Free Cell phone for people who cant afford Cell phones

S

slidecage

CAGiversary!
Feedback
106 (100%)
Okay when this first started out I can see why this could be needed.. If you cant afford a phone i can see giving people who are having a hard time making ends meet a free phone with 500 mins a month in case they ever need to call someone .... BUT what i just saw on TV pissed me off big time


You can now get

UNLIMITED CALLS
UNLIMITED TEXT
and
UNLIMITED WEB
for 30 bucks per month (the bill will just be past on to people who are paying their cell phones


WTF I cant afford 60 to 80 bucks per month to have UNLIMITED TEXT OR WEB


WHY the hell do they need TEXT and WEB In the first place. People who have jobs CANT AFFORD It but people who sit on their asses all day get it for free ...


Yes i can see giving them FREE CALLS hell even UNLIMITED TALK would not bug me BUT UNLIMITED WEB AND TEXT Is just TO fucking far
 
California has a lot of these. Here's what's on my bill this month.

CA Advanced Services Fund $0.03 - For building telecommunications infrastructure in underserved areas. So if you live in Los Angeles, you pay for broadband infrastructure in Tulare.

California High Cost Fund - A (CHCF-A) $0.11
California High Cost Fund - B (CHCF-B) $0.07 - Both of these are responsible for equalizing telecommunication service rates between urban and rural areas. It costs more to service rural areas, obviously.

CA Relay Service and Communications Device Fund $0.05 - This one funds services for the disabled.

California Teleconnect Fund $0.02 - Provides telecommunications services to schools and libraries and shit.

Universal Lifeline Telephone Service Surcharge $0.29 - The one you're talking about I think.

Federal Universal Service Fund $1.17 - The federal version, obviously.

Some of these are more worthwhile than others, but yeah, I agree that we do not need to subsidize mobile web or even text services, if that's what they do. I think subsidizing voice services only is reasonable. At the same time, when we do subsidize all these things, people who pay those taxes still get shit on.

Your bill also breaks down the cost of complying with government mandates and regulations.

Regulatory Programs Fee $1.61
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='slidecage']Okay when this first started out I can see why this could be needed.. If you cant afford a phone i can see giving people who are having a hard time making ends meet a free phone with 500 mins a month in case they ever need to call someone .... BUT what i just saw on TV pissed me off big time


You can now get

UNLIMITED CALLS
UNLIMITED TEXT
and
UNLIMITED WEB
for 30 bucks per month (the bill will just be past on to people who are paying their cell phones


WTF I cant afford 60 to 80 bucks per month to have UNLIMITED TEXT OR WEB


WHY the hell do they need TEXT and WEB In the first place. People who have jobs CANT AFFORD It but people who sit on their asses all day get it for free ...


Yes i can see giving them FREE CALLS hell even UNLIMITED TALK would not bug me BUT UNLIMITED WEB AND TEXT Is just TO fucking far[/QUOTE]

What provider is this?

There are several MVNOs that offer plans that cost $25-30 a month with unlimited text and web. Talk minutes are not unlimited for that price.
 
Is this what he's talking about?

http://www.assurancewireless.com/Public/Welcome.aspx

I see ads for this in junk mail and on the bus. It has 250 minutes and 250 texts, but not web. Yeah, unlimited talk, text and web is $30/month.

UNLIMITED Talk, Text, and Web
Add $30 each month

1000 Minutes and 1000 Texts
Add $20 each month
Get 250 Free Minutes & 250 Free Texts + 750 Minutes & 750 Texts

500 Minutes and 500 Texts
Add $5 each month
Get 250 Free Minutes & 250 Free Texts + 250 Minutes & 250 Texts
Click to expand...

And here's eligibility in Florida. It varies by state.

You may qualify for Assurance Wireless if you participate in any of the following government programs:
Florida


Medicaid Bureau of Indian AffairsPrograms
Food Stamps Federal Public Housing Assistance (Section 8)
Temporary Cash Assistance Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) National School Lunch's FREE Lunch Program (NSL)


OR You may qualify based on household income. Click here for more info.
Click to expand...
You qualify on income if you make below 135% of the federal poverty rate.
 
like i said i can see why they may need mins to talk to people but there is no reason in hell to give them FREE UNLIMITED TEXT AND WEB
 
Unlimited voice, text and web is $30.

Still subsidized, but not free.

They may be complying with the mandate to provide voice service, while adding on texts in order to entice some customers to shell out the extra $5 or $20 for extra minutes and texts. Who knows.
 
The wireless company gets a subsidy from the government for each phone (about $10 a month, I think) to provide voice service. The company already has the low income customer thanks to the government subsidy, why not try to upsell them text and web services? That does beg the question - if someone can afford the $30 add-on services, why can't they just purchase the voice service on their own, without government help?

I'd also be interested in how much of a profit the wireless companies are making off these subsidies.
 
[quote name='chiwii']The wireless company gets a subsidy from the government for each phone (about $10 a month, I think) to provide voice service. The company already has the low income customer thanks to the government subsidy, why not try to upsell them text and web services? That does beg the question - if someone can afford the $30 add-on services, why can't they just purchase the voice service on their own, without government help?

I'd also be interested in how much of a profit the wireless companies are making off these subsidies.[/QUOTE]

also they are pushing the charges onto paying customers . verizon told me this the other month when i called up to complain
 
The charge for Lifeline service isn't that much, so people don't complain.

Considering all taxes and fees on my cell phone bill, the total tax is about 7%, which is what sales tax would be anyway. I'm against some of the fees and our whole system that subsidizes rural and suburban areas at the expense of city areas though, but again, those fees are about a dime or so.
 
[quote name='Clak']Slidecage ladies and gentlemen, he'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.[/QUOTE]

and be sure to use those welfare check you get to eat out every night
 
DrP1zzas of the world, rejoice!

If they can afford the $30 for the pumped up plan, why not spend the $30 for a basic talk and text plan? I understand how important the Internet is these days, but go to your fucking library if you want that.
 
Hey Slidecage did you know that in addition to free food, free money, and free cell phones that these lazy bums who can't won't work also get free lawyers?!? Yeah, apparently there's some government program where you can get the government to find and pay for your lawyer if you get charged with a crime. What a load a bull, I mean if you're dumb enough to commit a crime, why should I, as a taxpaying citizen pay for your lawyer? I say they should be on their own.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']You're really going to compare free cell service to a constitutionally protected right? Come on...[/QUOTE]
Ah but there was a day when the right to an attorney wasn't considered a Constitutional requirement and it wasn't too far back...
 
Well, we've always had a right to a fair trial, so I'm not sure if that would qualify as not "too far back," but I'm guessing you mean the assistance to council clause? That's been on the books for 80-years now, so again...

Either way, it's still apples and oranges. I'd say being defended in court is on a whole other level than access to a cell phone.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Well, we've always had a right to a fair trial, so I'm not sure if that would qualify as not "too far back," but I'm guessing you mean the assistance to council clause? That's been on the books for 80-years now, so again...

Either way, it's still apples and oranges. I'd say being defended in court is on a whole other level than access to a cell phone.[/QUOTE]

Constitution doesn't say anything about a right to emergency services, what a waste of money that is. We should start having police carry a credit card reader and have them take payment immediately upon arrival. No sense in those lazy bums getting free police assistance. They can't pay, police turn around and head back to the precinct.

By the way, assistance of counsel originally only attached 80 years ago in federal felony cases. It took almost another 30 years before this was found to extend to state court proceedings. On top of that, the right to counsel federally doesn't attach unless the person is facing jail time. Most states have additional protection though. Finally, its important to note that the right to have counsel appointed only attaches at "critical stages" which typically means that if its prior to you being indicted there's a very good chance it isn't considered a critical stage. We see right to counsel as something being absolute when in reality the interpretation of it has been very fluid.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Constitution doesn't say anything about a right to emergency services, what a waste of money that is. We should start having police carry a credit card reader and have them take payment immediately upon arrival. No sense in those lazy bums getting free police assistance. They can't pay, police turn around and head back to the precinct.[/QUOTE]

:lol: That's right, it doesn't, that's why the federal government doesn't provide these things, local and state governments do, or at least, they're supposed to. Try telling that to FEMA. The constitution only applies to the federal government. Any power not detailed in the constitution is reserved for the states.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']
By the way, assistance of counsel originally only attached 80 years ago in federal felony cases. It took almost another 30 years before this was found to extend to state court proceedings. On top of that, the right to counsel federally doesn't attach unless the person is facing jail time. Most states have additional protection though. Finally, its important to note that the right to have counsel appointed only attaches at "critical stages" which typically means that if its prior to you being indicted there's a very good chance it isn't considered a critical stage. We see right to counsel as something being absolute when in reality the interpretation of it has been very fluid.[/QUOTE]

Good to know. It still doesn't compare to the right of having free cell service.
 
oh the joys of not paying a cent for my phone plan. Nice to work for the people that sell the things!
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Constitution doesn't say anything about a right to emergency services, what a waste of money that is. We should start having police carry a credit card reader and have them take payment immediately upon arrival. No sense in those lazy bums getting free police assistance. They can't pay, police turn around and head back to the precinct.

By the way, assistance of counsel originally only attached 80 years ago in federal felony cases. It took almost another 30 years before this was found to extend to state court proceedings. On top of that, the right to counsel federally doesn't attach unless the person is facing jail time. Most states have additional protection though. Finally, its important to note that the right to have counsel appointed only attaches at "critical stages" which typically means that if its prior to you being indicted there's a very good chance it isn't considered a critical stage. We see right to counsel as something being absolute when in reality the interpretation of it has been very fluid.[/QUOTE]

And I'm sure you are one of those bleeding hearts that pissed and moaned when the governments in many states set up blockers so that EBT recipients couldn't withdraw cash at ATM's in liquor stores, strip clubs or tattoo parloors.

I mean getting drunk and tatted up should be protected rights too... and tipping strippers with welfare dollars... can't beat that!
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
By the way, assistance of counsel originally only attached 80 years ago in federal felony cases. It took almost another 30 years before this was found to extend to state court proceedings. On top of that, the right to counsel federally doesn't attach unless the person is facing jail time. Most states have additional protection though. Finally, its important to note that the right to have counsel appointed only attaches at "critical stages" which typically means that if its prior to you being indicted there's a very good chance it isn't considered a critical stage. We see right to counsel as something being absolute when in reality the interpretation of it has been very fluid.[/QUOTE]

Let me take this one step further, in North Carolina at least, if you are indeed supplied with a "Court Appointed Attorney", and are ultimately convicted of a crime (whether by plea or trial), you become responsible for paying for siad "Court Appointed Attorney"'s time.

This set's up the potential for an unfortunate situation where if the court's are underfunded, there is an incentive for the "Court Appointed Attorney" to plea the case out, not just in the interest of justice, but in the interest of shifting the costs.

I'm not saying that this happens, but the very fact that it could unnerves me.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']:lol: That's right, it doesn't, that's why the federal government doesn't provide these things, local and state governments do, or at least, they're supposed to. Try telling that to FEMA. The constitution only applies to the federal government. Any power not detailed in the constitution is reserved for the states.
[/QUOTE]

It's state government that provides your Constitutionally required appointed counsel in state cases as well...
 
[quote name='GBAstar']And I'm sure you are one of those bleeding hearts that pissed and moaned when the governments in many states set up blockers so that EBT recipients couldn't withdraw cash at ATM's in liquor stores, strip clubs or tattoo parloors.

I mean getting drunk and tatted up should be protected rights too... and tipping strippers with welfare dollars... can't beat that![/QUOTE]

Holy shit - someone somewhere did something bad. Better add more regulation and restrictions - that'll fix it!

Cause more regulation and restrictions always make things better - da comrade?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']And I'm sure you are one of those bleeding hearts that pissed and moaned when the governments in many states set up blockers so that EBT recipients couldn't withdraw cash at ATM's in liquor stores, strip clubs or tattoo parloors.

I mean getting drunk and tatted up should be protected rights too... and tipping strippers with welfare dollars... can't beat that![/QUOTE]

Obviously I am one of those "bleeding hearts" who actually takes a minute to care about those in our society who haven't been given the same opportunities and chances that I have. fuck me, right? :roll:
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Obviously I am one of those "bleeding hearts" who actually takes a minute to care about those in our society who haven't been given the same opportunities and chances that I have. fuck me, right? :roll:[/QUOTE]

That's very nice of you, but you can't force your idea of what's "good for society" on others, especially through means of violence.

If you believe that people need help, then you should expend your energy helping them instead of using that same energy to force others to help.
 
[quote name='camoor']Holy shit - someone somewhere did something bad. Better add more regulation and restrictions - that'll fix it!

Cause more regulation and restrictions always make things better - da comrade?[/QUOTE]

That's right! All those laws were put into place because "someone somewhere" did something bad. Think of all the time the legislatures wasted to think up these policies just to "punish" a single person :roll:

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Obviously I am one of those "bleeding hearts" who actually takes a minute to care about those in our society who haven't been given the same opportunities and chances that I have. fuck me, right? :roll:[/QUOTE]


Washington state lawmakers have prohibited purchases of tattoos, body piercings, alcohol and tobacco. Bars, bail bond agencies, gambling establishments and strip clubs are also now required to deactivate the ability of their ATMs to accept benefit cards. Colorado and Indiana have banned alcohol, guns and gambling.
In Massachusetts, lawmakers are considering banning card purchases of tattoos, pornography and guns. The proposal would also prohibit spending at nail salons, jewelry stores and casinos. Welfare recipients in the state are already barred from using their cards to buy lottery tickets, tobacco and alcohol. Pennsylvania legislators are calling for sweeping restrictions as well.



The inhumanity! Those poor poor. What are they going to do now that we've removed acess to their fun?

CUE: "the majority of welfare recipients are single parents... derp... don't have left over money to spend on those "indulgences" derp"
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']It's state government that provides your Constitutionally required appointed counsel in state cases as well...[/QUOTE]

Let me explain it this way.

If it's in the constitution, the state and federal governments must obey.

If it's not, then the states decide.

If states didn't have to follow the constitution, they could individually deny you the rights afforded under the constitution.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Let me explain it this way.

If it's in the constitution, the state and federal governments must obey.

If it's not, then the states decide.

If states didn't have to follow the constitution, they could individually deny you the rights afforded under the constitution.[/QUOTE]

I understand Federalism and the Constitution.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']

Washington state lawmakers have prohibited purchases of tattoos, body piercings, alcohol and tobacco. Bars, bail bond agencies, gambling establishments and strip clubs are also now required to deactivate the ability of their ATMs to accept benefit cards. Colorado and Indiana have banned alcohol, guns and gambling.
In Massachusetts, lawmakers are considering banning card purchases of tattoos, pornography and guns. The proposal would also prohibit spending at nail salons, jewelry stores and casinos. Welfare recipients in the state are already barred from using their cards to buy lottery tickets, tobacco and alcohol. Pennsylvania legislators are calling for sweeping restrictions as well.



The inhumanity! Those poor poor. What are they going to do now that we've removed acess to their fun?

CUE: "the majority of welfare recipients are single parents... derp... don't have left over money to spend on those "indulgences" derp"[/QUOTE]

Clearly, I mean if a few people abuse a system we should make it so no one can abuse that system in the future. GUESS IT'S TIME TO GET RID OF THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET AND DERIVATIVES, HUH?!?!
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Clearly, I mean if a few people abuse a system we should make it so no one can abuse that system in the future. GUESS IT'S TIME TO GET RID OF THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET AND DERIVATIVES, HUH?!?![/QUOTE]


Right because only a few (like three or four) welfare recipients have used their welfare money for unnecessary expenditures.... and of course deflecting onto an unrelated problem absolves you from recognizing this one.


I do agree that to some extend there is a new found "McCarthyism" in regard to the poor and being lazy and irresponsible but it is more then a few and it is a problem.

The world is full of idiots both rich and poor but the problem with the poor idiots is that they are being idiotic on the taxpayer dime.

If as a child my mom give me $20 to buy a pair of shoes and instead I decided to buy candy and porn with it should I not feel some sort of backlash?

Yet we should not criticize the poor for misappropriating government issued funds because... they have it tough enough already?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Right because only a few (like three or four) welfare recipients have used their welfare money for unnecessary expenditures.... and of course deflecting onto an unrelated problem absolves you from recognizing this one.


I do agree that to some extend there is a new found "McCarthyism" in regard to the poor and being lazy and irresponsible but it is more then a few and it is a problem.

The world is full of idiots both rich and poor but the problem with the poor idiots is that they are being idiotic on the taxpayer dime.

If as a child my mom give me $20 to buy a pair of shoes and instead I decided to buy candy and porn with it should I not feel some sort of backlash?

Yet we should not criticize the poor for misappropriating government issued funds because... they have it tough enough already?[/QUOTE]

It's not deflecting, it's a natural continuation. Abuses of the mortgage market led to the 2008 crash in a big way. If you're prepared to say that abuses of a system that cause harm should be more heavily regulated, such as camoor eluded to, then why are you in favor of increased regulations in only this one particular area? Furthermore, it was the idiocy of those same rich people who largely led to the crash. Has the welfare system caused our entire economic system to collapse? So really, who has caused more damage to our economy, the rich, or the poor?

Am I to really to understand that because some people, of which neither one of us conceitedly has concrete numbers, have abused the system of welfare we have in place that you are in favor of completely wiping out the welfare system as a whole?

Or, are you in favor of reform and regulation of the welfare system? Fact of the matter is, you were the one who assumed that because I support welfare I was one of those "bleeding hearts" who fought for them to be able to use the money for strippers and liquor, I never said I completely opposed regulating welfare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top