OFFLINE

It REALLY pisses me off.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx

Hopenchange!

OFFLINE

BAHHHH...I can see the elderly and the infirmed... but just bc you have lower income????  what is the reasoning behind it???  

OFFLINE

Yeah, pisses me off too.

So, isn't a cell phone considered somewhat of a luxury item ?   As opposed to a necessity ?   It is to me.   I'm all for food kitchens and such that provide some assistance with a hot food in a belly that would otherwise go hungry (especially children) ... have even worked a few sou kitchens through my local Churches (funded by Church members donations, not the government).  THIS is ridiculous !!!   I know good hardworking people who do not have cell phones because they really cannot justify the expense but would more than likely make TOO much to qualify for this "entitlement".  Yet the guy down the street who sits on his arse all day trying to see what else the government will give him can have a cell phone for free ???   Makes absolutely no sense at all !!!

I wondered why I had not heard of it before.  It's because it's not yet available in my area ... YET !

OFFLINE

I saw a news report about a homeless guy who spends his days playing on on Facebook.

Now I know why and how.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Tonya Kiaunis-Dlugas:
what is the reasoning behind it???  

When phone lines were first laid out in the late 19th century, the phone service created by one company to serve one town may not have been compatible with the phone service of another company serving a different town nearby. The telecom companies themselves saw the folly in this arrangement, and so in 1913, AT&T committed itself to resolving interconnection problems.

That common goal of universal service became a goal of universal access to service when Congress passed The Telecommunications Act of 1934. The act created the FCC and also included in its preamble a promise "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”

This informal practice was codified when the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) was created as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to "ensure all Americans, including low-income consumers and those who live in rural, insular, high cost areas, shall have affordable service and [to] help to connect eligible schools, libraries, and rural health care providers to the global telecommunications network." The USAC includes four programs to serve rural areas, high cost areas, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. Since 1997, USAC has provided discounted land line service to low-income individuals. A more limited program to offer assistance to low-income individuals was created in the 80s; the telecommunications formalized it.

The current president has no direct impact on the program. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which codified a project under President Ronald Reagan, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

Is it good or not?  I don't know.  Is it needed or not?  I don't know.  But it's roots are almost 100 years old and first developed by the communications companies themselves.  No federal or state money is involved.

OFFLINE

If taxpayers pay one nickle into it, can it.

Not the government's job because it's not the taxpayer's responsibility.

OFFLINE

How does a country prevent people from abusing social privileges? Is this relative to the personal accountability argument? Or are the providers really to be held accountable for feeding the hunger of those who choose to be helpless?

A few weeks ago a young lady I know who's a single mom desperately needed service, but was so scrapped for money that she struggled through the entire sale negotiation. Part of making that sale is getting the customer's phone number, which she didn't have because she simply couldn't afford any phone - period. Well, anyway, to complete the sale, I simply used a generic phone number to satisfy the computer software, but afterward I referred her to this service. In my mind, she genuinely needed it.

But, is it reasonable to expect these service providers to thoroughly research each and every applicant to make sure that nobody is abusing the service? It's my understanding that they rely on other subsidies' legwork; for example, I think you qualify for a free phone from this service so long as you're approved for HEAP through your respected county. Is that a reasonable qualifying factor?

One thing that really does upset me personally is that this can be offered as a free service, yet on my Verizon plan, I have to pay $10 more a month for unlimited out-of-network texting. Verizon has a subsidiary service called Straight Talk (or something like that). At Walmart, the basic monthly service is about $45 which includes unlimted talk, text, and internet. This is about $15 less a month than I'm paying, and I don't have unlimited out-of-network talk, text, or internet. It seems to me that if these services can be offered free of charge, or subsidiary services offered for less, then my Verizon plan ought not cost as much as it does for inferior services.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

If taxpayers pay one nickle into it, can it.

Not the government's job because it's not the taxpayer's responsibility.

It is funded through the Universal Service Fund an independent, not-for-profit corporation originally set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers.

It doesn't have any taxpayer money involved at all.  Now if you have an itemized bill from whichever cell or landline or pager that you might use that lists an amount specifically for this fund, then a small portion of that might be going to fund this program.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
How does a country prevent people from abusing social privileges? Is this relative to the personal accountability argument? Or are the providers really to be held accountable for feeding the hunger of those who choose to be helpless?

A few weeks ago a young lady I know who's a single mom desperately needed service, but was so scrapped for money that she struggled through the entire sale negotiation. Part of making that sale is getting the customer's phone number, which she didn't have because she simply couldn't afford any phone - period. Well, anyway, to complete the sale, I simply used a generic phone number to satisfy the computer software, but afterward I referred her to this service. In my mind, she genuinely needed it.

But, is it reasonable to expect these service providers to thoroughly research each and every applicant to make sure that nobody is abusing the service? It's my understanding that they rely on other subsidies' legwork; for example, I think you qualify for a free phone from this service so long as you're approved for HEAP through your respected county. Is that a reasonable qualifying factor?

One thing that really does upset me personally is that this can be offered as a free service, yet on my Verizon plan, I have to pay $10 more a month for unlimited out-of-network texting. Verizon has a subsidiary service called Straight Talk (or something like that). At Walmart, the basic monthly service is about $45 which includes unlimted talk, text, and internet. This is about $15 less a month than I'm paying, and I don't have unlimited out-of-network talk, text, or internet. It seems to me that if these services can be offered free of charge, or subsidiary services offered for less, then my Verizon plan ought not cost as much as it does for inferior services.

Each state has it's own services that qualify if they are already on some major type of public assistance that's usually enough and not all that difficult to confirm.  These are the same as the cheapest TracFone's available...usually $9/10 for the phone itself, and there is not unlimited minutes, but more than I personally use (but that's not saying much...sometimes I don't use mine for weeks.  It's also just talk and text, no internet use. If they want more than they can buy, add and use TracFone cards.

It's probably a better deal to the companies than a landline.  They are most likely texting people who pay for it on at least the other end, or sometimes talking to people's cells...paying at least on that end.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:

It is funded through the Universal Service Fund an independent, not-for-profit corporation originally set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers.

It doesn't have any taxpayer money involved at all.  Now if you have an itemized bill from whichever cell or landline or pager that you might use that lists an amount specifically for this fund, then a small portion of that might be going to fund this program.

That sounds nice ... doesn't it?

From their website:

Currently, all telecommunications companies that provide service between states, including long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers, are required to contribute to the federal Universal Service Fund. Carriers providing international services also must contribute to the Universal Service Fund.

A rose by any other name still pricks you.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:

It is funded through the Universal Service Fund an independent, not-for-profit corporation originally set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers.

It doesn't have any taxpayer money involved at all.  Now if you have an itemized bill from whichever cell or landline or pager that you might use that lists an amount specifically for this fund, then a small portion of that might be going to fund this program.

That sounds nice ... doesn't it?

From their website:

Currently, all telecommunications companies that provide service between states, including long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers, are required to contribute to the federal Universal Service Fund. Carriers providing international services also must contribute to the Universal Service Fund.

A rose by any other name still pricks you.

I'm trying to clarify my understanding here. Are you suggesting that their being Required To Contribute more or less makes it a tax?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Are you suggesting that their being Required To Contribute more or less makes it a tax?

Me?  

Why would I think that?

(insert stupider-than-usual look on my face)

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:

Originally Posted by Tonya Kiaunis-Dlugas:
what is the reasoning behind it???  

That common goal of universal service became a goal of universal access to service when Congress passed The Telecommunications Act of 1934. The act created the FCC and also included in its preamble a promise "to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”

Bah!!!!! There is no service anywhere near where I live. Much of rural Nevada is without service, either land line or cell.

Before Judge Greene made his infamous decision to break up Ma Bell, we (AT&T) were required to provide phone service to anyone who wanted it.
.
Pretty pricey endevour for phone companiess.

Now.... corprate greed prevails.

Even if you're lucky enough to live in a rural area that has service, the service is poor quality at best.

Corporate greed and bad government will be the death of rural America.

OFFLINE

The YWCA has had a program for a long time where they will take old cell phones and re-program them so that any button you push would dial 911, then they give these phones to physical and sexually abuse victims. It is a cooperative effort between the YWCA and local/state police nation wide. This I can go for. A good cause to donate your old cellphones to, just drop it off at any YWCA, YMCA or ask your carrier if you drop off your old phone at the cellphone store do they donate them to this cause

For several decades a little known part of the welfare program has been if you are low income and receiving any one or more welfare assistance programs (ie food stamps, rental assistance, energy assistance, medical coupon, welfare money, wic, ect...) then you can get a home phone (landline) for $10 a month plus applicable taxes. But 3 months after you stop receiving this aid you will have to start paying full price for the phone hook up. The $10 phone only paid for local and emergency (911) calls, long distance was full charges. This was a program paid for by local and national telephone companies and private corporate donations. There was an attempt to end this discount program in the early 1990's after an audit found abuse of the program, but the Congress stepped in to keep it going with government grants. Today the reason given behind this discount phone service is to help people when looking for a job or to call for emergency aid (police, fire, ambulance).

A side note, in the Portland Oregon area Verizon is the main home telephone provider, they provide every home that has a telephone hook up the means to dial 911 even if you are not signed up for phone service at that address all you need to do is plug any phone into the wall socket.

When I first heard of Safelink (one of many names ideas being floated around at the time) it was a two-prong idea:

First, to promote a means to get homeless a phone so that they can have a phone number to put on a job application and hopefully get them off the streets with employment.

Second, to provide violent crime victims, who are at risk of becoming a victim again, a means of calling for help in or out of their home, similar to what the YWCA has been doing as stated above.

The problem early on was that the Government was trying to force the cellphone carriers into an agreement to provide the phones and airtime at a financial loss to the companies. Last I had heard the negotiations was still going on, then the next thing I heard a teaser on the news about Safelink. Never did get to hear the article.