Hi Group,

I stayed out of this for a while, but just for the record, I got my free 
phone in August of 2008--5 months before Obama took office. The big 
supporter of this program was the Cellular Telecommunications Industry 
Association (CTIA) those fine folks who brought up the Communications 
and Privacy Act--which made illegal the importation of some kinds of 
scanners and ham gear.   Thomas Wheeler, the former head of this 
business front once said: "Anyone who uses radio for anything other than 
entertainment--AM/FM radio or TV is a snoop."  That of course would 
include ham operators, scanner enthusiasts, short-wave listeners and so 
on.  He once held a key position in the George W. Bush administration 
and guess where he is now?  why some sort of assistant to the FCC board 
under Obama.

Suffices to say: 'love 'em or hate 'em' the free phones  are not just 
Obama phones, it's a CT/IA team effort!

/
On 6/23/2013 7:57 AM, Howard Kaufman wrote:
> Why is it that when any project supported by our president is disliked by
> somebody, they give it his name as a sign of disrespect?
>
> Their is always a sense of jealousy when anybody gets something for free
> that we had to pay for with our hard earned money.  On the other hand, our
> relationship to a phone has changed so drastically, that the need for access
> makes some abuse tolerable.  For example, any cell phone, as long as it has
> a charge will call 911.  The domestic violence centers therefore give them
> to potential victims of domestic violence, so that the people will have
> another option to increase their safety.  The entire HMO based Health care
> system runs on the assumption of being able to communicate with patients by
> phone.  Obviously, when a person is homeless, a land based phone line isn't
> very useful.  With no installation costs, a cell phone becomes the most cost
> effective way of providing a communications option for citizens who live in
> poverty.  Remember, the phones are limited in features and time.  Are some
> sold for drugs?  Probably.  Would you rather that those people stole your
> stuff to sell for drugs?  How about selling their children for drugs?  As
> long as their are actively consuming drugs, and as long as they have become
> addicted to those drugs.  They will do what ever is necessary to obtain the
> drugs.  Better that they have a phone to arrange for drug treatment through
> their HMO's if and when they choose to.
>
> If one person does that every month, doesn't that make the investment worth
> it?  How about the people that call the nurse rather than charge off in
> panic for the unnecessary $200 emergency room visit?  You can pay for a lot
> of phones with the cost savings there.
>
> Are we, the consumers of our wonderful NLS going to complain that somebody
> else is getting something that we are not getting?  Of all people I don't
> think we want to bark up that tree.  How many of us paid for our entire
> educations, paid for every dime of our adaptive technology?  Never used
> subsidized public transportation?  Drove on a road that we paid for?  Oh and
> bought only unsubsidized farm products.  Everybody pays for some things
> while they are using other things.
>
> No president is perfectly right and no president is perfectly wrong.  also
> no president is all powerful.  The executive branch is 1/3 of the
> government.
>