"Working landlines are very different from mobile Obama phones. Try news stations instead of lunatic left echo chambers."
So-called news sources are not the place to get information on programs like this. Due to the US's broken political system (with two nearly-identical parties which people swear are polar opposites), the news coverage of political programs is poor at best. That said:
1) Calling subsidized mobile phones "Obama phones" is ridiculous, the universal service fund, subsidizing phone service for the poor, as well as for people too far out in the sticks for the phone co to provide service otherwise, has been around for DECADES. Obviously they were not handing out bag phones in the 1980s, it did not make technological or economic sense. But nevertheless the cell phone program is an extension of these same programs.
2) *CELL PHONES COST LESS THAN LANDLINES*!!!! If I want a BASIC landline from the CenturyLink, it's like $20-25 a month, with no long distance. The companies providing "free" cell phones are getting about $10 a month in subsidy. So, if they buy the higher minute plan, the person getting the phone service chips in $10 and the subsidy $10.
3) Employability. The people that speak against these phones, that say a landline is good enough (ignoring point 2), are usually also the same ones that want people off subsidies as fast as possible (i.e. back to work)... which is definitely a good goal. Well who is more employable? Someone who the potential employer dials up and it rings through to their cell? Or the other person with the landline, where it just rings and rings if they happen to be out looking for work, or buying groceries, or whatever (landline service does not include voicemail, and as a broke individual they probably won't have an answering machine!)
------------------------------------------------
Back on topic -- I've read about startling changes in some of these countries from technology. A few have seen great economic growth, they effectively did not have banks out in the sticks, or any way to hold onto money (they'd probably be robbed eventually if they just had all this cash around), which made any kind of normal economy impossible. Now, it's done via phone banking, they can store their wealth, business all accept phone transfer, and there are places they can locally get some of that on-phone money turned into hard currency when they'd like. In places where there's some farming, better contact between producers and sellers so they can find out which markets are providing better pricing. Rural people are getting medical information they never had access to before.
That said, I do think it's naive to assume these people will be making widespread use of PCs and using these services similarly to how they are used in the US. Even Japan uses services radically differently than here. Google's plan seems a bit naive.
I think what Gates is doing is very important too. I just won't dismiss people who think they can bring about change via better communication either.