What we have here is another example of abuse/misuse of the word “right” by that well meaning lady. God bless her good intentions and kind heart but in reality it creates confusion in her audience since it has nothing to do with an affirmative “right” to peace of mind through phone access. It has to do with how access to some basic level of telecommunications is a necessity in a late 1900s-early 2000s technological-industrial society, and that is what is addressed by these policies.
When the communications industry was being deregulated (before cell phones were this big) it was feared at first that telephone providers, once freed from the monopoly-franchise mandates and the susidizing of local service by long distance, would dump unprofitable locations and customers en-masse. Just stop maintaining the lines into West Hamhock, Pop. 194, or unplug all the people using a $6/mo metered-call service in the inner city. Seems the legislators decided that since it IS hard to be an efficient part of the workforce without some form of telephone access (just as it is without some form of transportation) and it is very, very hard to call 9-1-1 without a telephone, a universal access policy would stay in effect.
Nowadays, interestingly, it turned out that with time a cell phone became a more efficient way to provide telephone access to marginal customers than laying down land line.
You do realize that the distribution grid that enables most residential users to reach the 'net IS that of the telephone (land or cell) and cable TV companies. With transportation being a necessity we do not provide every poor person in the city a car, but we do provide subsidized mass transit to enable them to move around and they can ride their bicycles in the public streets. If you don’t ever use the bus, would you argue that since you do most of your own driving it’s superfluous to subsidize the bus service? There are other necessities that in the US we do NOT recognize as affirmative legal “rights”, e.g. Food and Healthcare, but recognizing them as necessities we make a policy decision to subsidize* some* access to them for the poor.
Maybe it is just me but I don’t see this as a bunch of poor people trying to get a free service. I see it as the cell phone companies trying to get the government to buy their services, to be handed out for free. So, I am seeing corporate welfare, not welfare queens.
In any case, cell phones have all but killed pay phones. It would seem to me that providing a certain minimal telecommunication ability to its citizens would be useful function of the government.
It’s the basic services that’ll get you. Is access to telecommunications a basic service? A case could be made that it is; if a company won’t hire you without a phone number you can be contacted at, you’re shit out of luck. And with so many businesses moving their services and applications online, access to the internet is very nearly a necessity these days too.
I admit I don’t know for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised to walk into a Burger King, ask for an application, and be told to go fill it out online.
On the other hand, she’s not exactly making a con law argument. She’s promoting her company, and using hyperbolic language to make it sound super-important. I very much doubt she (or anyone else) thinks there’s an actual, legal guarantee to have a cell phone.
Which is entirely separate from the argument over whether giving out free cell phones to poor people is good policy - but I’m not clear if that’s what the OP really wants to discuss or not.
Not everyone who qualifies will use the program. For example, I qualify to use it, but I already had a cellphone and, when I stripped it down to the most basic service, I could continue to pay for it on my own so I did.
The purpose of this bill was to, back when landlines were the norm, ensure that phone companies laid infrastructure for rural users even though they would not make money off of customers so spread out.
Was this a legit purpose? How is the current model different.
Incidently, we do provide subsidized computesr and internet at public libraries.
No, having a pool isn’t a right. Municipals build recreation centers because they feel as though it adds something of value to the community. It’s the same reason they build libraries, parks and even museums. I happen to like having those things in the community even though I don’t use all the services. Libraries, for example, provide many people with books, internet access and reference materials that they could not have at home. If the recreation center became too expensive to maintain and the city shuts it down, have they violated anyone’s rights? No.
You don’t have to like all government services. You can actually pick and choose which ones you think should exist. Seriously, you might as well say “America, love it or leave it.”
That many Pennsylvanians qualify because of our huge number of senior citizens, many of whom have only Social Security income, and therefore qualify under one of the other assistance program guidelines. Keep in mind that Pennsylvania is second only to Florida for percentage of the population that is over 65, and our seniors are, sadly, impoverished at repulsively high rates (which would explain why they stay in cold, snowy PA instead moving to somewhere warm).
Of that 5.5 million who qualify, roughly 2 million are seniors.
Can you please explain how a telephone can get a “poor person” out of poverty?
You might want to rephrase what you said. From what you said, it seems like your solution to the poverty problem in America is to give every person in poverty a telephone or am I assuming too much?
I’m not CA obviously, but I do read English, and what he said was that it’s nearly impossible for a person to get out of poverty without a cell phone, not that a cell phone is sufficient to lift them out of poverty.
Anyone who has access to the internet can find a job. Public Libraries have computers that have internet access. People can apply for many jobs online. Having a telephone is not the one tool necessary for getting a person out of poverty.
Apparently it’s gone into selective reading. No one has said that a phone is the only thing you need to get out of poverty.
That said, you can certainly apply for a job online, but employers generally prefer to employ people they have a more efficient way of reaching than through email that the person can only access when the library is open and one of the three dial-up terminals is available.