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

There is a great &quot;Tech Policy Podcast&quot; 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]<p>More specifically, are his 5 reasons for dissent on this [2]<p>Basically this program has NO budget so costs have spiraled &quot;From 2008 to 2012, Lifeline spending grew from $821 million to over $2.1 billion, an increase of over 160%.&quot;<p>It also subsidizes way too many households instead of helping those most in need. &quot;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.&quot;<p>[1]<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;podcast.techfreedom.org&#x2F;e&#x2F;153-trump-picks-ajit-pai-for-fcc-chair&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;podcast.techfreedom.org&#x2F;e&#x2F;153-trump-picks-ajit-pai-fo...</a> [2]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;apps.fcc.gov&#x2F;edocs_public&#x2F;attachmatch&#x2F;FCC-15-71A5.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;apps.fcc.gov&#x2F;edocs_public&#x2F;attachmatch&#x2F;FCC-15-71A5.pd...</a>

This is not surprising at all. Our govt is now very firmly anti-consumer, anti-poor&#x2F;middle class, anti-public service, and things will only get worse.<p>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.

Okay, I just want to get clarity. Is there anyone on here that thinks that universal high speed broadband that&#x27;s affordable to every American isn&#x27;t going to be good for everyone long term? Increased opportunity, access to online resources, jobs, training, education, etc.<p>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&#x27;t agree that universal high speed broadband internet is a good thing, then talking about the How to do that is farcical at best.

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.<p>Issues are being hijacked by funded groups pushing specific corporate interests and agendas masquerading as operating in the public interest.<p>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.<p>Names like &#x27;techfreedom&#x27;, &#x27;netfreedom&#x27; and other &#x27;orwellian&#x27; 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.

This program from AT&amp;T is interesting: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.att.com&#x2F;shop&#x2F;internet&#x2F;access&#x2F;#&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.att.com&#x2F;shop&#x2F;internet&#x2F;access&#x2F;#&#x2F;</a><p>It doesn&#x27;t appear to be subsidized by Lifeline.<p>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&#x2F;sec) or $10 (up to 10mb&#x2F;sec) a month.<p>I would think that those prices would make it affordable well below the $38k&#x2F;year figure.<p>Of course, not everyone has access to this one ISP. I wonder if others have similar non-Lifeline subsidized programs.

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

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

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

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.<p>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.

I just found it somewhat ironic that the photo used to illustrate &quot;internet for the poor&quot; was a top of the line Macbook Pro..<p>Making it easier for <i>everyone</i> to access the Internet should definitely be a priority though. I&#x27;m especially thinking about educational benefits for kids in poor families.

Ya know, it&#x27;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&#x27;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.<p>I&#x27;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.