I thought it was going to have something to do with Unitarianism.

FTA...Erie County's Social Services Commissioner said he did see some benefits to the program, but that it also concerned him that the families would spend money on additional minutes once their free time ended each month. He said he also feared some may grow accustomed to having a phone and sign a contract with the company once their one year of benefits ended.


I don't know about Safelink Wirless, but Tracfone doesn't require a contract. It's a pay-as-you-go cell phone. You just purchase a top-up card when needed.

The Spanish-American War?

Poor people need blackberries also!

Donald_McRonald

We have a winnar! Please head to the stage to claim your free intarweb.

Who gets a phone bill anymore?

I haven't had a "land-line" in years and I don't miss it a bit although I suppose my cat does. She lives to knock things off of other things. I should go buy a phone for her to knock the receiver off. Better yet, I should market them for this purpose.

There is no law saying the providers MUST charge you for this. Only that they must pay into the fund.

Don't like paying for poor people to have a phone? Sounds like that is between you and your provider.

Providers don't like paying into the fund? Change the law.

Apik0r0s, if you going to rational, reasonable, and level-headed, I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

jayg22: Poor people need blackberries also!

Well, sure. Blackberries are notable for their high nutritional contents of dietary fiber, vitamin C, vitamin K, folic acid - a B vitamin, and the essential mineral, manganese (table).

I know damn well what it's for. It's supposed to be a business tax, but I get stuck with it and they continue their false advertisement campaigns.

I don't get it. Cell phones are a necessity for life now? When does the government start paying for people's cable or dish TV subscriptions?

First we're paying for the Spanish-American war via a phone surcharge, and now we're paying to give texting and phone service to folks on welfare. When is enough enough?

/submitter

You mean the Universal service fund is used to fund universal service?

The stupid tag is for the people who have their panties in a bunch over this right Subby?

68 minutes of airtime a month for emergencies ?

mud_shark: Who gets a phone bill anymore?

I haven't had a "land-line" in years...

Try reading the article headline sometime:

Cell phone companies must contribute to the Federal Communication Commission's Universal Service Fund. While they're not required to do so, many carriers pass those contribution costs along to their customers.

Yep, you're probably paying for it.

atlanta_ufo: 68 minutes of airtime a month for emergencies ?

Also, I thought I heard somewhere that even a cell phone with no subscribed service from a carrier can still make 911 calls.

SaintAnky: I don't get it. Cell phones are a necessity for life now? When does the government start paying for people's cable or dish TV subscriptions?

No, cell phones are not. So if paying the two bucks and change a month angers you this much, cancel your cell phone service.

I have no problem with this program. I think it's a pretty good use of resources, and it's got the potential to help people better themselves.

And your "cable or dish" analogy is improper, as people can still receive television over the air. In fact, there was even a program you may have heard of recently where the government offered coupons to offset the cost of a digital converter box for people. I assume this outraged you as well.

Gonz:

No, cell phones are not. So if paying the two bucks and change a month angers you this much, cancel your cell phone service.

I have no problem with this program. I think it's a pretty good use of resources, and it's got the potential to help people better themselves.



You've got no problems with the program? Great! Then you can use your money to give people free cell phones & texting. The rest of us would like to decide how we spend our money without the government re-appropriating it.


And your "cable or dish" analogy is improper, as people can still receive television over the air. In fact, there was even a program you may have heard of recently where the government offered coupons to offset the cost of a digital converter box for people. I assume this outraged you as well.

The analogy was fine. You missed the point. Cell phones are no more of a necessity than television is. If a person is on welfare perhaps they shouldn't be spending money on TV or cell phone service. Perhaps they should be spending their time finding a job or cutting expenses.

To think, a mere 15-20 years ago almost no one had cell phones. Now they're such a "necessity" that the government subsidizes them.

I suppose the same thing has happened to television, which is so important to our lives the government spends millions making sure no one will lose service at the changeover.

It's a sad state of affairs. The way the economy is right now, we really need to wake up, and stop wasting money on these things. Give money to poor people for health care. For food. For something important.

SaintAnky: I don't get it. Cell phones are a necessity for life now? When does the government start paying for people's cable or dish TV subscriptions?

A phone is pretty essential to function in a modern society. I don't know about the US, but in most places the cheapest cell phones are cheaper than the cheapest landlines.

Apik0r0s
There is no law saying the providers MUST charge you for this. Only that they must pay into the fund.

Don't like paying for poor people to have a phone? Sounds like that is between you and your provider.

Providers don't like paying into the fund? Change the law.

Sure, call your provider and tell them you don't want to pay the tax "Service Fund" and see how far that gets you. Democrats won't change the law because that's how they buy votes.

Thirty dollars a years isn't much for most people so there's no real resistance to this. Just another little nuisance tax added on to all the others.

SaintAnky:
You've got no problems with the program? Great! Then you can use your money to give people free cell phones & texting. The rest of us would like to decide how we spend our money without the government re-appropriating it.



The Government isn't taking this money from you, your phone provider is. RTFA.

Hat Madder: Apik0r0s
There is no law saying the providers MUST charge you for this. Only that they must pay into the fund.

Don't like paying for poor people to have a phone? Sounds like that is between you and your provider.

Providers don't like paying into the fund? Change the law.

Sure, call your provider and tell them you don't want to pay the tax "Service Fund" and see how far that gets you. Democrats won't change the law because that's how they buy votes.

Thirty dollars a years isn't much for most people so there's no real resistance to this. Just another little nuisance tax added on to all the others.


Then change providers!

If you can't find a provider who won't charge you this fee, get rid of your phone!

It's not like a phone is a necessity of life or anything. Put your money where your mouth is and stop your voluntary funding of this unfair program.

THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW!

SaintAnky: You've got no problems with the program? Great! Then you can use your money to give people free cell phones & texting. The rest of us would like to decide how we spend our money without the government re-appropriating it.

You don't get to decide that now. Unless you're advocating a complete repeal of all taxes, then the government is going to re-appropriate some of your money. Like I said, though, you've stated yourself that cell phones are not a necessity. If you don't wish to pay this tax, simply cancel your cell phone service. You don't need it, right?

SaintAnky: The analogy was fine. You missed the point. Cell phones are no more of a necessity than television is. If a person is on welfare perhaps they shouldn't be spending money on TV or cell phone service. Perhaps they should be spending their time finding a job or cutting expenses.

TV is one of the primary mediums that government uses to put out information in an emergency, and I wasn't advocating the poor getting cable. I was talking about signals that travel over the air. Are you also opposed to radio? It's free, and it's the other medium government uses for emergency broadcasts.

Giving this phone to a person who's struggling financially will allow them to cancel landline service, which costs around $20/month. There you go-cutting expenses already. And, if the individual is looking for a job, a phone provides a way for their employer to contact them. So it assists people in meeting both of the goals you set for them. See? Simple.

Gonz: You don't get to decide that now. Unless you're advocating a complete repeal of all taxes, then the government is going to re-appropriate some of your money. Like I said, though, you've stated yourself that cell phones are not a necessity. If you don't wish to pay this tax, simply cancel your cell phone service. You don't need it, right?

There is a difference between this and other taxes. This charge exists for a narrow band of purposes like the distribution of free cell phone service to people on welfare.

Cell phones are not necessary. I lived without one until a few years ago. However, as somebody with a job who pays my own bills I can decide which luxuries I want to buy with my money. People on welfare are using public funds, they should not be provided with luxuries like cell phones.

Finally, your argument is invalid because even if everybody objected to this tax the government would find another way to fund it. Should I sell my house because I object to the spending of the majority of my property tax on medicaid? Should I not register my car because I do not wish my money be appropriated to fund certain traffic "safety" initiatives? No. The proper thing would be for the government to get its hands out of its citizens pockets and perform only the required, minimal services.

Giving this phone to a person who's struggling financially will allow them to cancel landline service, which costs around $20/month. There you go-cutting expenses already. And, if the individual is looking for a job, a phone provides a way for their employer to contact them. So it assists people in meeting both of the goals you set for them. See? Simple.

Great! Then let either a private charity fund this for those who truly need it or let the poor cut out other services. I don't need to spend my money to provide a blanket program for welfare recipients to send and receive text messages.

There are charities in the business of taking donated old cell phones and handing them out as free '911-only' models. This story they like to tell about Universal Service phones being for 'emergencies' is bullshiat. There's a certain mindset that can't stand the thought of some people having things that other people don't, and they're going to fix that by taking away some of your stuff and giving it to someone else.

Apik0r0s:
The Government isn't taking this money from you, your phone provider is. RTFA.

You RTFA. The provider is collecting the money to recoup their mandatory contributions to the FCC fund. Same thing as always, the government taxes a business and the cost gets passed on to the consumer.

SaintAnky:

The analogy was fine. You missed the point. Cell phones are no more of a necessity than television is. If a person is on welfare perhaps they shouldn't be spending money on TV or cell phone service. Perhaps they should be spending their time finding a job or cutting expenses.

Phones are a necessity, especially if you are looking for work.
Cell phones are a better way of being available to accept a job offer than the land line that would otherwise be paid for with this fee.
Be outraged at the idea of subsidizing phone service if you want, it's short sighted and counterproductive but it's your right to do so, but complaining that the subsidy is used for cell phones instead of land lines is just plain stupid.

Apik0r0s: Then change providers!

If you can't find a provider who won't charge you this fee, get rid of your phone!

It's an unavoidable payment, therefore a cost of doing business and will be built into the price. No matter who is supposedly paying it, the ultimate payer is always the same: the customer. As for getting rid of the phone, a more American strategy than being a quitter and inconveniencing oneself is to biatch at one's representatives and try to get the law changed.

SaintAnky
Apik0r0s:
The Government isn't taking this money from you, your phone provider is. RTFA.

You RTFA. The provider is collecting the money to recoup their mandatory contributions to the FCC fund. Same thing as always, the government taxes a business and the cost gets passed on to the consumer.

Exactly. Either the provider advertises a lower rate, then tacks on this little extra charge, or they make the base rate a little higher to cover it. No way you can avoid paying the tax. And the argument that "if you don't like it give up your cell phone" ignores the other option, which is "vote for representatives who represent your point of view". There will be bigger issues in 2010, but the little things add up.

Apik0r0s: There is no law saying the providers MUST charge you for this. Only that they must pay into the fund.

Don't like paying for poor people to have a phone? Sounds like that is between you and your provider.

Providers don't like paying into the fund? Change the law.

There is no law that the DUI BAC limit has to be 0.08... oh states want highway funding? When the government strong arms a business into a fund, the customers pay. It's a De Facto law.

Apik0r0s: Great! Then let either a private charity fund this for those who truly need it or let the poor cut out other services. I don't need to spend my money to provide a blanket program for welfare recipients to send and receive text messages.

You realize this is now people not in cities get their communication costs subsidezed as well. You don't really think small town america pays for all the roads, copper, and glass that connects them do you? I'm all for everyone paying market rates, I live immediately adjacent to a major city. MY costs would go down.

Man, can you imagine the joy of every people of every region having to pay their own way. Wow, I wonder how much money California would get back? Heh.

SaintAnky: and now we're paying to give texting and phone service to folks on welfare.

If only the government recently did something to give rich people a break .

Mugato: SaintAnky: and now we're paying to give texting and phone service to folks on welfare.

If only the government recently did something to give rich people a break .

What in the heck does that have to do with anything? I'm sick and tired of people creating a false dichotomy that you're either for government handouts to those in "poverty" or you're some type of millionaire fat cat banker who is encouraging corporate welfare.

Some of us want government spending, size and scope curtailed dramatically and inane assumptions like yours do little to allow us to have a serious discussion.

hedgefrog:
Phones are a necessity, especially if you are looking for work.
Cell phones are a better way of being available to accept a job offer than the land line that would otherwise be paid for with this fee.
Be outraged at the idea of subsidizing phone service if you want, it's short sighted and counterproductive but it's your right to do so, but complaining that the subsidy is used for cell phones instead of land lines is just plain stupid.

Did you read my comment? I didn't suggest landlines should be subsidized instead of cell phones. I suggested no government subsidies should be used. At all. Full stop.

But please, continue making straw man arguments.

SaintAnky: hedgefrog:
Phones are a necessity, especially if you are looking for work.
Cell phones are a better way of being available to accept a job offer than the land line that would otherwise be paid for with this fee.
Be outraged at the idea of subsidizing phone service if you want, it's short sighted and counterproductive but it's your right to do so, but complaining that the subsidy is used for cell phones instead of land lines is just plain stupid.

Did you read my comment? I didn't suggest landlines should be subsidized instead of cell phones. I suggested no government subsidies should be used. At all. Full stop.

But please, continue making straw man arguments.

Did you?

Ever wonder why TV commercials Blast you out of the livingroom?

The FCC used to prevent broadcasters from doing that. they would fine the shiatt out of them. growing up, i never heard a loud commercial.

well, after the broadcasters/network Corporate Pigs bought our FCC, now they can blast commercials all they want.

isn't Freedom great?

after all, its THEIR TV, not yours.

Linux_Yes: Ever wonder why TV commercials Blast you out of the livingroom?

The FCC used to prevent broadcasters from doing that. they would fine the shiatt out of them. growing up, i never heard a loud commercial.

Commercials have always been loud. It's been a cliche for decades.

The reason they're doing it now is that audio engineers are getting better at pushing the audio to the peak levels of volume. The loudest part of the program you're watching is as loud as the loudest part of the commercial. It's just that the commercial is staying at that peak.

Gonz: Linux_Yes: Ever wonder why TV commercials Blast you out of the livingroom?

The FCC used to prevent broadcasters from doing that. they would fine the shiatt out of them. growing up, i never heard a loud commercial.

Commercials have always been loud. It's been a cliche for decades.

The reason they're doing it now is that audio engineers are getting better at pushing the audio to the peak levels of volume. The loudest part of the program you're watching is as loud as the loudest part of the commercial. It's just that the commercial is staying at that peak.

the FCC has been made impotent. i remember from back in the 70's.
without government, capitalists do as they please.

I'm viewing this thread on my cell phone and I has a pay-as-you-go plan, so I'm getting a kick....

/no, really!

Linux_Yes: Ever wonder why TV commercials Blast you out of the livingroom?

The FCC used to prevent broadcasters from doing that. they would fine the shiatt out of them. growing up, i never heard a loud commercial.

well, after the broadcasters/network Corporate Pigs bought our FCC, now they can blast commercials all they want.

isn't Freedom great?

after all, its THEIR TV, not yours.

Eh, a phone and answering machine are pretty vital when job-hunting, I'm OK with lending phones to the unemployed.

I might be less sympathetic had the pay phone died out almost completely in most US cities, too. The main concern is outgoing calls, not incoming (think emergencies that aren't quite 911 caliber -- like forgetting to pick up your kid from a school function and needing to call the school to let 'em know you'll be late) as far as the urgent stuff goes.

So, sure, cell phones aren't vital, but c'mon, it'll improve the ability of poor people to find a job and not wind up in jail pretty massively. So I'd call it an investment rather than a cost overall.

Er, had the pay phone NOT died out.

Stupid English grammar.

Etchy333: mud_shark: Who gets a phone bill anymore?

I haven't had a "land-line" in years...

Try reading the article headline sometime:

Cell phone companies must contribute to the Federal Communication Commission's Universal Service Fund. While they're not required to do so, many carriers pass those contribution costs along to their customers.

Yep, you're probably paying for it.

This. I love it when people don't bother to RTFA, then spout their opinions. Especially smug mofos like this one.

Two bucks a month ANGERS me!

I need to go buy a six pack and pay the 8% sales tax to calm me down.

Yea, there are plenty of taxes out there that you can yip about. But, this is one of the good ones. It goes towards public education to help build computer labs and education for students. I have no problem with paying this fee.

Besides it's on all telcom bills not just cell phones.

/Works with USF funded schools so getting kick.....

These companies do depend on the use of THE PUBLIC'S frequency spectrum, so they can STFU and pay what the public asks them to pay in exchange for being given the privilege of doing business in our spectrum.

Just give the poor farkers an old and busted phone and charger. It will work on 911 calls and provide them with security they claim to need. That way no one has to pay for their minutes or texts, which would probably be spent within the first 68 minutes of activation anyway.

Democrats, take note that phones, cars, home ownership, etc... are luxuries. If you have money left over after necessities like food and shelter, then you can either save it or spend it on luxuries. If you don't have any disposable income, don't expect Uncle Sam to play Santa for your ghetto arse.

And by the way, if you can afford beer and cigarettes, you don't need charity.

SaintAnky: First we're paying for the Spanish-American war via a phone surcharge

No, no you aren't. This has never been true, and you're an idiot for making this claim.

FTFA: Cell phone companies must contribute to the Federal Communication Commission's Universal Service Fund. While they're not required to do so, many carriers pass those contribution costs along to their customers.

Uh... hello? The carriers always pass this cost onto their customers. Where else would they get the money? Just because it might not be itemized on your bill doesn't mean that they're not charging you for it.

Jeez!

FTFA: "An emergency can be anything. You can drop your kids off at school and then you're off to work or looking for a job and you don't have a cell phone. Heaven forbid, something happens to your child. How's someone going to get in contact with you?"

The same thing schools did before everyone had a cell phone--you call the "emergency contact" person that you informed the school of at the beginning of the year.

This is a stupid, nonsensical, superfluous program. No need for it at all. There's not one argument ANYONE can make to rationalize why someone "needs" a cell phone. They are handy, but hardly a necessity. I've had one since the early 90's, but that's my choice due to my line of work. If I couldn't afford one and wanted one JUST for emergencies, then I'd pick up one of those 911-only phones that my church offers.