FCC Unveiling $10 Broadband for Low-Income Households

[happyballz]

Once again people need to learn: corporations NEVER do anything in a gesture of good will it was all part of a deal: FCC-Pushes-10-Broadband-Plan-Most-Wont-Qualify-For-116966

 

[chrisjust98]

[citation][nom]BulkZerker[/nom] That's splitting hairs man. Comparing the money that goes to welfare and "helping the poor" projects as compared to SS and other retirement aid funds. ASDF (things that cover welfare like the "federal lunch program") accounts for less than .5% of the annual federal budget and that's including what states spend.Lets say it's 5% hell. That's still trying to say a glass of water out of a 55gallon barrel is worth worth blaming the wrong person for drinking it. That's inane. And if your trying to be "correct" there's another term that better suits it. Anal.[/citation]

LOL! Yeah, ok. Last time I checked, welfare money goes to people who collect unemployment money and others in need of financial assistance. So if I was trying to be "correct", as you put it, I would've said that it goes to poor and/or lazy people.

 

[Guest]

I currently have 8mbps service through comcast, but probably usually only get ~4-6mbps. I hate to think what they throttle 1mbps service down to.

 

[rosen380]

Just a thought-- if the idea is to get more people on > 56kbps dial-up to make using the internet tolerable, then 1 Mbps seems like it would be pretty great.

If the idea is to make it easier for people in low-income households to be able to download torrents and stream Netflix, then sure it is insufficient. My gut feeling is that they are tergetting the former not the latter.

 

[techtre2003]

"but many actually have access yet choose not to subscribe because of monthly pricing and/or "perceived relevance to their lives."

If this is the true reason they are doing this, then why just for the "poor". I'm sure there are millions that just don't want to spend $50+ a month for broadband because they wouldn't use it enough to justify the cost; especially older people.

So what they are really doing is giving people who can't afford their own food dirt cheap access for 2 years, getting them hooked so they think they can't live without it and then jacking the price back up. So then you have people who can't feed themselves without assistance paying $xx for something else they don't NEED. Seems to me this is just a win/win deal for the cable companies. Makes me wonder if the FCC is doing this for the people or for the cable companies.

 

[bfstev]

This really doesnt have anything to do with the poor and has everything to do with their children. Since its targeted at groups qualifying for the free and reduced lunch program then only families with children actually in school that make less than the poverty line will qualify. Its about making the technology available to the children not their dead beat parents. There is a significant disparity in education between those with internet access and those that have to spend 2 hours going to the library and waiting for a computer for a school project. Which student do you think is more likely to get a good grade? Making sure the youth of today are educated benefits everyone. You may not see the direct benefit, but you will when you try to buy something at a store from a clerk who cant count or try to hire someone who doesnt have a basic grasp of english or writing.

 

[mavroxur]

[citation][nom]sdfj2ljfjflksjflo0uuj08ti90tgiig-[/nom]"with the old people, its more of the case that drugs can cost 1000+% more than they cost to manufacture and produce."Actually while the patents are in effect, add another 2 or 3 zeros to that, 100,000% to 1,000,000% markup on drugs is quite normal.[/citation]


Because pharmaceutical research is free? Billions go into drug research and testing every year. Just because the ingredients and labor to make the pills is cheap, it takes drug companies years to recover the research costs involved.

 

[bfstev]

btw the free and reduced lunch thing as the qualifier is also used because it fits into the funding architecture already inplace with the Universal Service Fund with E-rate and Title-1 funding to schools with a significant population of these students. Its basically the only reason inner city schools get any new network or computer equipment since they are horrifically underfunded with the current system of providing funds based on property taxs that have plumeted due to the falling price of homes and property. schools in more affluent areas tend to be better funded for the same reason(more revenue generation due to higher taxes on higher value property) and the communities tend to give them more money freely in donations. The free and reduced lunch requirement will be coordinated with the school district through the local school.

 

[rawful]

The amount of ignorance in a lot of people's comments here is absolutely astounding. Learn to think for yourself. Learn to read. Learn to learn, please.

 

[nottheking]

[citation][nom]mayne92[/nom]It wasn't done before because there was no $$ to be made - that is called being SMART about "free market". Do you not know that the gov't is spending taxpayer dollars to help fund this initiative and that those of us who do pay are paying a small percentage to subsidize this initiative as well? But I guess in this day and age it makes perfect sense to invest and make many failed decisions as a corporation because failure isn't an option anymore...the taxpayers got their backs right?![/citation]
Thank you for proving yourself completely illiterate. If you'd bothered to read the article, (hey, I even provided a piece of the article so you didn't have to "tl;dr" the thing!) you'd notice that you just failed on two points:

1. Taxpayer dollars are NOT being used to fund this.
2. Cable companies ARE going to make a profit off of this.

Again, to provide you with the relevant evidence from the original article:[citation][nom]The NYT article you didn't read[/nom]Because no federal funds are being invested, the initiative relies in large part on the cooperation of private companies.



Broadband service normally has a high markup, and the $9.99 price will more than cover the overhead costs of providing monthly Internet service.[/citation]So, that is ample evidence that you're wrong on all claims you made: there was money to be made, and no, the "gov't" was NOT spending any taxpayer dollars to fund this.

[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]The amount of ignorance in a lot of people's comments here is absolutely astounding. Learn to think for yourself. Learn to read. Learn to learn, please.[/citation]
I'd settle for them learning to read.

 

[igot1forya]

^^ Durp!

 

[Guest]

Direct TV is already taking orders for the discounted service - (888) 750-2908

 

[Pherule]

"Broadband is not a right"

Oh really? That's exactly the attitude that's got half the world's internet still stuck in the 1990's. Wake up guys.

 

[WyomingKnott]

When did broadband become a right? Well, when did plain old telephone service become a right? Just plain wired phone service was made a "right" by law when the FCC required phone companies to extend wires to small, remote communities and poor areas, subsidized by higher rates and profits on high-population urban areas and lucrative (then) long-distance service. Read about it. AT&T did not run wires to Joe's ranch twenty miles from the nearest village because Joe paid them enough to recover the cost of running the wire.

Think of it in that context; it may make a little more sense.

 

[thrasher32]

"...will include a rental modem, free installation and 1 Mbps access"

"...the $9.99 monthly fee will be an introductory price...Once those two years are depleted, customers are expected to pay the normal monthly price if they choose to keep the broadband access."

So how much are they expected to pay for 1Mbps access once their "introductory price" has expired??

 

[ntrceptr]

Here's something offtopic to complain about! Charging me for Dataplans on a phone. Yes i'd like to pay for my internet twice please...lol. I guess it would be hard to exceed the monthly limit since it's so slow. Yep you may have guessed it, i will never own a smartphone until the fees come down to what my current unlitmited phone is. Only people in know with one are either young and have no children or old and all their kids have left.