Fox Runs Misleading, Insult-Laden Segment On Program Providing Free Cell Phones To The Poor
August 03, 2011 5:29 pm ET by Karen Famighetti
A segment ran on America Live today examining the Universal Service Fund, a program that is intended to provide universal access to telecommunications, and, among other things, provides cell phones and minutes for free to poor people. The segment managed to be both misleading and offensive.
Guest host Shannon Bream introduced the segment by calling the program "a controversial call" as the on-screen text asked whether "free cell phones" should be a "civil right." After Gary Carter of Assurance Wireless -- a service supported by the Universal Service Fund that provides free cell phones to qualifying low-income people -- explained the program, the other guest, "federal tax practitioner and small businessman" David Selig, responded. He called the program a "shakedown," saying that government is "extorting" companies, and opined that the people receiving the phones "don't deserve something free on the taxpayer's nickel."
It is worth noting that this program has been in existence since 1996, and that the goal of universal service has been a basic tenet of federal policy since the Communications Act of 1934. These supposedly undeserving recipients of free phones through the program must prove that they are low income and be on public assistance, such as Medicaid, food stamps, school lunch programs, or public housing, in order to qualify.
Bream then asked Carter if consumers are required to fund the program, and Carter explained that telecommunications companies put money into the Universal Service Fund, which funds programs such as Assurance Wireless. Bream then asked whether consumers pay into the fund, and Carter explained that some consumers may see a USF charge on their phone bills, which helps the companies defray the costs of paying into the fund. Bream then allowed Selig to respond -- which he did by insulting Carter. Selig asserted that Carter was either "deliberately misleading your viewing audience or he has the business acumen of a wood tick" and declared that "hard-working Americans who have to pay all of their bills themselves" would wind up paying for it.
In fact, while telecommunications companies are required to pay into the fund, they are not required to pass that cost onto consumers. According to the Universal Service Administration Company, appointed by the FCC to run the program, it is entirely up to providers to decide whether to charge consumers any fee for the USF; federal law does not mandate that the charge be itemized on monthly bills.
The segment concluded with Carter laying out the benefits of the program and why it is worthwhile, using the example of a low-income man who was unemployed having access to a phone through the program so that potential employers could contact him as he searched for work. Selig interrupted him: "They're not looking for work. If they were, they would be working."
It may seem unnecessary to point out that the United States is still facing a difficult job market, but Selig's comment seems to require it. With high unemployment, a slow rate of job creation, and a high average length of unemployment among those actively seeking work, not holding a job does not mean that someone is not looking for one.
David Selig stand up and take a bow!
Some consumers are getting hit with the bill. Yup.
Got a problem with it? Protest by shutting off your cable, cell phone, and Internet services--y'know, those very things you're benefiting from because of this "waste of taxpayer dollars."
There is a difference between consumers and taxpayer money. I assume that is why pete592 asked if you read how it was funded.
You see that as a waste of taxpayer dollars, do you?
You're benefiting from it. Why shouldn't other citizens of this nation?
So I was paying too much to watch crap while the cable channels were also getting paid by advertisors. It's not a good deal when it should be essentially free. Bah humbug
We're both exactly the same, in a capitalistic way. We're voting with our dollars. You're voting FOR the USF, I'm voting against it. Ironic, don't you think?
Either that, or query your service provider, see if they charge you for this service. Some carriers might not. Ask around. Use your consumer choice to find a carrier that doesn't charge for this. I am willing to bet that there are some out there.
It would be one thing if they just wanted to ignore the poor. Thats standard rightwing jackassery.
But to actively deny people the reasonable ability to seek employment? Thats low, even for the sleaziest right wingers.
Shameful. Im not gonna even bother insulting this guy 'dave' guy. Why bother? If he cant figure out whats wrong with his ideas well... Ill just hope that he never has children who have to rely on him.
You are a dispicable human being. You are so selfish. You have such a sad lack of humanity. You are simply a soulless minion of Mammon. You care nothing about anyone but yourself and it is a pitiful way to be. Children are selfish by nature. When you grow up you are supposed to mature beyond that. I am sorry that you never grew up. I am sorry you never found an ounce of decency inside yourself. It is tragic really
I won't stand for this another minute. You remind me of my grandsons when they were 5 & 7, minutely measuring the levels of their juice, to make sure the other didn't get more than he.
Thankfully, my grandsons are outgrowing that. You have not. You can't stand the fact that needy people have needs too!!! And if you think anyone WANTS to be so poor they need charity, you can FOAD!!!!
I guess I was a little hasty to assume you meant income taxpayers. Apologies.
If you don't like it you can ditch your cell phone and free yourself of a consumption-based tax to provide phones for the dirt poor. Rally enough people who feel like you do and start a movement. Contact your reps in Congress to let them know how outraged you are that using a cell phone means helping the poor.
It's not a tax. It's a charge your provider, a private company, has decided to pass onto you.
Sometimes I think people are just upset they aren't getting the same stuff for free. If you want to get free cell phone use, live at the poverty line and receive food stamps. Otherwise, check your bill and if your provider is charging you a USF charge, switch providers. SIMPLE.
I mean, you conservatives keep whining about how it's so unfair that poor people get help in the wealthiest country in the world, then be poor yourself.
Something tells me that you'd not make it more than a week before running back to what you had before. I suggest folks read Nickel and Dimed, and see what it is to be poor and hard working in America.
--Dave's Intern
WOW! That is hatred to you, dave. Yikes. You have really carved out a sad, shallow existence there for yourself. Providing cell phones is hatred?! I can understand, perhaps, disagreeing with the program. But, claiming that is the part that you consider to be hatred? That is a mental illness, dave. Seek help.
These people who complain about providing these minimal services to those who can't afford basic necessities always remind me of the city councilor who toured the homeless shelter where I used to work. After having dinner, which the shelter cook prepared at the cost of less than a buck a person, she turned to the shelter director and said, "Well, that's why we have so many homeless, Buddy. You feed them too good. They're like cats. If you feed them, they keep coming back for more."
As opposed to crawling off to die, I guess.
You are one of the most nigardly curmudgeons I have ever read.
My condolences on the sufferings of you and your dime.
Filters would not let it go thru.
Now what did Jesus have to say about the poor, the needy, the unfortunate?
One of the many things that frustrates me about this country is people who have this kind of cognitive dissonance. It feels like I'm living in a madhouse, and the nutters are running it.