site Search:


 
   
story category
FCC Finds Broadband Is Expensive, People Are Strange, Uneducated
Ok. Now what?
by Karl Bode Tuesday 23-Feb-2010 tags: competition · fcc · business · cable
With the release of the FCC's national broadband plan just 22 days away, the agency has been slowly dribbling out information on their goals for the plan. Unfortunately, the details have been lacking. Their announcement that they wanted to bring "100 Mbps to 100 Million" was rather empty, given cable industry upgrades should deliver that without the FCC having to do anything. Details that have emerged indicate a plan that's well intentioned, but utterly fails to truly tackle a general lack of competition and the resulting problems (high prices).

The FCC today released the results of a new survey that at least identified high prices as a major problem. The suvery found a third of the country -- or 93 million Americans -- aren't connected to broadband at home. That's not particularly news, given another recent, larger survey by the NTIA found essentially the same thing. According to the FCC press release (pdf), the FCC conducted a national "random digit-dial survey" of 5,005 adults in October and November 2009. Users were asked whether they had broadband, how much they paid, and if not -- why not. Survey (available here, pdf) participants were paid $5 for their time.

Just 4% of those surveyed couldn't get broadband (that number jumps to 10% in rural markets, and includes satellite broadband, whose users will often insist it doesn't qualify). 36% of those surveyed (28 million adults) said they didn't have broadband because it was too expensive, either because the monthly fee was too high, they couldn't afford a computer, or didn't want to get locked into a long-term contract. 22% of non-adopters claimed they either didn't have the skills to use broadband, or were afraid of the dangers of going online (we can only assume they're not talking about Chuck Norris or Rick Astley).

Customers who say they couldn't afford broadband were subsequently asked by FCC pollsters how much broadband would have to be for them to buy it. 52% stated that the cost would need to be, on average, around $25 a month. 65% indicated they'd sign up for service were it around $20 -- which the survey estimated would bump U.S. broadband adoption six percentage points. Broadband service priced at $10 could bump adoption by eight percentage points, according to the study.

28% of those asked what price they'd need to see before they signed up for broadband responded by stating they "didn't know."
Some of the responses by those who found broadband too expensive are just peculiar, however. 28% of those asked what price they'd need to see before they signed up for broadband responded by stating they "didn't know." Another 20% subsequently stated they were not willing to pay anything for broadband -- after just having complained that broadband was too expensive. So yeah, that's helpful.

The FCC found that the average American who does have broadband pays about $41 a month, and that 70% of those polled pay for broadband as part of a bundle of telecommunications services. If you read the full study (pdf), you'll note the pollsters found that "half of those who receive their broadband in a bundle with other services cannot identify the Internet portion of their bill." That would seemingly speak to the issue of billing transparency, something we've argued should be cornerstone of the agency's agenda (along with below the line fees).

Other key findings:

Half of those who receive their broadband in a bundle with other services cannot identify the Internet portion of their bill
-latest FCC survey
•22% of Americans do not use the Internet at all.
•6% of Americans use dial-up as their main form of home access.
•Broadband adoption drops to 40% for homes with an income below $20,000.
•Just 35% of senior citizens (above 65) have a broadband connection.
•The average monthly bill for unbundled broadband: $46.25.

"The gap in broadband adoption is a problem with many different dimensions that will require many different solutions," said John Horrigan, who managed the survey. "Lowering costs of service or hardware, helping people develop online skills, and informing them about applications relevant to their lives are all key to sustainable adoption."

Aside from highlighting the high cost of broadband, the gist of this FCC release seems to be to prepare the public for the fact that the national broadband plan is going to lean heavily toward "digital education." There's some legitimate reasons to be wary of such campaigns, given that some of the programs we've seen proposed so far (like the NCTA's A+ program) seem to be little more than taxpayer-subsidized cable advertising campaigns dressed up as altruism. Some of this push to bring service to people who may not want it is about carriers wanting to use taxpayer dollars for a broadband equivalent of the "Got Milk?" ad campaign.

As for tackling high prices, the path also remains unclear. While the study illustrates high prices as an obstacle for adoption and does a nice job illustrating some of the societal reasons for affordability issues, there's again no real indication that the FCC is going to tackle the primary reason why broadband in the United States is so expensive: limited competition. Still, identifying real broadband hurdles using actual science is a refreshing change for an agency that has spent the last decade making policy decisions based on either incomplete or bogus data. 22 days and counting...

view: topics flat text 
Post a:

Bill Dollar

join:2009-02-20
New York, NY

1 edit

One correction

[edit, correction in original article made]

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:33

Re: One correction

Great, thanks. Was basing that on the data from the first page of the survey itself...didn't see the other reference...Will fix that.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Riddle Me This

quote:
•22% of Americans do not use the Internet at all.
•6% of Americans use dial-up as their main form of home access.
•Broadband adoption drops to 40% for homes with an income below $20,000.
•Just 35% of senior citizens (above 65) have a broadband connection.
•The average monthly bill for unbundled broadband: $46.25.

So why should the FCC care about this at all?
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Re: Riddle Me This

Because I'm guessing that some of those lower income homes children who could benefit from the educational opportunities provided by broadband.

cableguy0
Premium
join:2009-01-20
kudos:6
Goverment "mind control"
--
GIT R DONE

manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX
Reviews:
·CMA Access
·AT&T Southwest

2 edits

Not really a compelling

argument FOR government funded broadband access:

•22% of Americans do not use the Internet at all. - Broadband won't make a difference in these numbers. 22% don't use broadband because they don't WANT to.

•6% of Americans use dial-up as their main form of home access. Perhaps that's all they need. There was no distinction made between those that have to have dial-up because of a lack of broadband access and those that choose to have dial-up.

•Broadband adoption drops to 40% for homes with an income below $20,000. - Are these the same people that are making a choice to put food on the table and to keep the electricity on instead of buying broadband internet service? If so, good for theM! Perhaps more people making under $20K need to make this choice as well.

•Just 35% of senior citizens (above 65) have a broadband connection. - This too is a red herring. Just because there is a new technology doesn't mean that 100% of a group of people are going to use it. These people are more than likely either happy with what they have (TV, newspaper, telephone, etc,) or they are in some sort of nursing home/hospice care facility.
--
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
drstein

join:2004-06-12
Justin, TX

Re: Not really a compelling

said by manfmmd:

•Just 35% of senior citizens (above 65) have a broadband connection. - This too is a red herring. Just because there is a new technology doesn't mean that 100% of a group of people are going to use it. These people are more than likely either happy with what they have (TV, newspaper, telephone, etc,) or they are in some sort of nursing home/hospice care facility.
Actually, you might be surprised at hoe many nursing homes have broadband... but they usually go wifi for the residents.

backfeed
is giving feedback

join:2002-12-16
Peru, IN
The large percentage of the low income crowd that I see is more compelled to buy cigarettes than broadband.
Very sad
--
There are 10 types of people. Those who can read Binary and those who cannot.

cableguy0
Premium
join:2009-01-20
kudos:6

Re: Not really a compelling

said by backfeed:

The large percentage of the low income crowd that I see is more compelled to buy cigarettes than broadband.
Very sad
I call this the "Net Zero" crowd.
--
GIT R DONE
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
said by manfmmd:

argument FOR government funded broadband access:

•22% of Americans do not use the Internet at all. - Broadband won't make a difference in these numbers. 22% don't use broadband because they don't WANT to.

•6% of Americans use dial-up as their main form of home access. Perhaps that's all they need. There was no distinction made between those that have to have dial-up because of a lack of broadband access and those that choose to have dial-up.

•Broadband adoption drops to 40% for homes with an income below $20,000. - Are these the same people that are making a choice to put food on the table and to keep the electricity on instead of buying broadband internet service? If so, good for theM! Perhaps more people making under $20K need to make this choice as well.

•Just 35% of senior citizens (above 65) have a broadband connection. - This too is a red herring. Just because there is a new technology doesn't mean that 100% of a group of people are going to use it. These people are more than likely either happy with what they have (TV, newspaper, telephone, etc,) or they are in some sort of nursing home/hospice care facility.
Some of that 22% that don't use the internet clearly consider it too expensive and at the very least the government should address some of the barriers to entry for potential provider competition.

Saying that many of the 6% who use dial-up do so because that's all they need doesn't make much sense. Not only have many dropped dial-up for broadband but many of those are now now dropping their expensive landlines while an expensive landline is a requirement of dial-up.

One problem for low income families is that many schools are now assigning homework that requires the use of the internet.

I do tend to agree with you that complaining about 35% of senior citizens having broadband connections is a red herring. That's sounds as much like a glass half full as a glass half empty scenario to me now and one that will change naturally with time.
Ulmo

join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA

1 edit
said by manfmmd:

argument FOR government funded broadband access:

•22% of Americans do not use the Internet at all. - Broadband won't make a difference in these numbers. 22% don't use broadband because they don't WANT to.
Some portion of the 22% anyway.

•6% of Americans use dial-up as their main form of home access. Perhaps that's all they need. There was no distinction made between those that have to have dial-up because of a lack of broadband access and those that choose to have dial-up.
Right.

•Broadband adoption drops to 40% for homes with an income below $20,000. - Are these the same people that are making a choice to put food on the table and to keep the electricity on instead of buying broadband internet service? If so, good for theM! Perhaps more people making under $20K need to make this choice as well.
Hmm. I will leave this open for discussion without choosing a side. I have been known to get welfare food and not loose my broadband. Loosing my broadband tends to cost more than keeping it, in most real-life scenereos in which I experience it, so determining when it's ok to pull the plug is rather difficult. The problem is more often when I am getting welfare food and don't have broadband and can't save or gain money because of that, than when I have broadband and need welfare food, so I guess I'm leaning toward keeping the broadband.

•Just 35% of senior citizens (above 65) have a broadband connection. - This too is a red herring. Just because there is a new technology doesn't mean that 100% of a group of people are going to use it. These people are more than likely either happy with what they have (TV, newspaper, telephone, etc,) or they are in some sort of nursing home/hospice care facility.
Right, in addition to those many seniors who don't need broadband, because they don't have to participate in the modern world, since they don't work, or already have savings and/or experience that allows them to work in lower capacities, and they already have homes, cars, etc.. Along with this, a lot of senior-targeted systems*, market-based and not, tend to cater to senior's lower attachment to broadband, and Internet in general.

(* Systems means any aspect of life, e.g., food, sleep, entertainment, etc.. It fits nicely if you think of "system" as "product line", but it doesn't have to mean that, e.g., it could be "energy", "family", etc..)

I think there's a tendency that if it's there, it gets used, and if it is not there, it doesn't get used. If it's somewhat there, it gets somewhat used. Poor and old people don't need to interact intelligently and/or as immediately/anonymously/stupidly to the same extent that middle-aged and young people of means do, regardless of what levels are necessary for whatever thresholds.

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
said by manfmmd:

argument FOR government funded broadband access:

•22% of Americans do not use the Internet at all. - Broadband won't make a difference in these numbers. 22% don't use broadband because they don't WANT to.
Bullshit. I have friend that doesn't have internet thus can't use the internet because it's not available. If broadbadn was available to ALL Amerians that 22% would be easily cut in half.

•6% of Americans use dial-up as their main form of home access. Perhaps that's all they need. There was no distinction made between those that have to have dial-up because of a lack of broadband access and those that choose to have dial-up.
Once again please tell my friend that is all he needs. Dail-up is USELESS.

•Just 35% of senior citizens (above 65) have a broadband connection. - This too is a red herring. Just because there is a new technology doesn't mean that 100% of a group of people are going to use it. These people are more than likely either happy with what they have (TV, newspaper, telephone, etc,) or they are in some sort of nursing home/hospice care facility.
Logic dicates as the years go by that number will go up.

sivran
Opera convert
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1

100 Megabit Pipe Dream

That's what it feels like to me. 100 Megabits, only available in places far away from here. Double digit speeds? What are those? Upgrades? Not 'round here.



And Arlington's a major entertainment center for the greater Dallas/Fort-Worth area, so don't tell me I'm living in a podunk little worthless town. Not to mention conveniently located smack dab in the middle, 10-15 minutes from either city. Hell not even there will you get close to 100Mbit. It's all Charter, TWC, and AT&T's fault. Actually, I blame Comcast for selling out. I'm sure if they had stuck around, this place wouldn't be so starved for speed. Sure there's FIOS up in Verizonland in the Dallas suburbs, but that's about it if you want anything better a few megabits.
--
I used to think I was a democrat. Then I thought I was a republican. Lately though, I'm just cynical.
drstein

join:2004-06-12
Justin, TX

Re: 100 Megabit Pipe Dream

said by sivran:

Sure there's FIOS up in Verizonland in the Dallas suburbs, but that's about it if you want anything better a few megabits.
*cough* Um....
We have FIOS out here in the cow pastures too. 35mbit symmetrical.

sivran
Opera convert
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1

Re: 100 Megabit Pipe Dream

I hate you.
Ulmo

join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
You said it: TWC, AT&T. You won't get high speeds.

If you had said "Comcast, Verizon", then there'd be a massacre. The results would be blood spurting veins and arteries everywhere, with broadband bits flowing all over the place. You'd hardly be able to make a connection with all the gore. Once the police came, they'd clean up and you'd have the fastest in the nation. But, you have AT&T and TWC. Done.

djrobx

join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·VOIPo
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse

Re: 100 Megabit Pipe Dream

At least AT&T is making a little effort. 24/3 speeds are coming soon to uverse areas. Time Warner is the most pathetic of them all. They actually set different zip codes in Los Angeles at different speeds based on what competitive services are available. If you're in a territory that wasn't selected for FiOS or U-Verse, you are likely to get lower speeds. They can't just be a market leader and offer a consistent product in this region. The only thing they seem to be interested in innovating is consumption based billing.

I really wish we still had Comcast.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL
kudos:1

well

If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it.

Linklist
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5

Re: well

said by brianiscool:

If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it?
There are many who think that that is a very good idea. But thankfully, the US has not YET devolved in to a state controlled economy like Cuba or like Venezuela is turning in to or the old Soviet Union was like. That just sends the economy in to the toilet on the express route.

cableguy0
Premium
join:2009-01-20
kudos:6

Re: well

We already have state controlled media and education. Soon they'll be telling you if you qualify for medical procedures. This is where we're headed thanks to the ignorance of the American public.
--
GIT R DONE

R4M0N
Brazilian Soccer Ownz Joo

join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA

1 edit
said by brianiscool:

If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it.
And while they are at it, why not also make it a law that you cannot earn more than a set amount, no matter how much you work or produce?

They could also make a law that limits the amount of times you can travel more than 50 miles too... You know, to make it fair to those who can't afford to travel as often.
Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..

Re: well

Until our government started messing around with regulated telephone service the customer received a good value for their money. After the break up of the Bell System and lawmakers becoming sock puppets for big business, the regulation of telephone service was severely curtailed. I see no problem with regulating internet access as long as the regulators require the ISP's to provide universal service.
Ulmo

join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA

Re: well

said by Mr Matt:

Until our government started messing around with regulated telephone service the customer received a good value for their money. After the break up of the Bell System and lawmakers becoming sock puppets for big business, the regulation of telephone service was severely curtailed. I see no problem with regulating internet access as long as the regulators require the ISP's to provide universal service.
Then, in that case, they already do: dialup.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: well

said by Ulmo:

said by Mr Matt:

Until our government started messing around with regulated telephone service the customer received a good value for their money. After the break up of the Bell System and lawmakers becoming sock puppets for big business, the regulation of telephone service was severely curtailed. I see no problem with regulating internet access as long as the regulators require the ISP's to provide universal service.
Then, in that case, they already do: dialup.
Not good enough for the most advanced economy in the world.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
said by Mr Matt:

Until our government started messing around with regulated telephone service the customer received a good value for their money. After the break up of the Bell System and lawmakers becoming sock puppets for big business, the regulation of telephone service was severely curtailed. I see no problem with regulating internet access as long as the regulators require the ISP's to provide universal service.
What the heck are you talking about? The break-up of Ma Bell was a Godsend for US telecommunications. The rate of outpouring of innovation has yet to be seen again in the industry.

aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by Mr Matt:

Until our government started messing around with regulated telephone service the customer received a good value for their money. After the break up of the Bell System and lawmakers becoming sock puppets for big business, the regulation of telephone service was severely curtailed. I see no problem with regulating internet access as long as the regulators require the ISP's to provide universal service.
Apparently you weren't around before the breakup. It was nowhere close to a good value, especially if you made a long distance call.

DaveDude
No Fear

join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
Reviews:
·ViaTalk
·Vonage
said by brianiscool:

If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it.
Because then basicaly , there is a set production limit, and instead of serving 1000's of people, then can only serve 100. Check out economies of scale. Check out what happen when they set prices for food what happened, it wasnt good.

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23
Sure, we'll put it in the same bill slashing telecom union wages.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: well

said by Z80A:

Sure, we'll put it in the same bill slashing telecom union wages.
I think we should slash CEO wages, and put a cap on their bonuses. At the same time we should raise minimum wage, provide more support for unions, and limit the financial contributions of corporations to campaigns.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
said by brianiscool:

If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it.
Houses are way more expensive than broadband but what do you suppose would happen if the price of houses were capped by law? Fewer houses would be built because there would be little or no profit in building them. Sounds a lot like a recession doesn't it except one that would never end until the law was changed.

Z80A
Premium
join:2009-11-23

Re: well

I'd be all for capping ISP billing the day after we PERMANENTLY cap Congressional spending (since they have a cap and just vote to up it every quarter). Their patriotic sacrifice would not be in vain.

cableguy0
Premium
join:2009-01-20
kudos:6

Re: well

said by Z80A:

I'd be all for capping ISP billing the day after we PERMANENTLY cap Congressional spending (since they have a cap and just vote to up it every quarter). Their patriotic sacrifice would not be in vain.
AMEN Brother.
--
GIT R DONE
Ulmo

join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
Oh god.

First of all, excess population would lead to murders to take over homes. If the police allowed this, then that would become the norm, and any birth level would be absorbed by the murders, and demographic changes would be about 50 times faster than now (think: high-birthrate low-quality people would murder all the low-birthrate high-quality people, and then they'd be the only ones repopulating, rather than the current system where such activity is tempered to a slower rate).

However, if the police did not allow such homeowner-murder-takeovering, then there would be a disincentive to murdering existing homeowners so great that some would simply choose to learn not to have so many and early children, and others that had the option would avoid the country one way or another (illegal aliens leaving to their rightful country, others not becoming illegal aliens). In this scenario, after a few decades, equilibrium would probably go into a sort of malaise of lack of growth, but one which was coupled with sane policies of energy, quality, and self preservation, and things would improve over the current hell of cast systems and high-rapid-birthrate low-quality populations and such. But, just about any intrinsic improvement, however slight, is better than the current situation, so that's not much of a compliment to that means of achieving that. There are lots of better ways to make improvements to our lives, not the least of which is nuclear energy, which just by itself would fix most of our current ills.

Limiting the sale price of homes would therefore not necessarily be a good thing.

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
said by brianiscool:

If broadband is too expensive. Why not make it a law how much they should bill for it.
No they they get rid of laws that PREVENT competition. FACT if you have one gas station for 20 miles in any direction they are going to charge more than the average price for gas because they are the only source for gas. If there are 20 gas stations within 20 miles that station will have no choice but to LOWER it's price.

cableguy0
Premium
join:2009-01-20
kudos:6

Re: well

How bout we give Washington a permanent vacation. Better yet.. an EVICTION.
--
GIT R DONE
lcnoble

join:2006-11-11
Nancy, KY

Ask different questions!

I want to do something else today since the weather is better, so I will take the easy way out and not read the report, which sounds like propaganda anyway. Did the survey ask people why they do not consider broadband internet access essential? I am astounded when I see entities, especially where children are concerned, that do not use the internet. Children want input, input, and more input! The internet may not provide a return on investment that can be measured by bank accounts, but I hope that I live long enough to see the amazing effects that the internet will have on the future. I am not an elitist, so I will say that most people want someone else to exercise their brain, for example, television. If a better way is found to exercise the brains of the sheep via of the internet, we all should benefit. Maybe a new approach to the Web TV model?
Core0000
Premium
join:2008-05-04
Somerset, KY
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

Then what?

This whole, lets bring broadband to everyone.. bit bothers me.
How about, lets just bring it to the people who actually want it.

I think bringing something to people who don't care for it, aren't willing to pay the price for it is stupid.

It seems like there are a lot of idiots when it comes to the cost of doing business. Oh, I only want to pay 20 dollars for said service... What if there are 40 dollars worth of expense? Then what?

See 8 replies to this post
lcnoble

join:2006-11-11
Nancy, KY

Ask different questions.

If we ask different questions we may learn why broadband is not available or wanted, and we may correct this deficiency. I do not like subsidizing anything, especially financial systems to the cost of billions of dollars. I further the idea of fixing a negative "then what". It would be interesting to see statistics on our current quality of life not originally supported by subsidies, government or otherwise. Unless we change the methods of the governing entities, nothing will change. I believe that not finding a solution to this quandary will eventually lead to a negative result. People responding to this thread must be trying to find a solution. One question I would propose to this debate is; Why would people not want a world wide library at their whim, and how can we influence their perceptions to bring their position in agreement with those who believe that broadband access is essential ? I am positive that this issue will be solved, the government, providers, and us have a lot to lose if initiatives fail.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1

Re: Ask different questions.

said by lcnoble:

If we ask different questions we may learn why broadband is not available or wanted, and we may correct this deficiency. I do not like subsidizing anything, especially financial systems to the cost of billions of dollars. I further the idea of fixing a negative "then what". It would be interesting to see statistics on our current quality of life not originally supported by subsidies, government or otherwise. Unless we change the methods of the governing entities, nothing will change. I believe that not finding a solution to this quandary will eventually lead to a negative result. People responding to this thread must be trying to find a solution. One question I would propose to this debate is; Why would people not want a world wide library at their whim, and how can we influence their perceptions to bring their position in agreement with those who believe that broadband access is essential ? I am positive that this issue will be solved, the government, providers, and us have a lot to lose if initiatives fail.
Broadband is not a financial system you twiddling fool.
sludgehound

join:2007-03-12
New York, NY

Let them eat cake.

Couple death panels removes the over 60 crowd. Let the $20k crowd use library broadband, for selves, & kids homework. Or are books too expensive to?
What a Nanny State.

cableguy0
Premium
join:2009-01-20
kudos:6

Re: Let them eat cake.

This country was built on "free markets" and people taking care of themselves. The goverment gets it's money from the people that earn it. That means YOU. Everyone wants free internet but it's not the governments job to just deem it necessary. Someone has got to pay for it! Their answer is always "just throw it on the taxpayer". How much of your paycheck are you willing to give up before enough is enough? 50%?? If instead of withholding taxes from our pay we should just have to pay at the end of the year. Then ignorant public would see how much they are loosing to government programs.
--
GIT R DONE
nevtxjustin

join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX

Key findings

ROFL...@ "Those key findings"

Reminds me of Mark "Deep Throat" Felt's first job.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Mark_Felt
quote:
Upon graduation, Felt took a position at the Federal Trade Commission but did not enjoy the work. His workload was very light. He was assigned a case to investigate whether a toilet paper brand called "Red Cross" was misleading consumers into thinking it was endorsed by the American Red Cross. Felt wrote in his memoir:

My research, which required days of travel and hundreds of interviews, produced two definite conclusions:
1. Most people did use toilet tissue.
2. Most people did not appreciate being asked about it.
That was when I started looking for other employment.
sbcretired

join:2006-01-07
Scottville, MI
Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
·AT&T Midwest

Watch where the $$$ goes

I am going out on a limb and predict that this broadband money will be spent out in very rural communities for some kind of wireless broadband. It will benefit just a very few, namely Farmers and wireless ISP's.
IMHO, even giving the money to ATT to deploy dslam's on existing fiber would put high speed internet out to more people.
ATT has slammed the door on deploying DSL any more than they have.
All they are interested in is U Verse, and thats only in highly populated areas.
Wyngs

join:2010-02-20
Coos Bay, OR

1 edit

Re: Watch where the $$$ goes

I came to Satellite from dial-up. For what it is worth I KNOW my dial-up ISP was gouging me at $21.95 a month. How? When I told them to cancel my account - I was going sat, they offered to lower the price to $9.95. When I still said no, they offered it to me at $3.95. Haha. They wouldn't offer it at $3.95 a month if it didn't make them money. (grin)

As for this country being built with a "free market" - haha. It was built on bonded and slave labor. Conditions were so onerous that men took to dragging their wives and kids into the wilderness in the hopes of finding something better. And as soon we became a world power, those who ran things, took to ripping off third world countries. Regulation and cops - both bad things - are necessary because the alternative is worse.

Saturday, 25-May 09:24:22 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.