Monday Evening Links

I don't get it. Even when they are getting a great deal, and no pressure to upgrade, the community activists are still upset that the deal isn't being funneled thru some gov't agency, which would of course increase the cost geometrically.

These groups will never by happy until the Government runs (or at least pays for) everything. If the "evil corporation" doesn't offer affordable Internet access, then will say that they don't want to offer service to poor people. If they do offer affordable plans to low income households, they are evil because they want to take poor people's money. Either way, it is a lose-lose situation.

It is also unbelievable that someone would complain that 3 Mbps at $9.95 per month is too slow. They should be thankful that they are getting perfectly usable service for such a low price.

said by Article :

---

One of those volunteers is Gale Woods, who, after a long shift at Walmart, used to walk her son, Austin, more than a mile to the public library so he could get access to a computer to do his homework.

---

I agree completely... these groups (like Walmart) will never be happy until the government pays the salaries of the workers and lets them focus on PROFITS.

Let me get this right... Walmart pays people so little that they qualify for government assistance and you get mad at the people?!? The only thing that would make that even more idiotic is if you yourself were a Walmart shopper.

The article clearly states that the 'complaint' is the intrusiveness of their advertising:

quote:

---

But as the program gains popularity, the company has come under criticism, accused of overreaching in its interactions with local communities — handing out brochures with the company logo during parent-teacher nights at public schools, for instance, or enlisting teachers and pastors to spread the word to students and congregations.

---

The speed complaint was from a 10 yr old boy... I guess you could explain to him how 'thankful' he should be for 3Mbps @ $9.95/mo and that he should keep his mouth shut.

You expect this attitude from a child - "Me, Me, Me" without any concern as to cost. But adults need to be tuned in to reality. Unfortunately too many adults today think like that child - "Me, Me, Me", and expect the gov't to be mommy & daddy and pick up the cost.

quote:

---

You expect this attitude from a child - "Me, Me, Me" without any concern as to cost. But adults need to be tuned in to reality. Unfortunately too many adults today think like that child - "Me, Me, Me", and expect the gov't to be mommy & daddy and pick up the cost.

---

I don't disagree that there are some like that but it is not the great numbers that it is often made out to be. Strangely, some people like to believe that there are people sitting around living the good life on their dime rather than work for a living... they get satisfaction in themselves somehow by perpetuating this thought. That is why Romney's 47% statement was so repugnant, because it shows he is willfully ignorant of the actual numbers.

The article's title is misleading, I think, designed to bring the most eyeballs. If you read the article, the response to Internet Essentials is overwhelmingly positive. They quoted one person talking about Comcast advertising concerns but other then that it was all positive.

In fact, the only main concern I've heard from OTHER articles (not this one) is the fact that many of these "poor" households have pay TV (Cable) and that to drop the internet and "un-bundle" it just to sign up for this $10 a month plan might actually cost them money PLUS Comcast's requirement that you can't have had Internet from them for 90 days. So people who already have Comcast Cable TV and internet may not find any benefit and may have to turn off internet for months to qualify--- thereby making adoption of the program slower. All these concerns aren't mentioned in this particular article.

I think they just are trolling for more readership.

"The article's title is misleading, I think, designed to bring the most eyeballs."

Say it ain't so.....

... reading between the lines they are taking potshots at the Netflix competition, and are arguing that Netflix should have to provide all content without the local nodes and Open Connect peering.... IE demanding higher cost connections to their network. They clearly want to charge more and drive up Netflix's cost.

It's the only logical reason they'd oppose something that SAVES them money, because they want to act in an anti-competitive manner.