In the original entry from Malkia A. Cyril:

Thing is, if you went to the doctor for an illness, and the doctor sold you half the medicine you needed to get well and called it a promotion -- you'd call that doctor crazy. That's because you understand that getting less than what you need to be well will still leave you sick.

Outside of communicable diseases, this is done all the time. I walk into a doctor with an insurance plan that won't cover the newest anti-cancer chemo that has a 95% chance of curing the cancer. So I either have to cough the money to pay for it, or take the 65% chemo treatment. And if I don't have insurance it gets even worse. Do I have the money to eat, sleep, and try to work as I die, or can I get the chemo?

In this new digital era, full Internet access is needed to participate adequately in both our democracy and our economy, so lowering the baseline standard of what is considered minimum Internet access threatens democratic and human rights, and its just plain wrong.

I will argue that it is desirable to have internet access, but not required. If the Fourth Estate is doing their job close to adequately, you would have a well informed populace off the existing structures, and wouldn't have to search the internet to find the last minute, back room deals that politicians have done. I won't even get into Operation Gun Runner.

The age of believing that consumers should "get what they pay for" when it comes to food, water, electricity, heat, and basic communications services needs to come to an end. These are utilities that meet basic needs and as such they should be treated as fundamental human rights.

It has. They finally repealed the federal telephone excise tax. That is what got the country wired for telephone. Are you now going to try to mandate that I have to have a cell phone? And the government pays for it? And what about the Amish that shun being wired in?

No one who's job it is to advocate for the rights of "minorities" should equate affordable service with substandard service.

The internet is not a right, free speech is.

Jesus. I don't have a cell, or want one. I'd rather spend my money elsewhere and I don't want to be reachable every second. Are they going to force me to buy one, and force me to buy a plan I'll never use? Asshats. Stupid motherfucking asshats. There is no other word for them.

Methinks she's in the cell companies pockets, taking money for forcing people to buy their product. Much like the congresscritters who decided to force us to buy insurance were paid off too.

I mean honestly, they're going to tell some poor person in appalachia (the poor are white there, you know) who lives in a cracked up trailer with no electricity, and can't afford milk for the kids, that they have to pay $60 a month so they can get MOVIES??? Asshats!!! THIS is what they're worrying about?

Thank you. I was thinking along the same lines last year when some of my coworkers volunteered to spruce up a junior high school in a low-income area. Why didn't the kids, parents and staff spruce up their own school? Truth to tell, if a bunch of kids and a few parents in the building trades had volunteered, they probably could have done the work in half the time it took a bunch of accountants.

The one big thing I can really pick apart is her argument that ACCESS is needed. If the cell phone companies are offering a plan with full downloading and live streaming capabilities, then the access is available. Some people are merely choosing not to take advantage of it.
Along that same vein, some people choose not to vote on election day. In a democracy (which we are not) full participation is needed in order to be "fair." Will her next project be mandating that everyone vote? And since the majority of people who choose not to vote are poor, minorities or young,(per Wikipedia's voter turnout page) how will she enforce it? Fine those that don't vote? Most of whom are already poor, causing an even further burden on the people she is supposedly trying to help.

Just to be clear, if the parents and kids preferred to spend their time, money and effort doing something besides scrubbing and painting, that's perfectly fine.

This is so crazy. I am not poor by any stretch of the imagination. We can afford just about anything that we want. We just can't afford everything that we want. We have to make choices.

Just last month, I chose to upgrade to full services for my cell phone. Before that, I felt that I could not afford it. We all have to prioritize our limited funds - especially those for whom funds are extremely limited. Of course, this is from a woman who did not have a television until she was married. I felt that it was a luxury that I could not afford.

Yesterday we went tree planting with the boy scouts- half the kids in my son's pack (age 7) had internet telephones, and spent a beautiful day in the woods texting each other.

It always amazes me how many parents think that their kids can't access pretty much anything humanity has to offer off these phones.

I am not poor either, but you know what kind of cell phone I have? A pre-paid one. No internet. Not even a camera.

Why? Because I don't want it. I prefer to spend about $25-$30 a month for everything I need.

I don't want to pay more. I can do other things that I'd rather do with my money.

Let me explain what she's actually up to. Consumer activists pester companies for concessions so that the company will compromise and set up a fund a/o a program that the activist can be paid to administer. That's how it works. That's how consumer groups finance themselves. She's just positioning for some cash.

m4: I mean honestly, they're going to tell some poor person in appalachia (the poor are white there, you know) who lives in a cracked up trailer with no electricity, and can't afford milk for the kids, that they have to pay $60 a month so they can get MOVIES??? Asshats!!! THIS is what they're worrying about?

The depressing thing about it is, that's what the poor would do, a lot of the time. Most poor people are indigent because they simply have no sense of priority. They purchase luxury items and skimp on necessities. I've seen people who can't afford to pay their rent with satellite dish television.

I used to work in a grocery store and see people wearing top-of-the-line overpriced sneakers, but still buying their groceries with food stamps. (It's one of the reasons I hated the grocery business.)

There is no shortage of people who will mind your business.

I hope my taxes aren't subsidizing them.

Marvin,
I think it's worse then that, or that's the fallback. With quotes like:

"These are utilities that meet basic needs and as such they should be treated as fundamental human rights."

She's settings this up like POTS phone service is/was. Eventually there will be a "Universal need" charge that the rest of us pay in order to help give free (or much cheaper) access of this "basic need" for those that (supposedly) can't afford it on their own. So they actually get more gov't bureaucracy and power over our lives.

December of last year I finally joined the 21st century and actually got a cell phone. Before then I really had no reason to have one, but personal circumstances made it a necessity and now the convenience is good enough to keep it even though the necessity is no longer there. I only have it use it as a phone - no internet, no music downloads, etc. It's just a phone, albeit with a recently discovered very useful and needful alarm clock no extra charge. I don't want the internet on it. I don't want any special features. It's not for anyone else to tell what I want or need.

I am not poor either, but you know what kind of cell phone I have? A pre-paid one. No internet. Not even a camera.

Me too. A bit of an upfront cost. I have averaged around $5/month.

Why didn't the kids, parents and staff spruce up their own school?

I wasn't able to Google it up. A couple of years ago on the news they were reporting that parents could not volunteer because the work was "Union work" - things like trimming the hedge (don't remember specifically) was the responsibility of the union grounds maintainer keepers. Therefore, until the contracted ended, the work had to be done by union members only - or at least they had to be paid.

She's settings this up like POTS phone service is/was. Eventually there will be a "Universal need" charge that the rest of us pay in order to help give free (or much cheaper) access of this "basic need" for those that (supposedly) can't afford it on their own.

Too late. There's already phone service that's extremely inexepensive and you have to be in a food stamp/medicaid/disability program to qualify.

Now it is fairly basic, but you get a phone and 250 minutes for $5/month, no contract. For an additional $5/month, you get 500 minutes, and for another $5/month, 1000 minutes and 1000 text messages. Until I upgraded to a smart phone, I was paying Verizon $35/month for 450 minutes, and a pay per text message plan.