Free cellphones!

[spidey07]

Free housing, free food, free cable, free electricity, free healthcare, and now - FREE CELL PHONES!

You may have seen the adds for assurance wireless and I was suspicious thinking it was some kind of scam. But it's not. You too can get a free cell phone, paid for by other peoples money of course.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_749344.html

Three months ago, Walters, 48, of Swissvale started using Assurance Wireless, a program of Sprint subsidiary Virgin Mobile that provides free cell phones and 250 monthly minutes to people receiving government support such as Medicaid or food stamps.

"The program is about peace of mind," Carter said. "It's one less bill that someone has to pay, so they can pay their rent or for day care. ... It is a right to have peace of mind."

 

[waffleironhead]

Yeah, that is pretty ridiculous. A cell phone is not a right, nor is it necessary.

 

[Theb]

What games come with the phones? If they don't have access to Angry Birds and Ninja Ropes they're civil rights are being violated.

 

[Dulanic]

nm

 

[sm625]

They are really stripped down phones. But the battery last a long time. Hey what is wrong with being a member of the FSA (free $%!^ army)? The more this illegitimate rogue government spends, the quicker it collapses. So bring on the social security, medicare, student loans, banker bailouts, and endless wars. Oh yeah, you're not allowed to criticize banksters. Only single moms with cheap cell phones most people wouldnt want to use anyway.

 

[dullard]

List of people who voted against the idea of free phones for the poor: http://www.wave-guide.org/library/tca_hist.html

* One republican total voted no: John McCain. One republican didn't vote: Phil Gramm. All others voted yes.

* Nineteen democrats voted no, 1 independant who votes with democrats voted no, 6 democrats didn't vote.

Clinton signed it into law. It was changed from landlines to cellphones in 2008 under Bush. Seems pretty bipartisan to me.

 

[spidey07]

List of people who voted against the idea of free phones for the poor: http://www.wave-guide.org/library/tca_hist.html

* One republican total voted no: John McCain. One republican didn't vote: Phil Gramm. All others voted yes.

* Nineteen democrats voted no, 1 independant who votes with democrats voted no, 6 democrats didn't vote.

Clinton signed it into law. It was changed from landlines to cellphones in 2008 under Bush. Seems pretty bipartisan to me.

Doesn't make it right.

 

[MovingTarget]

Doesn't make it right.

Bipartisanship doesn't make it right. It is a good idea in its own right. Even people in the poorest third world countries have these types of phones - they really are that cheap to own/operate on a nonprofit basis. Here though, we are heavily gouged because 'thats what the market will bear'. This is a cost effective way to help those with medical problems have piece of mind should an emergency occur.

 

[woolfe9999]

Given that access to telephonic communications is a basic necessity of life in the modern world, what is the difference between giving them a cheap cell phone and giving them a cash equivalent that they would use to purchase phone service? If you're opposed to welfare for the poor, then fine, but there is no reason to be more opposed to this than giving them money. Less so, actually. It's better to give them the things that are necessities than just write a check because they might spend the money on liquor, drugs, gambling or who knows what else. The false premise of this outrage is the idea that a cell phone is a luxory item, but I can guarantee that almost anyone on welfare would use this instead of paying for a landline, not in addition to.

 

[nonameo]

Given that access to telephonic communications is a basic necessity of life in the modern world, what is the difference between giving them a cheap cell phone and giving them a cash equivalent that they would use to purchase phone service? If you're opposed to welfare for the poor, then fine, but there is no reason to be more opposed to this than giving them money. Less so, actually. It's better to give them the things that are necessities than just write a check because they might spend the money on liquor, drugs, gambling or who knows what else. The false premise of this outrage is the idea that a cell phone is a luxory item, but I can guarantee that almost anyone on welfare would use this instead of paying for a landline, not in addition to.

aye, true. It's probably cheaper to give them this than a landline. However for the same price, I'd rather have a landline with "unlimited" minutes than a cell with 250.

 

[xj0hnx]

List of people who voted against the idea of free phones for the poor: http://www.wave-guide.org/library/tca_hist.html

* One republican total voted no: John McCain. One republican didn't vote: Phil Gramm. All others voted yes.

* Nineteen democrats voted no, 1 independant who votes with democrats voted no, 6 democrats didn't vote.

Clinton signed it into law. It was changed from landlines to cellphones in 2008 under Bush. Seems pretty bipartisan to me.

Where is it in here ...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c104:4:./temp/~c104z8of9m:e1341:

? The free phones that is.

 

[dfuze]

What I don't understand is that if its for emergencies then they do they have minutes since deactivated phones can still dial 911.

 

[spidey07]

What I don't understand is that if its for emergencies then they do they have minutes since deactivated phones can still dial 911.

That's the attempt of the liberal mind in action to pull on your emotions.

The fact of the matter is paying customers are paying for free CELL phones to just about anybody that receives government assistance. That is WRONG. A free cell phone is not a "right" as some will try to lead you to believe.

 

[fantolay]

Hey, those people who don't work hard and don't earn a living due to their success gotta have cable and cellular right?

 

[Thump553]

My mother in law has one. Her son (devoted Rush dittohead) heard about it on Faux News and decided she should have one, even though she can barely operate even such a simple phone.

It's a really basic phone (think tracphone) with, as I recall, 60 minutes per month (receive or call minutes).

 

[dullard]

Where is it in here ...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c104:4:./temp/~c104z8of9m:e1341:

? The free phones that is.

Your link goes nowhere.

The purpose of the act (right at the top) is to "encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies". So, while it doesn't explicitly say free cell phones when it was written in 1996, it has been interpreted to be used to encourage cell phones as they are "new telecommunications technologies."

Then try here on page 20 for a start:

AREAS- Consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services.

I think it is from that bolded part of the bill that the FCC did this: Low-Income Consumer Program. It does two things: 1) helps with installation costs and 2) provides discounts on the service. The $10 phone off the price of the phone discount is probably covered under the "helping with installation costs". The $10 off the monthly fee is probably covered under the "provides discounts on the service".

The FCC has no control over the base price as long as it is reasonbly comparable. The fact that cell phone companies charge only $10 and the discount is $10 is what makes it free. If cell phone companies charged $30 and the discount was $10, then it wouldn't be free.

 

[dullard]

Doesn't make it right.

If you don't want to support it, you don't have to. Just stop using our public airwaves with your devices. Then $0.00 of your money will go to help the poor in this situation. Or use public airwaves and pay about a penny per day. Your choice.

 

[spidey07]

If you don't want to support it, you don't have to. Just stop using our public airwaves with your devices. Then $0.00 of your money will go to help the poor in this situation.

That doesn't make any sense? The networks bought the spectrum and developed products to use it. Technically they own that spectrum in terms of use (FCC still "owns" the entire spectrum). Then the government stepped in and forced them to collect money to pay for free stuff.

That is wrong. I'm writing my congressmen and senators to address this fucking outright theft of providing a luxury item to the "poor". Enough is enough already.

 

[dullard]

That doesn't make any sense? The networks bought the spectrum and developed products to use it. Technically they own that spectrum in terms of use (FCC still "owns" the entire spectrum). Then the government stepped in and forced them to collect money to pay for free stuff.

That is wrong. I'm writing my congressmen and senators to address this fucking outright theft of providing a luxury item to the "poor". Enough is enough already.

Go right ahead. Complain. That is your right. Or, spend that time and work for an hour and earn more than you would be charged for years/decades under this program.

They didn't buy it outright. They bought it with conditions. This is one of them.

 

[spidey07]

I think I'm going to petition government to force every manufacturer of wireless network gear to add a tax so they can collect and provide free WiFi to everybody that's "poor". After all, Dullard believes if you're using public spectrums you should be paying for other peoples stuffs. So you there with your wireless home network? Time for you to PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!

That would only be "fair". What the hell is happening to this country?

 

[Thump553]

Go ahead spidey if that is something you believe in. Good use of your time.

 

[dullard]

I think I'm going to petition government to force every manufacturer of wireless network gear to add a tax so they can collect and provide free WiFi to everybody that's "poor". After all, Dullard believes if you're using public spectrums you should be paying for other peoples stuffs. So you there with your wireless home network? Time for you to PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!

That would only be "fair". What the hell is happening to this country?

Since when did I say that I believe that? I'm only stating the laws and the facts.

1 single republican voted no. Go congratulate him. Then ask why hundreds of other republicans voted yes.

 

[CitizenKain]

That is wrong. I'm writing my congressmen and senators to address this fucking outright theft of providing a luxury item to the "poor". Enough is enough already.

Do you complain about military spending this way?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I don't have too much of an issue with it. Try finding or holding a half-decent job without a phone, and if you're going to have a phone it might as well be a cheap cell phone.

 

[96Firebird]

I don't have a problem with the phone, but the cable and electricity "assistance" programs need to die. I have a decent job, and I am thinking about dropping cable because of the price. I don't see why it is necessary, when you can still get the basic channels for free "over the air".