What's with the Visceral Reaction Towards "Obama Phones"?
 

It's funded from that "universal service fee" that is added to your phone bill, it's not a huge amount, but it's just another tax called by another name...

so you have a $50 phone service, but your bill ends up $70 with all the taxes and weird fees added on...

you don't see anything wrong with that?

you might be a little slow because we get taxed to provide those phones look at your cell phone bill if you have one.

I'm thinking maybe die hard Republicans might take offense to the moniker - Obama had nothing to do with it. The Reagan Phone would be more accurate.

While it's not technically a tax, the telecom companies are *mandated* to charge the overage to their customers, which is a part of the Universal Service Fund, enforced by the FCC. The USF includes a program called Lifeline for low income people to gain access to these phones.

Now of course, in typical cronyism/corporatism fashion, the telecom companies *love* the mandate, because it allows them to gain new subscribers from the low-incomers, and charge overages if they go over their monthly allotted time.

Sure, are you against theft? I know I am. That's how these "obama phones" are provided. The telecom companies are legally required, under the threat of force by the US government, to charge you more than they would have normally.

No matter what the reason or justification is (to save the trees, the bees, the children or the birds), you don't attempt to solve a problem by initiating or threatening the initiation of force against an individual(s) and their property (business).

So back when we had slavery, owners would say "Who's going to pick the cotton if we end slavery you nutball?", well it doesn't matter, because owning people is immoral.

So when you say, "How are low-incomers going to communicate with each other?", the moral response is, "I don't know. But we certainly aren't going to make threatening demands towards other companies to do it."

A simple way to stir up righties about any subject: Add "Obama" in front of it.

well they are "fees" not taxes. same shit basically in the end as everyone pointed out but you don't want to admit.

Because Obama... Do you really need to ask?

You are mistaken, just read further down on that page you mentioned:

"SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world?s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households."

This phone program has been going on for decades, long before cell phones. This all goes back to Ma Bell. There is a special fee on your phone bill that covers this.

Originally it was started to help Ma Bell and then the baby bells string up phone lines in areas with smaller populations where it would not normally be profitable for the phone companies to do so. It also provided phones for people with special needs and low income families.

No, they are not legally required to charge more than they normally would. All they are required to do is provide the program. Whether the phone companies decide to offset the costs upon the consumer is left to the company to decide. If the consumer does not want to be charged more, than the consumer is free to withhold his/her business patronage. If enough consumers withhold their business, then the companies would not charge that fee. That's the free market.

Taxpayers do pay for coverage but not via federal income taxes. Instead, the Act “mandated the creation of the universal service fund (USF) into which all telecommunications providers are required to contribute a percentage of their interstate and international end-user telecommunications revenues.” So that little fee on your phone bill labeled USF? That’s what you’re paying for.

if all companies charge it, what do you suggest people do? stop using cellphones in protest..yeah ok buddy. you are king of manipulating an argument so you are never "wrong" so have fun pc principal.

Wrong, see your previous statement:

A market is not free if there's state intervention. The program demands a percentage of their revenue. Whether or not they'll pass the cost onto consumers is irrelevant; it's the fact that the mafia-like entity know as the state is demanding a percentage of their revenue.

The consumers opting to do business with a given company in the case of the USF doesn't mean anything, because all other cell phone companies are required to have the USF.

It's like when statists tell me to leave the country if I don't like government; uhm, all other countries have governments.

the fee exists only because the government created the program, forcing companies to pay for it...

imagine that government created 50% tax on porn products, and as a result every porn company raised their membership rates by $10... porn companies would be the ones charging the fees, but clearly the government caused it and so should be considered the "bad guy"...

woj gets it.

The problem isn't with whether or not the company will hike up their rates, it's with the fact that the federal government (FCC) is placing that mandate *on* the company for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

That's why I'm against "obama phones".

The phone company is being threatened with aggression (whether that be fines, closing the company, or prison) if they do not relinquish a percentage of their revenue to the US government for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

This is the problem. It's not about consumers, it's not about how the companies handle how they're going to pay for that percentage. It has to do with the existence of the very program itself.

A simple way to stir up Mark Prince is use "Republican" or if you really want to really stir him up use "Sarah Palin". Better yet go all out "Global Warming is a hoax":1orglaugh:1orglaugh

so in my example, if you wanted to buy a porn membership, and were displeased about the extra $10 you have to pay... who would you blame for that? the company? or the government?

Are you against all taxes? Because your rant I highlighted above sure sounds like it. If you are against the extra cell phone fee that private companies voluntarily charge, you as a consumer have the power to voice your disagreement by refusing to do business with such companies.

I'm going to call my cell phone carrier and tell them I refuse to pay these hidden fees listed on my bill on the basis that I object to the low income program.

How long do you think it will be before my service is disconnected. Probably about the end of the month.

Yes, because I'm against theft. I don't know, I was taught growing up that it's wrong to steal and threaten people regardless of the intentions, and even if a percentage of other people voted in the suits who do the thieving.

Were you taught something different? Like, it's wrong to steal when you're a child, but it's okay if you're an adult wearing a suit whose enforcers are men in blue costumes?

I'm sure you'd have a problem if my friends and I got together in your neighborhood, had an election, I won, and demanded 20% from you and your neighbors. I'd promise to pave your roads and give you security though.

"with such companies", here in the US there's like what, 2 or 3 reliable cell phone companies? Sprint/ATT/Verizon. I'm fairly certain they all have similar charges regarding the USF. It'd be more moral if the government would stop using force against these companies, that's the better solution than making me have to scurry around and see who's dealing with the theft the best.

Wrong. Because these companies are all forced to relinquish a percentage of their revenue, and also enjoy a near oligopoly status due to the extremely high barrier to entry in the market, they can instead collude with each other. Consumers have no other choice and no where to go on this matter.

In the end, good ideas don't require force. Forcing private businesses to give up a % of their money for some social program is flat-out wrong.

Why is that so hard to accept?

So if you are against all taxes, how do you propose to fund military, law enforcement, public roads/highways, sewer systems, border patrol, judicial system, and prisons?

And it's not like anyone is forcing you to patronize any cell phone company. Like I said above, consumers have the power to change the practices of private companies by refusing to do business with those companies.

That's why the justice department handles anti-trust issues


Phone companies force you to have an active cell phone?

There's a load of literature from a lot of great anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist philosophers on these subjects.

Defense/Security:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/P...-%20ch%20x.pdf
http://www.anarcho-distributist.org/...0So ciety.pdf

Road provisions in stateless societies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x6oosvWnRs (personal friend)

Border patrol? There'd be no borders, because there's no state/nation-state.

This requires a mass-awakening/movement from all cell phone subsribers (nearly everyone in the US). If I decide to not have a cell phone, nothing changes about the system. I'm just left without a cell phone, which is a major problem as my business relies on it.

The better solution is to stop it with the fucking threats from the government.

Question: Why are you so opposed to asking the government to stop making threats against cell phone companies?

It's a good idea to not ban something that is consensual and voluntary. The only reason any state was able to ban it in the first place is because they're the government, and government is force.

The fact that they corrected their original error doesn't negate the quote that good ideas don't require force.

I am asking *you* how you would propose to fund those things (roads, military, jails, justice system, police, etc). Not what other people have proposed.

By the way, without taxes, there would be no Supreme Court. And without the Supreme Court there would be no one to stop state governments from banning pornography. Are you ok with that?



Because that is the will of the people...given that people voted for their government representatives who initiated the program, and such program does not violate the Constitution.

So now you are against any form of government?

And the government body that corrected the error (SCOTUS) is not the same body that created the error (State government)

What I could propose as a single individual, could likely never compare to the response of the market. You've heard it before in economics 101, where there's a demand, there'll be a supply.

In a stateless society, people would want roads, defense, dispute resolution, and everything we currently have. The only difference is that instead of relying on a monopolistic force to provide these things for us, the driving force behind innovation and better pricing (a free and private market) would handle it instead.

But that's all consequentialism, which I don't like to get into. Slave owners said "who'll pick the cotton", we said "it doesn't matter, it's wrong to own humans", just as it's wrong to steal people's money to provide services.

Without taxes, there would be no state governments, so that's not a problem.



You do realize that "the will of the people" is a load of bullshit right? And the constitution is just scribblings on a piece of paper?

It's been proven that we live in an oligarchy. The US passes 40,000 new laws every year. Do you REALLY think these laws are representative of the will of the people?

Don't drink the government kool-aid indoctrination man.

If you mean am I against being ruled by a group of people over a given piece of arbitrary land? Yes. I am.

State and federal governments and their branches are all a part of the same body and all funded in the same manner: taxation and expropriation.