how-to block ads
baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
Sterling Heights, MI
|reply to Karl Bode |
Re: The US doesn't need to subsidize Internet for poor
Karl - I normally agree with you, you are being shortsighted here. Even though the month to month may not be costly for Comcast, they are still an active cable customer. That means, there is cost to support and maintain them. $10/mo, no matter what speed or level of service, is skinning teeth when it comes to cable support.
What if the wiring in their home is shoddy? Or the cat pees on the modem and needs to be replaced? All those costs are covered by the company, NOT the consumer. Granted, this isn't a representation of everyone on the plan, but it does cover a reasonable percent.
You are also missing the point of this program. It was initially designed for customers that had subsidized school lunches; in other words, households that had children, and the target use was educational purposes, NOT for entertainment, or strictly supporting everyone who was classed as low income. There is free internet available at libraries if people want to use the internet at no cost.
said by baineschile: I agree with Karl that this is well worth it to ComCast AND those that qualify.
Karl - I normally agree with you, you are being shortsighted here.
those kids /families get a home connection (If you've ever been to the Library you'd know even the best equipped ones computers are booked soild during any hour that kids are SUPPOSED to be out of school) and like any homework some parent participation can really keep it on track.
For comcast is the value that these no better educated kids, will likely feel comfortable choosing ComCast as a provider when the reach that point in life (have a job/home of their own)
No the program doesn't work for everyone (outstanding bills, other internet plan/provider, don't meet the program requirements,) (gov't programs are buried deep in paperwork, something many of the poorest may require help to finish), and caseworkers barely have time to get the food/housing assistance done.
And Philadelphia is a good place to start (the city has both the richest rich and poorest poor in areas just a short bus ride away)
joetaxpayerI'M Here Till ThursdayReviews:
|reply to baineschile |
said by baineschile:I'm going to slip my thoughts in right here. For all the tax money I spend that goes down the drain, if this program gets internet to kids whose parents wouldn't otherwise afford it, I'm in favor of that.
You are also missing the point of this program. It was initially designed for customers that had subsidized school lunches; in other words, households that had children, and the target use was educational purposes, NOT for entertainment, or strictly supporting everyone who was classed as low income.
The expensive cars in housing projects are a red herring. I owned a rental property, and the single dad had my sympathy. The market rent was $600 and I accepted $400/mo from him. When I went to collect, I didn't begrudge him his big TV, bought before the divorce, nor his kid's light up sneakers and video games. Not even his fridge stocked with beer. It was his two pack a day smoking habit I resented. Family first, but rent should have come before that habit.
It's tough to look at these issues objectively.