Jonathan Little of Thomasville, Ala., only has dial-up internet at home, and frequently uses the library to connect | Credit Meggan Haller for The New York Times
Of course they oppose it. They are anti-poor and if they had their way, poor people would not be allowed to be educated.
ADDICTING INFO
Tom Wheeler, the chairperson of the Federal Communications Commission released a plan last week that would create a program that subsidizes broadband internet service for poor people. The plan calls for an expansion of the Lifeline phone subsidy program created by Ronald Reagan in 1985. In addition to expanding the program to cover internet subsidies, the plan also will work to crack down on fraudulent claims that have plagued the welfare program.
On Tuesday, a Senate subcommittee met to discuss the plan. The New York Times reports:
“Republicans pushed back on Tuesday against a plan from the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to subsidize broadband Internet for poor Americans.
At a Senate subcommittee hearing, no one disputed that broadband can be critical to filing job applications and completing schoolwork. But many lawmakers questioned just how costly the undertaking might be.
The plan from Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the F.C.C., would extend the reach of Lifeline, the program now used to provide low-income Americans with mobile and landline phone service. But Republicans at the hearing said that the program had been mismanaged and that it made little sense to expand it before eradicating what they called excessive fraud.”
Democrats have already drafted legislation that supports the plan.
Certain Republicans have expressed criticism of the idea. Last February, Republican FCC Commissioner, Michael O’Reilly wrote in a blog post:
“There is a legitimate debate whether the Lifeline program should be abolished or significantly scaled back rather than expanding its mission. I would be open to having a thoughtful debate on the best way to address a perceived need in this communications area rather than bootstrapping the old program with new responsibilities.”
He then outlines a list of principles that he proposes should be introduced in order to remove fraud from the program. However, the principles O’Reilly proposes appear to be interested in reducing the program overall, rather than merely than weed out abuse of the program.
Wheeler and other proponents of expanding the Lifeline program cite recent safeguards against people abusing the program. A national database was created in 2012 that helps to prevent people from registering services multiple times to the same residence. Since then, the number of people who use the program has dropped by a third.
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) expressed (legitimate) concerns that the program would not address the needs of poor rural communities that currently lack broadband infrastructure.
Fred Upton (R-MI) the Republican chairperson of the Energy and Commerce Committee, told Bloomberg in an e-mail:
“Simply expanding the program without ensuring its effectiveness or longevity is the wrong approach,” The size of the program should be capped.”
Capping the program is one of main goals of Republicans. Currently, the Lifeline program does not have any limits on spending for the program.
There is not currently any organized opposition to the plan from the Republican Party. I suspect this is largely in part due to major telecommunications companies general favoring the expansion (more money for them). The telecommunications industry has the Republican Party in their pockets, and despite Republicans general opposition towards aiding the poor, they are not going to make a move against their corporate masters. Remember they are the party that managed to convince conservative voters that reclassifying the internet as a Title II public utility equated to a full-blown government takeover of the internet.
