Comcast Gives 6 Months Free Internet To Poor and Unpaid Bill Amnesty

An anonymous reader writes with news about a controversial Comcast program designed to give internet access to the poor that just got a little better. After complaints about a program that offers cheap Internet service to poor people, Comcast today announced it will provide "up to six months" of free Internet to new subscribers and an "amnesty" program for families with unpaid bills. Comcast's Internet Essentials, mandated by the federal government when Comcast acquired NBCUniversal, gives $10-per-month Internet service to low-income households with schoolchildren. Critics have argued that the program is too hard to sign up for, that eligibility criteria should be less strict, and that further requirements should be implemented if Comcast is allowed to buy Time Warner Cable.

Comments

a bit of a copout

[Cardoor]

having tutored several underprivileged kids in a large urban environment (and having witnessed how when left to their own devices they used their internet access for NOT educational rich-poor-divide-shrinking stuff, but rather typical time-wasting stuff ) this seems like a poor answer to social responsibility to me for a $139 billion company that is Comcast.

Without guidance and structure, 'for the children' will go to the lowest common denominator, so basically, they are subsidizing a new generation of kids to grow up addicted to watching 'teen-wolf' on MTV-tube.

What might actually be nice would to see comcast, oh, i dont know, sponsor after-school computer education programs? Or frankly anything that provides for the real thing that tends to be absent in households that are barely making ends meet - additional educational structure.

Re:a bit of a copout

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not something unique to the poor. the self-entitlement and lazyness is something you see in all social layers. It is not like you never hear of rich people trying to game the system or outright steal. Giving the poor access to internet means giving them access to all it contains - pointless flash-games for those that would be wasting time hanging on the street, and usefull information for those who before had less access (reading at home vs. traveling to a library). People with a reasonable income never seem to realise that poor people also need to unwind from daily life despite being unable to afford it - they cant "work" 24/7 either.

Re:a bit of a copout

[cyberchondriac]

This is some truth to what you say, as human nature is human nature (with variances), but in general, many well-off people are often that way, believe it or not (!) because they are highly motivated, smart, and hard working. Seriously, let's drop that mindset that *all* wealthy people have had it handed to them on a silver spoon, that's no more accurate (decidedly less so in fact) than saying all poor people are bums. There *are* people who work their ass off, and via a combination of hard work, good investments, brains, and indeed, a good bit of luck (there's always an element of luck), actually become wealthy without resorting to evil, racist plots. They aren't angels, but they are a net positive on the system.
But simply giving away something to those people who are not motivated to do any better in life - and let's be honest, there's a lot of them- isn't doing to do anyone any good ultimately, poor or not, and just make it harder for the middle to lower middle class who are working their ass off to make ends meet. It may do some good to those poor people who are willing to work, who just need a break and might see a way to use this to advance themselves, but if we're being realistic here, only a small minority will actually do that. The after school programs sounds a lot better, IMO.

Re:a bit of a copout

[Rockoon]

It is not like you never hear of rich people trying to game the system or outright steal.

Society has laws to punish them when they are caught. Society actively seeks to minimize this behavior. Thats a good thing, of course.

However, we've all heard the argument that nobody wants to be poor and that there is a social stigma associated with it, and that that is motive enough to help minimize the entitlements given to the poor.

My observation is that such claims simply arent true in most cases because it isnt just the poorest of the poor that receive these entitlements. Free lunch program for needy kids? Sounds great until you realize that it is also funding free lunches for kids that would otherwise be fed by their parents if the program wasnt there. The poorest parents might be embarrassed about needing the handout but those families in the upper end of the qualification bracket arent the poorest of the poor and are arguably justified to feel entitled because their taxes are paying for the program.

Now THAT is what those conservatives are actually talking about. We've got large groups of people receiving one entitlement or another and are arguably justified to feel entitled to it.

That is why they are called entitlement programs to begin with. Can anyone honestly say that people should be entitled to the safety net we provide? There is a difference between a society declaring that they cannot in good conscience let people fall through the cracks and society orchestrating the safety net in a way that people really do feel entitled to take advantage of it any chance they get.

So what happens politically is that when its suggested that such programs be cut back a bit, well those people that are really just taking advantage are unlikely to be voting for the person that says such things. They have a lot of skin in the game so they show up to vote.

This is true on much broader scales too. The middle class looks out for itself. Look at the majority demographic that is taking advantage of higher education entitlements and you see that its the middle class. Its not the most needy among us that benefits the most here but they are the ones that really do feel entitled to it, because after all their taxes pay for it so why shouldn't they.

The idea that entitlements are for the needy needs to stop, because it very rarely works that way and the peoples that actually feel entitled are the least needy of those getting it.

Self-aggrandizing

[ShaunC]

I'm a Comcast TV and internet subscriber (not really by choice, as in many places it's the only solid option). Over the past few weeks I've seen an ad from, by, and for Comcast promoting this service... over and over and over. It shows a kid in school with some narration about how everything would be better if only he had access to the internet, then he goes home, and imagine that! A Comcast truck is sitting outside his home, hooking up some internet service!

Comcast loves kids, loves schools, and wants to help all students do research for their education! Yeah, right. This is a very low cost (or free), but also extremely low service plan. You have to be around or below the poverty level to qualify. The local news did a segment recently and the way they presented it, Comcast won't be letting you sign up unless you can prove that you qualify for food stamps and free school lunches. I'm not looking to go into a welfare debate, but living in a city with a fairly high number of section 8 residents, many of the folks who would qualify for the Internet Essentials plan are already paying Comcast for much better services using subsidies from other sources.

I love the idea of internet access being available to everyone, but don't think for a moment that Comcast is doing this out of some kind of corporate benevolence. It was required the last time they were involved in a giant merger (buying out NBC) and they're finally getting around to promoting it in hopes of their next giant merger (with Time Warner) being approved.

Non-Sequitur, Anyone?

[NotSanguine]

From TFS:

Critics have argued that the program is too hard to sign up for, that eligibility criteria should be less strict, and that further requirements should be implemented if Comcast is allowed to buy Time Warner Cable.

[Emphasis Added]

Regardless of Comcast's record of "helping" the poor or any other "requirements" to be levied against Comcast, they should not be allowed to purchase TWC under any circumstances. That would concentrate far too much "last mile" power into too few hands.

Of course, that's the point so the deal will go through and we'll have another win for regulatory capture.