  JeepMattC'mon the UPremium
join:2001-12-28
Wilmington, DE
kudos:2
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Awful Congratulations Matt!
You've busted your ass your whole life, worked since you were 16, went to college and grad school - own your own home... and so you get to pay Verizon $400 a month for your internet, phones, and television.
Meanwhile,
Congratulations on having 5 kids, a crap job and no money. We'll give you cable internet for $10!
Stories like this just piss me off....
--
"ONE team - ONE city - ONE dream!!" | |
|
 |  FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: Awful How does it affect you? | |
|
| | | | Re: Awful Funny Part: It doesn't. | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | I think the 5 kids will have a chance for a better life in the future, getting school lunch, internet, and a computer at home. How about the person with 1 kid and $20k salary? | |
|
| | | Let me guess... and I'm really going out on a limb here... tea party? | |
|
|  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Wow, troll much? This is for underprivledged kids that need it for educational purposes.
Aside, this program was a condition from the FCC for aquiring NBC. CC didnt do this out of the goodness of their hearts. | |
|
| | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: Awful Comcast agreed to it. They didn't have to. They could have walked away from the table when this was mentioned. I think if anyone is going to be upset they need to be upset that Comcast agreed to this deal. | |
|
| | | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Awful ....
If you have a potential big money maker (NBC) that you want to aquire, and someone says you have to implement a small money loser (low income broadband) you do it. They would have only walked from the deal if the money they would lose on the LIB program would be greater than the NBC profits. | |
|
| | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: Awful obviously. My point was that nobody should be upset with poor people over this. Comcast made the decision to accept it. get over it. | |
|
| | | | | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Awful My point is this.
Comcast didnt make the decision. The FCC forced them to. | |
|
| | | | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: Awful so you are saying that CC didn't have a choice? they always have a choice. They chose to give $10 internet access to poor people. They could have said no. They wouldn't lose anything from it. | |
|
| | | | | | | chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC | Re: Awful Yes, they would. That's the point, they would have lost the chance to buy NBC. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Awful And that is bad? | |
|
| | | | | | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | if they didn't get NBC, what would they have lost? their books wouldn't change at all if they didn't get NBC. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | said by FBGuy:so you are saying that CC didn't have a choice? they always have a choice. They chose to give $10 internet access to poor people. They could have said no. They wouldn't lose anything from it.
Im sure the FCC would have folded if they didn't agree. | |
|
| | | | | | | | FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: Awful said by gruntlord6:said by FBGuy:so you are saying that CC didn't have a choice? they always have a choice. They chose to give $10 internet access to poor people. They could have said no. They wouldn't lose anything from it.
Im sure the FCC would have folded if they didn't agree. I think EVERYONE would have loved to have seen that. | |
|
| | | | | |  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
2 edits | I believe this was one of the things ComCast offered, they went to the FCC with a list of things they would do in return for prompt approval, and what do you know what they offered were the only conditions the ended up with (from the FCC/FTC/AG review)
This one is a charitable write-off AND a great promotion at the same time KIDS at their most impressionable age get upgraded from dialup or nothing at home plus if needed an older PC cheap.
If you haven't had it before it'll seem like an AWESOME gift and save endless trips to the library or staying after school to use those computers because alot of homework now REQUIRES internet access. plus you get to play/learn more when that is done.
and when you get out of school or no longer qualify for this program you are likely to upgrade your existing CABLE HSI connection rather than searching out some other technology.
So comcast does it's good deed and likely gets some future customers out of it. | |
|
| | | | | | | BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Awful It's also a case where most of the people involved either would have DSL or nothing if it weren't for this, so they get a bunch of new subs, and aren't losing much, if any, potential revenue for customers that have relatively slow connections that can't bog anything down. Sounds like a good deal to me. | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by baineschile:My point is this.
Comcast didnt make the decision. The FCC forced them to.
The FCC didn't force Comcast to do anything. | |
|
| | | | | | | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | .
. | |
|
| | | | | | | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Awful Apologies, you are all correct. They didnt "force" it, they made it a "mandatory condition" if they were to purchase NBC.
Semantics really. | |
|
| | | You sure make it sound like it's an individual's fault that they're poor. Are you honestly that ignorant? | |
|
| | | | Re: Awful Yep, pretty much. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Comcast
| Wow so what about people who are retired and living on a fixed income? they may not be able to afford 40 bucks but 10 bucks is cheaper than dial up and they can view photos and videos that family may email them.
How about the person who is/are disabled, they may be on a fixed income. Do you think they would like to be able to have a broadband connection to view or look up information, perhaps find a online support group that could help them?
What about the millions of people who went to college, and grad school who over the last 5 years had their jobs snatched from them and now they work a crap job? | |
|
| | | | Re: Awful I'm shocked to see so many people complain about CC offering kids an inexpensive way to better educate themselves and giving them a few extra tools to do so. This isn't about retired or fixed income living. It's about helping families (kids) that couldn't normally afford BB. | |
|
|  RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | said by JeepMatt:Congratulations Matt!
You've busted your ass your whole life, worked since you were 16, went to college and grad school - own your own home... and so you get to pay Verizon $400 a month for your internet, phones, and television.
Meanwhile,
Congratulations on having 5 kids, a crap job and no money. We'll give you cable internet for $10!
Stories like this just piss me off....
I understand your point, but I would venture to guess that anyone who qualifies for this program would rather be in your shoes than theirs.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
|
| | | And you have had opportunities that a lot of people haven't. Yea those poor people really asked for that crap job and low pay. /rolls eyes | |
|
| |
| | |
| | | Exaggerate much? Reading that article doesn't make me want to quit my job and go work at McDonalds so I can have a slow $10 internet connection.
This isn't discounted Cable TV. This is discounted access to the internet. You do know school assignments in the year 2011 assume you have internet access to complete the assignment right? | |
|
| | | If you can afford to pay $400/month for tv,phones and internet, at age 35, then there is no reason for you to feel persecuted or to be pissed off.
Be happy you probably get to be in the top 10% of earners.
They are getting a $15 discount on a basic service tier. They aren't getting anything near the services that you are getting for $400. | |
|
|  herb77
join:2005-02-23
Fort Myers, FL | Who cares if you're stupid enough to pay 400 bucks for things you don't need.
--
Obama 2012 | |
|
|  aaa
@comcast.net | If you pay Verizon $400 a month for the triple services, then you have way way too much money. | |
|
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | It was a really easy and cheap thing for Comcast to do, and great for PR, and it made the FCC happy. Good for everyone. | |
|
| MADx
join:2005-05-25
Richmond, IN | Then go and piss in a corner, because no one wants to hear your rant. | |
|
Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
| Free porn for low incomers High speed internet is a basic utility and the poor should have access to free porn and file sharing just like the rich people.
Oh sorry I mean, the low incomers will use the internet at high speed to educated themselves and their children wiping out poverty.
| |
|
| FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Re: Free porn for low incomers doesn't matter if you are rich or poor. you can use the internet to better yourself or destroy yourself. it is a tool, nothing more. There are rich people out there that use it for bullshit also. (example: perez hilton). | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Lame
Second, why is this restricted just to people who are called poor? Why can't the rest of us get this sweet deal?
Of course, we all knew this merger would do absolutely nothing good for most people, this is just more proof.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| A bit more info 1.5 x 384 speed, $10 per month in this case, $35 per month plus modem rental normally if you have internet only. No install fee, versus $100 or so normally.
Then again, modems cost maybe $20 for a non-D3 model, and you don't need D3 to do 1.5 x 384 on Comcast's network. So hardware costs aren't too expensive.
As for the computer, it's a netbook running Win7 Starter. In bulk, Comcast is probably breaking even on these..I've seen them at WalMart for $180. | |
|
| | | Re: A bit more info $20 they like have lot's old modems that others have rented and payed like 2-3+ times there cost. | |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·magicjack.com
| So the poor get the rewards everyone else pays for. Pure garbage. Why should the low income people be entitled to things paid for by the middle, rich classes?
Broadband is a luxury, just as owning a computer is a luxury.
No one needs the internet to live, nor a computer.
This is just to pump up public opinion, get a tax write off ploy.
--
To All Real Dads. For All Real Moms Every Real
Service. | |
|
|
See 34 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
·Charter
| As a person who sides with the tea party, lets just say... That education is the most valuable tool anyone can have for the future, and the internet is the best educational tool you can have (Yes, it obviously has lots of other uses too, obviously).
We need to stop the crazy spending, stop giving money to illegals, but you aren't talking illegals, or drug using hippies, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN, OUR NATIONS FUTURE HERE! BOTH SIDES NEED TO STOP USING EDUCATION AS IT'S OWN DAMN POLITICAL AGENDA. | |
|
| | | Re: As a person who sides with the tea party, lets just say... Oh yea.... It's for the childeren!!!! That's all you have to do is claim it's for the childern and that makes it all better.
I am so glad we have $10 interwebs for the childern. I can't imagin how deplorable conditions were in America for the first 300 or so years before we got the intertubes. Gezz how did people ever learn anything with out all of those tubes? | |
|
| | | | Re: As a person who sides with the tea party, lets just say... Education IS FOR THE CHILDREN. Education is FOR THE FUTURE. What good is throwing away Americas future? | |
|
| | | | | Re: As a person who sides with the tea party, lets just say... LOL the future rests in Comcast's hands. If they don't offer $10 broadband low income families we're doomed....
So if it's OK to throw the "It's for the children card" here then it's perfectly OK to throw the card when ISPs want to monitor your traffic for child pornography. | |
|
| |  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | OK, so let's go back to 1 room schoolhouses, segregated schools, no computers in the classroom, etc.
Hell, I pay $4000 a year in property taxes, and I have no kids. So if anyone has a right to bitch, it's me.
But, I really don't see why anyone should have a problem with this. You really do have to be next to flat broke to qualify. Broker than anyone would ever want to be.
I have a hard time being pissy about someone who's dirt poor qualifying for a discount I don't qualify for because I make a decent living.
America used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Now it seems like were the land of "hooray for me and F%^K you".
If this sort of thing gets you that frothed up, you're just an angry person in general...
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: As a person who sides with the tea party, lets just say... ... not to mention that those with kids get a tax break while people like you and me pay full rate.
if you ask me, the government needs to stop using the tax code as a way to manipulate behavior in America. If anything, those that have kids, who consume and use more resources, should have a tax HIKE, and not a break..
Because someone else CHOOSES to raise a family, they get a discount? F that! ... people with kids should pay more... they consume more! | |
|
RobIn Deo speramus.Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
kudos:3 | The importance of Internet.. Some may disagree with me, but the truth is, to be a successful student in K-12 (especially from middle school onward), students must have easy access to a computer and Internet.
More and more teachers are requiring typed assignments, and access to public libraries are not only becoming limited, but for many children (especially those below the poverty line), have a difficult time getting to the library.
--
CheckSite.us | YourIP.us | Reverseip.us | |
|
| WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5 | Re: The importance of Internet.. said by Rob:to be a successful student in K-12 (especially from middle school onward), students must have easy access to a computer and Internet.
access to public libraries are not only becoming limited, but for many children (especially those below the poverty line), have a difficult time getting to the library.
Rural school are getting laptops for students, but they still need internet access out of class. In my areas, parents have to drive the kids into town for a Friday computer lab or shuttle them to the library.
The parents are telling me how disruptive this is to the family. Kids can walk to the library and get picked up in the early evening, and have a late supper; or parents can drive them into town for an hour of computer time. Spending $20 per month for even the most basic internet access has been our selling point. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | TEACHERS don't have the "right" to "require" anything be typed.. that's pure BS...
If the school system "requires" anything be done, they have to be able to fund that mandate..
And, the education system's education plan doesn't require access to the internet, per-say.. but for the record, that very school system already has access to the internet, on campus. In fact, the cable companies already install cable in the classroom - and have for MANY years. | |
|
| |  nklbPremium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
kudos:2 | Re: The importance of Internet.. said by fiberguy:TEACHERS don't have the "right" to "require" anything be typed.. that's pure BS...
If the school system "requires" anything be done, they have to be able to fund that mandate.. This is exactly what they do.
The kids generally have access to the computer lab after hours so not having access to a computer, printer, or typewriter at home is no excuse. | |
|
 wmcbrine213 251 145 96
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
kudos:1 | In Maryland also I saw something about this on my city's official web site. No mention that it was part of the merger conditions, though.
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 | |
|
| | Safelink Safelink is one thing, I am all for that. But seriously, the government doesn't need to force private companies to offer low price income to low income residents. If this were a school based connection with a "portal" based system it would be different, but if it REALLY is for EDU purposes then they should FILTER it.
Where the hell is rural broadband? Its nice they can get it for $10, when MANY rural residents who are poor or not are having to pay $80 a month for satellite or a Cell Aircard. | |
|
| | | Re: Safelink Maybe if it were free. But $10 is a fair price for this connection! | |
|
| |
| | | Not only for educational uses but what about job hunting or other useful things you can do online?
And no one forced Comcast to do anything. | |
|
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Comcast $10 internet. Comcast agreed to this service to get the major poor people's US Representatives to go along with a bad for the public merger. Content producers should not be ISPs. The proper response should have been to reject the merger and pass legislation banning content producers from being ISPs. You can be a common carrier ISP or you can be a television/movie producer is what the law would have said. You cannot be both because you will engage in traffic discrimination eventually to please stockholders. That is not in the public interest. Once Comcast completes its DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades, these customers will be a very small burden on the network. You can only put so much data through the very low data rate service they are providing. | |
|
| | | Re: Comcast $10 internet. Still could transfer double the ridiculously low cap. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: Comcast $10 internet. I sometimes wish the ISP cap complainers would remember how other similar industries grew over time. When cellular/mobile phones first came out I think you were charged per minute at what today would be $5 per minute. That applied to both outgoing and incoming calls. Over time came small buckets of minutes with your plan, maybe 60 per month for $240. And that was with a nice big saltine cracker box sized phone. Over time the cost per minute came down and the bucket sizes went up for the same inflation adjusted cost. Now you can get 6000 minutes or more for that same $240.
Over time as new technologies are created from the abandonment of older technologies, that will foster competition that can keep the pressure on ISPs to offer larger caps for the same inflation adjusted cost. For example, the whitespace use of rabbit ear digital TV frequencies will allow licensed fixed based antennas to be used by ISPs to provide alternative services. Many of your old style WISPs will be the most qualified to offer this service at competitive rates and cap sizes for those stuck with having to use wireless(satellite, cellular, and older WISP) or dialup. We are slowly seeing decreases in the per byte retail costs for mobile/cellular data as the higher speed GSM and LTE technologies are being deployed.
For those looking at wired service, I think AT&T or other DSL providers will have to raise caps over time as they cannot compete on speed with the cable companies. Or they lower the basic monthly service charge to make entry to the service more affordable. Once all the cable companies have fully transitioned to DOCIS 3.0 and paid down debt, say by 2020, you will be seeing much larger caps. I think they will be about 4 times what they are today, approximately 1TB per month. There will always be some sort of cap in the contract so they have that tool to use in dealing with problem customers. | |
|
|  OctaveanPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1 | I agree 100%.
It's a conflict of interest. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by davidhoffman:Comcast agreed to this service to get the major poor people's US Representatives to go along with a bad for the public merger. ...exactly which "representatives" are you referring to? Congress has nothing to do with the approval process.
Content producers should not be ISPs. The proper response should have been to reject the merger and pass legislation banning content producers from being ISPs. You can be a common carrier ISP or you can be a television/movie producer is what the law would have said. You cannot be both because you will engage in traffic discrimination eventually to please stockholders. That is not in the public interest.
in the case of ISPs and entertainment, it's not even close to what I just mentioned.. free market still prevails in this case in my opinion. The way I see this kind of view in many people who feel the government needs to fix everything with rules and control.. I see it the same as a gambler that feels more gambling is going to get them out of the mess they created in the first place. Government and all these "rules" is not the answer... more "control" isn't going to fix or solve anything. The more the government gets into the middle of a free market to "fix things".. the more everyone realizes that government has the ability to "fix things" in their favor in the first place. This is a major fail.
Once Comcast completes its DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades, these customers will be a very small burden on the network. You can only put so much data through the very low data rate service they are providing. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: Comcast $10 internet. Representative Maxine Waters was one of the most vocal opponents of the merger. Both the Senate and House held hearings on the merger. The Attorney Generals of 5 states got involved. Why? Because thousands of people across the nation complained to Congress that the merger would do nothing good in the public interest. The FCC did not care what happened until Congress got involved. So Comcast came up with scraps to throw out to placate Congress, the states, and the cities. There were conditions included for the merger on system access for African American and Latino programming, carriage conditions, digital literacy, set asides of channels, and other items. Congress could have delayed the merger by passing legislation, so the Congress was part of the approval process. The legislation may have eventually been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, but Comcast did not want to go through that route, so they agreed to easy to do conditions.
If the government had not loosened the banking laws we had, some of the mortgage mess would not have occurred. If the government had banned yield spread premiums for mortgage brokers, another portion of the mortgage mess would have been avoided. If the FCC would have mandated line sharing at wholesale costs we would have more ISP competition, like the Japanese or French do. Then you would not have so many noncompetitive ISP markets. Then you truly could use the market to switch ISP providers, instead of being stuck in a monopoly as many people are.
My understanding of the DOCSIS 3.0 upgrade at Comcast is that they have made sure that they are going to get enough internet capacity to handle what they think will be an increased average amount of data utilized by their customers getting the higher speeds and for future VOD offerings they are planning. If cloud computing is truly a future practice for the average Comcast customer, they will need to make sure they can handle the load. I think cloud computing is not that great, but a lot of businesses have indicated they may try it for some business operations. The increase in work at home/ remotely jobs may also increase internet capacity needs of Comcast business and residential users. | |
|
| | Better than here At least there paying something. Here in tampa, Everyone living in the projects gets FREE standard internet (10/1) service for 2 years. | |
|
 rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | income qualification...for ANYTHING If Comcast, without any government arm twisting (as it clearly has been coerced into doing in order to be granted the apparent privilege of acquisition), wants to make offers based on yearly income, I guess they could and let the chips fall where they may.
On the other hand, how would you feel if anywhere you went you were asked your annual income, and prices were different based on how much you earned? I'm not that altruistic, and I doubt the majority of people are either. Do you folks honestly think our economy should be altered like this? Prices basically become close to meaningless. Prices are supposed to be what the seller thinks the goods or services are worth. Any business which is run in such a socialist manner, with the people who can supposedly "afford it" subsidizing those who supposedly can't, is hobbled, possibly crippled. To me, it's just stupid.
If people want charity, I would think they should go to charities for their needs and wants. Silly me. Oh, wait...the government has been turned into one, so I guess that's why they added the demand to Comcast to do what they did...they want Comcast to be like themselves.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck! | |
|
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | $10 broadband *yawn*
what cableco doesnt have a $10 tier in their retention dept. | |
|
| | Internet for whom? How about either Comcast and/or AT&T(fat chance) bring broadband access out to my area? All of us will even pay "full price" for it. Comcast would rather provide people that are willing to work, but are too lazy to work, outside of walking to the mailbox for the welfare check? Also, just what is "digital literacy training"?
I would love it if some "broadband" provide would get out where I live(Haralson County, GA) and offer broadband to the entire freaking county. AT&T is doing a failure of a job, so some company needs to get out here and do better. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: Internet for whom? The digital literacy training is the really bad part of the deal. But it is based on what some municipalities were able to get when they first licensed cable companies to operate. That is how you got the Public, Educational, and Government (PEG) channels. The cities made it mandatory to provide those. Some cities got cable companies to provide complete TV studios, with training facilities and trainers, to support the PEG operations. All this at no charge to the city directly, but paid for by all cable customers in that city.
The digital literacy training is based on the "community organizer/community leader/community activist" idea that lower income people are not able to learn how to use the internet on their own. The fact that they can learn to use sophisticated cell phones with the help of friends, existing community college courses, or existing community center based training cannot change that idea. So they demanded the ISP equivalent of the PEG situation. New or refurbished community centers outfitted with new computers where people can go to learn how to use a computer, what an operating system is, what a browser is, what application software is, what is internet security software, what a search engine is, how to use e-mail and other things. The items are taught at the elementary school level.
This situation would not exist if the FCC had some fortitude to say no to unnecessary acquisitions that are not in the public interest. No merger, no low income ISP requirements. You want to violate the public interest, you pay. Comcast could have called off the merger if they really did not like this. Providing low grade DOCSIS 2.0 service to a few, when you are just a few years away from completely deploying really capable and profitable DOCSIS 3.0 for the many, is not going to significantly bother the profits Comcast is going to make.
As for your community's lack of broadband, there are ways the community can work to get it. The citizens need to petition the municipal and county governments to work together on creating a countywide Fiber To The Home(FTTH) plan. Study the idea of using existing public utility Rights Of Way. The idea is to come up with an engineering plan, not just a rough estimate, but a very detailed plan of how the network would be structured, the paths it would take, equipment and people needed, and capital costs. There are examples »www.broadbandproperties.com/2005···ager.pdf »www.bbpmag.com/MuniPortal/FTTHLand.html#
»www.bbpmag.com/2011mags/mayjune1···ents.pdf
The community can help to build an open access network that provides wholesale services to Value Added Retailers that sell to the community. Or they can use other models. The community can contract for FTTH/FTTP internet service by having government and businesses commit to being the first anchor tenents. The network would be built out to all areas as part of the contract. After the anchors are serviced, the residents can be serviced from the same network, at a lower cost than it would be otherwise, if it is planned and engineered correctly. I believe EPB Fiber in Chattanooga TN deployed to each house or business on each block at one time. They installed all the fiber runs to each house or business on the block at once. That way if a resident or business wanted service, all the installer had to do was hook up a Network Interface Device at the customer's house or building to the existing fiber. No fiber to string or trenches to dig. It was already done.
Yes, this may take taxpayer money to get done. And it may require cooperation and coordination between county and city governments. But a county wide coordinated plan may end up being lower in cost than each city doing its own thing. | |
|
quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
South FL
kudos:2 | Income verified? Are they automatically offering this to anyone who receives free lunches? I've read that there's a lot of fraud with scumbag parents lying about their income because it's rarely verified. Is Comcast double-checking? | |
|
| tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Income verified? The reason they use that standard is the school lunch does have a through and standardized income,employment and benefit documentation and application process.
in fact most gov't and many private programs (some totally unrelated) see that certification as the gold standard benchmark/poverty line indicator.
for instance funding for many school and local funding grants are based on the percentage of free school lunch students.
Having watched some go through the process, the idea that people are enjoying dealing the process of those programs, or that they are getting rich and eating prime rib and lobster every night is an urban legend*, for what I saw the poorest get less than $100 per person per month (Can you live on $3 of food a day, everyday?) and most get even less.
* A bigger, recently news worthy problem seems to be some retailers are illegally buying the food stamps from users for 50% on the dollar and using the full benefit amount to restock their stores. sure the sellers of their card are wrong (they need cash for nonfood items and medicine), but these small store owners are cashing in at both ends.
The system isn't perfect and some thieves exist in any program, but it helps more than it hurts. | |
|
| | Fantastic So... underprivileged children will actually have a chance to compete & join in with their peers that have been able to enjoy this service all along. Educating children & giving them a chance?
What a novel idea. | |
|
MADx
join:2005-05-25
Richmond, IN | Tired! I'm tired of hearing people rant about I pay this, I pay that, and I work hard all my life. If you are doing well like you claim you are then $400 is a drop in the bucket, and since you are doing so well you are most likely enjoying the Bush tax cuts. So why pick on families that are struggling, they are not a threat to your security, Daddy Warbucks. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Socialism By Proxy So here we have the administration putting its boot to the neck of Comcast - in the name of "feeding the poor". Comcast whimpers like (ahem) Brer Rabbit: "Whatever you do, don't make us provide $10 broadband to your people in order to approve the merger."
Comcast wins accolades among the usual suspects; Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Van Jones and Al Gore stand down.
Meanwhile, they soak the rest of their customers to cover the subsidy.
Next time, when you want to rail against the evil corporate machine for "gouging" you, remember who you voted for. Elections have consequences. | |
|
 MannusPremium
join:2005-10-25
Fort Wayne, IN
·Frontier FiOS
·Verizon FiOS
| my $.02 Is there a valid need for this program, sure. Is there and will there be abuse of this program, you bet ass there will be. I have worked in the correctional, criminal and educational fields for over 15 years and you better believe that if there is way to exploit government subsidy programs, people will find it and abuse it. Many is the times I have seen in the courts and the schools parents and their children who basically live off the government wallet sporting hundred dollar shoes and jeans, driving 30 and 40 thousand dollar cars, but cant pay their court fees or school tuition and book fees.
There needs to be accountability by the participants and a real and verifiable need to be approved w/ regular annual re-certification.
Will this make the process harder, probably but it will also make it harder to fraud the system. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Millenicom
·AT&T Southeast
·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: my $.02 There needs to be an FCC and FTC that would have unanimously rejected the merger as against the public interest, knowing that the entire US Congress would back them up. Comcast will make much more money from this merger and the schemes they create with NBC than this low level internet subsidy will cost them. This merger was not in the public interest. You have an FCC bought and paid for by the big ISPs and TV networks, that has to work with a US Congress that has been corrupted by the same ISPs and TV networks. | |
|
|
|
