Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

#41

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

silent_cal wrote: post #32
shadowfiend wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to make sure I understand—you're saying that because your family, which is 4x the poverty level income, got this discount, and did not need it, you believe that this program did not help people under the poverty line? Or is it that because your family, which is 4x the poverty level income, got this discount, and did not need it, you believe this program was not meant to help people under the poverty line? Which…

The second one - it's not meant to help the poor only. They just use that language to make it more popular. It should be more difficult to qualify for this program, such that people well over the poverty level like me would not receive it.

What's the rate of error you're willing to tolerate in such a system, and what does it cost to achieve that rate?

There is a breakpoint in those numbers where it becomes cheaper to allow some error.

Re: Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

#42

Post by silent_cal »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #41
silent_cal wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second one - it's not meant to help the poor only. They just use that language to make it more popular. It should be more difficult to qualify for this program, such that people well over the poverty level like me would not receive it.

What's the rate of error you're willing to tolerate in such a system, and what does it cost to achieve that rate? There is a breakpoint in those numbers where it becomes cheaper to allow some error.

It's not cheaper to allow error when the error is the only thing driving excess cost.

Re: Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

#43

Post by silent_cal »

josefresco wrote: post #40
silent_cal wrote: post #8

This program was not for the "poor". I know because I got this discount, and I do not need it at all.

What was your household income and how many occupants?

Over 100k, 2 parents and a baby. But the baby came in December.

Re: Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

#44

Post by [deleted] »

hilbert42 wrote: post #36
josefresco wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I didn't intend to be controversial when I posted my comment. To not risk inflaming matters further I'll refrain from commenting on your points. (I cannot recall having so many down-votes in such quick succession on HN previously. Although unintended, I've clearly struck a nerve or two.)

[deleted]

Re: Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

#45

Post by yowzadave »

silent_cal wrote: post #32
shadowfiend wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to make sure I understand—you're saying that because your family, which is 4x the poverty level income, got this discount, and did not need it, you believe that this program did not help people under the poverty line? Or is it that because your family, which is 4x the poverty level income, got this discount, and did not need it, you believe this program was not meant to help people under the poverty line? Which…

The second one - it's not meant to help the poor only. They just use that language to make it more popular. It should be more difficult to qualify for this program, such that people well over the poverty level like me would not receive it.

> They just use that language to make it more popular.

I agree that sometimes issues are framed that way to get sympathy for a program’s beneficiaries, but I think it’s probably a bad tactic (from a marketing perspective) and an even worse move (from a policy design perspective) when programs are specifically designed to benefit the poor only.

The problem is that there are a lot of people who don’t like to think of themselves as “moochers”, or as in need; they have a reflexive negative attitude toward “welfare recipients”. Better to just make the programs universal, and to advertise them as universal; when everybody benefits, so do the poor, but it’s no longer a wedge issue, it’s just something we’re proud of that our society does. People who go to public school are just normal people. Yes, public school happens to benefit the poor. The fact that rich people can also send their kids to public school is not a problem, though, and it would hurt public school to frame it as something for the poor.

Re: Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

#46

Post by silent_cal »

yowzadave wrote: post #45
silent_cal wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second one - it's not meant to help the poor only. They just use that language to make it more popular. It should be more difficult to qualify for this program, such that people well over the poverty level like me would not receive it.

> They just use that language to make it more popular. I agree that sometimes issues are framed that way to get sympathy for a program’s beneficiaries, but I think it’s probably a bad tactic (from a marketing perspective) and an even worse move (from a policy design perspective) when programs are specifically designed to benefit the poor only. The problem is that there are a lot of people who don’t like to think of t…

Yeah I agree with this. I'd prefer a society of mostly "self-reliant" people, but those days have long passed. We live under a welfare state, and we pay so much in tax that we might as well get some free services out of it.

Unfortunately, the main recipients of government welfare in this country are the big government contractors. The rest goes to the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. So there's no money left for anyone else. Furthermore, the money that does go out is all borrowed, which we have to pay back with interest. We are so screwed.

Re: Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

#47

Post by josefresco »

silent_cal wrote: post #43
josefresco wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was your household income and how many occupants?

Over 100k, 2 parents and a baby. But the baby came in December.

I'm no expert (and couldn't find income ranges) but on the calculator I believe the cut off for a family of 4 is $60K (it varies state-by-state). There are also other eligibility options.

Source: https://verify.affordableconnectivity.gov

Re: Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

#48

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

silent_cal wrote: post #42
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the rate of error you're willing to tolerate in such a system, and what does it cost to achieve that rate? There is a breakpoint in those numbers where it becomes cheaper to allow some error.

It's not cheaper to allow error when the error is the only thing driving excess cost.

What evidence do you have that erroneous benefits are the only thing driving excess cost?

Do you feel that correcting the errors can be done with no cost whatsoever?

We can argue about where that break point is, but the break point absolutely exists. There is a level of verification / enforcement that will cost more than what you're getting back through reduction of erroneously distributed benefits.

Re: Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

#49

Post by alphabettsy »

silent_cal wrote: post #43
josefresco wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was your household income and how many occupants?

Over 100k, 2 parents and a baby. But the baby came in December.

So you don’t qualify for the program according to the guidelines but it was still given how?

Re: Republicans Kill Popular FCC Program That Made Broadband Affordable for the Poor

#50

Post by tharmas »

silent_cal wrote: post #24
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A program can be intended to help the poor and also create situations where people who have less need / no heed for help might be included. The world is complicated and sometimes it's easier and cheaper to allow this versus the kind of investigation, data analysis, and administrative overhead needed to more accurately target the benefit.

My family is at least 4x the poverty level income.

There's also the argument that your taxes paid for it so you're entitled to it too. Hence why Paul McCartney gets a monthly senior's bus pass in the UK.

Its also cheaper to "dispense" it universally as you don't have to hire bureaucrats to means test if you're entitled to it.

The problem with politicians on both sides of the aisle is they seem steeped in Ideological thinking rather than logical thinking. This I think is a sign of decline.

Post reply on HN