dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-09-24 09:25:39: To get the NBC acquisition approved, Comcast last year proposed a condition requiring they offer $10, 1.5 Mbps broadband tier (dubbed "Internet Essentials") to low income homes. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · next
firedrakes
join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL

firedrakes to Crookshanks

Member

to Crookshanks

Re: Fair

its comcast. all that has to be said
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to pnh102

Member

to pnh102

Re: Internet

Drug testing is fraught with biological/technological limitations that create very perverse incentives. The metabolites of THC (marijuana) show up for weeks after use, while the metabolites from far more harmful substances are out of your system within 48-72 hours. Alcohol is gone within a few hours to a day at most, so testing for it is ineffective, unless the person is stupid enough to show up to the test drunk.

Rather than impose drug testing, I'd rather see a mandate similar to that in place for those on unemployment. You should be required to document your efforts to obtain gainful employment, in the absence of efforts to find gainful employment you should not be able to receive assistance. We also need to remove the perverse incentives from our social safety net. A lot of people are stuck at an income level where they are penalized if they make more money. I know a single Mom who turned down a job offer because she would have lost access to state funded healthcare for her children. What's the point of making an extra $5,000/yr if it means you have to pay an extra $12,000/yr to insure your kids? Her decision made perfect sense from an economic standpoint.

There are other sociological issues at play that harm the poor, though the ability of Government to check some of these issues is limited at best. There are things we can do though, as a starting point I'd really like to see our country have an honest discussion about the merits/lack thereof of our societal experiment with drug prohibition, preferably without the extremist propaganda so often heard from both sides.

I'm not in favor of making heroin as accessible as beer, but it's hard to deny that prohibition has driven a wedge between the police and the communities they are supposed to protect. It's hard to deny that it creates opportunities for unsavory elements to pray on the weak and downtrodden. It has driven the para-militarization of our police, who here is old enough to remember when your local beat cop had a revolver on his belt and perhaps a shotgun in his car? Now he's got a 17+ shot pistol, three or four reloads, a select-fire AR-15 in the cruiser, with the SWAT team's armored vehicles on hot standby. Asset forfeiture laws have made a mockery of due process, you're presumed guilty and must prove your innocence if the Government seeks to seize your assets.

Alas, I don't think we're ready for an honest discussion about this issue. There's too much propaganda on both sides, while too many people are invested in the status quo.

PeteC2
Got Mouse?
MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT

PeteC2

MVM

I can see both sider actually...

Look, you surely can not blame Comcast for wanting to limit a new service to folks that already have reneged on paying for another service from the same company. If you owe me money, i may be understandably reluctant to have you take on any more debt with me.

However, the other side of this is that internet service is used for many productive things that cable t.v. is not, including access to services, including medical, and information that can include job searching sites, educational information etc.

I think that Comcast is being over-villanized over this, but perhaps taking that requirement away is not without merit.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

2 edits

pnh102 to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks

Re: Internet

said by Crookshanks:

Drug testing is fraught with biological/technological limitations that create very perverse incentives. The metabolites of THC (marijuana) show up for weeks after use, while the metabolites from far more harmful substances are out of your system within 48-72 hours. Alcohol is gone within a few hours to a day at most, so testing for it is ineffective, unless the person is stupid enough to show up to the test drunk.

True, but it does create some incentive to stay clean, and it sends the message if someone wishes to partake of such forms of entertainment, to do it on one's own dime. And besides, if most people have to pass drug tests in order to work, then it is perfectly appropriate to insist that a person on the dole pass a drug test to receive benefits.
said by Crookshanks:

Rather than impose drug testing, I'd rather see a mandate similar to that in place for those on unemployment. You should be required to document your efforts to obtain gainful employment, in the absence of efforts to find gainful employment you should not be able to receive assistance.
We also need to remove the perverse incentives from our social safety net. A lot of people are stuck at an income level where they are penalized if they make more money. I know a single Mom who turned down a job offer because she would have lost access to state funded healthcare for her children. What's the point of making an extra $5,000/yr if it means you have to pay an extra $12,000/yr to insure your kids? Her decision made perfect sense from an economic standpoint.

Agreed.
said by Crookshanks:

I'm not in favor of making heroin as accessible as beer, but it's hard to deny that prohibition has driven a wedge between the police and the communities they are supposed to protect. It's hard to deny that it creates opportunities for unsavory elements to pray on the weak and downtrodden. It has driven the para-militarization of our police, who here is old enough to remember when your local beat cop had a revolver on his belt and perhaps a shotgun in his car? Now he's got a 17+ shot pistol, three or four reloads, a select-fire AR-15 in the cruiser, with the SWAT team's armored vehicles on hot standby. Asset forfeiture laws have made a mockery of due process, you're presumed guilty and must prove your innocence if the Government seeks to seize your assets.

IMO The "War on Drugs" should be ended. It is bad policy, ineffective, and then there is what you said... it is a literal shredding of our Bill of Rights.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to Metatron2008

Premium Member

to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:

There are quite a few people who, once given things repeatedly, are lazy and have no pride for themselves, and would rather keep what they have then work for better.

So if "the great society" has conditioned them to react that way, then we MUST take responsiblity to "re-educate" them/recondition them to value the rewards of working for it.
Not punishment, but consistant goal oriented reward systems.

Darknessfall
Premium Member
join:2012-08-17
Motorola MG8725
Asus RT-N66

Darknessfall

Premium Member

Over Reacting

Those requirements are incredibly fair in my opinion. I even feel Comcast is super generous with the bandwidth that service has. 3/768 is a pretty good amount for $10 and for low income families. If I made this plan it would be 768k/384k as that's all you really need for what they SHOULD be doing if they cannot afford it.

Also, if you haven't payed them for something in the past and still haven't tried your hardest to do so, what makes you think they want to take you in if you're not willing to pay?
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to pnh102

Member

to pnh102

Re: Internet

said by pnh102:

And besides, if most people have to pass drug tests in order to work, then it is perfectly appropriate to insist that a person on the dole pass a drug test to receive benefits.

Well, YMMV, but I've worked at three jobs in my day, and only my current one required a drug test. That was only at hire, not random testing without cause, so you can partake all you want, so long as you don't show up to work stoned. Frankly I'm not even sure why they do the test at hire, other than to weed out the people who are so stupid as to not be able to abstain before the test they know is coming. It's pretty sad but I know of more than one position that went unfilled because the chosen candidate failed the drug screening. Just how stupid do you have to be to fail a drug test that you knew was coming weeks in advance?

The whole concept bothers me on a philosophical level. Unless they have reason to suspect I'm under the influence at work, why is it any of their business? Now we've got employers testing for nicotine, and that's a legal substance! Hell, I have an interview scheduled at just such an employer. After the test, should I get the job, I'm sorely tempted to smoke a cigar, just on general principle.

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now. It's nice to converse with someone who recognizes the futility of prohibition, now if we could only get some of our legislators to look at the issue objectively....
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks

Re: Fight On Comcast

They are not compelled to do anything... much like the employee who is free to quit if they don't like being exploited & the customer is free to go somewhere else if they are being taken advantage of, Comcast has a choice they can make: They are free to get out of the cable TV/Internet business and open a different type of business instead.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5

Re: More DSLR Conjecture

Yesbut, stomping their feet makes them feel better.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to brianiscool

Premium Member

to brianiscool

Re: Internet

Isn't that also an argument to cut corporate subsidies?
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL

1 recommendation

brianiscool

Member

I believe the middle class needs more help than the poor. Middle Class people need to be awarded for working on a daily basis not the poor who sit around and do nothing.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to Darknessfall

Premium Member

to Darknessfall

Re: Over Reacting

I believe they would likely setup a payment plan for anyone offering in good faith to pay back past debt. They might even for give some debt if a reasonable effort is made to repay.
Besides the public good/charitable side of this it's good business to get previous no-pays, back on a legit paying customer basis going forward. and it's really good business to get another generation feeling like ComCast is their provider of choice.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer

Re: Internet

said by CXM_Splicer:

Isn't that also an argument to cut corporate subsidies?

It isn't amazing that despite the $16 Trillion in debt that neither major party is seriously campaigning to end the billions and billions of corporate welfare.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 recommendation

tshirt to brianiscool

Premium Member

to brianiscool
a great many of "the poor"* work just as hard, in some cases much harder/longer hours trying very hard not to be poor.
due to economic ,educational and individual disadvantages/disabilities many never had the chance YOU have.

* it's easier to classify/discriminate against some other group when you depersonalize them with names like "the poor" or "the 47%".
Try think of them as individuals, and Americans rather than something beneath YOUR status.
Maybe treat others as you would hope to be treated, were your roles reversed.
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Sammer to Crookshanks

Member

to Crookshanks

Re: Fair

said by Crookshanks:

My favorite are the people who can't afford basic necessities but manage to find a way to feed the nicotine and/or alcohol habit.

Did you ever consider that it might be the other way around? Because profitable tobacco and alcohol industries got them hooked on their nicotine and/or alcohol addictions they can't afford basic necessities.

Lone Wolf
Retired
Premium Member
join:2001-12-30
USA

1 recommendation

Lone Wolf

Premium Member

Low Income

People with low income should not need access to the internet as they should be worrying about their important bills such as food, housing and clothing.

They can get internet access at the library.

I can see my Comcast bill rising because of this and the high number of low income people here in Philly.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 edit

1 recommendation

tshirt to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102

Re: Internet

said by pnh102:

IMO The "War on Drugs" should be ended. It is bad policy, ineffective, and then there is what you said... it is a literal shredding of our Bill of Rights.

Everyone should agree with that, for financial reasons if nothing else.
The cost of chasing, proscuting and housing 2 million plus, non violent, mostly personal use drug "PoW's" boggles the mind and creates a dream businees opportunity inside this country (and the rest of the world) for the most violent members worst cartels on the planet.
decrimializtion, minmal taxation (need to keep the profit motive near zero) and free treatment would release billions towards health care and MANY other worthwhile NEEDS in this counrty without any tax increases.
Getting back to the point where it is the govt for the people, by the people, is a long road, but this would be a big step.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 edit

Crookshanks to Sammer

Member

to Sammer

Re: Fair

Homo sapiens are one of the few critters in the animal kingdom that are capable of overriding their baser instincts. I have little sympathy for those who throw away this gift of nature in favor of a foolhardy instinctual chase for endorphins. You need not limit yourself to the evils of tobacco or alcohol, sugar is addicting, at least where the brain's reward center is concerned, and obesity imposes a great economic cost on society. Is it the fault of big aquaculture when people fail to control their caloric intake because our brains are hardwired to reward the consumption of sugar when it's available?

Civilization has blessed us with abundance. Evolution has blessed us with the ability to choose to enjoy said abundance in moderation. Few other animals have this ability, and no other animal has access to the abundance of civilization, well except for those that have tagged along for the ride, Canis lupus familiaris comes to mind.

Point being, we are all born with free choice and the ability to employ moderation. I do not own a small enough violin to play for the people who fail to exercise that ability and whom seek to assign blame to others for their own failures.
lancguy
join:2012-03-25
Lancaster, PA

lancguy

Member

The whole problem(s) with this arguement

First, Internet access is still a luxury. People can survive without internet access. My dad does it, and so does one of my brothers. Do they know it's there? Yes. Do they need it to survive? No, they do just fine without it - though for different reasons. Myself and my other brothers managed to navigate education without internet service.

There are ways to live without the Internet. If push came to shove we could live without internet service. If I need to pay a bill I can either call the company or mail my payment instead of paying on line. If I really needed to contact someone I can call that person or send a letter. If I need to submit an online application, I could go to the library or the unemployment center to do so. People can survive without the Internet....it just takes more effort.

Second, should any company be compelled to provide internet service under any situation, is a bad argument from the start. Internet is not a basic necessity. Nor is cable tv. Nor is VOIP since just about any location can still have phone over copper or wirelessly. You can still call someone to pay a bill. USPS is still alive. Payments and communications can still be sent by mail. And just about everyone has some sort of phone service to make telephone calls to pay bills, make appointments, or keep in contact. If someone had their internet service cut their life wouldn't end....it would not cause them to freeze in the winter, or unable to call 911 if they have a stroke.

Third, what the hell does providing internet service have to do with combining a information delivery company with a video content provider have to do with each other? Providing low-cost internet to low income households should not have been required for this merger.

Fourth, since internet service is not a required basic service like electric, phone, or gas, can the Government impose on a company conditions to provide a service at a cost well below market values? Comcast does not use government provided bandwidth (Read Frequencies) for internet. Information transmitted over the internet is sent over Comcast's own network that they built from the house to the headend. The government (Federal, State, or Local) did not subsidize the network Comcast built. And Comcast has to pay fees to the local franchise for the "privilege" to build out the plant to household's in that municipality. Comcast, TimeWarner, CableVision, and all the other MSO's built their own plant that carries the internet over their own hybrid system. Verizon, AT&T, and now Google have or are building their own plants for internet and other services.

Fifth and finally, since when is any company (utility or otherwise) required to provide service on any level to a customer who owes money to them? If I don't pay my electric bill, regardless of my income level, they will not reconnect me to the grid until I pay the balance I owe them. Yes, I know of special medical situations that must PUC's allow, but I can't think of a single medical condition that requires internet access outside of magickjack.

I say cudos to Comcast for starting up the program regardless of their motives. The really didn't have to. And if that really would have been the only way to get the merger through, they could have probably won on appeal. Since the merger, they have not appealed. And they have worked hard to expand the program. What company would restart a relationship with a customer who owed them money?

There are many conditions that I agree with on this merger, and yeah, I feel it could have gone further (such us de-bundling channels). But this whole internet thing was stupid to begin with.

I guess this is my whole problem with this site. Everyone on here fails to realize that the MSO built the hybrid network. They have to pay a franchise fee to the municipality for the "privilege" to service the homes in that municipality. They have to pay to maintain that network and upgrade it. They have to pay the content providers for the right to transmit a program. And the MSO has to make money. Or else they can not maintain and rebuild their networks and or pass on a return to their investors that contributed money to build the network to start with. When networks increase their retrains fees who do you think is going to pay for it?

pclover
join:2008-08-02
Santa Cruz, CA

pclover to Lone Wolf

Member

to Lone Wolf

Re: Low Income

Yes, You can live with out it but in today's world it's almost at a cost why? There is alot of stuff you can live without.

Alot of employers will no longer take paper job applications so you could be denied employment due to this which could make your life better!

When you call and ask them they say. Apply online!

Alot of education is done online or with online resources now so if you don't have this you could be left out.

Going to the library 24/7 is not always a feasible option. My local community college is a prime example. All of there computer classes are done online and require you to have a internet connection.

I think the Internet is in-between luxury and necessity if you can utilize the resources of it.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 edit

Crookshanks to CXM_Splicer

Member

to CXM_Splicer

Re: Fight On Comcast

said by CXM_Splicer:

Comcast has a choice they can make: They are free to get out of the cable TV/Internet business and open a different type of business instead.

That's a false choice, they've invested billions of dollars into this business, their human capital understands this business, and they have contractual obligations in this business.

Besides, I don't think you read my post before you replied. My issues are two fold:

1) They should have to offer basic tiers of service to everybody, not just low income households. You work for Verizon in New York State, can you imagine if they tried to say that message rate service would henceforth only be available to households that qualify for school lunches? Everybody else has to have Verizon Freedom for $50+/mo.

2) No company, not Comcast, Verizon, or anyone else, should be compelled to offer service to people who owe it money, absent some sort of payment arrangement. Three months is reasonable, if you can commit to paying new charges on time, while repaying what you owe over three months, then you get turned on. Otherwise you go without the service. Asking them to forgive what you owe is asking too much, if you need debts forgiven you should be filing bankruptcy, not complaining about how awful the utility company is.

anon202
@rr.com

anon202 to Crookshanks

Anon

to Crookshanks

Re: Internet for all

Diablo3 requires pretty much 1mbit each way every second the game is running
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

1 edit

CXM_Splicer to Crookshanks

Premium Member

to Crookshanks

Re: Fight On Comcast

My issue was mostly with the 'compelled' argument which you brought up in two posts. The 'false choice' is used very often to coldly defend a corporate upper hand in situations all the time (don't like a pay cut? find a different job). It is certainly worth pointing out the false choice that business has in the face of regulations they don't like. And since Verizon is gutting its copper business as we speak it is questionable if it really is a 'false choice'.

When it comes down to it, Yes everyone should have lower tiers available to them willingly by the provider. If the provider refuses to offer a lower tier, I don't have a problem with them being required to do so for low income people as a condition of engaging in their business. If they refuse to offer it to you too, I would blame the company... not the low income mandate.

As for Verizon's low income service... they actually do have dialtone (I think it used to be free) for low income people who qualify. I will find out if they still offer it and what the details are. They are also required to allow 911 calls even if they disconnect you for non-payment (although admittedly that isn't much 'service').

Edit: It is called LifeLine service. It is not a mandate to the phone companies but a federal subsidy to help pay for the line. They also offer it for wireless.

»www22.verizon.com/cs/gro ··· _v10.pdf
TreeTops3
join:2008-11-23
97742

TreeTops3 to lancguy

Member

to lancguy

Interview with cohen on WURD 900 AM

lancguy makes some great points. I recently heard an interview with Cohen on WURD AM and as stated above everyone but comcast was blamed for the low sign up rates in Philly. When I needed internet access at home I used the free version of netzero dial up for years and never even hear this or other low cost alternatives suggested as an option to Internet Essentials (AKA Comcast indoctrination program).
I also found it interesting that on their Internet Essential site I could not find what speed was available or what the specs were on the $150 "computer" that Cohen mentioned during the fluff interview.
mullinsmf
join:2011-09-02
Morrisville, NC

1 recommendation

mullinsmf to brianiscool

Member

to brianiscool

Re: Internet

Are you really that dumb? Don't you realize that the more youth, especially poor youth are educated, fewer of them will drop out of society & become a burden rather than a contributor?

In most schools today, children are assigned homework that either require internet access or would at least be enriched by internet access? Saying they should go to the library is not an option for many youth. Especially the ones who must risk going through gang controlled areas to get there.

Beyond homework however, can you deny that internet access in & of itself will enrich the life & mental grow of a child? Dial-up is not a viable option today.

We talk about a level playing field, Well, let's provide one. It is well & good to piously drone on about how poor people should not steal or commit crime to provide for their families. (note, I am not advocating crime for greed or substance abuse)
However, those of us who can buy a new car every year, or throw out 1 -2 year old appliances and furniture because we are tired of their color & decide to change the decor, cannot understand the mind set or despair of a poor family that has never owned anything new and must squeeze every bit of use from a car, an appliance or a sofa before they go to a salvage store to buy a replacement.
Those of us that have a secure career cannot understand the hopelessness of those that are unemployable because of mistakes made when they were young and now would be so grateful for a legal way to support their family that they would bend over backward to be the best employee in the company.

Someone who has never had an empty refrigerator cannot understand how a man or a woman feels when their child says for the second or third day in a row that they are hungry.

However, I ask you, if you & your spouse were both laid off. All income has ended, all savings are depleted and you do not qualify for any assistance. You do not have anyone for a safety net and your baby has no diapers or milk, you older kids have no food.

Would you steal or rob? Or would tell your wife & kids that doing without builds character?

Before you dismiss that as impossible in America, realize that many people face that choice everyday.

How does that relate to internet access? The better prepared a child is when he or she enters the work force, the better are their chances to get a job that has a future.

The more poor kids that enter college, the fewer of them that enter prison & must be supported with our tax dollars.

As a matter of face, unless you enjoy paying to feed & house a grown, able bodied man, we should demand that our society do any & everything possible to get every child on welfare or food stamps prepared to succeed in college and get them in college.

We should support the President in increasing funding for education rather than going along with the fat cats that own the private prisons and benefit from stealing kids from college so as to make them cash cows for the prison industry.

My tax bill is high enough without taxing me more to send people to prison to earn the stockholders (mostly people in the so-called justice system) of the prisons higher dividends.
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · next