Zenit_IIfxThe system is the solution Premium Member join:2012-05-07 Purcellville, VA ·Comcast XFINITY
|
These people have worse worriesMany of those whom are poor are living day to day, worrying more about keeping their home/rent going, feeding their families/themselves, and keeping their jobs.
I am surprised that the uptake on the free 5mbps is so poor - then again most of those whom would benefit from the service don't have $300 lying around to pay for the drop and equipment.
And for those who could afford it but stick with AT&T or TW, well its foolish, they are spending tons more sticking with the incumbent over time. | |
|
| |
Re: These people have worse worries....worrying more about keeping their home/rent going, feeding their families/themselves, and keeping their jobs.
You just described 99% of Americans. -Taxes getting higher -Inflation getting higher -Wages stagnating | |
|
| | Zenit_IIfxThe system is the solution Premium Member join:2012-05-07 Purcellville, VA ·Comcast XFINITY
|
Re: These people have worse worries- Political system is totally ineffective - Corporate interests run amok unchecked to the point of controlling lives - Total lack of true productive industry - Loosing respect in the world - Toxic food - Mass Illness
Yea...it sounds like the whole place is sinking fast. Every time I hear someone say "USA will never collapse" I cringe - foolish to think that an empire will not fail under the weight of its own hubris and folly. It has happened to every great nation before... | |
|
| | | |
Re: These people have worse worriesYou mean corrupt politicians running the whole show and ultimately leading to its demise?
Yeah, happens everywhere. Republican, Democrat, it doesn't matter anymore. They all seek the best interest for themselves, not us. | |
|
| | Kommie2 (banned) join:2003-05-13 united state |
to bigballer
said by bigballer:....worrying more about keeping their home/rent going, feeding their families/themselves, and keeping their jobs.
You just described 99% of Americans. -Taxes getting higher -Inflation getting higher -Wages stagnating But yet 80% of Income Tax Revenue goes to Military/Defense Spending. Hell we are spending more on ISIS than Food Stamps. | |
|
| | | Zenit_IIfxThe system is the solution Premium Member join:2012-05-07 Purcellville, VA |
Re: These people have worse worrieswe need that spending, as Russia is our number 1 enemy, right guiz?
I find that to be one of the most disturbing gaffs of an administration that seems to be hell bent on causing chaos.
Its like we WANT the Cold War to come back. | |
|
| | | |
MontyDraxel to Kommie2
Anon
2014-Oct-13 11:17 am
to Kommie2
"yet 80% of Income Tax Revenue goes to Military/Defense Spending"
Note even close. The largest spending is entitlements like Social Security. Defense spending is less than 20% (still too high for me, but it is what it is).
31 cents of every dollar Washington spent in 2012 was borrowed, resulting in a $1.1 trillion deficit.
45 percent, or almost half of all spending ,went toward paying for Social Security and health care entitlements (primarily Medicare and Medicaid). In 2002, that was only 25 percent. .
Social Security is the largest federal spending program and has held this position since surpassing defense in 1993. Medicare is one of the largest and fastest-growing programs in the entire federal budget. | |
|
| |
to Zenit_IIfx
For many people, 5Mbps is too slow to be useful even for free (you can barely stream Youtube in HD on that if you are the only person using the internet in your household at the time; forget about it otherwise) and $70/month is too expensive so they stick to whatever they already have. | |
|
| |
1 recommendation |
Re: These people have worse worriesWhat are their current internet options?
Comcast 5/1 is $50 a month.
Google fiber is free.
Take it or leave it bro, but 5 mbps is good enough for most people out there who don't stream 24/7, youtube, or torrent like crazy. It's good enough to get by.... especially if you're poor. | |
|
| | | |
Re: These people have worse worriesNetflix HD does work on the 'free' 5M' - their HD starts at 4.3Mbps and leaves room to light browse at same time. What Google provides is a consistent 5M at prime time and the latency is also better than non-fiber ISPs. | |
|
| | | |
KennyWest to bigballer
Anon
2014-Oct-10 9:12 am
to bigballer
KC is an AT&T market with TWC. and the $10 or even $15 per month package to them is still better than shelling out the $300 and that's what it comes down to. Go there and ask how many have an extra $300 laying around the house to drop on fiber services. If GF really wanted to do something- tell them to do the installs for free. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: These people have worse worriesKC metro is mostly TWC (especially dominates KCK and KCMO) but there is some Uverse scattered around and about 8 other ISPs in metro. The $300 install fee can be paid at $25/month first year, which is comparable to the low end service of others. Google would probably get more if doing $12.50/m over two years.
Most lowest income though are likely renting and the property owner has to pay the $300 install fee for every unit and then get $300 back for every unit that upgrades. Makes a great incentive to market the building with free Internet with option for a Gbit. but since few low income would upgrade, most low rent property owners are not going for it. | |
|
| | |
to InvalidError
So the user sets YouTube for a lower SD resolution and it runs decently enough. The probable increase in reliability, lower ping times, and no caps would get a lot of interest from many people stuck on dial up or low grade DSL. | |
|
| |
to Zenit_IIfx
It shows that those that kept at&t or TWC will not or can not afford to pay that $300 up front. That is Google's issue. T and TWC do not charge it so its more appealing to stay with who you have. Also many of those "poor" do not have the ability to just take time off work for someone from GF to come out and install the services. | |
|
54761437 (banned) join:2013-01-18 Durham, NC |
54761437 (banned)
Member
2014-Oct-9 6:29 pm
What's the news here?Broadband uptake of any description is low among poor people. I mean, they're poor. Isn't it sort of self-evident they wouldn't a). know what fiber Internet even is, b). be able to afford it, and c). have the credit history to even be approved for it. | |
|
| cb14 join:2013-02-04 Miami Beach, FL |
cb14
Member
2014-Oct-9 9:57 pm
Re: What's the news here?A lot of low income households her use Metro or T mobile for internet. For $ 100 plus taxes you have phone service and internet for 4 people. And OTA TV is becoming quite popular- I use it myself. And I do not not about elsewhere, but here you need one full time dirty bone braking low income job just to pay the rent and utilities. A lot of people are too poor to qualify for Obamacare | |
|
| | |
KennyWest
Anon
2014-Oct-10 9:15 am
Re: What's the news here?Under Affordable Healthcare Act if you don't make enough to pay for even part of it- you are able to obtain Medicaid- thus have FREE medical, so, please get your information correct on that. | |
|
| | | |
Re: What's the news here?And about half the states have so far refused to expand medicaid so this is not available for a large section of the US population. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: What's the news here?They refuse because they can't afford it. | |
|
| | | | | 1 edit |
Re: What's the news here?Can't afford it when the federal government is funding the expansion 100% for the first 3 years and 90% after that? When the way we presently deal with the uninsured is through the far more expensive approach of letting them become seriously, even deathly, ill and then treating them at emergency rooms and paying for such treatment through medicaid subsidies to hospitals? When those states that have expanded medicaid are seeing major reductions in their uninsurance rates(kentucky saw declines from 20% uninsured to 11%) and therefore in the level of unnecessary suffering. When rural hospitals are very afraid that the removal of these subsidies (which is part of the affordable care act because these people would no longer be uninsured and would have access to doctors) will cause major financial problems for them?
One way or the other there are costs. Bringing people into the insurance pools so they can get treatment before they become seriously sick is more cost effective in the long run. We have tolerated having the most expensive health care system in the world for many decades and our outcomes are not superior to other first world nations that have much lower costs, so its absurd to say we can't afford it. If we can afford to piss away money on an absurdly inefficient costly medical system that represents 17% of our gdp when almost all other countries are under 10%, then we can afford the medicaid expansion.
It is not the cost calculation that is causing these states to turn down the medicaid expansion. It is ideological rigidity. Within a decade most states will have realized this and will have expanded medicaid. | |
|
| | | | | intok (banned) join:2012-03-15 |
to devolved
said by devolved:They refuse because they can't afford it. Wrong, it was money that said state's own taxpayers had already paid for that their right wing state government decided to refuse to accept to expand the state medicaid just so they can pander to their base and say "Obamacare doesn't work" when whats not working is the state government. | |
|
| |
to 54761437
Google did a large amount of education about FTTH in the KCKS and KCMO areas prior to and during the initial registration phase. B and C were definitely problems. In some areas there were donated prepaid $10 debit cards given out so that more residences would get on the list, thus getting the FiberHood closer to or above the qualifying number needed. Google stated that it did not like that activity, but Google did not try to stop it. TWC also engaged in a campaign to discourage or thwart Google Fiber signups. There were some feeble attempts to raise enough private funds to significantly subsidize the $300 installation cost, but they ended without success. | |
|
| | WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2014-Oct-10 6:25 am
Re: What's the news here? There were some feeble attempts to raise enough private funds to significantly subsidize the $300 installation cost, but they ended without success.
This is the way it should be handled. Also if a family really wants the service they could save $5 or $10 a month until they have the $300. I realize many of these families go a few days of the month without meals but most American families can find the money over time if they really want something. | |
|
| | | 54761437 (banned) join:2013-01-18 Durham, NC |
54761437 (banned)
Member
2014-Oct-10 6:59 am
Re: What's the news here?said by WhatNow: There were some feeble attempts to raise enough private funds to significantly subsidize the $300 installation cost, but they ended without success.
This is the way it should be handled. Also if a family really wants the service they could save $5 or $10 a month until they have the $300. I realize many of these families go a few days of the month without meals but most American families can find the money over time if they really want something. I never quite understood that. We waste a lot of food in this country, and we also produce a lot of it, so the idea that so many people are going hungry is absurd. At least teach people about gardening and growing their own produce. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: What's the news here?One of my coworkers has a wife who liked to garden. The deer, rabbits, birds, possums, and other creatures would reduce the yield by 90%. She quit gardening. She raised chickens for eggs. The foxes and other critters ate the chickens. She gave up on egg farming. She has been reduced to one medium sized blueberry bush. Farming, gardening, and food animal production is no easy task.
Yes, we do produce a lot of plant based products in the USA. Be careful though, a lot of that is designed as food for beef, pork, chicken, and turkey production. A lot of corn not designed for human consumption. A lot of soy beans headed for animal production. | |
|
| | | |
to WhatNow
Most low income are renters and property owners are not wanting to flip the bill for $300 install fee for every unit. They get $300 back for every unit that upgrades to Gbit but fewer likely will for low income buildings than for avg+ income buildings so not many low income buildings get it. Google could maybe figure out a way to fine tune that to entice low income property owners. | |
|
| | | |
to WhatNow
Yes, but Google was being obstinate about the installation schedule.
If you made the $10 deposit to help during your Fiberhood rally, my understanding was you could only get service installed during the time your Fiberhood was having installations. After that time period ended there were to be no more installations in the future in that Fiberhood. So if it was going to take 3 years for you to save up the $300, you were not going to get an installation anyway, so why save for it. This concept of only having one installation period for an FTTH project is not the way regular ISPs usually handle future installation issues.
Chattanooga EPB Fiber attempted to run the FTTH to the outside wall of all premises in each service sector prior to the actual beginning of the sign up period. They said it was less costly in the long run to run the fiber to the exterior wall of all premises in any one service sector. Then they would move the entire group of fiber installation crews to another sector. That way, when a subscriber signed up for service, it was basically drilling access holes through the exterior wall into the interior. | |
|
|
GF rollout methodSomething additional to consider. Google Fiber's limited time offer to signup, may make it unfeasible for some households to switch. If a household is locked into a contract, and they don't want to pay early termination fees, they may choose to stay with their existing provider (for whatever reason: poor, don't want to waste money, etc.)
Once GF goes to a long term support model where households can sign up for service at any time; I expect their take rate to climb. | |
|
| |
46436203 (banned)
Member
2014-Oct-9 6:59 pm
Re: GF rollout methodTime Warner Cable, which is the incumbent for the area, doesn't have contracts. | |
|
| | 1 edit |
Re: GF rollout methodGoogle 'free' service ($300 install fee or $25/month) doesn't have a contract other than paying the install fee. | |
|
| | | |
Re: GF rollout methodI wasn't referring to Google having contracts, but a household's previous Internet providers (AT&T, Comcast, etc.) | |
|
| | |
| |
to JasonBourne
Google does a signup window, rolls it out, then does another signup phase, rolls it out, then does another. They've had a couple signup phases already. It's just a way to prioritize the rollout. | |
|
| | |
Re: GF rollout methodYes, but there are big multi month gaps between said signup phases. | |
|
|
nothing, a little bit and a lot.These are the only options google offers. They should offer a 100 Mbps fiber line for $10/month. That is a very affordable price for low income households while offering great service. But google knows that higher speeds for more money only act as a sort of artificial premium. It does not cost them any more or less to give you different speeds. (It's light signals going down a fiber optic cable for christsakes!) They give you the best speeds they can under the limitations of the technology. But they need to cover the costs of installing the fiber too. So that's why you pay a one time fee of $300 or $70 a month. But the real question is why they don't give you gigabit speeds for that one time cost option? Does not make sense to me. | |
|
| ••• |
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2014-Oct-9 6:52 pm
You don't suppose......A lot of people in Kansas City want Google Fiber, and were going to do everything we can to get it to them by the end of the year," that this might be the cause of the recent "Slow rollout/delays" announcement? just squeezing "THE POOR" to recycle a few more cans, skip another meal to pay for that Google fiber install, and maybe get a computer or tv someday too. | |
|
|
What PC would they have....If the signup fee and monthly bill is too much then what sort of PC would they have? A 300 MHz box running widows 98? | |
|
| •••• |
|
hyphenated
Anon
2014-Oct-9 7:58 pm
Why?Is it because they don't have money or don't know anything about it? | |
|
| |
Re: Why?Many are satisfied with internet access from their phone. What's not clear is if someone has phone internet but not broadband, are they considered to be on the wrong end of the digital divide.
My sister had laptop and bummed off neighbors wifi but almost never used it and used her phone instead. She's above avg income and can afford top broadband/PayTV but as a phone only user with no cable, is she on wrong end of divide? BTW, she did eventually get the 'free' 5M internet and I hooked her up Chromecast/Netflix. | |
|
|
HEH!Can't afford the installation fee? I bet in most of those poor areas they got 50inch tv's and next gen consoles!
My family has some section 8 homes and I will you tell you this. They live better than most working people I know(with decent jobs).
Another thing to look at is that those easy manufacturing jobs are gone. So even if they wanted to work; jobs are nowhere to be found. | |
|
| firephotoTruth and reality matters Premium Member join:2003-03-18 Brewster, WA |
Re: HEH!That's another issue, people always exclaim how they should "get a job" or get a better job but the reality is there are few better jobs for everyone that is poor and there will always be the jobs that make poor people.
It's not really job creators, it's poor people creators. | |
|
| |
to TriadWelder
I understand what you are saying, but a lot of those on section 8 are not buying those products through regular retail outlets or even brought them themselves. I know some women on Section 8 who have boyfriends who are more than willing to buy them anything they want. | |
|
ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
yepquote: "Addressing the digital divide is going to take a lot more than any Internet offering, because some people still dont see the relevance of the Internet in their lives," Google Fiber's Erica Swanson states.
Poor people really suck at keeping up with the world around them. That sounds about right. | |
|
|
$300 installation feeI work for a fiber ISP and I still can't believe the free 5mbps. $300 doesn't even pay for one of the Calix ONTs we use. | |
|
| •••• |
System |
(topic offline) It's not that poor people aren't people....Moderator Action This entire topic was removed, either temporarily, or permanently.
stated reason was: | |
|
|
LuddMcTerrib
Anon
2014-Oct-10 4:03 am
Is it so hard?If these people don't place value in the internet, is that so bad? Google (and some of the commentators) act like these people are wearing furs, and banging rocks on stuff all day.
Respect their decisions - give them a break. | |
|
| |
Re: Is it so hard?Yeah, at least Google gave most the lowest income areas of KC first chance. The first two areas selected for rollout are among lowest income and most of the upper income burbs won't get til much later, with some exceptions.
What is interesting is that low income areas with immigrants registered/subscribed at higher rather than domestic low income areas. The latest study shows 15% subscribed but that only checked one low income area with mostly domestic born. Another study before this one says nearly 30% subs, which included low income areas with a lot of immigrants. | |
|
w0go.O join:2001-08-30 Springfield, OR 1 edit |
w0g
Member
2014-Oct-10 4:12 am
....stupidThere are some people out there who simply don't give a fuck what they spend money on or what the service is they're sign up with is. They only care that it works; They don't care if it's the best price, or the best deal.
Some people do care. While, unfortunately, about many things, many other people (the majority) don't..
Google fiber itself is the absolute best and it is really affordable. But yet, people refuse to switch from boring / slow ass AT&T? And AT&T is the worst; copper lined service is SHIT when it comes to internet throughput and internet latency and video quality on the video services (because it's fiber, they can push through more channels w/ higher bitrates. whereas on copper they have to compress, compress, limit, limit).
The crowd that doesn't care, fits into the group that also once signed up for a service typically doesn't change it and doesn't worry about it much. | |
|
| Cthen Premium Member join:2004-08-01 Detroit, MI |
Cthen
Premium Member
2014-Oct-10 9:44 am
Re: ....stupid cunts.They earned the money they are spending so who are you to tell them what they can spend it on or how to stupidly spend it? | |
|
| |
to w0g
Re: ....stupidMeanwhile, here I am, and here are a bunch of my neighbors and friends, wanting to throw our money at Google Fiber and they won't wire that sh*t up. My city formed a co-op with 4 other cities to try and woo them, we were actually one of the 12 cities they were deciding between when they chose Kansas and we already have (dark) fiber everywhere here, so they could have come along, spliced into a few bundles, and been up and running.
Hell, they still could! Google! Take our f***ing money! | |
|
pawpaw join:2004-05-05 Asheville, NC |
pawpaw
Member
2014-Oct-10 8:05 am
Cause and Effect ReversedHeadline should read "Those Not Taking Up Google Fiber Remain Poor, Data Shows." | |
|
ddg4005 Premium Member join:2001-08-22 Bronx, NY ARRIS TM1602 Asus GT-AC5300
|
ddg4005
Premium Member
2014-Oct-10 8:38 am
Re: Google FiberI think there's more to this than them just being poor. Interest plays a big part and if their current Internet connections are sufficient then there is no reason for these folks to switch as far they are concerned. That doesn't mean that some of the poorer residents won't sign up; it's just that many don't see Google Fiber as the Holy Grail of Internet connectivity. | |
|
| •••• |
|
anonomeX
Anon
2014-Oct-10 5:56 pm
If you don't need or want Internet access,then you shouldn't get it--and a lot of people don't. If you just need something for which speed doesn't matter and can't afford $300 spread out over the first year with the next 5 years being free and clear, then you really don't deserve to have it (and are probably too dumb to know how to use it anyway). I'd be more than happy to drop the Verizons/Comcasts/at&ts from my life for something next to free and plenty fast enough. It'd still be worth it if it were less than $10 every month. | |
|
|
Marketing?I don't think many poor people think of Google as a cableco or telco. People here only think Comcast, Dish, DirectTV nad just now Uverse(even after it been here for years). | |
|
|
Verizon knows this too wellAnd now you know why Verizon avoided places such as Rochester, Baltimore and other less affluent communities, despite being labeled racists. Simply less bang for the buck and economics 101. | |
|
dra6o0n join:2011-08-15 Mississauga, ON |
21%..."21% cited the cost of the service as a reason, though the report also notes many other simply didn't want to switch from AT&T -- or didn't see the point in the faster service."
What... The... Hell? Who doesn't WANT to switch from AT&T?
How much are you paying AT&T in a month? a year? And is it worthwhile to have caps, traffic shaping, and even mysterious billing practices throughout that time? | |
|
|
|