I would like to propose an alternative solution: Force broadband providers to offer low cost service to families that need it. Don't subsidize it, just force it.

Internet connections cost next to nothing to maintain. The telecoms can afford it.

they can give millions in subsidies direct to corporations

That's exactly why they're fighting it -- every dollar they give to poor people is a dollar less they can give to rich people.

Especially those with unplanned pregnancy

It's two fold for them, I'd bet money that they're also trying to disconnect the youth in some attempt to grow their dwindling youth base. Their dumb book bans don't work so well when kids can just hop on the Internet and get it anyways (and more)

Can't have kids learning all that "empathy" and "caring" indoctrination! /s

There’s a reason they’ve been infiltrating school boards, banning books, and white washing history books. They can’t get elected if the electorate is educated and informed about the issues.

A lot of it stems from insecurity and otherism.

They're on the losing side but want to be in denial about it. Those on the winning side behave like patronizing children, which only causes the losing side to want to spite them.

Really, the US is an extremely successful example of how to keep people divided and distracted so they can be easily exploited by their rulers.

This is the case on both sides. Democrats are only progressive until it fucks with their money. Then they become real conservative, real quick.

It was like that in Russia before big federal companies took over that business. A wild west where companies actually competed with each other, even by providing their own forums, filesharing services, torrent trackers and pirated WoW\CS servers - with unlimited traffic when it was paid-per-MB and with better speeds\ping when it became unlimited. It didn't cost much nor for them, nor for clients, and they were very responsive if there's some problem with connectivity. It actually created some sort of a community around ISPs where people could cooperate locally around their issues.

I don't want to sound like an ancap, or an annoying free market fan, but it served people way better than monopolization. And knowing how it all ended, having a small local company eyeing your traffic is probably better than having feds farming it in a centralized fashion - that's probably the reason, since some things never left local servers at that time (sus), and it happened right at the time of big riots. Some ISPs I know were bought out in the same year.

Having it said, even though in America it was probably just greed leading to that situation, big companies should be dismantled and localized to start to care about their clients. It means better service (they depend on ya), better privacy, probably better prices since they can't use you to strong-arm into another area with price dumping shouldered by your bills or just charge you whatever they want. Same shit recently happened with gig economy apps everywhere. If the state has one job, it's to hold down that bullshit of exponential growth. But just like with Anakin-Padme meme I'm having an impression there're not many places where representatives actually represent people, not corps. And I'm happy for some countries not falling for it, at least not at all times.

/rant

In America, even the Democrats would block something like that.

Both parties in our country have decided that nothing should happen unless a person who is already rich gets richer. That Government should never take any action if it possibly reduces the chance that someone else would make profit off of a problem.

Like we don't even build roads any more, unless we make it a public/private partnership where taxpayers pay to build the road, and then a private company takes over toll collection.

My town built a bridge across a river - not even really a new bridge, sort of replacing a existing bridge that was free to cross. And in the last few months of construction, the city announced that they'd partnered with a private company to collect tolls to fun maintenance. It was $2.50 to cross (one way) for cars when the bridge opened - like 6 years ago - and they're increased the tolls every opportunity since then. So now it costs more than $5 - each way - to cross the bridge for cars. The price for a Semi-truck to cross has on;y risen by 25% in the same time.

And they're notoriously bad. They double bill. They bill errantly (sending people bills who didn't even use the bridge). They're tolling system will be months behind. They'll put liens on cars that they claim crossed even when they haven't yet sent a bill.

The city government knows about all these problems and they are just like "our hands are tied, we signed a contract with them". So that bridge will be a Govenrment-enforced, for-profit scam for at least another 30 years.

And sometimes the city doesn't even get their full cut, because they apparently promised in the contract with the company that there would be a certain minimum daily use. So some days the city forgoes their cut, in order for the company to hit their promised profit for that day.

Mind you, this company didn't' have any part in building the bridge. And they don't run physical tollboths. They just built an array of cameras and sensors and have a payment portal website. And yet we let them gatekeep the bridge and the money generated by the bridge.

And of course, use of the bridge is always low, because people drive 20 miles out of their way to use the free bridge. And the more they raise the tolls, the more people avoid the bridge. So the more days the city doesn't even take a cut.

This bridge is basically in the middle of a city - so some people commuted across the old bridge for free, now they have to pay $10 in tolls just to go to work and back home. Or they add 40 minutes to their commute, add unnecessary traffic to other roads in town.

Just because a Democrat led city Government didn't believe in paying with tax dollars for maintenance on a bridge that was already built.

It's nuts to me that the government isnt clamouring to run free email or cloud storage for people, and encourage them to use it. Same for phone service. It seems like an easy and relatively cheap way to get free access to a lot of data.

Exactly. It's a service. Service costs money. Pay for it with taxes

So don't be like that, they also exist to get paid by their corporqte overlords and remove rights.

They'd play chess like a pigeon would. Flipping over pieces and shitting all over the board, while having no clue what they are doing, nor caring about what they are doing.

They don't see you as people. It's just that simple.

Rich republicans: because they view them as damaged goods who only have themselves to blame, that are only fit for slave labor to profit from.

Poor republicans: ?? probably think that they'll become rich one day, unlike those other poor low life schmucks who deserve nothing because they're damaged goods who only have themselves to blame, that are only fit for slave labor.

If you have the time, I recommend Adam Conover's podcast interview of Corey Robin about What Liberals Get Wrong about the Right. It answered a lot of questions like this for me.

That's more then I spend for my household on "tech gear" every 3 years, including cellular devices. I am far from any line that would qualify me for a program... seems excessive.

I agree with the bump to $60, $30 is a good subsidy like a decade + ago.

I thought there was a companion requirement that providers must offer a plan that is fully covered.

$30 would cover the $27 of taxes and (mostly) fees for my phone and internet (business) bundle.

I have a "Deregulated Administration Fee" of $8.95.

Edit: It is 100/40 bonded VDSL2 for those curious. There is an upgrade available to 200/40 though. Good speeds for middle of nowhere, but that means only one wired provider.