Posted on 12/19/2013 7:35:03 AM PST by upchuck
Maybe I'm not smart enough, but I don't understand how increasing air time to 500 hours (they get 250 free minutes/month now) or charging a $5/month fee is going to stop the taxpayer-paid fraud and abuse.
How about the outrage over the $5 fee?
Just call it The Entitlemented States of America.
What is the point in doubling the air time?
Obamaphones are inner city scams...
“I gots me a obamaphone, sucker!”
Attack on the “poor”? The same poor who receive thousands of dollars in subsidies every year and use it to buy alcohol, cigarettes, and dope?
These phones are generally resold by the bag full as throw aways for $20 each. The poor are too embarassed to use them, and generally have nice phones
Later in the article it says "500 minutes". You really earned your pay today, Mr. Editor < /s>.
It looks like the push is to get those who want the subsidized phone to toss in a minimal $5 per month. The jump to 500 minutes per hour on the same $9.25 subsidy is to make it less profitable to the companies to pass out free phones to everyone and their kids.
Another article at http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/12/18/judge-blocks-georgias-5-fee-on-cellphone-service-for-poor/ said that a judge blocked the $5 fee.
To make it less profitable to the phone company so they are less eager to give them away to everyone to get the $9.25/month per phone subsidy
> What is the point in doubling the air time?
Black thugs airtime minutes cutoff midstream playing the knockout game makes it more difficult to setup whiteys if they can’t call their buds to let them know he’s about to turn the corner and walk down their street
LOL They mad
thanks, the two options seemed contradictory on the surface but that has some logical flow.
Charging them seems the better option.
My apologies for writing 500 hours. That doesn’t make sense at all.
In the FCC’s eyes, this problem can be fixed by charging the vendors ans users more? Doubt it.
No need to apologize. The article says "500 hours". I was criticizing your source, CBS Atlanta, for not having an editor.
In the FCCs eyes, this problem can be fixed by charging the vendors ans users more? Doubt it.
Obama's FCC likes it as it is now: take money from me and give it to the phone companies to pass out "free" phones. The only "fix" they think is needed is to hide this from the public heat taken after that one screeching woman publicized this whole scam. Yell "squirrel" and maybe this whole problem of bad publicity might go away.
I was behind this woman at the store. She had on a pair of Ugg boots, a Coach purse, talking on a blinged out IPhone, and she was buying diet soda and candy bars with an EBT card. In the parking lot, she got into a really nice mustang . I have never been so mad in my life. My tax money goes so this parasite can get expensive brand name Crap and I am scrimping to get by? There will be a reckoning, and people like her will not be happy.
To think I’m paying for my own phone and get only 20 minutes a month. That’s not a typo.
“This represents one of the most direct attacks on low-income consumers in recent memory,...”
Consumers????
They get a free friggin’ phone that you and I paid for and they are a “consumer”???
Give me a damn break. And then they have the gall to call it an “attack”. One thing’s for sure - These people have ten pound brass balls.
How about we call them what they are: Looters.
If my math is right, in Georgia, alone, the free phone service is costing us approximately $89 MILLION per year. Is this correct? WOW
Receiving stolen property used to be a crime.
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.