America's broadband bill subsidy runs out of money and halts enrollments The US Federal Communications Commission will not accept new signups by folks for its subsidized internet broadband program after Thursday, as it’s running out of money to fund the initiative. Under the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), some low-income households are eligible to receive a discount on their internet bills …
There wouldn't have ever been the need for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) if internet companies offered affordable internet services at affordable prices for low-income people on welfare. We live in such an internet-connected world, with doctor appointments being scheduled online, welfare benefits able to be applied for in some states online, smart speakers, along with job applications, online college courses, paying bills, affordable housing lotteries and housing, receiving medical results, and many more aspects of life done through the internet. It is unthinkable that soon those 23 million US households on the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) will soon lose this benefit because the US government is not providing funding for the program. Fortunately, some companies like Verizon are claiming that they will continue their own version of this affordable internet subsidy called the Verizon Forward Discount. It is about time the US government prioritizing the needs of US citizens and committing to ensuring every low-income and impoverished US citizen has affordable access to the internet, as the internet is more of a vital necessity than a luxury.
" if internet companies offered affordable internet services at affordable prices for low-income people on welfare. "
They don't have to. They can keep the prices high since the government will sponsor those that don't have enough money to pay for it.
"It is about time the US government prioritizing the needs of US citizens and committing to ensuring every low-income and impoverished US citizen has affordable access to the internet, as the internet is more of a vital necessity than a luxury."
What about all of the Obama phones? Poor people are given free phones and service. It's not unlimited everything, but WTH, if you want something, it must be paid for. How much internet should people be given for free?
So, without being cynical, what’s the answer? Someone has a job and a family to support. They have to pay the rent, the heat, the electricity, gasoline, kids clothes, etc. etc. etc. Their family needs Internet. Without the subsidy they can’t get Internet. So what should they do? In a capitalistic world, is it the responsibility of the Internet companies? The government? Who’s going to make it better?
Anything essential to basic life ought to be government provided. After all people ought to get something back in return for all the work and time distraction it takes to believe in government the concept of country follow the laws self-restriction. Remembering all that nonsense is quite the chore.
Restricting one's own potential to meet society's convenience is wearing.
Being a "good" citizen is a full-time job with no off time it deserves fair compensation in return in the form of basic securities.
For everything else capitalism works fine because if nobody actually needs it then people can actually afford to collectively cut off businesses that displeased them and so choke them out of existence.
Boycotts have little chance of doing their job of forcing compromise from commercial operations if people can't afford to to effectively isolate and starve businesses that displease their communities.
With government provided basic necessities, boycotting is no longer any danger unto the individuals owning these businesses as it will not put them or their employees starving into the streets.
After necessity it's all just points on a leaderboard and the safety concerns are absolved.
Shareholders.
High class grifters.
We can fix it.
If we capoed returns at 200%, and then the have stock automatically transfers to the employees.
Investor still gets a return to encourage further investment and employees get a fair return on their investment of labor attention and participation in the practice of authoritative hierarchy.
This would encourage small single owner business, while discouraging the development of big business with it's disgusting tendency to steal political power and representation from the people.
Retool society to serve the living.
Can anyone believe for once that has nothing to do with votes? Or at least not directly. I’ve been on this program for several years now, possibly pre-Biden. It’s like having electricity subsidies, or heating subsidies. It’s just a basic need in 2024. People may not like it, people may whine about how everyone should live within their means, but electricity and heat and Internet are very basic needs. And if you can’t afford them people suffer. Kids suffer. And that’s not right.
It's often times turns out to be illegal to live within your means.
Hell I'd love to just set up a tent somewhere during the nice parts of the year and Bank everything I would have thrown into the trash through rent , to put a down payment on a house.
I homeownership would be much more achievable there's space for set aside for people to live within their personal physical means so that they could save up to graduate to homeownership.
And for those who would decide to live in a tent or whole life this would free up more of their income for spending at local shops and so feed the local economy.
But there is no legal means to do so without involving other people's means.
There is no Commonwealth here.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
