Posted on 03/31/2016 1:31:54 PM PDT by jazusamo
Millions of poor Americans will be eligible for federal subsidies to help pay the cost of Internet service after new regulations were approved in a whirlwind Federal Communications Commission meeting on Thursday.
The FCC voted to expand its 30-year-old program called Lifeline, which previously offered $9.25 in subsidies for phone and basic cell service.
The three Democratic commissioners approved the proposal over opposition from the two Republicans, who have concerns about the program's budget.
The vote was delayed for more than three hours as Republicans accused
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler of scuttling a late-night compromise to bring them on board.
They said they had a deal with Democratic commissioner Mignon Clyburn before it fell apart under pressure from the chairman.
"I must address the elephant in the room – the delay in the meeting and rumors about a proposed cap on the Lifeline program," Clyburn said at the meeting. She said she engaged in negotiations with Republicans but ended up backing out because the deal did not "fully achieve my vision."
In his public statement, Wheeler made sure to thank Clyburn for her work and called her a leader on the issue.
The expansion is a major win for advocates who increasingly see Internet access as a necessity for education, finding a job or simply communicating. They point to the 15 percent of Americans, concentrated in poor and rural communities, who do not use the Internet.
Families will only be able to receive one subsidy per household, which they can put to home Internet, phone or smartphone service — or a combination of the three under the program. Many current participants receive free basic cell service because the $9.25 subsidy covers the entire cost, but individuals will likely have to pay-out-of-pocket costs for home Internet.
The mobile industry waged a late lobbying campaign to get the FCC to lower some of its minimum standards of service, which cover the Internet speed, data allowance and minutes that companies must offer to participate. They also warned against completely phasing out voice-only cell service. They won some concessions, including reducing the number of minutes voice-only services will have to offer starting in December.
The rules approved Thursday would set up a single national database to allow phone and Internet providers to verify whether individuals are eligible for the program, by gauging eligibility in other programs like Social Security, Medicaid and food subsidies.
One of the key priorities was removing the burden on companies to determine if a person is eligible for a subsidy. Some said that structure encouraged abuse and put companies in the uncomfortable position of holding sensitive customer information, opening them up to extra security and privacy liability.
"The fox is no longer guarding the hen house," Wheeler said.
Lifeline currently has about 13 million subscribers, only a fraction of the 40 million who are eligible. The vote Thursday imposed a budget of $2.25 billion per year that could be exceeded if the FCC does not act. The funds come from fees tacked on to customer phone bills.
The FCC expects the overhaul to increase participation, but it has made projections. About 7 million more people could enroll before hitting the budget ceiling.
Republicans wanted a firm budget and pressed for a lower cap. The program received harsh criticism during President Obama’s first term due to fraud and abuse that stemmed from the expansion to free cell service. That abuse led to a number of reforms in 2012.
But there are still questions on whether the program is all that effective at connecting poor families. The Government Accountability Office last year criticized the FCC for not exploring that question in greater detail. It also pointed to a handful of pilot programs to test the expansion to broadband, which suffered from low participation rates.
Companies like Comcast, which offer their own discounted service for the poor, say price is not the only thing keeping people from obtaining Internet service. Because some individuals do not see a need to use the Internet, the company says that subsidies should be offered alongside literacy training and outreach.
More free stuff.
More taxation without representation
Agencies shouldn’t have this power.
The day is soon coming when I will stop working, and stop paying these thieving bastards anything.
gibsmedat
FREE!
Yet another line item charge on our telecom bills. Meanwhile the takers keep pinching off new welfare cases,
How is almost a third of the eligible subscribers considered just a fraction? Talk about propaganda and stupidity.
As my Dad (RIP) used to say...
“A Kennedy is someone who wants to give your money to the poor and get credit for doing it”
An administrative agency decrees a tax.
We know how this ends.
I object. I don’t enjoy paying my internet bill, but I pay it because it means enough to me to even consider giving up some other things in order to have it.
Now I have to pay for everyone else, too.
I feel the same way as when I am in line at the grocery, blanching at the size of my bill; while the person ahead of me is using an EBT card, buying expensive items I can’t afford, and in huge quantities.
So I am skimping to buy for me, and he’s putting his food on my tab.
Thanks, Congress...
Well how else are you going to keep idiots fed a steady stream of nonsense and propaganda?
You can say this with confidence:
Baraq Obama has made the term “lame duck President” completely obsolete for Democrats.
Add to that food stamps and you have to be crazy to live in Europe.
The same scam that brought you Obamaphones.
Gee, it’s an election year.
America has been on a “rotten to the core” trajectory for generations.
Few men are worthy the title “manhood” willing to do what’s necessary.
So the FCC can now create a program that will spend billions of dollars on subsidies without appropriating the money from Congress first?
You know, I've noticed that the courts have no trouble with the concept that certain things are above the written law, like making life comfortable for faggots in dresses and such, but it occurs to me that a much more obvious example of "fundamental rights" is this concept of being able to keep the fruits of your own labor.
This notion that other people aren't entitled to what belongs to you, even if they are a majority.
If we could just get the courts to apply the same thinking they use on Transgenderism to income, we could put taxation beyond the power of elected officials and the majorities that put them there.
“Ain’t socialism great?”
Buy stock in NetZero and other cheap internet providers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.