while simultaneously, wait for it, lobbying states and others to pass laws banning those municipalities from serving themselves. Because then they'd be free of this crap. Meanwhile, strangely, rural broadband penetration and speed still sucks for real, and the telecoms (and again, techfreedom!) strongly oppose things like "defining broadband as 10mbps" or anything that would demonstrate this. Additionally, the dollars not going to subsidize lifeline go back to them double, because they also get the money from the higher telephone bills. Kind of a neat racket, if you can get it. In case you want to argue that there are other programs that are getting the money anyway, the one i cited gets billions in funding given to phone companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect_America_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect... That's the one of the famous ones that has pretty much given phone companies billions and gotten us nothing actually in return. Personally, i'm fine with that money all going to anyone but a telecom company, even if they aren't "low enough income" for you or whatever.

TheOsiris 10y ago
is there such a thing as neutral on this? you're either for or against net neutrality. the only neutral people are those people who are not involved/don't care. and I don't really care to hear from those people. also the universal service fund is paid for by you and me. the rate we pay is calculated based on what they need to spend and not vice versa. so if we don't pay for 1/3rd of us households we will pay less tax and the fund will be smaller

whyileft 10y ago

Your lawn looks great! How did you manage to get natural grass looking so green in the winter? I heard its pretty expensive[0] [0] http://upvotes.club/buying-hacker-news-growthhackers-upvotes-expensive-compared-reddit/ http://upvotes.club/buying-hacker-news-growthhackers-upvotes...

mattnewton 10y ago
I see what you did there. :) But even if it's true, that's not super constructive, and the readership benefits more from an argument against gp's position. Please don't do this, hn isn't Reddit. Still, have an upvote.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

xenadu02 10y ago

No he isn't. He thinks broadband competition in the US is "robust"[1], which is farcical on its face. Ajit Pai is a decidedly anti-consumer, anti-competition commissioner. His job is to make sure ATT, Verizon, Comcast, et al make as much money as possible. Period. [1]http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fccs-pai-broadband-competition-underplayed/140624 http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fccs-pai-br...

edoceo 10y ago
I cancelled Comcast but am still long on $CMCSA. It's horseshit. But, my upside can be donated to a school.
- logicallee 10y ago
  If you don't think customers matter, you're simply a bad investor, and you won't have any upside. (It really is that simple.) This isn't a moral statement, just that you are unlikely to have upside. If you want to benefit schools, go ahead and donate, but becoming a stakeholder in a company that hates its customers and vice versa is unlikely to serve your stated goal, in my opinion.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    I can't believe 3 people downvoted this :) Customers who hate your guts is not a good formula for the medium term. (Long-term, companies can change - customers like Microsoft a lot more these days.)
  - Clubber 10y ago
    You are absolutely right, but I think there are ways around it that Comcast and friends have figured out. Obviously carving out territories and sticking to your territory is a big one. No competition for what many consider a necessity. Imagine if the electric company did the same thing? What are you going to do? Live without power?
    - 10y ago

ndespres 10y ago

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%." Sounds like a very successful program that many in need are benefiting from. I'm glad the USF I pay every month is being put to good use.

JohnTHaller 10y ago

"Notwithstanding the decline in economic fortunes since 2009" is a rather unsubtle way of attempting to rewrite history and pin the Great Recession of 2007-2009 due to the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 on Obama. So, no, he's not as reasonable and inline with HN folks as you think.

gowld 10y ago
2009 is when the program costs started to increase. The statement is saying that even in light of declining fortunes, 34% of the public is too much.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ethbro 10y ago
  No, the statement contains one fact and one opinion. The fact is bullshit. "Notwithstanding the decline in economic fortunes since 2009, [34%] is too many." Here's US GDP per capita. Notice a "decline in economic fortunes since 2009"? World Bank: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-per-capita St. Louis Fed: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA A stronger case could be made for median income, but even there, we're better off than we were in 2009. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
  - deelowe 10y ago
    None of this adds any support to the case that a 160% increase in costs is reasonable or expected. In fact, the data points you've presented further call this into question.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      What you're talking about is the opinion. I was talking about the fact cited.