dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
655
share rss forum feed

hoyleysox
Premium
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

Racist -

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.
The insinuation that certain ethnic groups use less bandwidth and would benefit signing up for lower-tier caps is racist.


linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
Reviews:
·TracFone Wireless
·CenturyLink

I think racists is a bit strong. .

I don't think AT&T cares whether a client is poor or not. It is a greedy company and it has been so since its inception. When we talk about poor families, income dictates who has broadband connectivity. The first obstacle is to have something to connect with - everything else is secondary. Not everyone has a computer or access to broadband; not everyone wants or needs it. If a person with a severely limited income must choose between phone, cable or internet, the phone will be the first choice.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside


hoyleysox
Premium
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

said by linicx:

I think racists is a bit strong. .

I don't think AT&T cares whether a client is poor or not. It is a greedy company and it has been so since its inception. When we talk about poor families, income dictates who has broadband connectivity. The first obstacle is to have something to connect with - everything else is secondary. Not everyone has a computer or access to broadband; not everyone wants or needs it. If a person with a severely limited income must choose between phone, cable or internet, the phone will be the first choice.
I was referring to the study's author as racist. He implies that certain ethnic groups use less bandwidth than other groups and provides no evidence for this. His assumption is based on his own prejudice.


linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State

Can you point me to the article? Thanks.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside


hoyleysox
Premium
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

said by linicx:

Can you point me to the article? Thanks.
Sure.
»news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-200087···1_3-0-20

jimhsu

join:2001-06-26
Sugar Land, TX
reply to hoyleysox

said by hoyleysox:

said by linicx:

If a person with a severely limited income must choose between phone, cable or internet, the phone will be the first choice.
Citation needed.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by limited income, but "starving college and grad students" these days have little reason to get a landline as opposed to an internet connection these days. Cellphones are a bit different though.

In fact there is little reason to even GET a landline aside from business or operation contingency reasons these days, except as a carrier for ... internet.

elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

1 edit
reply to hoyleysox

said by hoyleysox:

said by linicx:

I think racists is a bit strong. .

I don't think AT&T cares whether a client is poor or not. It is a greedy company and it has been so since its inception. When we talk about poor families, income dictates who has broadband connectivity.
I was referring to the study's author as racist. He implies that certain ethnic groups use less bandwidth than other groups and provides no evidence for this. His assumption is based on his own prejudice.
Bzzzt!

Did you actually read the article or his report?

There is no such statement on the part of the author, nor the ability to infer it, though he's at best naive for trying to play the "digital divide" card for a business case.

There is a two-part argument made in the article.

1) "Flat rate", i.e. "Unlimited" pricing, combined with increasingly higher average usage levels, will translate into a higher minimum charge for access, thus pricing out some of the poor.

2) Conversely, usage-based pricing, which allows the user the control his costs through conservation, means a lower entry-level price for access and the opportunity to keep the total bill low.

In his report, Shapiro DOES cite the data that accounts for "minority" and lower-class / inner-city subscription rates and/or use of broadband, not measured in GBs. It isn't "based on his own prejudice". Why would you be so quick to assume?

»www.gcbpp.org/files/Academic_Pap···sett.pdf

»www.jointcenter.org/publications···RT_2.pdf

I think the discussion should omit and focus only on class, but that wouldn't serve the usual suspects and race-baiters.

There is a case to be made for lower-cost, entry-level, metered access. Unfortunately, it seems anyone who suggests it is drowned out by the howls of the loud majority, who doesn't care to look at the detail.


linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
Reviews:
·TracFone Wireless
·CenturyLink
reply to hoyleysox

Thanks. Interesting view of a new smoke and mirror hidden agenda. It smells like telco to me. I don't believe it is racist as much as I do it is a damned poor choice of words on the writer's part. Poor is poor; the color really doesn't matter much. The people who work for Think Tanks after a life in DC politics are klearly Klueless as to real life outside the Belt Way.

The first problem is that the study model is two countries the size or Rhode Island. These countries do not have a large population, nor do they have 9M square miles of land on which to erect towers, install copper and fiber and fios. And even if they did, who is providing the bandwidth needed? Secondly, there is already a tier policy in place with multiple choices.

Third, neither cable nor telco really want to serve rural America. Cox, Sprint and Verizon have already dumped rural America markets onto small companies that cannot provide speed nor bandwidth. I don't care how much they blather and spin you will never find AT&T, Comcast, T-W in Bath or Oakford, Illinois. It ain't gonna happen. What's left is small mom and pop operations trying to serve small rural towns on a half-T - providing they can get one and county seats with hospitals that must be wired. Even then it is pitifully slow. A good rural speed is 7-10 Mbps but 1.5 is more realistic and the price is $50-60 per month.

It is disingenuous to talk about caps and metered billing when there are parts of rural America that have broadband speeds 1000 x slower than NYC or LA.

Cable companies in particular are still planing PR games by claiming their "their blazing fast high-speed broadband is 10x faster than dial-up". In the contract fine print the defacto standard modem is 28.8. I haven't seen one of those for 15 years and I don't think 768 or even 1.5 is blazing fast, but it is amazing blue smoke.

The real big problem isn't Youtube or surfing or texting. It is illegal file sharing. I don't share files and I shouldn't take a hit because the profitable giants are in bed with Uncle Effceecee And neither should you.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside


hoyleysox
Premium
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA
reply to elray

said by elray:

Did you actually read the article or his report?
I quoted the cnet article in my first post. The author suggested that certain ethnic groups would not be able to afford even-tiered broadband or the higher level tiers. Thus, those ethnic groups would only benefit if they never went over the low usage tiers - meaning certain ethnic groups use less bandwidth.


Ben
Premium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
reply to elray

said by elray:

2) Conversely, usage-based pricing, which allows the user the control his costs through conservation, means a lower entry-level price for access and the opportunity to keep the total bill low.

(snip)

There is a case to be made for lower-cost, entry-level, metered access. Unfortunately, it seems anyone who suggests it is drowned out by the howls of the loud majority, who doesn't care to look at the detail.
     In theory, yes.  In practice, I doubt it.  What the companies want to do is charge the same as they always have to most people, and tack on overage charges for the heavy users.  Consumers won't benefit in any way.