
The FCC is stopping 9 companies from providing subsidized Internet to the poor - ncw96
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/03/the-fcc-is-stopping-9-companies-from-providing-subsidized-broadband-to-the-poor/
======
ironchief
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-
fo...](http://podcast.techfreedom.org/e/153-trump-picks-ajit-pai-for-fcc-
chair/)
[2][https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-71A5.pd...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-71A5.pdf)

~~~
DannyBee
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-
po...](https://techpolicycorner.org/trumps-opportunities-on-tech-
policy-86de51496937#.8ne2tuq8c)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2014/09/05...](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)

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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect_America_Fund)

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
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

~~~
DannyBee
"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. "

You kind of answered your own question. There is such a thing as neutral on
this, you just don't like to hear from them :) Actually, i'm pretty neutral,
surprisingly, _and_ i don't really care that much, so i'd fall into your
latter category. I only commented because of how much bs the original comment
was. Personally, i don't care mainly because neither side actually gives a
crap about me. Only their bottom line. That isn't going to change anytime
soon. It's certainly not going to change while the FCC is literally appointed
by two parties.

"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"

This isn't quite true due to how the forecasting is done, but sure, it's lose
enough But we could also stop paying the billions to the telecoms and instead,
pay for 1/3rd of the households, for the same price. :)

But you are also saying that 1/3rd of households fall into this category:

"Establishes a National Eligibility Verifier to verify eligible Lifeline
subscribers. Eligibility will be based on participation in SNAP, Medicaid,
SSI, Federal Public Housing Assistance, the Veterans *Pension benefit program,
current Tribal qualifying programs, or those who can demonstrate income of
less than 135 percent of the federal poverty guidelines."

If 34% of america falls into that category, then we pretty much better do
something anyway!

------
dirkg
This is not surprising at all. Our govt is now very firmly anti-consumer,
anti-poor/middle class, anti-public service, and things will only get worse.

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.

~~~
DanBC
> Our govt is now very firmly anti-consumer, anti-poor/middle class, anti-
> public service, and things will only get worse.

> Meanwhile the rest of the world gets free public health

And the US system is more expensive to the US government.

[http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-
com...](http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-does-uk-healthcare-spending-compare-
internationally/)

(We need to be careful with this next infant mortality stat. The US has
stricter reporting)

> While the USA outspent the UK on healthcare (£6,311 and £2,777 per person
> respectively) in 2014, average life expectancy at birth in the USA was 78.8,
> compared with 81.4 in the UK.

> Despite spending, by far, the largest amount on healthcare, the USA was
> among the 10 OECD countries with the lowest life expectancy.

------
lsiebert
Okay, I just want to get clarity. Is there anyone on here that thinks that
universal high speed broadband that's affordable to every American isn't going
to be good for everyone long term? Increased opportunity, access to online
resources, jobs, training, education, etc.

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't agree
that universal high speed broadband internet is a good thing, then talking
about the How to do that is farcical at best.

~~~
rayiner
I think there is a lot of latte liberal projection around this issue. They
want to bring fiber to every poor person, ignoring the fact that a huge
percentage of them don't even have computers. What would be much more useful
is subsidizing smart phone access for poor people (because that's where
computing is headed).

Also, the "how" is really important. Democrats always want to pay for these
programs with highly distortionary targeted taxes and cross subsidies instead
of general tax revenue. When you target an industry for extra taxes, you
disincentivize it. That's why we tax cigarettes and propose to tax sugary
drinks. Imagine putting a 16-18% additional tax (the current USF rate) on all
cell phones to help pay for cell phones for poor people. That would make cell
phones more expensive, reduce cell phone sales and industry revenue and make
the industry less of a desirable place to invest.

And the distortionary effect hurts consumers too. For example, Baltimore
requires any would-be fiber provider to subsidize access to poor neighborhoods
(by mandating providers build into neighborhoods where only a few subscribers
will share in the cost of the node). That tanks the economic case for fiber in
Baltimore, and as a result nobody gets fiber. And Baltimore is broke, so
municipal fiber isn't an option either.

~~~
lsiebert
You are right that many poor people have cell phones, but as of 4 years ago, a
majority of them had computers, and I expect that number has and will continue
to rise. [http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-
jeffrey/census...](http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-
jeffrey/census-americans-poverty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs)

I am not familiar enough with the history of paying for infrastructure by
taxes to comment, except to say that sin taxes seem to be more likely to pass
then a general tax increase. That said, I think relatively small fees and
taxes assessed on items where demand is inelastic probably work fine to
promote investment and growth, especially if they were provided directly to
municipalities for high speed rollouts and state and federal restrictions were
reduced on municipal broadband organisations.

Not sure about Baltimore either, though I wonder if it follows the pattern
I've seen in a few other American cities where there is a large urban center
surrounded by smaller wealthier townships/suburbs who's residents take
advantage of the city as a resource by aren't part of the tax base. Maybe the
Balitmore Broadband Coalition will comment though.

------
throw2016
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.

Issues are being hijacked by funded groups pushing specific corporate
interests and agendas masquerading as operating in the public interest.

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.

Names like 'techfreedom', 'netfreedom' and other 'orwellian' 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.

------
tyingq
This program from AT&T is interesting:
[https://www.att.com/shop/internet/access/#/](https://www.att.com/shop/internet/access/#/)

It doesn't appear to be subsidized by Lifeline.

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/sec) or $10 (up to
10mb/sec) a month.

I would think that those prices would make it affordable well below the
$38k/year figure.

Of course, not everyone has access to this one ISP. I wonder if others have
similar non-Lifeline subsidized programs.

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

~~~
adrr
Removing net neutrality will open the ISPs to being charged to access services
like facebook and google. The big services hold all cards.

This what happens on the cable tv side. Content is king.

~~~
xenadu02
ATT/Verizon/Comcast: Nice startup ya got there... be a shame if anything
happened to your packets _wink_.

That is the future without net neutrality. The large ISPs will charge content
providers. It will start slowly and only affect the largest services (like
Netflix) but when they need to juice the quarterly numbers they'll start
working their way down the list. Because we don't have competition in this
country they will just start severely degrading traffic from anyone they want
to make pay.

Pai has made no proposal for actual broadband competition. In fact he thinks
we already have "robust" competition among ISPs:
[http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fccs-pai-
br...](http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fccs-pai-broadband-
competition-underplayed/140624)

~~~
equalunique
Have you ever rented a VPS, Colo space, or served up content from a cloud
service? Practically every service already charges for outbound data. The idea
that somehow net neutrality will lead to an increase in those charges seems
unlikely to me.

~~~
trome
If you have an ASN in North America you can get settlement free peering with
most networks. That means all you pay for is the hardware/power cost to
transport your content. Usually this is fairly unbalanced, and providers will
compensate eachother (reach a settlement) if data is too skewed in one
direction, almost always in the datacenter's favor (as ISPs are really
upstream light).

Comcast, Verizon and others have recently tried to turn this on its head by
witholding peering upgrades to Netflix, who wasn't even charging them a dime
for all this data that their customers requested! This is not net neutrality,
and performance degradations like this made Comcast uncompetitive in my neck
of the woods since I have Fiber available by rare happenstance. That being
said, my fiber provider (Centurylink) has even worse peering with Comcast,
such that loading xfinity.net is a chore on gigabit fiber, let alone the
Xfinity Go app. These performance issues caused me to cancel my TV service
with them and get a different provider that worked better on my kids tablets,
and so long as providers play games to throttle eachother, stories like this
will be common.

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

------
witty_username
Subsidized internet presumes that poor people would want to spend the money on
internet rather than something else.

A better way is the NIT (negative income tax) which simply gives money to the
poor and lets them decide how to spend it.

------
naranana
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.

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.

~~~
trafficlight
There was a pilot project in 2015 for broadband subsidization. From what I
remember, it went well and they were going to expand the program to cover it,
but I haven't heard anything about it since.

As the owner of a small ISP, I'd like to figure out a way to provide to
service to everyone regardless of their income. Internet access is critical at
this point for even the most basic societal functions.

~~~
ams6110
> Internet access is critical at this point for even the most basic societal
> functions

No, it isn't. I'm at a tipping point of canceling my Comcast cable/internet
because I don't think it's worth $80/month. 90% of what I do online at home is
for entertainment. And I would guess that is the same for most households that
don't have a tech worker. (I am a tech worker, but I've finally trained myself
to not take work home).

Really the only reason I keep it is because I don't want to deal with griping
from the kids.

~~~
kalleboo
Have you tried applying for jobs lately? Ok, so you can use the internet at a
library. But you can't afford a car, so now you need to take the bus across
town, with your the kids in tow...

~~~
naranana
The point is that you don't need a landline/broadband for any of those. 3G and
a smartphone is more than enough.

~~~
sethammons
I would not want to apply to anything via a smart phone. While you may get
away with 3g and a hotspot for getting through critical online activities like
job applications, my experience has been that mobile carriers will charge for
the ability to hotspot if they can. Not a solid option for the poor. A better
option would be something like Juno/NetZero with N hours free per month, but
with speeds that can actually handle today's bloated websites.

~~~
naranana
Why do you need a hotspot? You don't need a computer at all. Chances are, if
you _need_ subsidised internet, you can't afford a computer, anyway.

------
sundvor
I just found it somewhat ironic that the photo used to illustrate "internet
for the poor" was a top of the line Macbook Pro..

Making it easier for _everyone_ to access the Internet should definitely be a
priority though. I'm especially thinking about educational benefits for kids
in poor families.

------
DannyBee
Ya know, it'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'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.

I'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.

~~~
bogomipz
Or another interpretation is that a tech news site like HN has many people who
regularly and closely follow policy and regulatory developments in Telecom,
cable and the FCC.

~~~
DannyBee
That's certainly another possibility, though it seems some of them are either
totally brand new (IE < 12 hours) , or been around forever and never posted in
_any_ of those types of discussions previously, but suddenly are first to
comment on this one with, like i said, very well prepared comments and quotes
and links to things from lobbying organizations that strongly support the
policy position taken here.

I feel like i'm allowed to find that a little odd.

But yeah, you are right, it could be that they just decided, this second, this
is the place they wanted to jump in first.

~~~
ironchief
Haha, nope I'm just a normal person who listens to that podcast on the way to
work and did some internet searching to dig up his dissent. Maybe I need a
more popular hobby? I feel like more of us should be reading the background
information instead of ad hominem accusations of astroturfing.

~~~
gech
Do you care to refute the description of that podcast you referenced as a
lobbyist think tank?

~~~
ironchief
No I don't care to.

First, its an ad hominem attack on credibility which while sometimes useful
does not refute the central points that Pai made. "If there's something wrong
with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't,
what difference does it make that he's a senator?"[1]

Second, I have no clue who funds them or why.

Third, they really do have a great podcast about the intersection of
technology and policy (Uber, AirBnb, self driving cars). Specifically the one
on bringing back supersonic airplanes is really cool. [2]

[1][http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html)
[2][http://podcast.techfreedom.org/e/139-make-america-boom-
again...](http://podcast.techfreedom.org/e/139-make-america-boom-again/)

~~~
DannyBee
"First, its an ad hominem attack on credibility which while sometimes useful
does not refute the central points that Pai made."

First, your messaging on this is confused. Since how is it both ad-hominem and
"sometimes useful". By definition, ad-hominem is not useful. So it's one or
the other.

Second, I believe i directly refuted each one, actually. We should in fact, be
subsidizing 1/3rd of the households broadband if that's what it takes to get
broadband for the categories of people i listed. Especially when Pai's
alternative is "encourage investment", aka give AT&T or whoever another 100
million to do nothing with. He doesn't actually give a real plan, just a magic
thought that we'll somehow "encourage investment", ignoring that literally
none of these companies want to be investing.

Heck, they even say that in their investor filings, which he apparently
doesn't bother to read. Nowhere do they say "hey, we really want to provide
rural broadband, but are held back by regulation". Instead, they said "We
don't think rural broadband is worth it for us, but we want to make sure no
one else gets a foothold, so we are going to do what we can stop them from
doing it any other way than paying us high prices".

Don't worry though, i'm sure magically, his "investment encouragement" will
change the literal written down plans and presentations of the large telecoms.

Also, it doesn't seem to apply to municipalities, since he's _strongly_
against any of these rural communities being self-supporting by starting their
own rural networks. How strange that is. you think he'd be all for it, since
it means the government doesn't subsidize them anymore. That's what he said he
wants! Apparently _people_ investing is not okay, but companies, that's
awesome!

It's also strange techfreedom don't seem supportive of this, for an
organization dedicated to "tech freedom", it apparently doesn't mean for
people.

Meanwhile, Pai lives in a mythical world where they are desperately trying to
provide large scale broadband at low prices, and sadly stymied at every turn
simply that doesn't exist.

But really, he's not an idiot. He knows this already. He's not even really
that malicious. He just wants something he can do that is business friendly so
he can declare victory and go be a million dollar telecom lobbyist like all
the others. I just wish he didn't play the game along the way. Because that's
what would make me really respect him.

But hey, you can classify my argument however you want, because i already knew
i wasn't going to convince _you_.

~~~
dhimes
You did a nice job on _me_ , however.

