free government iphone

free government iphone

The Impact of Providing Free Government iPhones on Society

1. Introduction

Providing free government iPhones could allow the most socially isolated, who are geographically disadvantaged and unable to afford the cost of purchasing or owning a phone, to communicate with family, school, local service providers, potential employers, and businesses. This is critically important if we are to preserve the functioning of schools and community organizations within local communities. A mobile phone is now an essential household appliance like a fridge, a computer, or a TV. It would enable those who cannot currently afford to keep in touch with friends and family. It will harness technology to educate, assist personal growth, and expand an individual’s potential. It will be an important tool for everyone and is critically important to enable access to voices, data messages, and data networks for voice and data service. The current subsidies are only available for landline phones. The full benefit of the universal service provisions is not being realized, and there is a genuine market failure in terms of the effective availability of mobile communication.

The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of providing free government iPhones on employment, economic systems, and society as a whole. It will ensure that people who cannot afford to purchase a phone can still be able to communicate with teachers and health workers to access government services. Schools can connect with parents, and students can use the phone for educational studies. It is critically important that we have access to a reliable communication system with the ability to text and call to find education and/or employment/financial advice to ensure we can effectively contribute to our communities. The discussion will extend on the potential benefits and public policy considerations. Establishing mobile cell phone communication as a basic human right rather than a luxury will have the potential to increase participation and remove welfare dependence.

2. Historical Overview of Government Assistance Programs

Presently, the United States lives in a time where joblessness can gain state benefits such as free government-funded housing, life subsidies, Lifeline entitlements, public workers’ and economy stimulus packages.

In September 1997, the assistance expanded further to a program called “Lifeline”. With this new aid, Congress decided to fund the program with surcharges. Lifeline gives free cellphones with a limit of 70 minutes to individuals that qualify to receive welfare. At the end of 2008, approximately 7 million signed up to receive these benefits.

Entities such as the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and President Richard Nixon were both for a new form of welfare policy. Several economists, including Lawrence Klein and Paul Samuelson, were in favor of sending welfare to all families, regardless of income. Though many economists did not agree with the new federal policy, by default, the new system began in the 1970s and 1980s. The system was much like what economists of today describe as a guaranteed income, but without the negative income tax. By 1980, 1.4% of the gross national product was being spent on providing aid for over 7.4 million families.

In more recent history, economist Henry George persuaded and convinced people that they were and should be entitled to a Social Dividend. As time progressed and technology advanced, economists such as Benjamin Graham, James Tobin, and Robert Solow suggested that a basic income should be provided by the government.

The first observed government assistance program began around 1547. Government assistance was given to individuals that could not work or take care of themselves because of either old age or disabilities. The government typically gave a small sum of money to those that were able to work, but could not find a job. This money helped individuals stay on their feet until they were able to find work.

3. Benefits and Challenges of Providing Free Government iPhones

Among the benefits, it’s said that cell phones are crucial in how they are used today. Free phones can prevent low-income Americans from being cut off. By giving cell phones to low-income Americans, they can receive text messages. In some states, when a child enrolls in the free government school lunch program, they get an application for the free government cell phone service for their family. Free cell phones, and maybe iPads too, would cut down on the number of bricks and mortar school buildings required. With free iPhones, people can be connected with doctors when they need to. Not having a phone can have a negative impact. It’s an expensive hassle for individuals to maintain the service with a low per usage fee. It’s a judgmental use of tax money to argue it’s not worth it. With a free cell phone, a person can call 9-1-1. The biggest benefit is an Obama Phone would cost an estimated $76/year, and providing them would improve people’s lives. If that is true, then shouldn’t efforts be made to provide everyone with the phone?

Putting aside the fiscal aspect of the program, there are benefits and challenges associated with giving all Americans an iPhone and covering the service. A number of organizations list the pros and cons of providing free cell phones to low-income Americans. Assurance Wireless spells out the benefits of their free government cell phone program, and the Safelink Wireless website features a page that lists ‘Reasons for Government Phones’. Other organizations that argue for free government cell phones are ReachOut Wireless, StandUp Wireless, and Budget Mobile, in addition to the federal government’s USA.gov website. Others advocate for the free cell phone cause. LifeWireless, Budget Mobile, and Blue Jay Wireless all make a case for the free iPhones and service as well. These reasons are presented below, and are hyperlinked if you want to read more.

4. Ethical and Privacy Considerations

Today, some family members these elderlies live with sometimes abandon them and take their social security pensions by violence and the like. Still, some conspecific people take them to public plunder the money. However, the elderlies feel they are very good to them in full of mind and sometimes ask for the same favor again or complain about a little too small favor with no sense of guilt. If the society does not consider these people, it will be a considerable contradiction in an aging country with a declining birthrate. These rental houses are raising the social security premiums to some extent instead especially of it reduce all welfare expenses to be generated in the aged society.

Because the free government iPhone comes with the preinstalled application, mobile app company developers get free development funds. It is possible to provide this smartphone preinstalled with all necessary apps free of charge. For people in their many years or people living at universal design public house, they cannot fully protect themselves from smartphone information leakage attacks as well. To prevent these weakened humans from a cyber attack will be also a societal obligation. Of course, it is also fair to consider that universal design houses are more secure because of their expensive rent.

5. Conclusion and Future Implications

In conclusion, historically, the government has engaged in welfare and other anti-poverty programs, usually with the provision of some type of credit, direct monetary grants, or reduced prices for essentials such as food and housing. We argue that as cell phones now form an essential part of being able to participate in society, be it for finding work, conducting personal business, or serving as a safety net, it is also essential that a cell phone is available. The public policies reviewed present a range of future implications that researchers might address. As for the socioeconomic consequences of using a government phone, does phone usage change if the user does not explicitly realize it is benefiting? More generally, what trade-off exists between the benefits of non-lump sum benefits versus target integrity with respect to both GSM service and the model of phone provided? Do higher quality phones improve recipient participation, and do they exhibit different discontinuity responses?