I can see there being a debate about the right of healthcare, education, food, shelter, etc., but cell phone service? Come on. Hell cell phones have only become prevalent in society within the last 15 years. They are certainly not essential.
Yet while the rest of us pay higher fees to our cellular providers, who in turn remit them to the Federal government, so that less fortunate people can be like the rest of us and have a cell phone too.
At best, I can see free cellphones being given to people who are already on some other government program, or making cellphone costs up to a certain limit a refundable tax credit, but making it a right? Troubling.
Bolding mine. So it would seem that there appears to be a fundamental agreement that access to a telephone is a right. I know this applies to inmates, but generally speaking, the rights of inmates are the same as the rights of everyone else.
Based on this, I would say that at the very least, access to a telephone is a right. I suppose one could then say that if a person doesn’t have a telephone in their home, and they live in a city that’s done away with phone booths, then it wouldn’t be unreasonable to supply them with a cell phone. Paying for that cell phone is a bit of a stretch though.
Well, we already have a right to a keep and to bear arms (sadly, the bears have no rights under our system ), plus the whole pursuit of happiness thingy, so why not a cell phone in every pot as well? Seems reasonable to me. Basic cable and internet access as well, plus all the porn you can eat also seems reasonable…
The idea was that in exchange for deregulation of the telecommunications market guarantees of universal access were made explicit. This was in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This included the Universal Service Fund, paid into by all telecom providers, used to support programs to spread telecom access to rural and low-income communities.
It seems pretty natural that cell phone service would be included in this.
I guess the question comes down to “who owns the spectrum?”. The way the law is set out currently the providers do, on the condition that they pay into the USF to fund programs geared towards universal access.
This is a program which enables people who are already reliant upon safety net programs to get a free phone from Tracphone or Net10, and 100 minutes a month (no free nights and weekends, btw) of airtime. It is, essentially, a one time $20 phone and a $20 monthly subsidy to their existing program cash, paid directly to the phone provider to ensure that the money is being used for what it’s intended. (They’re free to buy more minutes if they can afford them, or have minutes given to them.)
Couching it as a right is specious, at best. But I find it hard to be angry at this program. Having a minimal amount of minutes available to make medical appointments, in case of emergencies with children, and to avoid isolation of seniors (daily check-in calls, for example) is a better use of $20 than a lot of ways that government money is spent.
But, to be fair, there are lots fewer publicly available pay phones than there were 15 years ago, which people without cell phones used-to-could’ve used instead.
You don’t actually have a right to a keep of your own OR to bear arms either. If you want bear arms you are going to have to go out and kill your own bear…preferably with a butter knife. Wearing a fig leaf. In the winter.
And even beyond that, it comes out of the Lifeline service, which was a program set up in 1984 that gave low income customers discounts on phone service. Here’s the actual website:
I also find it really hard to be very bothered by this. Whether telephone service is a right or not, it’s really a necessity in 21st century America, and without a telephone, it’s next to impossible for a poor person to get out of poverty.
Ummm…reading comprehension? The woman quoted in the article says peace of mind is a right, and that for the particular case of the people she’s helping, paying for celphone access helps them have peace of mind.
Granted its pretty debatable whether peace of mind is a right, but in anycase, no one in the linked article or in this thread is saying that having a celphone is a right, so it seems kinda a silly thing to debate.
But in anycase, the program seems like a pretty good idea, IMHO. Its pretty difficult to get a job and schedule daycare/medical appointments/school/whatever without a phone, and celphones and celphone services have gotten cheap enough that its pretty cheap to provide phones to people that need them.
The OP is talking about cell phones, not telephones in general. You both seem to have missed the point of the OP.
ETA: I hardly every use a phone, land-line or cell. Most stuff I need to get done, if not in person, is over the internet or by e-mail. So should we now provide a computer and internet service to all people that can’t afford one?
No, we didn’t. Did you read the link provided by Captain Amazing. These are an extension of existing programs to provide phone service to low-income and rural people. Providing pre-paid cell phones is, in many cases, significantly cheaper than providing land-line services.
Captain Amazing, since you raised the issue that telephone services are necessary for poor people to get themselves out of poverty, do you have any studies that show the growth in income of people below the poverty before and after they got phones?
I’m sure that there are plenty of statistics that show that poor people don’t have phones, while people above the poverty level have phones, but are there any studies that have shown that once poor people got a phone, that their income level rose?
No ,i do not think a cell phone is a right. There is a cut for you mr. congress. (only 14 trillion more to go.) Now saying that i know mobile commerce will be 10 times bigger than e commerce.
), plus the whole pursuit of happiness thingy, so why not a cell phone in every pot as well? Seems reasonable to me. Basic cable and internet access as well, plus all the porn you can eat also seems reasonable…