Editor’s note: This story was updated on Sept. 14 to reflect the new meeting date.

During the pandemic, California has taken major steps to increase cell phone and Internet access to vulnerable communities in the state, particularly low-income families.

In July 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a $6 billion state plan to expand high-speed internet infrastructure in rural and other under-resourced areas.

And from May 2021 to March of this year, the state allowed low-income families to take advantage of discounts of up to $75 a month from state and federal subsidy programs and to purchase Internet and cell phone services. Eligible households can “bundle” subsidies from three programs, two federal and one state, to get these savings.

State regulators are considering limiting some of their savings.

California’s Public Utilities Commission is expected to vote in October on a new rule that would limit how much telecommunications companies can earn from the state’s Lifeline program, which provides discounts for home phone and cell phone service to low-income families.

Under the new rule, low-income California families who qualify for federal assistance for phone service and Internet access will lose some or all of their California Lifeline monthly discounts. The result: Instead of collecting three deductibles, most California Lifeline users will be limited to two years with a deductible of up to just $39.25 per month.

The companies that service Lifeline customers and some of their customers have protested the change, arguing that it would cost low-income consumers money and limit what cell and Internet services they can buy.

Six California Lifeline providers and the National Lifeline Association recently wrote to the commission that the proposed outcome is “perverse, elitist, discriminatory and deeply harmful to California’s low-income consumers.”

‘A win for wireless’

About 1.7 million Californians are enrolled in the state’s Lifeline program, an offshoot of the federal Lifeline program. Commission staff predicted the proposed change could result in more money being made available to extend services to more low-income residents.

State officials also argued that the two federal rebates are enough to cover most consumer needs and, in many cases, pay for excess, unused data capacity. Commission staff wrote that collecting the three subsidies would “result in unintended harm to wireless providers and lead to waste, fraud and abuse.”

Most Californians who own a phone pay these subsidies with a 4.75% charge on their monthly bill.

Nationwide phone extensions fund emergency services called the Universal Service Fund, which keeps 911 and the federal Lifeline program afloat. The federal government established the Lifeline subsidy in 1984 to extend telephone service to the poorest Americans. It now pays providers $9.25 a month to fund phone and cell service for households with incomes below 135% of the federal poverty level, or $37,463 for a family of four, and for people receiving public assistance.

During the pandemic, in May 2021, the federal government created a $50 per month Emergency Broadband Benefit to help families get online as schools close, people work from home, and many others lose their jobs. In late 2021, Congress’ Infrastructure and Jobs Act replaced that emergency benefit with what’s now called the Affordable Connection Plan, offering a $30 discount per month instead of $50.

California, meanwhile, continued its Lifeline program — one of only three states to do so — with a $16.23 monthly discount for low-income households or those receiving public assistance. For example, a family of four making $40,600 or less qualifies.

“One More Cost”

At the height of the pandemic, Californians could get three discounts to purchase services from Lifeline providers, but that ended in March.

Now, at best, consumers can apply one Lifeline plan and one Affordable Connectivity Plan discount per home. The commission is considering making that limit permanent.

Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma argued that combining all three programs gives people more information than the minimum required by law.

“California Lifeline subsidies must be designed to ensure that ratepayer funds are used in a prudent and fiscally sound manner,” the proposal states. Shiroman’s staff said he was not available to answer questions about the proposal.

At least 35 members of the public wrote to the commission opposing the changes to the discounts and defending the use of the data.

pleaded Christina Moore of Lifeline in Los Angeles Commission.

“I use my phone for job hunting … I use it to talk to my doctor about my condition … This phone has been a blessing from the good Lord for me, especially during the pandemic,” he said. “Please don’t cut our benefits and please let’s maximize minutes and benefits from all levels of government!”

Christine Morris of Mission Viejo worried about losing options for her family.

“How come CA is finding new ways to make it harder for consumers to stay connected,” he said. “My kids need a phone and a tablet to keep up with school and do their homework. By limiting the service plans available to low-income people, you’re making the problem worse for us, not better. This was very important to my family — please find a way to serve us more and better! “With all the rising costs, that’s one more cost we can’t afford.”

‘Failure to provide’

Todd Snyder of San Francisco said it would be unfair to limit internet options for low-income Californians.

“This proposed decision will exacerbate inequality and widen the digital divide for low-income Californians trying to compete in today’s rapidly changing digital economy,” he said.

Several consumer advocacy groups took a counter stance, supporting the commission’s plan. Some California Lifeline providers charge high monthly fees for data plans that vary wildly in quality and services, and consumers don’t always get what they pay for, they said.

“The failure of some providers to provide customers with good value Lifeline service is part of the reason the commission does not allow providers to bundle California Lifeline subsidies with (Affordable Connection Plan) subsidies,” said Ashley Salas, an attorney. San Francisco-based consumer advocacy group The Utility Reform Network.

The Federal Communications Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission have established minimum service standards for Lifeline plans. Currently they require unlimited voice and text and 6 gigabytes of data per month.

The 6GB plan allows you to browse the web for three days, stream 1,200 songs or watch 12 hours of standard videos, according to the Paris-based product review website. According to Swedish telecom giant Ericsson, the average American smartphone user consumed 11GB or more of data per month in 2020, but that number is expected to increase with the rollout of 5G.

Some opponents of the commission’s plan said today’s Zoom meetings, online courses and telemedicine sessions already require more than 6GB per month.

State officials countered that most Lifeline users don’t use all of their data and that the industry couldn’t prove otherwise.

Nuanced views

Nathan Johnson, CEO of TruConnect, a Los Angeles-based wireless company that offers Lifeline, said many low-income people want more data, which is why many don’t sign up for Lifeline.

A 2019 report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office found that only 40% of eligible California families are enrolled in Lifeline. The report cites several reasons: Families may be unaware of the program, they may prefer non-Lifeline plans or carriers, or they may experience difficulties with the program.

Johnson said TruConnect’s low-income customers used more than 6GB per month when offered higher data plans, and said the utility commission should be more flexible.

“Why should Californians get less when they deserve more?” – he asked.

Other consumer groups don’t necessarily agree. Vinhcent Le, a lawyer with the Oakland-based Greenlining Institute, said advocates’ views are more nuanced. They consider not only consumers of Lifeline services, but also other consumers who pay additional fees.

“It was not an easy decision to support the commission,” he said. “It always looks bad when you can’t do more subsidies… But I think what the CPUC is trying to do here — and why we’ve supported it — is to create a way that you can use the rebates more effectively and make sure that the funding is there. so we don’t have to increase surcharges for California consumers.”

And if Lifeline funds are used more efficiently, he said, perhaps California could lower the surcharge for other consumers.

The commission will hold a vote on the issue on October 6.

Send comments to the commission.

Watch the meeting online.

The Lifeline Call Center offers assistance in 10 languages, including English (1-866-272-0349) and Spanish (1-866-272-0350).

Internet access has become essential after COVID-19.

Video chat applications are largely replacing face-to-face interactions, and personal services and businesses are being pushed behind the safety of screens, making daily life impossibly difficult for those without reliable internet access.

This changing reality got a graduate student at the University of Washington thinking.

Esther Jang spent time in the Philippines building cell towers to provide internet access to remote areas. Why not try the same in underserved areas of Seattle, he wondered?

“It really kicked into gear because of the pandemic,” Jang said. “Suddenly, people realized that Internet access was a utility — something people couldn’t do without.”

A 2018 City of Seattle report found that 88 percent of Seattle residents have access to fixed broadband Internet at home. But Jang says that research on this topic usually raises more questions than answers. For example, who owns a home and what accesses a truly secure internet? What happens if someone misses a monthly payment, especially during the heightened economic uncertainty of the pandemic?

“All these problems kind of surfaced,” he said.

Jang wanted to start something like NYC Mesh, a nonprofit that relies on volunteers to provide Internet access through towers in New York. He spoke with Kurtis Heimerl, head of the Information and Communication Technologies for Development Lab at the UW. The ICTD Lab studies the application of technology for poverty alleviation.

“Esther said, ‘I want to do everything we do in the Philippines, but I want to do it in Seattle,'” Heimerl recalled.

They developed a plan that became the Seattle Community Network, an internet service provider supported by volunteers and partners. It is sponsored by the City of Seattle, University of Technology in the Public Interest
Network, National Science Foundation, and individual donors.

Building a collaborative network hasn’t been without its challenges—not least of which is the proliferation of hills and buildings in Seattle.

Seattle’s urban topography — carved by glaciers as old as skyscrapers — is one of cellular wireless’s biggest enemies, Jang said. In short, everything tends to go right. A tall building can block the signal, and a hill or valley can mean a loss of coverage.

Nevertheless, Seattle Community Network now operates six LTE-based towers around the Seattle area, including one at Franklin High School — and a seventh in Tacoma. Coverage for each tower varies from blocks to miles depending on location.

While the project continues to look for new sites for towers to expand its reach, the focus is now on building a network of volunteers and partners who can help educate potential users on how to access the free service.

“It’s really hard to get the word out to people,” Jang said. “You can blast something on Facebook, but if they’re not online, they’re less likely to see it.”

So far, the strategy has been to partner with community organizations, including the King County Library System, the Black Brilliance Project, and the Seattle Filipino Community, which have helped spread the word.

“Our model really works with multiple partner organizations and supports them in providing connectivity,” Heimerl said.

He added: “At the end of the day, the main idea is to run the mobile network by really building the infrastructure like T-Mobile and Verizon. To take this idea and try to bring it down to the level of these organizations that have not technical capabilities, but social capabilities to communicate with this population.”

The Seattle Community Network is currently seeking individual volunteers with community building, teaching, and technology skills, as well as individuals with hands-on experience building things and installing electronic devices.

“We definitely need people with technical experience, who help network and IT the most, but also people who like to build things,” Jang said. “Even people who have wired their house, have some electrical skills, or just software engineers.”

He said building a community around internet access for all has been one of the most rewarding aspects of the project, and he hopes to find more like-minded people who can donate their time and skills to the cause.

“Honestly, I think one of the best things about this project is just the people,” Jang said.

Members of a popular internet forum were filled with pride after recounting the story of a former student’s comeback at the expense of a brave high school teacher.

In a viral Reddit post on r/pettyrevenge, Redditor u/Gunn_Show (otherwise known as the original poster or OP) said their names are often mispronounced at school, but revealed how they were able to influence one guilty teacher. stops disrespect immediately.

The article entitled “I called my teacher by his nickname in the school yard…in front of the class” has collected about 12 thousand positive votes in the last day.

“I have a silent letter in my name,” said the OP. “I had this teacher who was relentlessly not only pronouncing it, but announcing it a lot.”

Continuing to explain that they had tried to correct the teacher – over and over again – the original poster said that their efforts were in vain and that no matter how hard they tried, the mispronunciation persisted.

That is, until he fights back by using the teacher’s “really weird” name against him.

“One day I finally broke,” the OP wrote. “He called the roll and mispronounced my name.

“I replied, ‘Yes, Mrs. Two-Booger,'” the OP continued. “His jaw dropped…[and] he said, ‘That’s not my name!’…I said plainly, ‘And that’s not my name.’

“He pronounced it right after that,” said the OP.

A person’s name is more than just a distinguishing label.

According to the University of British Columbia, names are an important part of a person’s identity and help preserve deep, personal, cultural, familial and historical connections.

While many people in the United States who live with traditional, English names rarely worry about any mispronunciations, a portion of the country’s population is called by the wrong name every day.

Mispronounced names often have different effects on different people.

In 2016, researchers at Stanford University and the University of Toronto found that nearly 50 percent of black and Asian job applicants changed their names on resumes to remove any racial ambiguity in hopes of increasing their chances of getting hired at the companies they wanted.

And in 2019, University of California Riverside associate professor Rita Kohli argued that repeatedly mispronouncing a student’s name can cause many problems that affect their ability to learn effectively with their white classmates.

“We’ve felt that a lot of people are embarrassed – they’re embarrassed by their name, they want to refuse to raise their hand in class, and they sit on the edge of their seat during the roll call so they can say their name before someone else. It’s confusing,” Kohli said in an interview with NPR.

“There was a lot of anxiety and fear with that,” Kohli added.

In the comments section of the viral Reddit post, many Redditors detailed their experiences with mispronounced names and unwanted nicknames, praising the original poster for making sure they never mispronounce their former teachers’ names again.

“I had a shop teacher who didn’t pronounce my last name correctly,” said Redditor u/MasterBeanCounter. “I corrected it several times [and] made him a list of words that rhymed with my last name.

“He still couldn’t help but pronounce it correctly,” they said. “So I called him a childhood nickname he hated so much…I got kicked out of school and he still didn’t get my name right. Never.”

Redditor u/ErikMalik chimed in: “A friend of mine managed to tell my ex-boss about the name I was made fun of in school. “I hated it. [But] of course this boss… started using it all the time.”

In the top comment on the post, which has more than 3,000 upvotes, Redditor u/Fickle-Square199 lamented the authority figures who refuse to correct their actions until the tension is resolved.

“I hate when people can’t solve their problems when they’re politely corrected,” they said. “I prefer to be beautiful, but they force a person to take the low road.”

“Good for you,” said Redditor u/smudgesbudges, referring to the OP. “If he can pronounce his name, he can pronounce yours correctly.”

Newsweek u/Gunn_Show has been contacted for comment.