Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As we've established, most of the USF goes to providing phone service in unprofitable rural areas. Are you in favor of farmers paying the 10-15K or more it costs to string cable to their abodes?
And you know this how? I would be willing to bet that the numbers of people on this government supported program in urban areas far outweigh the poor farmers living in the boondocks of Iowa. I would love to see some statistics showing the lack of telecommunication infrastructure in all these areas you speak of necessitating the need for cell phones. And FWIW, cell phones need infrastructure as well, as in cell towers, etc. Your logic is flawed. Nowhere is it stated that one must live in an area free of landline telecommunication infrastructure in order to qualify for a free cell phone. If it did, you might have more of a point to make. It is simply income-based, nothing more.
I don't have a problem helping those who truly need help. I do have a problem with the entitlement mentality that seems to have taken over our country. For the most part, cell phones are a convenience and a luxury item and not necessarily a necessity. I'm not discounting the benefits of owning a cell phone, but what may be a life necessity to you may be seen as more of a luxury to many. Prior to 20 years ago, very few people had cell phones and now they are deemed a life necessity?
I don't have a problem helping those who truly need help. I do have a problem with the entitlement mentality that seems to have taken over our country. For the most part, cell phones are a convenience and a luxury item and not necessarily a necessity. I'm not discounting the benefits of owning a cell phone, but what may be a life necessity to you may be seen as more of a luxury to many. Prior to 20 years ago, very few people had cell phones and now they are deemed a life necessity?
Have you tried to find a pay phone lately? They used to be as common as flies in a cow barn, but they are nearly extinct now. So what used to be a luxury is fast becoming a necessity when you're away from your land line, if you even still have one. Ten years from now I doubt anyone will have land lines.
I do understand that payphones are becoming a thing of the past, but at least they were "PAY" phones, not government supported FREE phones. Again, I don't discount the benefits of having a cell phone, but I think it will be longer than 10 years before we the end of the land line.
I am going to try and see if I can understand what everyone is getting upset about.
Some people seem to have the misconception that this program the OP linked to is paid for by the government or by taxpayers. This is a quote directly from the information section of the site:
"Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it." ~ This is regarded as fact on The Obama Phone? | FactCheck.org
Some people also have the idea that this came to be quite recently. It also states this has been a service available since the times of Reagan.
"The federal "Lifeline" program was created during the Reagan Administration."
Now, it does state that this program was "supported" as in, they thought it was a good idea, by Congress, but it specifically states that the government does not pay for it.
Also, the phones they hand out are extremely basic, as noted by several people on this thread who have had friends/relatives who use this service, and they also mention that the amount of airtime is very limited. They say you cannot text and they do not have cameras on them.The monthly fee is admittedly very low, but it is not 100% free.
I honestly do not see what the big fuss is about. I think it would be very useful to be able to get a hold of certain people who may not have enough money to pay for their own cell services. Yes, there will be some people who cheat the system, but that is true within most systems. There are always going to be some bad apples. That said though, the only people who will be inconvenienced by the people who are cheating the system are the ones paying for it, the telecom companies.
You are discounting the fact that telecom companies that pay for the service are able to do so not out of the goodness of their bleeding hearts, but because of the increased fees levied on those who pay for service.
Also, it's my understanding that it is federally supported as in mandated. These companies are required to withhold fees from paying users by the government.
Nobody insinuated that this was a new program, or that it was created by Obama himself, although I'm sure he's a supporter of it. I guess I would have less of a problem if it was just the basic phone being handed out and not the free airtime as well. That would be akin to payphones. Then the end users could pay-as-they-go, just like they used to do with payphones.
No, the ones inconvienced by any cheaters are the ones who are paying for it - the consumers with whose money the phone companies with government support and approval. I personally resent being charged an involuntary fee (a tax by any means) to support the phone wants of those unable or unwilling to pay for their own phones. It's a want, not a need. Like was said earlier, if you don't have it, do without.
You are discounting the fact that telecom companies that pay for the service are able to do so not out of the goodness of their bleeding hearts, but because of the increased fees levied on those who pay for service.
Just like they are able to pay for medical insurance for their employees.
Landlines are expensive and maintenance-intensive. Wireless infrastructure, in particular in urban areas, is already established. Cheap handsets with limited airtime and no bandwidth-consuming applications enabled makes a heckuva lot of economic sense.
Maintenance intensive for who? If the lines are down, then yes--but the lines are made available for ALL people in the area, and don't become more expensive just because more people use them.
In fact, it's when only ONE person uses the line that it is really expensive. Economies of scale.
Too many ppl in today's world feel like they MUST have cell phones, texting, etc. Only 20-25 years ago and before, most ppl simply "did without". If you didn;t have it, you didn;t have it. Nobody expected the gov't to come in and pay for it. if the worker needed their mcdonalds schedule, they would go in person to obtain it or use a neighbor's phone to ask the manager. why does everyone need a phone? as somebody opined before, Life isn't fair.
I didn't say anything about the people calling into work--my question was what if WORK wanted to get hold of YOU and have you come in to cover for someone else? With no phone, they could not do that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would be willing to bet that the numbers of people on this government supported program in urban areas far outweigh the poor farmers living in the boondocks of Iowa. I would love to see some statistics showing the lack of telecommunication infrastructure in all these areas you speak of necessitating the need for cell phones. And FWIW, cell phones need infrastructure as well, as in cell towers, etc. Your logic is flawed. Nowhere is it stated that one must live in an area free of landline telecommunication infrastructure in order to qualify for a free cell phone. If it did, you might have more of a point to make. It is simply income-based, nothing more.
