Solve : Mass Media Reports 'Obama phone' fraud.?

1.	Solve : Mass Media Reports 'Obama phone' fraud.?
Answer» This is about three months old and based on stories back in 2012 & 2013. As you know, the 'Obama phone' programs subsidies a free cell phone program managed by the big companies. Just this year the mainstream media got on the bandwagon and reported it on TV and radio. The guilty parties are some of the very big companies in the Telecom industry. Here is the recent version of the story from February this year. Quote Well, to be fair, the program that the woman was referring to in the 2012 video -- which was taken outside of a Romney campaign event -- really has nothing to do with President Obama; it's been around for years (1996 to be exact). It's technically called the Lifeline Assistance Program, and it is administered by the Federal Communications Commission, via the Universal Service Administrative Company, a corporate non-profit entity established by the FCC. Persons making less than about $15,000 a year, or families less than about $30,000, can qualify for a free phone through the program. The program is financed by telecom companies themselves, not tax money, but here's the catch: Many companies fund their contributions through a universal service fee on phone bills, so while technically the fee is not a "tax," certainly taxpayers who have phone services through participating telecoms that charge the Universal Service Fund are footing the tab. Okay, so what does all this have to do with anything? Well, it seems as if a portion of the program has become rife with waste, fraud and abuse. Source: Naturalnews Mainstream Media Reports Free Fone Fraud. More non-news from the Geeker. Natural News (formerly Newstarget) is a website founded and operated by Mike Adams. It is dedicated to the sale of various DIETARY supplements, promotion of alternative medicine, controversial nutrition and health claims, and various conspiracy theories, such as "chemtrails", the purported dangers of fluoride in drinking water (as well as those of monosodium glutamate and aspartame), and purported health problems caused by allegedly "toxic" ingredients in vaccines, including the now-discredited link to autism. Characterized as a "conspiracy-minded alternative medicine website", Natural News has approximately 7 million unique visitors per month. Founder Mike Adams has been accused of using sockpuppet accounts to fraudulently increase the vote count in his self-nomination for a Shorty Award. The journal Vaccine accused Adams of spreading "irresponsible health information" through Natural News. He has also been accused of using "pseudoscience to sell his lies" Adams is an AIDS DENIALIST, a 9/11 truther, a birther and endorsed conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, as well as surrounding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. According to John Banks, Adams uses "pseudoscience to sell his lies" and is "seen as generally a quack and a shill by science bloggers." One such blogger, David Gorski of ScienceBlogs, called Natural News "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet", and a one-stop-shop for "virtually every quackery known to humankind, all slathered with a heaping helping of unrelenting hostility to science-based medicine and science in general." Peter Bowditch of the website Ratbags, and Jeff McMahon writing for Forbes commented about the site. Steven Novella of NeuroLogica Blog called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable." Novella continued: "If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it – whatever sells the "natural" products he hawks on his site." Mike Adams, self-styled "Health Ranger". I think I touched on his use of them as a source here. That does not appear to have stopped him using it as a source, and I suspect even if he did we would instead merely be provided citations and sources from any number of other conspiratard websites.I'm trying to find a Forum addon or switch to prevent Geeks posts in the Computer News section...so far ...no luck.Quote from: patio on April 26, 2015, 05:25:46 PM I'm trying to find a Forum addon or switch to prevent Geeks posts in the Computer News section...so far ...no luck. May I respectfully reply. All you need to do is post some guidelines for that section. As for the title 'Mass Media Reports 'Obama phone' fraud' , yes, taht was from a website with dubious credibility. However, it was based on earlier reports from the mass media. The title below was publicized buy CBS Denver back in January 26, 2015. Other poplar media did similar stories on t the free phone program. Phone Company ‘Outraged’ By Fraud, Abuse In ‘Obamaphone’ Program http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/01/26/phone-company-outraged-by-fraud-abuse-in-obamaphone-program/ To clarify, the term ‘Obamaphone' could be derogatory, but it has been in poplar use for some time. Perhaps you could add it to the list of popular expressions that are not allowed on Computer Hop.e Quote from: Geek-9pm on April 26, 2015, 06:01:10 PM http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/01/26/phone-company-outraged-by-fraud-abuse-in-obamaphone-program/ For a new story, that is surprisingly poorly written. I had to re-read a few portions to understand what was being communicated. Quote from: Geek-9pm on April 26, 2015, 06:01:10 PM To clarify, the term ‘Obamaphone' could be derogatory, but it has been in poplar use for some time. Perhaps you could add it to the list of popular expressions that are not allowed on Computer Hop.e I think the strangest part is that the "Obamaphone" program, known as "lifeline" has been an fcc project since 1985., with wireless/cellphone plans being introduced in 2005. Quote from: BC_Programmer on April 26, 2015, 07:40:00 PM For a new story, that is surprisingly poorly written. I had to re-read a few portions to understand what was being communicated. I think the strangest part is that the "Obamaphone" program, known as "lifeline" has been an fcc project since 1985., with wireless/cellphone plans being introduced in 2005. Yes. The first program was for a land line and the customer paid about $7 per mont instead of the normal $15 for residential service. Meanwhile, such home phone service went up to a much higher price. Later, cell phone service was added. Byt the new wrinkle is that the new service would be fee to the customer. No contract. No taxes, No billing. Next, some began to offer free data and text. The system grew rapidly and allowed some to abuse the system. Salesmen went out into shopping malls and other public places to sign up low-income people for the program. The salesmen were paid by the phone company to give away phones. Around 2012 and later reports of fraud and abuse began to surface. Only morfe recently has the main stream media got the story. It is now much bigger that the original 'LIFE-Line' low cost land line. It has become a social program that makes money for the telecom industry. But who pays for it? That is the big question. Think about it. The phones are non-transferable, but that does not stop individuals from selling the free phones to buy a case of beer. And the salesmen are motivated to push the cell phones to people that do not really need them. My reason fro posting this was to draw attention to a program that has gone AWRY. It was never my intent to multivitamins and food supplement. I have applied for one of the new phones that come with Internet. I applied for it at a strip mall here wee I live. They did not have the phones there, but toke my name and address. Presumably they will check and see if I am who I said I am. A number of people I know have got one of these. If an individual has less than $15,00 a year income, he can qualify. My social security is way under that. Is there any political motive in this 'Obamaphone' scandal? Forum rules prevent me from stating the obvious. Still, the increase in abuse is real. IMHO a better approach would be to lower the cost of all cell service to low-income families. But not just give it away for free. Quote from: Geek-9pm on April 26, 2015, 08:53:24 PM IMHO a better approach would be to lower the cost of all cell service to low-income families. But not just give it away for free. I think this leads into an interesting point. Social services like this tend to focus on necessities. Shelter, Food, basic communication- and personally I'm not entirely convinced that a mobile device falls into that category. They have become ubiquitous nowadays of course- and everybody seems to have a smartphone, for example, but I 'm not sure that is a good reason to subsidize mobile devices in this fashion for low-income families and individuals. As I mentioned earlier, the monthly fee for a low-income Life Line was about $7 per month plus tax. So that might mean the the real cost of the land line is about $7 per month and not the $28 they now want for home phone service. The cost of a cheap TracFone is maybe about $8 per month , plus the cost of the phone. Therefore, it would be reasonable to put low-income families on a low cost cell phone rather than a wired phone. As for Internet service, that is now becoming an ISSUE the politicians want to get into. Some argue that youngsters who do not have Internet are at a disadvantage. That leads to a debate. As you know, Microsoft showed that you can give people free internet by using abandoned TV frequencies. But that is another topic.

Answer»

This is about three months old and based on stories back in 2012 & 2013.
As you know, the 'Obama phone' programs subsidies a free cell phone program managed by the big companies. Just this year the mainstream media got on the bandwagon and reported it on TV and radio.
The guilty parties are some of the very big companies in the Telecom industry.
Here is the recent version of the story from February this year.
Quote

Well, to be fair, the program that the woman was referring to in the 2012 video -- which was taken outside of a Romney campaign event -- really has nothing to do with President Obama; it's been around for years (1996 to be exact).
It's technically called the Lifeline Assistance Program, and it is administered by the Federal Communications Commission, via the Universal Service Administrative Company, a corporate non-profit entity established by the FCC. Persons making less than about $15,000 a year, or families less than about $30,000, can qualify for a free phone through the program.
The program is financed by telecom companies themselves, not tax money, but here's the catch: Many companies fund their contributions through a universal service fee on phone bills, so while technically the fee is not a "tax," certainly taxpayers who have phone services through participating telecoms that charge the Universal Service Fund are footing the tab.
Okay, so what does all this have to do with anything? Well, it seems as if a portion of the program has become rife with waste, fraud and abuse.

Source: Naturalnews
Mainstream Media Reports Free Fone Fraud.
More non-news from the Geeker. Natural News (formerly Newstarget) is a website founded and operated by Mike Adams. It is dedicated to the sale of various DIETARY supplements, promotion of alternative medicine, controversial nutrition and health claims, and various conspiracy theories, such as "chemtrails", the purported dangers of fluoride in drinking water (as well as those of monosodium glutamate and aspartame), and purported health problems caused by allegedly "toxic" ingredients in vaccines, including the now-discredited link to autism.

Characterized as a "conspiracy-minded alternative medicine website", Natural News has approximately 7 million unique visitors per month. Founder Mike Adams has been accused of using sockpuppet accounts to fraudulently increase the vote count in his self-nomination for a Shorty Award. The journal Vaccine accused Adams of spreading "irresponsible health information" through Natural News. He has also been accused of using "pseudoscience to sell his lies"

Adams is an AIDS DENIALIST, a 9/11 truther, a birther and endorsed conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, as well as surrounding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.

According to John Banks, Adams uses "pseudoscience to sell his lies" and is "seen as generally a quack and a shill by science bloggers." One such blogger, David Gorski of ScienceBlogs, called Natural News "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet", and a one-stop-shop for "virtually every quackery known to humankind, all slathered with a heaping helping of unrelenting hostility to science-based medicine and science in general." Peter Bowditch of the website Ratbags, and Jeff McMahon writing for Forbes commented about the site. Steven Novella of NeuroLogica Blog called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable." Novella continued: "If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it – whatever sells the "natural" products he hawks on his site."

Mike Adams, self-styled "Health Ranger".
I think I touched on his use of them as a source here. That does not appear to have stopped him using it as a source, and I suspect even if he did we would instead merely be provided citations and sources from any number of other conspiratard websites.I'm trying to find a Forum addon or switch to prevent Geeks posts in the Computer News section...so far ...no luck.Quote from: patio on April 26, 2015, 05:25:46 PM

I'm trying to find a Forum addon or switch to prevent Geeks posts in the Computer News section...so far ...no luck.

May I respectfully reply.

All you need to do is post some guidelines for that section.

As for the title 'Mass Media Reports 'Obama phone' fraud' , yes, taht was from a website with dubious credibility. However, it was based on earlier reports from the mass media.

The title below was publicized buy CBS Denver back in January 26, 2015. Other poplar media did similar stories on t the free phone program.

Phone Company ‘Outraged’ By Fraud, Abuse In ‘Obamaphone’ Program
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/01/26/phone-company-outraged-by-fraud-abuse-in-obamaphone-program/

To clarify, the term ‘Obamaphone' could be derogatory, but it has been in poplar use for some time. Perhaps you could add it to the list of popular expressions that are not allowed on Computer Hop.e
Quote from: Geek-9pm on April 26, 2015, 06:01:10 PM

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/01/26/phone-company-outraged-by-fraud-abuse-in-obamaphone-program/

For a new story, that is surprisingly poorly written. I had to re-read a few portions to understand what was being communicated.

Quote from: Geek-9pm on April 26, 2015, 06:01:10 PM

To clarify, the term ‘Obamaphone' could be derogatory, but it has been in poplar use for some time. Perhaps you could add it to the list of popular expressions that are not allowed on Computer Hop.e

I think the strangest part is that the "Obamaphone" program, known as "lifeline" has been an fcc project since 1985., with wireless/cellphone plans being introduced in 2005.

Quote from: BC_Programmer on April 26, 2015, 07:40:00 PM

For a new story, that is surprisingly poorly written. I had to re-read a few portions to understand what was being communicated.

I think the strangest part is that the "Obamaphone" program, known as "lifeline" has been an fcc project since 1985., with wireless/cellphone plans being introduced in 2005.

Yes. The first program was for a land line and the customer paid about $7 per mont instead of the normal $15 for residential service. Meanwhile, such home phone service went up to a much higher price.
Later, cell phone service was added. Byt the new wrinkle is that the new service would be fee to the customer. No contract. No taxes, No billing. Next, some began to offer free data and text.
The system grew rapidly and allowed some to abuse the system. Salesmen went out into shopping malls and other public places to sign up low-income people for the program. The salesmen were paid by the phone company to give away phones.
Around 2012 and later reports of fraud and abuse began to surface. Only morfe recently has the main stream media got the story. It is now much bigger that the original 'LIFE-Line' low cost land line. It has become a social program that makes money for the telecom industry.
But who pays for it? That is the big question. Think about it. The phones are non-transferable, but that does not stop individuals from selling the free phones to buy a case of beer. And the salesmen are motivated to push the cell phones to people that do not really need them.

My reason fro posting this was to draw attention to a program that has gone AWRY.

It was never my intent to multivitamins and food supplement.
I have applied for one of the new phones that come with Internet. I applied for it at a strip mall here wee I live. They did not have the phones there, but toke my name and address. Presumably they will check and see if I am who I said I am.

A number of people I know have got one of these. If an individual has less than $15,00 a year income, he can qualify. My social security is way under that.
Is there any political motive in this 'Obamaphone' scandal? Forum rules prevent me from stating the obvious. Still, the increase in abuse is real.

IMHO a better approach would be to lower the cost of all cell service to low-income families. But not just give it away for free. Quote from: Geek-9pm on April 26, 2015, 08:53:24 PM

IMHO a better approach would be to lower the cost of all cell service to low-income families. But not just give it away for free.

I think this leads into an interesting point. Social services like this tend to focus on necessities. Shelter, Food, basic communication- and personally I'm not entirely convinced that a mobile device falls into that category. They have become ubiquitous nowadays of course- and everybody seems to have a smartphone, for example, but I 'm not sure that is a good reason to subsidize mobile devices in this fashion for low-income families and individuals.

As I mentioned earlier, the monthly fee for a low-income Life Line was about $7 per month plus tax. So that might mean the the real cost of the land line is about $7 per month and not the $28 they now want for home phone service.

The cost of a cheap TracFone is maybe about $8 per month , plus the cost of the phone. Therefore, it would be reasonable to put low-income families on a low cost cell phone rather than a wired phone.

As for Internet service, that is now becoming an ISSUE the politicians want to get into. Some argue that youngsters who do not have Internet are at a disadvantage. That leads to a debate. As you know, Microsoft showed that you can give people free internet by using abandoned TV frequencies. But that is another topic.

Solve : Mass Media Reports 'Obama phone' fraud.?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment