Those that paid upfront still had a bill it just was at the extreme promo price, instead of the normal price they were entitled too.
and this isn't about equalizing the "irresponsibility's" of individuals VS corporations
ComCast made an offer of several generous benefits mainly towards low income families as part of the merger.
As Karl's article points out the Philly schools failed to widely offer info and applications to eligible persons, and so Philadelphia "FORCES" new concessions on comcast.
Why is comcast (really all other customers) being forced to underwrite Philly's changing of the deal?
I'm actually in favor of the offering of the HSI to enhance the educational possiblities for those families...BUT aren't we teaching several bad lessons here?
A} Order whatever you want, not what you can afford
B}You don't need to pay your bills, and It won't effect your future credit.
C} Gov't can change the terms of any deal on a whim, and force companies to pay for it.
I think, if the city wanted to pay peoples bills or guaruntee the "deposit" as part of their welfare scheme, it might be reasonable, but to force comcast to do it is quite different.
does it also force loan companies to eat missing car payments so it's easier to find work or get the kids to school? Shouldn't DELL/HP/SONY be forced to give them better computers, and a big screen so they can see all the details on the internet homework? How about the electric company (PECO), should them subsidize not just basic electric service, but let them use all the want for free. The other customers won't mind, PECO rates are so low
Weather or not the corporations have been "irresponsible" (and you and I might disagree on some definitions about that)
It does not absolve the individual from learning basic individual responsibility, personal ethics, if you will, which might make corporations act more responsibly in the future.