Free porn for the "poor".

[Raoul]

Gawd.

FCC plans cheap Internet service and computers to connect poor Americans - The Washington Post

[Guest bkelm18]

God bless America.

[Guest mcgyver210]

Why work for what we have when we can just let our friendly Socialist Government give us all we need.

[BrasilNuts]

Well, it is impossible to survive without the internet.

[Guest TargetShooter84]

I'm gonna apply for school lunch for myself.

Lame idea. Really.

[mcurrier]

Why work for what we have when we can just let our friendly Socialist Government give us all we need.

Because eventually they will run out of sources, places and people to acquire (i.e.steal) it from, take it from, grab it from. When producers cease to exist then supply will drastically decrease and it's cost will skyrocket. $10,000 loaf of bread anyone? Lock & load!

[strickj]

Why work for what we have when we can just let our friendly Socialist Government give us all we need.

The government isn't giving anyone anything. THE FCC simply brokered the deal with the ISPs and a computer supplier to offer the services at a discount.

Far as I've heard on the news about it, it isn't costing Joe Taxpayer anything.

[enfield]

REALLY?

The ISP's won't raise their rates to the paying customers to cover their loss?

Another free lunch --- imagine that.

[bigwakes]

Cable Internet service companies will provide 1*megabit-per-second speeds to eligible families that aren’t already subscribers and have clean accounts.

So if you gave up cigs or got a second job to do the right thing and get the Internet service that "all Americans have a right to" you don't qualify.

The plan aims to solve one of the more vexing problems in the government’s quest to connect all Americans to the Internet: Even when people have the ability to subscribe to high-speed service, 100*million households don’t choose to do so.

What's next? SWAT team comes to your door to escort the DSL installer to force you to have internet? Whatever happened to my ability to choose not to do so?

[JayC]

The government isn't giving anyone anything. THE FCC simply brokered the deal with the ISPs and a computer supplier to offer the services at a discount.

Far as I've heard on the news about it, it isn't costing Joe Taxpayer anything.

It's a bit more complicated than that... for decades the FCC has been collecting a tax on business telephone lines and giving that money to LEC (telephone companies) to provide reduce rate home phone service in rural areas. The 'fund' is routinely abused by those same telephone companies trying to come up with very interesting ways to raid the fund for their own person gain. Like building out 1,000 pairs of wires to a small country road with only 5 homes on the entire road.

The FCC now is doing away with the telephone fund, and redirecting that money to an Internet 'fund' to be raided by the telco's in the name or rural or poor customers getting discounted Internet and infrastructure grants. This is very similar to the wildly unsuccessful tax/fund that schools use to get Internet service.

An average business can get 20mbits of bandwidth for $200-300ish a month in this state... Go pull the fees being charged to many schools for 1.5mbit or 5mbits of service and watch your jaw drop... More corporate welfare to government backed monopolies.

[DaveTN]

REALLY?

The ISP's won't raise their rates to the paying customers to cover their loss?

Of course they will and you and I will pay for it; not the government, and not Comcast or Microsoft.

There are kids that don’t have food to eat but they will have computers. That is until their parents sell them for crack.

Remove the government protection that lets Comcast monopolize the cable industry and see how fast prices drop.

[Raoul]

There are kids that don’t have food to eat but they will have computers. QUOTE]

They already are. I hear this from my wife who's an elementary school teacher.

[greenego]

U.S. = Greece, Just wait and see

[strickj]

REALLY?

The ISP's won't raise their rates to the paying customers to cover their loss?

Another free lunch --- imagine that.

Why would the prices go up? Does Little Caesars charge extra for bread sticks because they offer pizza at 1\3 the price? No, they profit from the additional customers that wouldn't have bought a pizza otherwise.

Same deal here. The ISPs will profit from the thousands of addition customers they are soon to acquire. They are expanding their businesses by offering discounts.

Look, I don't expect to get any +1s here on a board that hates the government, so I'm going to leave this here and let y'all continue the circle jerk.

1) This move is entirely up to the ISPs and the two companies offering PCs. Free market enterprise, anyone? Isn't that what we're all about here?

2) Like it or not, computers and internet have become important and necessary tools to the workforce. Name a job readily available today that doesn't depend on even a basic knowledge of these tools. You can't even get a job at McDonalds without knowing how to operate a computer. Wanna be a mechanic, you better know how to use a laptop. Wanna work as a manager at WalMart, better know how to operate a computer...

But, of course, this is just another "fee lunch" program and has absolutely nothing to do with preparing kids for the workforce.

That big, bad, evil, evil government. Preparing our kids for the workforce like that. How dare they!

[mikegideon]

+1

[enfield]

It has a lot more to do with buying votes than for preparing kids for the workforce.

Most of us don't believe in the existence of the "free lunch". Some of us obviously do.

In general, whatever someone receives without paying for, someone else pays for without receiving. I don't believe that governments and businesses indulge in charity. I've met accountants.

[DaveTN]

Why would the prices go up? Does Little Caesars charge extra for bread sticks because they offer pizza at 1\3 the price? No, they profit from the additional customers that wouldn't have bought a pizza otherwise.

Same deal here. The ISPs will profit from the thousands of addition customers they are soon to acquire. They are expanding their businesses by offering discounts.

Look, I don't expect to get any +1s here on a board that hates the government, so I'm going to leave this here and let y'all continue the circle jerk.

1) This move is entirely up to the ISPs and the two companies offering PCs. Free market enterprise, anyone? Isn't that what we're all about here?

2) Like it or not, computers and internet have become important and necessary tools to the workforce. Name a job readily available today that doesn't depend on even a basic knowledge of these tools. You can't even get a job at McDonalds without knowing how to operate a computer. Wanna be a mechanic, you better know how to use a laptop. Wanna work as a manager at WalMart, better know how to operate a computer...

But, of course, this is just another "fee lunch" program and has absolutely nothing to do with preparing kids for the workforce.

That big, bad, evil, evil government. Preparing our kids for the workforce like that. How dare they!

There isn’t anything “Free Market†about this. Comcast is doing this because it was one of the requirements put on them by the government as a condition for approval of the Comcast / NBC Universal merger.

“Free Enterprise†is a term that usually thrown out when a company is ripping off customers. “If you don’t like it go somewhere elseâ€. Well we can’t go somewhere else.

“Free Enterprise†would be if I had a choice of cable companies with no government involvement.

[IggyBcool]

It blows my mind how they can get away with so much crap that they do. We the people have a stand, yet we really don't.

[strickj]

It has a lot more to do with buying votes than for preparing kids for the workforce.

Most of us don't believe in the existence of the "free lunch". Some of us obviously do.

In general, whatever someone receives without paying for, someone else pays for without receiving. I don't believe that governments and businesses indulge in charity. I've met accountants.

Who is getting what for free? Certain people will be given discounts based on their income.

Again, I'll refer to Little Caesars. Do they charge extra for bread sticks to make up for the loss of income for offering pizza for 1\3 the cost of average retail?

Or, even better, does the YMCA charge regular members more to make up for giving lower-income members discounts based on their income? Or how about the many other businesses that offer discounts based on customers' income?

“Free Enterprise†is a term that usually thrown out when a company is ripping off customers. “If you don’t like it go somewhere elseâ€. Well we can’t go somewhere else.

“Free Enterprise†would be if I had a choice of cable companies with no government involvement.

I agree that the cable companies are monopolies that are bought and paid for with back-room handjobs and laws that keep them monopolies. But that doesn't change the fact that this is still the businesses' decision.

Comcast is doing this because it was one of the requirements put on them by the government as a condition for approval of the Comcast / NBC Universal merger.

And what about the other ISPs and the two companies offering discount computers? How are they being "forced by the government" to offer the discounts?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

An advantage of ubiquitous internet-- It may encourage at least rudimentary reading/writing skills. Given the primitive writing/spelling found some places on the web, I wouldn't glorify it as literacy, but until voice-operation and pictograph GUI becomes commonplace, at least kids must learn a little bit of reading/writing in order to get online with their friends. Perhaps analogous to years past where one might encourage kids to read comics or silly books/magazines because even though it may not be educational high-brow content, at least it encourages the skill of basic reading, which many kids raised in deprived environments would otherwise not be motivated to learn.

Facebook, gaming or texting may not be especially useful for many people who use the service, but encourages the same skill necessary for filling out a job application, reading street signs, or reading job manuals or self-education when the kids eventually get interested in something practical. It might be a dis-service if software companies go too far in making voice-operated or pictograph GUI ubiquitous, removing a potential advantage to the technology in forcing kids to learn to read in order to play the games they like.

Another potential advantage of ubiquitous internet for an increasingly overpopulated economically-deprived world-- People holed up at home surfing the web is kinda sad in some ways, but might be preferable to the same folk amusing themselves out on the street engaged in gang activity?

If we do not unwisely make computers TOO easy to operate, I think interest in computer-oriented pasttimes may somewhat discourage excessive substance abuse. At least discourage the abuse of alcohol and other sedative drugs. There is a limit to how stoned a person can get while still operating a computer for mundane tasks. If a person becomes addicted to even the trivial computer diversions, it would tend to reduce substance abuse because there is a limit to how blotto a guy can get while remaining capable of operating a computer.

Ubiquitous public roads have been a long-recognized legitimate function of USA gov from the beginning. Which generalized to include gov subsidy of vast rail networks in the 1800's. Those do seem to have been beneficial to the economy by encouraging all kinds of trade. Some hard-core libertarians think even roads should be privatized and perhaps that idea has virtue, but gov maintained roads seem to offer many benefits. The drawback is that the road system probably costs more with gov at the helm. If a private for-profit company maintained the roads, I'm betting the private company could figure out how to fix a pothole without a half-dozen guys and three trucks spending a half day on each pothole. It just has been difficult to figure out a workable private model for public roads.

Some cities have been installing large "free" public wifi networks. It may have some of the same advantages as "free" public roads. Of course the payoff in overall public well-being would need to be pretty big to outweigh similar disadvantages as with public roads. A city-wide wifi network maintained by the gov would probably cost more than the same city-wide network maintained by a private company, and the technology would likely stagnate, and the service would likely have numerous outages and slowdowns. Just like there are numerous potholes in the roads.

In addition, even a sucky slow and unreliable "free" public wifi system might discourage private innovation because perhaps too many people who could afford to buy better private service, would rather put up with a sucky "free" service rather than pay for better private services.

It is a tradeoff, as with most thangs in this world.

Ubiquitous internet would have huge advantages for po folk motivated to take advantage. Perhaps rural areas even more than urban areas. Frank Zappa in his early days repeated the mantra, "Forget about school. Go to the public library and properly educate yourself." There are "techie" subjects easier and better-learned in a formal setting, but motivated self-education is an excellent thing. The internet already rivals a fabulous public library, though it still needs much-improved "depth" in free content on serious topics. It would be great if any person could educate himself by investing the effort to study.

[Smith]

If you want to see how successful this will be look at the car companies, banks, ....... There is no difference. Yes, they are making a business decision that will make them rich in the short term and eventually ruin them long term. The CEO's know they are on the government hit list and are getting their money now before they have to run. Government wants to control information - plain and simple.

The ISP companies have made their bed with government by agreeing to free market killing laws so they can keep their monopolies and make bank in the short run. In turn the government controls their distribution and lets them remain monopolies.

We all know how well symbiotic government programs work out for the consumer and the economy.

[enfield]

Strickj - it's simple. The portion of the internet service that the 'poor' are not paying for, i.e. the difference between what they pay and the market value of the service (the discount), is the part that is free to them. The difference between what they'll pay for the computer (assuming they ever pay anything) and the market value of the computer is the part that is free to them.

The part that is free to them is the part that the other customers pay for. It's electronic welfare.

There ain't any free lunches!

The government doesn't give a damn about computer literacy or the 'poor'. They only spend money to buy votes.

Edited November 11, 2011 by enfield

[strickj]

Ok, explain to me how this works. I'm getting a "free lunch" because my internet is on a 12 month discounted rate? Is it ok for me to take this discount? I certainly don't want to get a free lunch that someone one else is having to pay for!

Or is it just "the poor" that are getting a "free lunch" for getting a similar discount?

I think I get it. It's only welfare and evil if a private business offers the poor a discount. But it's just good marketing for them to offer you and I a discount. Gotcha...

And again (repeating myself for the third time here), does Little Caesars charge extra for bread sticks to make up for the loss of income for selling pizza at 1\3 the cost of average retail? Their prices have to be close to cost, eh.

Does the YMCA charge regular members more to make up for giving lower-income members discounts (and even free memberships in some cases) based on their income?

And I really would like an answer to these two questions here. Just seems too simple to me that businesses can offer discounts and make more money from the increased sales. I must be missing something that you see

[Smith]

Ok, explain to me how this works. I'm getting a "free lunch" because my internet is on a 12 month discounted rate? Is it ok for me to take this discount? I certainly don't want to get a free lunch that someone one else is having to pay for!

Or is it just "the poor" that are getting a "free lunch" for getting a similar discount?

I think I get it. It's only welfare and evil if a private business offers the poor a discount. But it's just good marketing for them to offer you and I a discount. Gotcha...

And again (repeating myself for the third time here), does Little Caesars charge extra for bread sticks to make up for the loss of income for selling pizza at 1\3 the cost of average retail? Their prices have to be close to cost, eh.

Does the YMCA charge regular members more to make up for giving lower-income members discounts (and even free memberships in some cases) based on their income?

And I really would like an answer to these two questions here. Just seems too simple to me that businesses can offer discounts and make more money from the increased sales. I must be missing something that you see

Your premise is wrong.

Increased sales from discounts only works in favor of the business if the margin is still above or at cost on the "loss leader". It also assumes that the customers buying at "cost" will spend more in bulk once they are in the door. Either way the business makes money on increased spending. By spreading the margin over more items the business is able to turn out more product more efficiently (lower cost) and so make the same margin on more items than they were making previously on less items.

In the ISP/computer case the government is either subsiding product well below cost or requiring it to be sold below cost with no intent of increased customer spending. in fact the very premise that these people don't have enough for the normal cost dictates that they will not be spending on more product. So, while there may be more "business" it is not generating more income or more product sold with nominal margin enough to generate income for the business. In fact you get a negative flow. More company expense with less income means exactly what everyone has been telling you - increased cost for those who pay the nominal rate.

The Y is different. It IS subsidized by outside donations and money to make up for the loss. If outside donations cease or lessen rates go up and income based programs are adjusted accordingly.

[strickj]

Smith, who says the ISPs and computer suppliers are offering computers and internet below cost?

And who is forcing them to do so? Remember, this is their decision to offer the discounts...