Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
1 edit | wow
I think for Cali having a middle of the road guy at the helm it sure is doing pretty good! Can we just move California's government to Washington and let the governator fix everything? LOL oh yeah thats right he's from Austria... |
|
exocet_cm
I am the law
Premium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
clubs:   | Better Get To Movin
California better get to movin forward with 100% wireless coverage if they want to control everybody's air conditioning and heating units anytime soon!  |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ |  Arnold is the biggest RINO in the country
My question is: with 96% coverage already, why have the state pay for more? |
|
DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA | reply to Jerm
Re: wow
NO WAY while I appreciate his broadband policies, I don't want the rest of Cali in the whole US. Let the nuts contain themselves in the Golden State, lol. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm  :I think for Cali having a middle of the road guy at the helm it sure is doing pretty good! Not quite. The fiscal situation in California is now worse than it was before Ahnuld took over.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Arnold is the biggest RINO in the country
that 4% = 1.5 million people. That's more people than in 12 states and close to 3 others. |
|
nightdesigns
Gone missing, back soon
Premium
join:2002-05-31
AZ
·Cox HSI
| Do low income families really want to pay for broadband?
Sure only 24% of households with less than 24k/year have broadband, but it's not a priority for them. If they get broadband for $40/mo, that's still 2% of their yearly income. And that doesn't factor in the cost of a computer. If I made less than $24k/year, chances are there are a lot more important things that need that $40/mo.
--
This Space for Rent... |
|
slashman
Don't do it . ..
Premium
join:2003-10-01
Batavia, IL | Agreed. Are they really lamenting that people at that level of income have no broadband? Sounds like the legwork for "now we need to provide free broadband for those poor people" |
|
KraziJoe
join:2006-09-08
Alexandria, VA
·Comcast
| reply to nightdesigns
said by nightdesigns :Sure only 24% of households with less than 24k/year have broadband, but it's not a priority for them. If they get broadband for $40/mo, that's still 2% of their yearly income. And that doesn't factor in the cost of a computer. If I made less than $24k/year, chances are there are a lot more important things that need that $40/mo. Yeah, like $200 Sneakers, $1000 Rims and that shiny new Gun Rack... |
|
MrMoody
But the Grinch ... did Not.
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | And don't forget, the internet can actually be used to MAKE money or get a higher paying job if you have some brains.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to nightdesigns
said by nightdesigns :Sure only 24% of households with less than 24k/year have broadband, but it's not a priority for them. If they get broadband for $40/mo, that's still 2% of their yearly income. And that doesn't factor in the cost of a computer. If I made less than $24k/year, chances are there are a lot more important things that need that $40/mo. Well if that household contained 2 parents and 2 kids they would be entitled to $2900 in earned income credit refund and also have to pay $0 in income taxes. |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to KraziJoe
said by KraziJoe :said by nightdesigns :Sure only 24% of households with less than 24k/year have broadband, but it's not a priority for them. If they get broadband for $40/mo, that's still 2% of their yearly income. And that doesn't factor in the cost of a computer. If I made less than $24k/year, chances are there are a lot more important things that need that $40/mo. Yeah, like $200 Sneakers, $1000 Rims and that shiny new Gun Rack... Everyone has their own priorities. Making fun of someone else's seems kind of lame to me. Plus, it opens you up for ridicule.
Not everyone feels they need broadband. My brother lives almost downtown Boise, has 7meg DSL and cable available to him, yet he sticks with dial-up. He says that if he has hi speed internet, he will spend to much time on it. He and his wife would rather be outside biking or working on cars or snowboarding, etc. |
|
Test99
Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
·DSL EXTREME
 ·InPhonex
| Out Of Options
I have some friends who live in the Sierra. They and their neighbors:
- Can't get DSL. The ILEC doesn't admit to having any plans to offer DSL.
- Can't see any of the satellites that offer broadband service. Judging by the reviews, they might not want satellite broadband anyway.
- Don't have line of sight to any wireless broadband providers.
- Can't get a signal from any of the cell phone data services.
Maybe they could get 144 kbps ISDN, but it costs over $100 per month. So they use dialup, which gives them 24 kbps at best.
The price you pay for living in a rural area is still quite high.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com |
|
Techie714
join:2005-08-02
Anaheim, CA
·ViaTalk
|  Not That Great!
Trust me I live here, and the broadband penetration is OK at best. I live in Anaheim right next to Disneyland & my ONLY option is dial-up or cable. Also California is in MAJOR trouble we have a 14.5 BILLION dollar budget shortfall. Not to mention California spends 10 BILLION dollars a year on services for Illegal immigrants. This does NOT include there educational costs. Our legislators here think many Californians should be giving more money to these Government services. I know I'm off topic but I REALLY cant stand the politics of California. Our leaders here are just as bad if not worse than those in Washington. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Test99
Re: Out Of Options
said by Test99 :I have some friends who live in the Sierra. They and their neighbors: - Can't get DSL. The ILEC doesn't admit to having any plans to offer DSL. - Can't see any of the satellites that offer broadband service. Judging by the reviews, they might not want satellite broadband anyway. - Don't have line of sight to any wireless broadband providers. - Can't get a signal from any of the cell phone data services. Maybe they could get 144 kbps ISDN, but it costs over $100 per month. So they use dialup, which gives them 24 kbps at best. The price you pay for living in a rural area is still quite high. They could always move. |
|
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | reply to Techie714
Whatever
Don't like it then you can hit the road. I have access to DSL and cable and I can care less about the rural folks or those in the poor town who get none or barely gets one of these services. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to pnh102
Re: wow
I agree... and its getting worse.
Arnie is tax and spend - just differently than the Gray Davis did.
Most schools have been cut, parks are shutting down, as are state beaches. The gov't should have made a killing over the past few years with all the high state property tax collected... I'm just not sure where it has gone.
eg. housing was ~200k in 2001 (~4000/year in taxes), gone up to +650k in 2005/2006 (+10k/year in taxes). Where did it go?
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Anyone see a problem?
"The study found that only 24 percent of California households with incomes under $25,000 subscribe to broadband."
Solutions-
• Build out high-speed broadband infrastructure to all Californians
• Develop model permitting standards and encourage collaboration among providers
• Increase the use and adoption of broadband and computer technology
• Engage and reward broadband innovation and research
• Create a statewide e-health network
• Leverage educational opportunities to increase broadband use
• Continue state-level and statewide leadership
The solutions do nothing for the 76% under $25k that don't get broadband.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil |
|
Test99
Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·InPhonex
| reply to BF69
Re: Out Of Options
said by BF69 :They could always move. It's true that 1.4 million Californians could move. Houses in urban areas of California cost around $500,000, so the total cost of the move would be near one trillion dollars.
One of the insights of the digital revolution is that it's cheaper to move bits than atoms.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com |
|
Zyniker
Zyniker
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Anaheim, CA
| reply to pnh102
Re: wow
Apparently some have forgotten that fiscal issues aren't the sole domain of the executive...oh, wait, that's right: the legislature makes the budget...
--
The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true. |
|
