free government phones

free government phones

The Impact of Free Government Phones on Society

1. Introduction to Free Government Phones

Low-income people live in fear. In the past, in case of an emergency, it was hard for them to call the police or an ambulance like every other person. Then the government of the United States decided to help. With the Lifeline program, Lifeline subscribers get a free government phone and free or discounted text and talk time. Now, even if you are low on your budget, you don’t need to worry about having basic needs.

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) and the government of the United States developed a program often called the “Obama phone,” which is the Lifeline program. It offers a discount on cellular or landline phone services to persons of low income. The idea is simple. With a free government phone, low-income individuals have more chances to find a job, make better contacts for work, and have a better life. However, not all low-income individuals are eligible for ownership of the Obama phone. In this article, we are going to discuss the topic of free government phones and whether or not the program is helpful for society.

2. The Evolution of Government Phone Programs

In the 32 years since the 1984 AT&T divestiture, lingering questions of equity have begun to re-emerge as consumers, regulators, and policymakers focus on efforts to bridge the digital divide. Circumstances have evolved considerably in the last three decades. The discussion over “welfare phones” has transitioned from wireline to wireless service, and from the “access to basic functionality” available with Lifetime Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Lifeline) discounts to the need for access to 21st-century broadband capabilities. The 2012-13 USF transformation was designed to provide stability, both in terms of the fund’s long-term financial viability and in rates offered to end users. The entry of substantial wholesale carriers allowed Lifeline’s penetration to grow and develop an ecosystem. This growth was primarily among prepaid wireless customers, leading to a perception that Lifeline subscribers required fewer subscribers to sustain their services.

In the 1980s, as competition intensified within the wireline market, the availability of low-income rate assistance programs became a source of controversy among the various players. Some carriers felt that because their lines served primarily higher-spending customers, they were subsidizing welfare phones. Others argued that the value of increased penetration to the state and federal governments more than justified their contributions. The changes occurred at a time when mobile telephony was emerging, and mobile providers lobbied to ensure that states imposed such obligations on all service providers within the market, rather than just those who were members of local exchange carriers’ (LECs’) rate-based structures.

3. Benefits and Challenges of Free Government Phones

Free government phones benefit low-income and disabled people. They are honored with an opportunity to contact their family and healthcare centers for free. All in all, they don’t feel alone and isolated. However, the current challenges impact society. Stigma dissolves over time among the people who receive the benefit of free government phones, which are distributed in cooperation with local and state choosing regions. However, there are also a large number of people who don’t have a cell phone due to their financial difficulties. Some difficult areas, like electrification, have solutions, but who is volunteering to offer one smartphone for every person living on the same planet? The reality is that not everyone believes they all have an internet connection, particularly. Finally, which company can protect the personal information of people when it is difficult to trust the company and the smartphone?

4. Social and Economic Implications of Free Government Phones

Since poor communities and individuals within these communities depend on various social services, government services, and private organizations – from health, application, and welfare centers to sales, employment, and training – telephone access is crucial for effectively and efficiently accessing information and communicating with organizations and with peers. This includes not only telephoning from homes, but also called ID-calling, calling back information and assistance centers, and the need for business negotiations from anywhere at any time. It is not surprising that in the area of telecommunications access, arguments for inclusion and against those who have been marginalized have become increasingly vocal.

The increase in free government phones impacts society in various ways, particularly with regard to access. Unable to afford one, millions of low-income individuals do not own a phone. Also, due to poor credit or previous debts, many low-income people can only get a cell phone under prepaid plans, which limit the ability to make and receive calls. People who do not own phones usually rely on family members, friends, or public phones (of which there are fewer due to mobile phone adoption) to achieve mobility, security, and engagement in society. People without telephone access are trapped in their homes or in public places with phones. It is very expensive and time-consuming for them to meet their information and communication needs. Many low-income individuals will remain marginalized without help to acquire cell phone access in the current climate, where there is emphasis on the use of wireless communication technologies.

5. Future Trends and Policy Recommendations

This study is largely a confirmation based on filling in the gaps in the FCC data release. The percentage of new subscribers who say they would have purchased this service at full price should be an active area for investigation as it has great implications for the social costs of the program, both in the sense of the budgetary costs of the program and the evolving distribution and consumption of the top 10% of users, the installed base. Certainly, if the percent of users who say they would have purchased service increases, the 6-year trend of reducing minutes per user and increasing fixed costs could be reversed, reducing an important cost driver of the program.

The statistics show an alarming trend of growth that does not appear to be slowing. Given projected population growth and the qualitative effects of an expanding lower class on skilled employment, increasing lifeline subscribers year over year is bad for society as a whole. As such, it would be in the best interest of any thinking organization to suggest or advocate for different models that would lead to both economic benefits and a reduction in lifeline use. However, whatever social or economic benefits are derived from paying consumers to use a service, expanding such a program has a well-understood set of outcomes.