Glen Carbon, IL
quote: Why? Or how?
With this flat-rate pricing approach, for example, almost one in five African Americans would still lack home broadband connectivity in 2020. A nearly comparable share of Hispanics and lower-income white Americans also would remain offline. In the face of rising bandwidth demand and the rising cost to accommodate it, the flat-fee pricing approach will perpetuate digital divides based on income, race, and ethnicity.
In a great many places, including in these "inner cities," DSL is available, and there's a $20/mo. tier for 768Kbps/384Kbps (or was it 128Kbps upload?). Therefore, I don't buy the argument that the present way of doing things prevents anyone from getting on the Internet.
$20/mo. is not a lot of money at all; anyone can afford that.
There are even free ways to get onto the Internet, or at least most of the WWW (HTTP and HTTPS), since many public libraries offer that. I say most because public libraries often won't allow the viewing of pornography or other adult material, but that sort of thing really shouldn't be viewed in any sort of public setting.
So again, just how is the current way of doing things disadvantageous to anyone, with regards to Internet access?
At this point, the only people who don't have broadband are those who don't want it for whatever reason (a very small number that grows smaller every day), or can't get it at a reasonable cost, which is the case in many rural communities.
said by Ben:Oh you mean like my county which half the population can't get it? Considering we're in at&t territory I'm not seeing how these caps are going to all of sudden encourage them to build out their DSL footprint. They don't even bother to offer 3G here. So I call bullshit on at&t.
At this point, the only people who don't have broadband are those who don't want it for whatever reason (a very small number that grows smaller every day), or can't get it at a reasonable cost
, which is the case in many rural communities.