Cell Phone Ownership is a Right?

[Ki]

Government Welfare: Cell Phones for the Poor

blog.heritage.org/2010/01/18/government ... -the-poor/

Government-sponsored text messaging? You got it.

Welfare recipients in approximately 20 states–with more to follow– are currently eligible to receive a free cell phone with a limited number of monthly minutes. All individuals that qualify for state or federal welfare–food stamps, Medicaid, etc.–and have an income at or below 135% of the poverty level, are eligible. According to a Fox News report, the cell phone service is currently the fastest growing welfare program in the country.

In 2008, the fund that foots the bill for this program contributed $819 million to subsidize low-income telephone services. The fund is projected to grow to over $1 billion this year. That’s $1 billion of over $800 billion the United States will spend on welfare in 2010.

This particular program is covered by the federal Universal Service Fund. At first it received its money by essentially taxing telephone companies that provided long-distance service, with the money then being used to provide affordable rates for those living in less densely populated areas where phone service was more costly. However, in 1996, Congress voted to extend the use of this fund to subsidize low-income households and subsequently expanded the list of those required to pay into the fund to include: local telephone companies, wireless companies, paging services, and payphone providers. (Naturally, the cost for this fund is passed to the customer.) In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission began subsidizing cell phones for low-income households.

Besides the $1 billion price tag, which is likely to increase as more states implement the service, not to mention the concern for growing entitlement created by this program, cell phone recipients are loosely monitored. According to Heritage welfare expert Robert Rector, this means that if an individual’s income increases to where he or she is no longer eligible for the service, there is no one to make sure he or she stops receiving it.

Jose A. Fuentes, director of Government Relations for TracFone–one of the providers of the free phone service–says that the phones are not meant “for heavy usage.” Instead, they are meant “for quick phone calls, as well as a way for people to reach you in case of…emergency or for calls from a potential employer,” not meant to replace a landline. This idea indicates that not only should government subsidize phone service, but that as SafeLink, one of the providers of the cell phones, states, “cell phone ownership is a right.”

This is just another example of the ever-expanding welfare state and the increasing entitlement mentality. At the very least, policymakers should require greater monitoring of the program to prevent misuse. Furthermore, if the purpose of the cell phones is truly to give lower-income people more access to potential employers, participants should be required to account for their job search activities. A welfare program that does not require personal responsibility will only encourage dependency and diminish human dignity.

[Harbinger]

I am homeless and I need a cellphone. I want my free cellphone. The government is supposed to take care of me.

[Avatar]

Sheesh, has everybody forgotten that we got along just fine without cell phones for decades? This seems a bit unnecessary to me. I mean, I can see the benefits, obviously. But I don't think it falls under the "necessary for life" umbrella.

--A

[ParanoiA]

I remember coming to work one day...when I got downtown, I noticed there was a police officer on every corner with their lights on. They were everywhere, and sometimes I'd see one fly past me. I remember wondering if there was some kind of terrorist threat or something going on. I finally get to work to find out that the 911 service for the metro area - not all phone service, just 911 - was down for 3 hours, from around 5 am to 8 am.

They dispatched, what appeared to be the entire police force, all over the damn city, just because 911 wasn't working. That's only one portion of phone service.

I knew then, everything had changed. Now, phone service is considered essential for life and thus a threat to be without. It was only a matter of time until this found its way into an entitlement.

[[Syl]]

I believe there's always been a similar service for landlines. Considering the actual cost of a basic cell phone is literally less than a pocket full of change and the cost of the usage even less... You're basically looking at administration costs, which are less than if you include labor/time intensive landline set-up. If it makes economic sense, why not do it? I haven't had a landline for about five years for that very reason.

Sure, we may scoff at 'cell phones' being a luxury, but a phone isn't when you're trying to get a job. Phone booths are a thing of the past, and I'm pretty sure it's harder to get people to let you make a call than it used to be.

We did just fine without air conditioning for thousands of years, too. Shall we scorn those who receive energy assistance in the summer?

[Prebe]

Really good point about the job applications Syl.

I'd like to ad, that IF you decide to have some form of welfare/handout system whatever you want to call it, equiping people with a cell phone might make the necessary communication cheaper than mail.

This has nothing to do with "entitlement" this has to do with the governmental agencies wanting to cut costs of communication with those pesky loosers, and STILL look like are giving them presents. And look, it worked

[Avatar]

...We did just fine without air conditioning for thousands of years, too. Shall we scorn those who receive energy assistance in the summer?

You have people who receive 'energy assistance'? To pay for their aircon bills? I must assume you're not joking. Different worlds man. In this country, people are bloody lucky if they manage to get assistance to get enough food to keep them alive. Everything else is your problem.

And ok, I never took the cost/benefit into account. Over here, phones are not that cheap. And calls are much less cheap than that. (Why, you ask? Because the service providers have been colluding for years to keep costs inflated...thanks corporations...)

So, if such a system already exists for land lines, then it makes sense to do it for cells, and may well be cheaper.

--A

[ParanoiA]

I believe there's always been a similar service for landlines. Considering the actual cost of a basic cell phone is literally less than a pocket full of change and the cost of the usage even less... You're basically looking at administration costs, which are less than if you include labor/time intensive landline set-up. If it makes economic sense, why not do it? I haven't had a landline for about five years for that very reason.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I still can't afford cell service myself. The only plans I "hear" about start in the 50's. I suppose there are cheap versions, but I haven't heard of any. I'm still holding out until I can get unlimited service for 20 bucks a month. I refuse to pay over a hundred dollars a month for my four family members to play with electronic gadgets they think they need and I haven't found a plan under that amount yet.

We did just fine without air conditioning for thousands of years, too. Shall we scorn those who receive energy assistance in the summer?

For A/C, yes.

[Rawedge Rim]

in the USA, every phone, including cell phones, can call 911 (emergency) regardless of whether you have service or not. You can still hook up a phone to your landline and call for 911, and the same goes with a cell phone.

OTOH, I don't believe that you are entitled to gab of long distances on my dollar just for the hell of it.

[Zarathustra]

Is there any entitlement the Left will find objectionable?

Seriously, when will the libs say, "okay, we've forced you to help the poor enough. You've done your part. Thank you."?? When does my right to my property and my labor outweigh some poor guy's "right" to have something that you can imagine might be helpful to him? Is the poor guy's "right" to violate my property rights effectively limitless?

Prebe, we talked about cons not wanting to pay for others' health care in the Devil's Advocate thread. I objected to that idea. But I'll gladly, readily admit that I don't want to pay for another guy's cell phone--much less be forced by my government to do so. I don't understand the absolute lack of hesitancy in justifying the confiscation of hard earned wages for something that isn't essential to one's life.

And look how the justifications for wealth redistribution for entitlements encompass every possibility: health care must be provided by my wages beause it's too expensive for everyone to buy, but cell phones should be provided because they're so cheap! There's room between those two examples to force me to pay for anything a person might want, whether they can afford it or not. This is madness.

Violation of one's rights shouldn't be decided on a cost/benefit analysis. Either someone has a right to use the government to force me to buy them a cell phone, or this is simply armed confication for consumer goods you'd like to have, but don't want to pay for yourself. This is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they tried to create a system in which we'd be free.

In this country, people are bloody lucky if they manage to get assistance to get enough food to keep them alive. Everything else is your problem.

Amen, brother. I'd go even farther to say that keeping yourself alive is your responsibility, and to the extent that others are willing to help you, you're damn lucky. I would think gratitude a more appropriate response to this fortuitous fact than an inexhaustible sense of entitlement. We are already trillions of dollars in debt. We already can't afford what we're giving away now.

[Orlion]

And look how the justifications for wealth redistribution for entitlements encompass every possibility: health care must be provided by my wages because it's too expensive for everyone to buy, but cell phones should be provided because they're so cheap! There's room between those two examples to force me to pay for anything a person might want, whether they can afford it or not. This is madness.

Welcome back, Zarathustra! It's an interesting point...one that would be used to justify the redistribution of wealth, but not the reason, IMO. For example, one should have the "right" to try to work out their living. Unfortunately, circumstances can make this really hard to do. For example, health problems or an inability to contact employers. So, that's the reason: to level the playing field for everyone. The justification? It's too expensive for them to pay for or it's cheap, so why the hell not?

The main problem comes from those who would take advantage of this... that is the main problem with programs based on ideals... people tend not to act ideally.

[Ki]

My cable company, my electric company and my water company, all local companies, offer the opportunity, IF I so desire, to contribute every month to the poor. The cable company gives the money to the local children's hospital and the other two donate the money to help pay the electricity and water bills of those less fortunate than I.

I like this approach. I like this approach b/c it is my choice if I want to help and I get to determine how much I am able to help. Some months I can help out more than other months. This approach isn't some government mandate that forces everyone to pay for it. This approach could be used for cell phones too.

Let's see....I bet some cell phone provider lobbied for this tax. What do you think? Probably the one in the article that said, "Cell phone ownership is a right." And that cell phone provider is making a lot of money and everyone in favor of this tax just fell for this lobbying effort. Everyone in favor of this lobbying effort just made this cell phone provider very wealthy. There was a better way to do this.

[Prebe]

Prebe, we talked about cons not wanting to pay for others' health care in the Devil's Advocate thread. I objected to that idea. But I'll gladly, readily admit that I don't want to pay for another guy's cell phone--much less be forced by my government to do so.

Did any of you actually READ what SYL and I suggested? That i might actually REDUCE costs? Or are you so bussy bitchin' about the alcoholic on the corner playing tetris and downloading iTunes ON OUR MONEY???

[Ki]

Cost reduction...hmmmmm....I must have missed that. I must've been too busy bitchin'. I mean, I thought I was describing some programs in existence in my local community that are designed to help the poor and are not mandated by government. I appreciate you helping me out with that.

So, let's discuss cost reduction of cell phones b/c that's apparently really important to you and an important issue. So, you and Syl (I assume Syl since you included him in your post) think that this program can help reduce the costs of cell phones, right? Is that what you are trying to say? I went back and re-read the thread and didn't see that. I did see that Syl said cell phones are cheap, "literally less than pocket change." So, if they are already super cheap, then how does this program help reduce costs? I wasn't aware that we had a cell phone cost problem like with health care and needed government intervention to reduce costs. I can see how the program reduces costs for the participants of the program b/c they get a free phone..is that what you mean? I guess you're going to have to help me out again, b/c I'm not sure I understand what you mean by cost reduction.

[Orlion]

Prebe, we talked about cons not wanting to pay for others' health care in the Devil's Advocate thread. I objected to that idea. But I'll gladly, readily admit that I don't want to pay for another guy's cell phone--much less be forced by my government to do so.

Did any of you actually READ what SYL and I suggested? That i might actually REDUCE costs? Or are you so bussy bitchin' about the alcoholic on the corner playing tetris and downloading iTunes ON OUR MONEY???

I did, and the problem that I pointed out is that people don't act ideally, they act as opportunists. How many people would abuse this plan to get cheaper cell phone services? What does this ideal plan have in place that would deal with such waste? Could such waste even be avoided? These are issues that have been around in every social program, turning it into an affordable program for the less fortunate to an expensive waste.

[sindatur]

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, the knee jerk reaction is indeed, WTF, now we're providing phones to folks who don't want to work (No, not saying everyone who doesn't have a job wants to not work, saying that inevitably in any program that helps support folks that don't ahve jobs, you are going to inadvertantly make it easier for those who choose to be unemployed and live off entitlements).

On the other hand, Syl (and Prebe) are right, Pay Phones are a thing of the past, so how does a homeless person get a job without a phone? And yea, there's a possibility a cell phone may make it easier for them to get a job and not have to stay on entitlement programs. Unfortunately, though, there is a possibility that you are going to create more unemployed folks who want to stay unemployed if you make it too easy to be unemployed.

And the 3rd hand says that it's near impossible to find a job to interview for nowadays without a computer. So, do we also have to provide computers to all the folks getting entitlements? Sure the Unemployment office has computers to use to search for jobs, but, they're always tied up and I believe you have to be collecting unemployment in order to use those computers. So, if your Unemployment has run out or you were never eligible I don't think you can use them.

[[Syl]]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I still can't afford cell service myself.

Notice I said 'actual cost.' This is not to be confused with 'what the telecoms get away with charging consumers.' The final cost would end up being negotiated between the seller and government, and when you consider tax breaks and all that, I really couldn't say what it is.

The only plans I "hear" about start in the 50's. I suppose there are cheap versions, but I haven't heard of any. I'm still holding out until I can get unlimited service for 20 bucks a month.

I believe the article specifically mentioned trac phones. You can get a card for around twenty bucks a month at Wal-Mart, I believe. No, it's not unlimited, and in this case, I think that's a good thing.

Myself, I pay about $110 a month for my cell plan. That includes a phone for me, my wife, my mother (who lives across the country), and my mother-in-law (who I wish lived across the country but actually lives a couple states away). No data, no texts, and limited weekday hours, but it gets the job done in ways I couldn't come close to doing with landline and saves my family money.

We did just fine without air conditioning for thousands of years, too. Shall we scorn those who receive energy assistance in the summer?

For A/C, yes.

Cut off A/C and you're signing the death warrants of hundreds of people every year, mostly the very young and very old. Or would you pay for relocation to homes built for living without A/C? Do you then relocate them in the winter, since those same homes are by necessity harder to heat (well-built, climate-neutral homes generally being out of the price range of the people at hand)?

Kind of similar to the telecomms, remember, too, that most utilities are state-sanctioned monopolies with a considerable burden of public trust. Considering the largest uses of energy in the home are heating, air, and hot water and most people on the subsistence level don't live in houses with energy-efficient windows and appliances (or insulation, for that matter)... I don't find it unreasonable that some assistance is given to those who need it. Sure, go ahead and set the benefits at a reasonable fixed level (so they're not cranking up the thermostat or firing off tesla coils), but that kind of disregard is only easy for people who do not think of or have to live with the consequences.

Is there any entitlement the Left will find objectionable?

Honestly? Probably not. There's more than enough wealth in this country for the rich to keep eating $200 hamburgers and keep people from eating out of garbage cans.

All this wasn't really my point, though. My point was that the response to 'cell phones for the poor' seems to be rather knee-jerk and completely ignoring the changing landscape of modern information infrastructure (of course, if the Heritage Foundation had their way, public libraries would also be a thing of the past). If a similar system is already in place, it really makes sense to look at it from a cost/benefit analysis. Even if it's not, the proposal is worth studying to see if it reduces the length of unemployment, hence saving the taxpayer money. I don't find objection on principle when you cannot demonstrate harm holds water.

In this country, people are bloody lucky if they manage to get assistance to get enough food to keep them alive. Everything else is your problem.

Amen, brother.

Yes, if only America were more like South Africa. [/sarcasm] I'm not even sure if Av wants to live in SA.

[Damelon]

Well TracPhone is owned by one of the richest men in the world. Even if Carlos Slim lives in Mexico.

It offered even fewer minutes than I thought, I was guessing 100 but here's the info.

LOS ANGELES (YBH.ME) – A Mexico-based wireless company, known in America as Tracfone, is currently the major provider of a U.S. government-subsidized program called SafeLink. SafeLink provides free wireless service to the poor. Tracfone is owned by billionaire Carlos Slim’s America Movil.

According to Safelink’s website, “SafeLink Wireless is a government-supported program that provides a free cell phone and airtime each month for income-eligible customers.”

The service provides a free cellphone and 60-70 free minutes to qualified recipients in Alabama, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Users can purchase extra minutes from Tracfone’s website. Rates for extra minutes start at $9.99 for 30 minutes. The rate of $0.33 per minute is typical for cell phone users who go over their monthly contracted allotment. Traditional domestic calling cards usually carry a much lower rate, and have been a primary choice for low income phone needs.

Since 1984, via Congressional mandate, “Lifeline” telephone service has been offered to low income Americans. This phone service is paid for by telecommunications companies, which generally recover the cost by charging paying clients a “Universal Service” fee.

According to the FCC website, “This line item appears when a company chooses to recover its USF contributions directly from its customers by billing them this charge. The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess charges to recover its Universal Service costs.” Almost all U.S.-based telecom companies pass this fee along to customers, however.

Lifeline service is available to any family earning less than 135 per cent of Federal poverty guidelines, or if they are a participant in any of the following programs: Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section , Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), or The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program.

By coincidence, my cell phone bill arrived today. I see the Universal Service Charge nicked me for $1.15 on a just under $75 bill.

[Zarathustra]

Prebe, we talked about cons not wanting to pay for others' health care in the Devil's Advocate thread. I objected to that idea. But I'll gladly, readily admit that I don't want to pay for another guy's cell phone--much less be forced by my government to do so.

Did any of you actually READ what SYL and I suggested? That i might actually REDUCE costs? Or are you so bussy bitchin' about the alcoholic on the corner playing tetris and downloading iTunes ON OUR MONEY???

I wrote my post all by myself. I don't understand this, "Zar & Co" wise-assery. Are liberals simply unable to think of people as individuals? Our identity must always be subordinated to the Group?

I didn't think there was anything in your post worth responding to directly. If you think that communication by mail is more expensive than buying someone a phone and paying for their monthly charges, then the mail must be REALLY expensive in your social utopia. A stamp is truly pocket change. A cell phone plan is not. I didn't respond because I didn't want to be mean, but since you're asking, I think that answer is extremely poor. And even if it were true, it's still not a reason to use the government to steal my money in order to buy this luxury item for others.

As for whether or not I was bitching about some alcoholic blah, blah, blah, you could satisfy your curiosity in this matter by reading my post. Asserting my rights isn't bitching. And I mentioned no alcoholics or Tetris.

There's more than enough wealth in this country for the rich to keep eating $200 hamburgers and keep people from eating out of garbage cans.

But we're talking about frivolous things like cell phones, not eating out of garbage cans. And rich people aren't the only ones who pay taxes. I'm not rich. I've never had a $200 hamburger. Your response is strawman class warfare and changing the subject.

My point was that the response to 'cell phones for the poor' seems to be rather knee-jerk and completely ignoring the changing landscape of modern information infrastructure (of course, if the Heritage Foundation had their way, public libraries would also be a thing of the past). If a similar system is already in place, it really makes sense to look at it from a cost/benefit analysis. Even if it's not, the proposal is worth studying to see if it reduces the length of unemployment, hence saving the taxpayer money. I don't find objection on principle when you cannot demonstrate harm holds water.

Your (and Prebe's) opinion of my assertions of property rights is shockingly dismissive. It's not "bitching." It's not "knee-jerk." It's a fundamental principle of our republic. I have this funny idea that when I earn money, it's mine. And I don't think that right should be violated just because you can (endlessly) imagine other uses for my money. Like I said, we're trillions of dollars in debt. If you had to pay for poor peoples' cell phones by charging it on your credit card (with little hope of ever paying down your debt) would you still feel the same way about it?

What "similar system" is already in place that would be more expensive than this? Are we giving military-style satellite phones to the poor, or something? If you're truly concerned about saving money, there are much cheaper ways to make sure poor people can communicate with potential employers. You could set up a voice mail service, and they could use a pay phone to check their messages. Or given them a pager. Or give them a landline. Or they could use a gmail account and access it at the library.

Or we could do this through charity.

I suppose people didn't have jobs before phones? How in the world did people ever communicate before cell phones?

[[Syl]]

So, let's discuss cost reduction of cell phones...

First, let me start by saying this isn't about bringing down market prices or anything like that. I was referring to cost in relation to the cost of landline phones.

As for the rest, tt's a complicated subject, in some ways more fit for the Loresraat than the Tank, but ok.

Basically, tech is largely payed for by early adopters. Computers, big screen TVs, semiconductors, satellites, you name it. Set-up costs are huge, but so are the initial price tags on these products. As more and more units are sold, you're basically paying for material, depreciation of facilities, and wayyyy at the bottom, labor (not sure where advertising and that comes into play). So for a basic model cell phone, the actual cost can be measured in cents. For example, I used to sell stereos for Circuit City, and our employee discount was that we paid for the cost to the store. This was back in 2000, and the prepaid AT&T phone I bought had a cost of, I shit you not, two cents. Now, that might not have been reflective of the actual cost on the other end of the spectrum, because I imagine like video game consoles, there's a certain amount of loss built into the unit sale in order to generate more money down the line from services (or game sales, in the case of cartridges... and maybe printers fall into this, too). All this also explains how cell phone companies can afford to "give you" a free or reduced cell when you sign a new contract.

As for the communication service, communication has always been (and will most likely continue to be, barring wild cards like internet phones) dirt cheap compared to what it's sold for. This was the cracker (hacker, for those not that old school) mantra back in the day and information pirates of modern times. What are you really paying for? Electrons. The overhead, spread out over millions of users (billions, counting businesses), is only a fraction of your bill. You know how much texting costs the carriers to deliver. Practically nothing, as the signals are piggy-backed on top of voice communications. Everything else is profit or goes to increasing profit (advertising, lobbying, etc.). And I'm mostly fine with that. But when it basically costs nothing that you're not already spending to extend those services to those that can't get it... eh.

So, what I'm proposing, but by no means asserting, is that providing cell phones is cheaper than landlines. For one thing, the person at the desk can just take the phone out of the box, write down the numbers on the form, and hand it to the person rather than calling the phone company who then has to route the job to the person throwing the switch (assuming no installation is required), etc. All things being equal, the simplest solution is probably the [cheapest] one. Of course, when the government is involved, common sense laws like Occam's (modified) Razor are far from guaranteed.