Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Government The Internet United States

FCC Ends Affordable Internet Program Due To Lack of Funds (cnn.com) 68

Posted by BeauHD from the it's-all-gone dept.
The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided monthly internet bill credits for low-income Americans, will officially end on June 1 due to a lack of additional funding from Congress. This termination threatens nearly 60 million Americans with increased financial hardship, as the program's lapse leaves them without the subsidies that made internet access affordable. CNN reports: The 2.5-year-old ACP provided eligible low-income Americans with a monthly credit off their internet bills, worth up to $30 per month and as much as $75 per month for households on tribal lands. The pandemic-era program was a hit with members of both political parties and served tens of millions of seniors, veterans and rural and urban Americans alike. Program participants received only partial benefits in May ahead of the ACP's expected collapse. [...]

On Friday, Biden reiterated his calls for Congress to pass legislation extending the ACP. He also announced a series of voluntary commitments by a handful of internet providers to offer -- or continue offering -- their own proprietary low-income internet plans. The list includes AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Charter's Spectrum and Verizon, among others. Those providers will continue to offer qualifying ACP households a broadband plan for $30 or less, the White House said, and together the companies are expected to cover roughly 10 million of the 23 million households relying on the ACP. "The Affordable Connectivity Program filled an important gap that provider low-income programs, state and local affordability programs, and the Lifeline program cannot fully address," said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel in a statement, referring to the name of another, similar FCC program that subsidizes wireless and home internet service. "The Commission is available to provide any assistance Congress may need to support funding the ACP in the future and stands ready to resume the program if additional funding is provided."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Ends Affordable Internet Program Due To Lack of Funds More

FCC Ends Affordable Internet Program Due To Lack of Funds

Comments Filter:

  • The Fascist Pig Party of America strikes again (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    (aka 'Republicans').

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Well, I'm not sure.
      ISTM that I recall lots of stories about most of that money being taken and not used for the intended purpose. If it's really as bad as those stories were claiming, then perhaps the program *should* be discontinued.

  • Lemme get this straight... (Score:3)

    by willoughby ( 1367773 ) on Friday May 31, 2024 @05:54PM (#64514339)

    They can no longer afford the affordable internet program... hmmm...

    I worked at a factory where they would study submitted suggestions and, if the idea would save production cost, a percentage of the savings would be payed to the submitter. Sort of a suggestion bounty. The program was discontinued because it cost too much.

    • Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday May 31, 2024 @06:20PM (#64514395)

      The program was discontinued because it cost too much.

      Not really. It was killed mostly because of ideological opposition and concerns about inefficiency.

      The annual cost is $8 billion, which is affordable, and it requires the telecoms to offer lower rates to participate, resulting in about $16 billion in benefits for low-income households.

      So what's the problem?

      Well, some people in a political party that starts with "R" don't think it's the government's job to subsidize Internet connectivity for low-income people who mostly vote for a political party that starts with "D".

      Also, there's a fair bit of waste. Telecoms are incentivized to jack up rates in poor areas so they can offer special deals to low-income households that apply for this service while their neighbors pay more. Meanwhile, rich areas of the same city may get better rates.

      Also, StarLink isn't qualified to participate. So, in a rural area such as a Native American reservation, a group of 20 homes may be getting subsidies of $75 per household ($1500 total) when a shared $100/month StarLink subscription would be a way better deal.

      If they clean up the perverse incentives and include StarLink in the deal, the Ds could likely peel off a few Rs to support the subsidy and pass a bill.

      • Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Informative)

        by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Friday May 31, 2024 @06:54PM (#64514449)

        And this should be a pretty popular program since if you look at the distribution map, all states have some participation and some "red" states like Louisiana, WV and Kentucky have pretty high signup rates.

        https://www.educationsuperhigh... [educations...ighway.org]

        It's a bit like how SNAP has higher percentages of users in rural and small towns than urban area's yet perception of it for many people is just the opposite.

        https://frac.org/wp-content/up... [frac.org]

        • Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Baloo Uriza ( 1582831 ) <baloo@ursamundi.org> on Friday May 31, 2024 @08:57PM (#64514625) Homepage Journal
          Difficulty: Education prevents Republicans. With the internet comes education.

          • Difficulty: Education prevents Republicans. With the internet comes education.

            {Spit take}

            I guess if you consider TikTok and such "education", lol

            Don't worry, your key wedge voters will somehow still all have connected devices this month, next month, and onward.

            • side r says hey there is alot of waste and telcomes are just abusing it side d just call you stupid.

        • "red" states like Louisiana, WV, and Kentucky have pretty high signup rates.

          This is an example of Simpson's Paradox [wikipedia.org].

          Social programs are often the least popular in poor states that could benefit the most.

          The reason is that where poor people are numerous, people around the median see them as more of a burden and a threat, so they side with those at the top.

          More prosperous states, with fewer poor, can more easily provide for them.

          Republicans tend to see politics as the top 60% (makers) vs. the bottom 40% (takers).

          Democrats tend to see politics as the top 1% vs everyone else.

          • Frankly, I'm opposed to most of these programs because I'm just barely above getting anything out of them. If I'm not getting anything from them, that means I'm the one helping pay for them while having to pay for my own access.

            Want to know what I do for Internet access? I have to rely on my phone's hotspot. I get unlimited 5mb hotspot. Cost me $25 flat a month for all you can eat minutes, texts and data but I only get 5mb down hotspot. To get actual Internet access would easily cost me around $60 from eith

        • And this should be a pretty popular program since if you look at the distribution map, all states have some participation and some "red" states like Louisiana, WV and Kentucky have pretty high signup rates.

          Er, so which is it? Are those darn evil Republicans just after votes, or are they ideologically driven and indifferent to votes?

          • Those are one in the same. I wouldn't say anyone is evil, that's a bit much, but ideology fed through the filter of the media machine shapes narratives and narratives then drive the ideology and that all drives the votes and sometimes it becomes somewhat irrational.

            I would call it the "keep the government out of my Medicare" effect.

        • ky has alot of failed coal towms in the middle of nowehere. so the few jobs in those towns almost never pay above 10$ a hr.

      • I think he was saying that at his factory some short-sighted beancounters cancelled a program where his factory gets oodles of profits because it cost too much. Presumably as an analogy to the ACP, wherein having connectivity also saves the state money in eg unemployment.

        • having connectivity also saves the state money in eg unemployment.

          Please explain this...

          If having internet allows unemployed people to become employed, once employed they should be able to afford internet service without the $30/month subsidy, right? If internet access opened the gates to getting off unemployment, this program should see diminishing participation, but that didn't happen.

          • "The floodgates" as you call it is something like 1%. Unemployed people cost a whole lot more than you're assuming. And cancelling people's benefits should they dare to get a job costs way more than you're assuming. In fact, I think you're one of the leaders in OP's story.

      • You could build last mile fiber to half the country in a couple of decades with $8 billion a year.

      • >Well, some people in a political party that starts with "R" don't think it's the government's job to subsidize Internet connectivity for low-income people who mostly vote for a political party that starts with "D"

        Ferst they done took away thay ...err am radio stations, now they done took away thay ...err internet tubes. How will we listen ta alex jones now?

      • That's just it, our federal government shouldn't be subsidizing much of anything. That's one reason things cost so much now. They need to do their Constitutional duties and leave the rest to the States for proper solutions.

    • It probably cost 5% of what we give Israel every year.

      • It probably cost 5% of what we give Israel every year.

        No spending program can be justified by pointing to other expenses that are even stupider.

        Each expenditure should be judged on its own merits.

        For the record, this program cost $8 billion in 2022, while American aid to Israel was $3 billion. So 260%, not 5%.

    • "They can no longer afford the affordable internet program... hmmm..."
      No

    • Have we tried taxing wealth and corporations yet? No? OK then.

  • Demand side intervention like this is the wrong approach anyway. If you want Internet prices to come down, you need to create competition. Since it doesn't make sense to have many different wires/fibers running to each house (i.e. the last mile is a natural monopoly) that means you need to enable different ISPs to compete to provide service over the same residential connections. One way to do that is to encourage the buildout of municipal fiber, where the municipality owns the last mile and lets different

    • The problem with what you're proposing is the areas where people would qualify for this sort of program are too broke to build out a municipal network. There's not enough of a tax base to do it and even if there were some public will the existing provider will lobby the local politicians to hamper or kill such initiatives.

      • Yeah this is where I would say we should stop subsidizing the major ISP's to expand and instead grant smaller towns funds to build out municipal networks and then let them buy their interconnect from a Tiered provider.

        We rely on municipalities (or a local regulated monopoly) to do last mile services for practical reasons, no reason internet service should be any different, it's just a basic utility at this point.

        • Yeah imagine that $8 billion a year going towards municipal fiber builds. It would jumpstart infrastructure buildouts all over the country.

      • I have some experience with this program and the types of communities where it is used. Contrary to expectations, these communities typically have much higher levels of municipal services than wealthier places. Between federal, state, and local governments, the US has a lot of public monies that are specifically targeted towards anti-poverty efforts. You will usually find pretty robust public support for community healthcare, public transportation, housing assistance, and the like in the poorer communities

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      Republicans won't allow any of that to happen either.
      • Democrat areas aren't broadband utopia either, they are happy with the monopoly if it pays them off: free service for government, fat fees added to bills for public access TV (maybe bags of cash too, but who is counting).

    • Demand side intervention like this is the wrong approach anyway. If you want Internet prices to come down, you need to create competition.

      Right, like how some companies started putting arbitration clauses in their EULAs until the competitive market took care of it and now every company has arbitration clauses in their EULAs. Sometimes you have to just let the competitive market work.

      Wait

    • I like this way of thinking. To merely throw money at a problem obviously just enables people to keep on doing what they're doing, it doesn't incentivize them to come up with a better solution.

  • This type of government regulation, where we place rules to compensate for poor competition needs to ensure that monopolies are not interfering or trimming the fat.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by v1 ( 525388 )

      It's never possible to completely prevent the greedy from taking advantage of social services, no matter what it is. You have to accept some level of abuse of any program, and can't allow yourself to be persuaded that it's a better idea to make sure nobody gets what they don't need, by also making sure nobody gets what they need.

      The problem seems to be that lawmakers tend to be part of the "one percent", a group that has never needed social services. They've never experienced the good these things do, and

  • 70k/year and approved (Score:5, Informative)

    by quall ( 1441799 ) on Friday May 31, 2024 @06:15PM (#64514381)

    My brother was approved and on this program for a while, making nearly 70k/year. He stopped because he felt like he was scamming the government and taking away from people with a much lower income. His ISP (Spectrum) told him to sign up. He shouldn't even have qualified according to the rules, and yet he was approved.

    I called my ISP (also Spectrum) to downgrade my internet to a lower cost, and they also tried to sell me this program. They kept telling me over and over to apply. I'm a software developer, so, yeah. When you literally let everyone on it, it's no wonder that there is a lack of funding.

    There is so much fraud and abuse. Government programs are always only half going to work. They must have like 50% going to scammers or fraud in this program alone. And then they want to raise taxes to throw more money into the fire? How stupid...

    • This is really the driving case behind making programs, especially poverty fighting ones universal instead of means tested. It's the means testing that creates the complex web of rules and plenty of openings for fraud and abuse. Sometimes just making the program simply available to everyone ends up saving money.

      The case against means testing [vox.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      We are all so grateful for your family's moral clarity in the face of overwhelming corruption. It's amazing how the facts align with the narrative.

    • I note that the parent has at least one "Troll" rating. Slashdot needs to do something to deal with the rampant abuse of this rating. The Troll rating is routinely abused by bad moderators to express their disagreement with a comment, and force them to be hidden. In the case of this parent comment, this comment has one "Informative" mod point and one "Troll" mod point. Yet the rating shown in the title reads, "(Score: 2, Troll)". How is that a fair summary? And, how can it be that a comment is both informat

      • If you banned the "Troll" modifier, the trolls would just switch to using "Flamebait" instead for comments that they disagree with.

        Slashdot should just give up and add "-1 Disagree" and "-1 Different Politics Than Me" modifiers. Let people be honest about their moderation choices.

        • Heaps better than Reddit's up/down voting which indicates nothing, and does little to improve the experience. Plus Slashdot's user-adjustable filter is better for a discussion that's heavily voted upon.

  • Convince Congress that the subsidies go to workers for the Military Industrial Complex.

  • I got a good deal from Spectrum for two years of a $30 monthly fee plus the $6 modem fee which was waived for the two years. The ACP paid the monthly $30 fee I'm left with a $30 per month 100 GB connection, but will have to pay for it. Prior to this deal I had AT&T DSL for $10 per month until they canceled it.AT&T was slow as hell. Who knows if another Internet deal will turn up in my hood after this expires.

  • Please Do Not Worry (Score:3)

    by CoolDiscoRex ( 5227177 ) on Friday May 31, 2024 @07:50PM (#64514569) Homepage

    We still have money for corporate welfare and foreign aid. Priorities man, Where there is a will, there is a way. In fact, Biden just said this week that Israels latest offensive will not jeopardize Americas aid to them.

    And do not worry Big Pharma. The US Taxpayer will still help fund your latest blockbuster drug so you can turn around and sell it to us for 10x what you charge every other nation. Return on our investment? Not necessary! You do you.

    Bailouts? Can do! Airlines? Yep. Banks? Hell yes!

    As long as they keep my tax dollars out of the hands of filthy US citizens, especially the poors, then I am good.

    I work for corporations and billionaires, and I will not stand for my money going anywhere else.

  • Harris seems to have enough funds to connect Africa to the Internet. Screw your own citizens is the political motto nowadays.

    • VP Harris announced a public/private partnership to double internet access in Africa (to 80%) by 2030 by partnering with groups like VISA, the credit card service.

      Putting up cell towers so Africans can buy goods over the internet with credit cards is a hell of a lot cheaper than simply cutting 23 million $30 checks each month.

      Africans are getting access to internet service, which they will have to pay for out of their own pockets.

      Americans had access to service, but they don't want to pay for it themselves,

  • 1) maybe the government doesn't need to provide everything for everyone. Right now, to pay for everything, we are borrowing 20-25% of every dollar. The richest society in all of human civilization and we still can't afford everything we want.

    2) if this bothers you, remember that you can always reach out to people around you and spend YOUR money to give them a free or subsidized internet connection. If this bothers you and you don't immediately do this, then really you were just interested in spending oth

    • The US gov't borrows about $1 Trillion dollars every 90-100 days, and pays almost $1 Trillion in INTEREST payments on the $34 Trillion dollar national debt.

      According to the article, 23 million households participate in the program - isn't it fair to ask if all 23 million need the service?

      Simple math (ignoring the cost of administering the program) tells us the program costs $690 Million/month (23 M subscribers at $30/month per subscriber).

  • As written, the program was useless to me.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you can't get your work done in the first 24 hours, work nights.

Close