Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Launches Program For Low-Income Families
wasimkadak writes "Comcast rolled out its Internet Essentials program nationwide today, offering low-income families in its service territory $10/month Internet connections and access to $150 computers. Any family with at least one child who qualifies for the free lunch program at public schools can subscribe to a low-speed (1.5Mbps) Comcast Internet connection for $9.95 a month. Comcast guarantees that it won't raise the price and offers the plan without equipment rental or activation fees. Subscribers also cannot have 'an overdue Comcast bill or unreturned equipment,' and they can't have had Comcast Internet in the last 90 days."
Unfortunately now I can't pay the elec^C^C^C NO CARRIER
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
All the poories get on the internet.
Because unemployed or low-income adults without kids wouldn't have any use for the internet to look for a job or something, right?
The last paragraph of the linked article mentions that they had no choice but to do this:
Though Comcast no doubt loves children and cares deeply about the digital divide, its Internet Essentials program was also a part of the conditions under which it was allowed to buy NBC earlier this year. The company pledged to reach 2.5 million low income households with high speed Internet for less than $10 a month, and to sell some sort of computer for $150 or less.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Support governmental cable. When Comcast has the monopoly, you pay!
Wow, Comcast is a generous, community oriented company that just wants to help people. I feel all warm and fuzzy.
A revenue maximizing price-discrimination tactic and a PR coup that should keep those meddlesome regulators from breathing down their duopolist-at-best necks... Plus, the odds are good that at least some of your customers will feel more shafted by the fact that nasty, undeserving, poor people are getting low prices than by the fact that those prices only look low because all the other prices are so high.
Comcastic work, boys.
As mentioned before, the launch isn't exactly new, and it was a provision of the NBC/Comcast merger. Nevertheless, it has gotten more attention than usual in the past day or two. Here's an alternative viewpoint, heavily biased against Comcast but still worth reading (at least in my opinion): http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Highlights-10-Broadband-in-DC-116216
Another duplicate article: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/08/07/0847201/Comcast-Launching-995-Low-Income-Broadband-Plan
I wonder if the price goes up to $350 a month after a year on that plan?
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Comcast guarantees that it won't raise the price
This is an unreasonable expectation given that the US monetary system has inflation. Eventually they would really have to raise prices or end up losing too much money.
Confucius say: "Man who associates with smarter men than himself is smarter than the men he associates with."
Comcast guarantees that it won't raise the price
This is an unreasonable expectation given that the US monetary system has inflation. Eventually they would really have to raise prices or end up losing too much money.
The inflation rate is an average. As technology improves, many things decrease in cost faster than the currency declines toward worthlessness. The cost of backhaul for a 1.5Mb service is one of those things. Cable maintence: probably not. So in the forseable future where 1.5Mb/s cable internet is actually useful and desireable, I see no reason why Comcast can not keep their promise. If the Dollar is allowed to sink to it's proper level against the Yuan and we get into hyper inflation then, of course, all bets are off.
Why is rampant breeding considered an activity worth subsidizing?
We subsidize scientific research because we want more of it. We subsidize green energy because we need more of it.
Then we subsidize children in an already overpopulated world.
Intelligent people need to get together and demand equal treatment for non-breeders.
That's true today, but the entire public library system is under assault and I would not be surprised to see it dismantled within a decade. Slashdotters routinely make remarks like "who needs libraries when we have Google Books!" Libraries are trying hard to remain relevant. Free, public internet access is one of their real services to the community ... but now on Slashdot, and at town budget meetings, people can stand up and shout "who needs libraries when Comcast offers free^H^H^H^H cheap(er) internet access to (some) poor people (in select markets)!"
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I guess it pays to be Poor in America! Where else in the world can you do nothing and have everything?
I bet you think those political cartoons on The Onion are serious commentary...
#DeleteChrome
and they can't have had Comcast Internet in the last 90 days.
So they don't really give a crap about children or poverty, they're just trying to grab a few of their competitors customers.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
It's not charity to entice people to buy Comcast's services.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
While I'll never qualify for this, I still find myself having to criticize Comcast for doing everything possible to avoid helping as many people as they can. The very last line of the stipulation is what ruins it for me, when they state: "and they can't have had Comcast Internet in the last 90 days." If people qualify for it because they NEED it, stop doing everything possible to keep people from being able to qualify for it. Having had Comcast in the last 90 days doesn't somehow make someone who is on the list of those in poverty from being any less poor. Just give them the damn benefit like everyone else who falls into the "need" demographic. Yeah, I know no one really "needs" it, but if they're going through and pretending to be helpful, at least be helpful.
Sarbonn's blog: http://www.sarbonn.com/blog
WTF?? Where do I swipe my EBT card to get this?? And WFT?! 10$!
Are you poor? What are you doing squandering your life away working hard and having nothing? You, too could have it all. More and more people each day are making their way to the good life. All you have to do is slide into poverty! Hell, if its so great, why aren't you trying it, instead of badmouthing those freeloaders on the internet?
Sig not found.
Especially on NBC affiliates.
There is a requirement that you have a child, if you don't then they don't want you.
At comcast we feel that families without children are a scourge of humanity and should be eradicated....
I am betting they are getting a government kickback thus the child requirement.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I've been on /. for a while and I have never posted that we don't need libraries.
In my opinion, we need MORE libraries. And I'll be in the library today.
It doesn't matter how cheap Comcast offers their service. A free, public library is always needed.
comcast was REQUIRED to do this. That's why there are so many restrictions on it, to allow the least possible clientbase for it.
I'm paying way more than $10 a month for it though.
I meant the sewer service.
Oh, wait again.
Well I'm sure that there's some utility service that the city runs that SOMEONE will find objectionable and claim that they (and 1,000 of their closest neighbors) can do cheaper or more effectively.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Have some children. That oughtta make everything cheaper!
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
So this is a new thing, it's optional, and it will probably bring the Internet to a reasonable number of disadvantaged children who currently don't have it.
That seems like a good thing.
Now I understand they are doing this as part of a previous deal, and that they could have done more, and that they still have horrible service or whatever. But this is still quite good news. I think this will really help some people - possibly really change some lives for the better - and it will help more people if the news gets around well.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
I think everyone in the US has been permanently conditioned to dislike or loathe Comcast. Comcast could truly change its ways and we would all still hate them! I almost think its time for them to be broken up a la AT&T in 1984.
When will Canada follow? I pay 44$/month for dry-loop dsl at 2.5mbps, with line desynchronization every two days average. At least, I found some small ISP with no monthly bandwidth limit.
Fuck You.
but you still wish her the best?
Is there pain in your chest,
with the girl you love?
riding round town
Was some guy
A little re-formatting and it's ready for a roadside ad campaign =P
I don't mind if a company or organization wants to help low income families, but what about families like mine? I earn a relatively high income (like most techies who read Slashdot), but I am on the verge of bankruptcy. I have never spent money frivolously - in fact I've been accused of being too frugal. I made the unforgivable mistake of getting married while I was in college. Years into the marriage my wife started using meth and stopped taking care of my kids. Today I am raising my kids on my own, and my kids have "special needs", including mental health (very severe, to the point of being hospitalized twice for more than 10 days). For those unfamiliar with "the system" if the doc says they need to be committed you can't pull them out. The doc will just get a court order to keep them committed. So there's little point in fighting. But the bill still goes to you (list price $2,000.00 per day). My insurance company is still enjoying a beautiful loophole that keeps them from having to pay. So I'm stuck with all the medical expenses. Plus I'm a single dad. Mom has 2 supervised visits each month, but she has no job and pays no child support. Then there's car repairs, home repairs, extra school fees to attend the "free" public school, daycare expenses, thousands in legal bills to divorce the bitch, followed by thousands more the protect my kids from her convicted sex-offender boyfriend. Public transportation isn't a viable option where I live, and I am bound by court order to reside in the same county where she (the ex) lives - which is where her family is from but I need to drive 3.5 hours to visit my family. Taking care of an special needs child on your own doesn't leave much time for career development, advanced education, or even a second job. My options are limited to cutting spending or go bankrupt. I qualify, due to means testing, for chapter 7 bankruptcy, but bankruptcy popping up on my background report could disqualify me as a job candidate, especially for jobs that require a security clearance. I have cut out all personal luxuries, including cable TV, movies, eating out, computer hardware, software, books, activities, etc. My kids have no extra-curricular opportunities, but I doubt I could afford the gas if they did. If I keep living this way I might have my debts paid off in about five years. And then I'm going to continue living this way to save for my other child's college and my "retirement" (which is my personal code word for affording medical bills after I'm 65).
Yet, if I were "low income" my kids could participate in all sorts of extra curricular activities for little or no cost, free lunch at school, and now we could all get cheap cable TV. What's my motivation to keep earning and pay off my debts? Why even study for a career when the system seems to take better care of you when you don't?
How can this be legal? Comcast is offering a product. Consumer A pays one price, consumer B pays a higher price because he does not have kids or he makes too much money? That's not right.
I feel (irrationally?) that losing libraries would be a net loss. I want them, but can't figure out why.
However, they seem less and less relevant today. I talk to coworkers or friends (and I'm sure we all know people) who don't read. Heck, I don't read often for recreation anymore either, especially now that we have computer games or Netflix. When I do read, it's usually something that's either on the internet (Project Gutenberg, or the Baen free library).
Libraries used to be where you'd go to find reference material, too. The reference books I care about are all very special-purpose -- good luck finding "Hello Android" or "Practical Common Lisp" at your local library. More importantly, the level of reference that we might once have gone to the library to read can now be found nearly instantly, in exhaustive and more detail than most people need, at Wikipedia. A DVD of Wikipedia's core articles will probably give a better (and hyperlinked) overview of almost any event in history, of almost any major technological invention, and so on than what most people are likely to find at a library. For most "How does X work?" questions, or "Who was X", or "Why did we ____" questions, Wikipedia is such a fantastic first-tier reference that most of us aren't going to bother going to the library.
That's the other issue: Convenience. Now that we have near-instant access to almost everything (movies, music, news, reference info) via the internet, many people (including me) have a hard time actually getting to the post office, let alone driving for twenty minutes to get to the library, which may or may not have what I am looking for. In terms of my time, it's often just more tempting to buy the book online and have it shipped to me.
Now that my kid(s) are getting older, though, there are a lot of books that they can pick out at the library, and I'm sure we'll be making more use of it soon. Maybe it's still relevant after all. :-)
what is wrong with each county/city/local whatever having the rights to the lines/cables/ducts and leasing out the bandwidth to companies like comcast/att/verizon to sell service? then we could pick and choose what we want based on package plans and deals? Isn't that the whole crux of having everything neutral? I think that local government with responsible oversight > federal government. Why did local municipalities not use those lines that they could lease out to help pay for local infrastructure instead of letting big corporations control it all?
We almost had something, with the various community wifi programs, in varying amounts of formality and size, happening around the country. People who couldn't afford the $40+ per month for broadband and didn't need all that speed were sharing access points, and it was mostly good (except which RIAA/MPAA came knocking). Now, in comcast land, the impetus will be crushed for those parents with no money, to get out and do something technical for their community. Oh well, I should look on the bright side, that means that they can share the connection they have without needing to press for cash (much). Too bad you have to have children to use it. It seems to me that such discount plans should be available regardless of whether one has a child. Single people need to hunt for jobs, apply for foodstamps, improve their computer skills, and find ways to fill the empty hopeless hours, just as much as parents do.
Off topic perhaps, but why are we still rewarding people for having kids? I.e., why is this contingent on you having a child? I don't see the connection, no pun intended.
Currently hooked on AMP
What about poor law students like myself? We need cheap cable too.
Yes, lots of disadvantaged children... who qualify for free and reduced lunches at school.... with $150 sneakers and cell phones.... who's parents have smart phones and pay $90 a month for them. Yes, those kids. I'm getting pretty tired of seeing my involuntary government charity going to finance the necessities (food, shelter, and of late an Assurance Cell phone) so that their parents can spend money on the extras (like 22" rims on a 25 year old car and a yearbook for the apt youngster).
Now get offa my lawn!
Let us say a private company wants to give away its product to the product to the poor and needy. What’s the best way to do this?
Should you hand over last year’s tax return? Not only is it invasive, but many poor people don’t even need to file.
What about the “young adult” (mid 30s) who is still living at home. Should the parents, who may be rich, get cheap internet via their child?
So they are using the school lunch program as a proxy. It’s easy to show poverty without being in invasive. And heck, for once I get to use the phrase “Think of the Children” without derision. If a private company wants to give away their product this way I am fine with that. I don’t this it is discriminatory.
Is it really necessary to attribute human emotions to corporations? Some people who work at Comcast probably care very deeply and others couldn't care less. The point is, they're doing it. The end result is what I think we'd all identify as a 'good thing'.
$10, I would guess, would cover the variable cost but not the fixed cost of the customer.
On the other hand, having a low education correlates with being poor. Low education correlates with higher customer service costs. The people tend to be less technically savvy and need more time with a person. A couple of hours of customer service a year and they are losing money.
... but we can still take it! muhaahahahah
I live on a 8 square mile Caribbean island where one local telco has the monopoly on ADSL. We pay $85 for 256kbps.
Can we get Comcast here too?