Slashdot Mirror


Google To Provide Free Internet For Public Housing Residents To All Fiber Markets

VentureBeat, an anonymous reader notes, reports that Google has announced it will expand on an earlier move to provide free internet service to poor Austin residents. Now, rather than for 4300 residents of housing provided by the Housing Authority of Austin, the company "has promised to expand that offering to every other current and future Google Fiber market. The move is part of U.S. President Obama's ConnectHome program, launched by the White House and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with the goal of bringing Internet connectivity to more school-aged children and families living in HUD-assisted housing in 27 communities across the country. ... Google promises the program will extend to all its Google Fiber cities."

84 comments

  1. In unrelated news by NotDrWho · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Computer theft near shitty neighborhoods on the rise.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:In unrelated news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, i love that a thread called in unrelated news got modded offtopic, even though it's totally related on on-topic

      just struck me as funny

    2. Re:In unrelated news by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Looks like some of the Public Housing residents already have their Free Broadband, frequent Slashdot, and Mod down people they disagree with.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Umm by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    No problem with some private charity, but won't these poor folk need some computers too?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Umm by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      They're not exactly expensive these days if you're not looking for, say, a gaming rig. $200 buys you something perfectly serviceable new, and obviously used PCs are widely available too.

      Plus Wifi tablets with a large enough screen for web browsing are available in the sub-$100 range.

      Not that it's a small amount for someone on a low income, but the cost of Internet provision was always going to be the bigger deal breaker than the one-off cost of obtaining a box that'll generally cost less than two months ISP subscription ($60-80) + installation ($50-100)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The phone is payed for from the universal service fund and Obama had nothing to do with it. It originally paid for a landline, but in 2008 it was expanded to cover cell phones. Users do not get a smart phone. they get a dumb phone with 250 minutes of talk time a month. The specific program called SafeLInk started under Bush the lessors reign. But to be honest it has nothing to do with the president and is run by the FCC.

      And because you wont believe me:
      http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

    3. Re:Umm by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 0

      They're not exactly expensive these days if you're not looking for, say, a gaming rig. $200 buys you something perfectly serviceable new, and obviously used PCs are widely available too.

      Doesn't matter. A few years ago, I came into possession of a stack of ex-corporate laptops. 10 or 15 of them. Sprinkled them around, for free, to some of my kids friends families who would otherwise not have a PC.
      Within a year, all but one were sold, stolen, pawned, or broken.

    4. Re:Umm by cooperaaaron · · Score: 1

      That was ALL set up by George Bush..

    5. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Austin has Discount Electronics (see page 2 of any issue of Chronicle, the local free weekly); also, the computer Goodwill. Lots of sub-$150 systems.

    6. Re:Umm by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Most of those poor folk have an iPhone 5 or 6. If Google gives them a WiFi router they wont have to use any of their data plan. No, I'm not being a racist. My wife is going to nursing school and many of her classmates are in that situation and they all have new iPhones. My wife is grateful to have her Galaxy S2.

    7. Re:Umm by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Most of those poor folk have an iPhone 5 or 6. If Google gives them a WiFi router they wont have to use any of their data plan. No, I'm not being a racist. My wife is going to nursing school and many of her classmates are in that situation and they all have new iPhones. My wife is grateful to have her Galaxy S2.

      Well, I'm not certain about the Racist part - are all poor peeps of some particular race? But that green envy color doesn't suit you.

      I have an iPhone 5. If some poor person has a 6, good for them. A phone or a computer is a silly thing to be jealous of.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. kind of a crappy deal. by nimbius · · Score: 1, Interesting

    5Mbps download and 1Mbps upload speeds

    wasnt this kind of connectivity the sort of rate-limited and overpriced stuff the FCC railed against a few months ago? according to TFA there is a $300USD construction fee and 25 dollar monthly fee for this service...meaning Google is offering a nearly comcastic $50 per month for the first year experience of 5 mbps (waiving the construction fee and monthly fee in this case.)

    it sets a precedent for things like tiered service, not based on ones ability to pay, but based on your socio-economic status as well. being branded with poverty-net, what would that mean? would it mean the same thing as still maintaining an @aol email address? or worse? And then there are states that google isnt factoring into the equation. the governing legislature of Kansas is working as diligently as they can to convert low income housing assistance programs into a sort of punishment for being poor. I doubt they would go along with providing free fiber, let alone internet, to housing assistance families.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:kind of a crappy deal. by nine-times · · Score: 2

      I'm confused. You're complaining that it's overpriced, but it's free. You're complaining that the speed is not based on ones ability to pay, but isn't it just the free tier? Do you not have the option to pay to upgrade? You complain about "being branded with poverty-net", but how would people know? Are they going to check the IP you're connecting from and link it up with your plan to see whether you're on the free service?

    2. Re:kind of a crappy deal. by LordSkippy · · Score: 5, Informative

      You misread the TFA. Google offers a 5Mbps plan with a $300 one time connection/construction fee, that can be paid for with $25 a month over one year. Afterwards, the connection is free for at least another six years. You can get the same deal in any area Google Fiber is offering service.

      5Mbps for $25/month for one year, and then $0/month for six years, not a crappy deal at all.

      The news here is that the deal Google Fiber struck with the City of Austin, which was to waive the $300 connection fee and provide 5Mbps for $0/month for 10 years to public housing residents, will now be offered in all the markets they are in or will enter.

      5Mbps for free for 10 years is definately not a crappy deal by an reasonable standard.

      --
      My karma is in a nose dive
    3. Re:kind of a crappy deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $300 OR $25/month for a single year as a setup fee, the service costs nothing once they've hooked you up.

    4. Re:kind of a crappy deal. by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      it's more than enough for wikipedia, google docs and access to information as well as a netflix stream. i have family on 5mbps comcast out in the boonies and after the peering deal with netflix it works better than my 50mbps time warner. same with my inlaws on optimum. they are under 10mbps but because netflix has their CDN inside the network it works great. paying $150 for those ridiculous internet speeds is like buying an SUV in the last decade. showing off your dick. netflix and everyone else streams at 5mbps in HD

    5. Re:kind of a crappy deal. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      wasnt this kind of connectivity the sort of rate-limited and overpriced stuff the FCC railed against a few months ago?

      How is free "overpriced"?

    6. Re:kind of a crappy deal. by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      You complain about "being branded with poverty-net", but how would people know? Are they going to check the IP you're connecting from and link it up with your plan to see whether you're on the free service?

      They probably would. I'll bet Google will use it when considering what ads to serve to people.

    7. Re:kind of a crappy deal. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "wasnt this kind of connectivity the sort of rate-limited and overpriced stuff the FCC railed against a few months ago?"

      No, the FCC railed against putting substandard infrastructure in public housing so that residents could not possibly upgrade their connection no matter how much they were willing to pay.

    8. Re:kind of a crappy deal. by bjwest · · Score: 1

      You complain about "being branded with poverty-net", but how would people know? Are they going to check the IP you're connecting from and link it up with your plan to see whether you're on the free service?

      They probably would. I'll bet Google will use it when considering what ads to serve to people.

      Why shouldn't they? Why show an add for a Rolex to someone who can't even afford a Timex?

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
  4. Since Google is doing this.... by cooperaaaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    None of you are paying for it.. so I think this is a good thing for the ones that can benefit from this.....

    1. Re:Since Google is doing this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanna bet?
       
      And don't get me wrong, I'm sure they'd receive this money either way and they're certainly not the worst offender but to think that this won't be used as a tool to bend more subsidies is naive.
       
      Or do you still think they're just some good guys who "do no evil" even though that myth has been shattered time and time again?

  5. Seems good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I guess they will use it as a way to reduce their tax payment. But it will truly help people that don't have the budget to pay for internet access.
    haven'tng internet access at home is great if you are a college student, having access to ebsco or any other database from home is really helpful. "I live in PR, some of us still don't have access to internet at our homes.

  6. Why? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Why limit it to those in public housing? Why not offer it to all low income families?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Why? by Maximalist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Public housing is high density and hence easy to deploy to. Committing to run fiber out to the backwoods "hollers" wouldn't work... maximum bang for the buck comes from density.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why limit it to those in public housing? Why not offer it to all low income families?

      Because public housing is multi-family, so Google only needs to pay to connect the building to its fiber network. The individual apartments can be connected to the fiber line over coax, 10-BaseT, or POTS lines. For single-family dwellings, Google would have to connect each building to its fiber network individually. And, btw, I'm certain that Google will waive the install fee for public housing. It's a tax write-off, and Google benefits in the long run by harvesting more data on more users to sell to its true customers, the advertisers.

    3. Re:Why? by Cyfun · · Score: 1

      Because it's expensive to run fiber lines, and not very cost effective to provide free installation and service to a single house. Plus, if they run fiber to a low-income family, and that family moves, then someone else gets it, and they'd have to spend a bunch more money installing fiber at the low-income family's new house.

      Far more cost effective in general to run fiber to a place with good housing density, such as an apartment complex.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
    4. Re:Why? by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

      Why limit it to those in public housing? Why not offer it to all low income families?

      My guess would be that they don't want to commit to potentially running new cable into every privately owned house in every market they cover. With public housing they only have to deal with a single management entity per geographic area. Where as if they offered this to every low income household in range of their service then they would have to contact every slum-lord and each of their superintendents to set up appointments, get permission and possibly even permits depending on the amount of work that has to be done for each and every site. You can't help everybody but that shouldn't reflect negatively on their intentions here.

      tl;dr: Charity has it's limits, even if you're Google.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because communities of them are easier to setup than running lines to all sorts of random places within neighborhoods they may not support.

      This is simply a positive (as in, the users don't have to pay for it) version of ISPs not wanting to build out to areas with lower population density, because it will not help their profit margin. The profit margin given to them (with fees from users) on the understanding that that will supplement the cost of going into the lower density areas.

    6. Re:Why? by cooperaaaron · · Score: 1

      To get data from people who can't afford any of these advertisers' goods ?

    7. Re:Why? by cooperaaaron · · Score: 1

      do you post when you don't know anything ?

  7. You would complain about a free blowjob by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    it sets a precedent for things like tiered service, not based on ones ability to pay, but based on your socio-economic status as well.

    Welcome to the world. I'm paying $62/mo for that level of service, by the way.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:You would complain about a free blowjob by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      5mb down/1 mb from Google instead of Commercial ISP: $62

      Not having to deal with Comcast/TWC/Verizon/AT&T: Priceless.

    2. Re:You would complain about a free blowjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3Mb/1Mb from TWC instead of Google: $15

      Not having to wait forever for an elusive promise: priceless.

  8. Good by NominalLoss · · Score: 2

    Good for Google. We need to put as much pressure as possible on the thieving cable companies. I swear to god I want to see Time Warner burned to the ground. ...Cuddles!

  9. Free..but not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's AFTER you pay a $300 construction fee and a "one-time" $25 a year fee. But then it's free..?

    1. Re:Free..but not by NominalLoss · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, RTFA. Google Fiber Basic Service, which provides up to 5Mbps download and 1Mbps upload speeds, is normally free. It does, however, require a one-time $300 construction fee (or $25 per month for a year). That’s the part Google is waiving here, though the company notes families will be able to upgrade to gigabit speeds at any time by subscribing ($70 per month).

    2. Re:Free..but not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      public and affordable housing properties will pay $0/month and Google will waive the installation fee.

      Reading is important

    3. Re:Free..but not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... so it normally has no monthly cost, but also normally has an installation fee. Google is waiving the installation fee, meaning it's free. So... what's the problem?

    4. Re:Free..but not by cooperaaaron · · Score: 2

      The problem ? People who pay taxes can't stand for companies to give away free stuff when someone else has to pay for the same thing that they can't get for free....

  10. Re:Section 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good news for all the gangsta rap videos on YouTube. Expect a lot more likes.

  11. Meanwhile rural residents who can pay are screwed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in the sticks where there's exactly 1 government-sanctioned carrier, and I get 3Mbps DSL. Meanwhile, by their virtue of being unable to pay, charity cases get better connectivity.

    WTF.

  12. Re:Meanwhile rural residents who can pay are screw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truly.

  13. Google Fiber TOS? by Maximalist · · Score: 2

    What sort of TOS does Google bundle the Fiber service with? I know the for-profit telecoms all exclude resale or commercial use... would Google Fiber work as a connection point for a WISP that connects, say, a rural valley with no other options? Spreading out 1GB of service over a bunch of households wirelessly would be a fine way to get them hooked up... and if Goog is willing to serve as their connection point... interesting things could happen.

    1. Re:Google Fiber TOS? by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      Okay, I am going to be an ass here.

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google+fi...

      Your question is fairly easily answered.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:Google Fiber TOS? by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      To continue:

      Resale and Redistribution The Services are intended to be used by you, your employees, your customers and other users in the ordinary course of business. You agree not to resell or repackage the Services or otherwise make them available to anyone outside of your premises. If you wish to use the Services to provide Internet service to others outside of your premises, you must enter a separate agreement with Google Fiber that specifically authorizes you to do so.

      pretty straightforward

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    3. Re:Google Fiber TOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty straightforward

      Also pretty fucking crappy.

      I wouldn't do any business with an ISP with a ToS like this. And I'm well aware that means there are plenty of crappy ISPs I won't do business with.

      I don't think I've ever had an internet connection that I haven't resold or regifted to other premises. But then I've been running ISPs since the early 1990s.

    4. Re:Google Fiber TOS? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Were you running those ISP's with residential-class uplinks? All providers have terms like this for residential-class service, which is designed and priced for casual household use, not the substantially higher usage presented by commercial or shared users. Business-class services exist for those purposes, because nobody is in business to provide you service below their own cost. The rural WISP question, though, is moot because GF will never be deployed to such an area.

  14. Re:Meanwhile rural residents who can pay are screw by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 0

    That what sticking to your religion and your guns gets you in today's world.

    On the upside, you won't have Bruce Tranny Jenner living next to you.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  15. Re:Meanwhile rural residents who can pay are screw by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure what your point is.

    Google can help some people and that's a good thing.

  16. Ohh.. just think of the Tor Exit Nodes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love it!

  17. It's like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...casting pearls before swine.

  18. Just quit your job! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... if I quit working 50 hours a week in the texas summer, and subsequently cannot afford my home, cell phone, and internet... they will be provided for free?

    Sign me up!

  19. Re:Such a deal! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    If being poor genuinely seems great to you (didjaknow you don't pay income taxes either? Lucky Duckies right?), why not simply quit your job and become poor yourself?

    Perhaps you don't because you realize, deep down, that being poor sucks?

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  20. Brilliant by argStyopa · · Score: 0

    I get the intent, but I'm going to submit that what people living in HUD housing need is NOT a better porn/tv/streaming bandwidth to their home. *NOBODY* needs gigabit fiber access to do their homework online.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is very little *ANYBODY* really needs.
      The question isn't so much if it is needed but if it benefits society.

      Funding everyones education with taxes is one of those things that benefits society. Higher education reduces crime rate, which means that you not only can save money on law enforcement but also doesn't need to worry as much about needing law enforcement. (It's not like you benefit much from your murderer getting caught.)

      This might give some kids access to wikipedia while they still are at the age where they ask obnoxious questions that their parents doesn't care about.
      But Internet also gives access to a whole lot of bad stuff and parent in the lower social circles aren't that known for taking care of their children in a way that makes them avoid bad influences.
      So the big question is if this will benefit the people or if it's more like handing out massive amounts of candy to a child before dinner time.

    2. Re:Brilliant by Reibisch · · Score: 1

      I get the intent, but I'm going to submit that what people living in HUD housing need is NOT a better porn/tv/streaming bandwidth to their home. *NOBODY* needs gigabit fiber access to do their homework online.

      Or you could read TFA and see that it's a 5Mbps down/1Mbps up connection.

  21. Re:Meanwhile rural residents who can pay are screw by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    Poor people who live in the sticks are also screwed. And if you moved to an area where Google is running this program, you can get faster Internet from Google than the "charity cases" you're complaining about - AND you get the ability to not worry about whether you'll have food and shelter next week, or worrying about risks like having to spend a week in prison for not paying a traffic ticket.

    What's your point?

    Your life is good. Enjoy it. Don't envy those with less than you.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  22. Selfless Charity or Profits? by Jodka · · Score: 1

    So is giving away free internet service to the poor a profit maker for Google or is it selfless charity?

    It might well be a profit maker for these reasons: Google gets x amount of advertisement revenue for each new internet user in the U.S., because each new broadband user which Google connects brings Google additional advertising revenues. And Moore's law has dropped the cost of providing service to very low. And Google might be able to claim a charitable tax deduction for this giving. And the best pricing strategy for Google is to charge each customer exactly the most which he will pay. Price discrimination is illegal but charitable giving is a loophole; If the poor will not pay for internet service, then giving them internet service for free while charging those with more money, who are willing to pay for their broadband, is a good pricing strategy.

    From a cynical perspective, Google is exploiting the poor by using them as ad-click monkeys.

    From an optimistic perspective, free enterprise makes voluntary acts of charity measurably profitable to the giver, in addition to the intangible profit of good-will earned by giving.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Selfless Charity or Profits? by cooperaaaron · · Score: 1

      But these people are poor.. What can they afford ? Nothing at all...

    2. Re:Selfless Charity or Profits? by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      Society is built these days on people buying things they can't afford.

    3. Re:Selfless Charity or Profits? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're doing it to bring reasonable-speed internet to people who otherwise would be hard-pressed to afford it, just to make the world suck a little less overall. They're also in a position to have the expertise, logistics, and muscle to make it happen, so why not?

    4. Re:Selfless Charity or Profits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't necessarily always be poor.

  23. Re:Such a deal! by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

    Being poor does suck, no doubt. That's why I'm not poor. I saw that there were things I wanted for myself and my family that come with having more money, so I set out to be able to perform sufficiently useful services for other people that would compensate me well enough to have them. Now, I'm not rich by a long shot, but I have the things I need, and a nice life for my family.

    I really have no objection with raising the standard of living for everyone, but I'm not sure perpetuating the notion that getting free stuff for being poor is the right way about it. I'd rather see a structured path to prosperity than hand outs for doing nothing at all.

  24. I wonder if Google knows what's bound to happen... by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

    So what we are going to see in the next year or so is a dramatic increase in call center jobs in Austin and other Google fiber markets. Companies who specialize in collections, over the phone "tech support", sales etc. are going to be creaming their pants over the fact that they no longer have to pay for office space, heating, cooling or electricity and all they have to do is up-sell the idea of working from home to their happy little drones. No more worries about people coming into the office late, dressing inappropriately, fraternization between employees, liability for injury on the job site, anyone with the flu will no longer get the entire office sick. Gee, I wish I owned a business where Google paid for a chunk of my operating costs while alleviating most personal problems. Why they wouldn't even have to pay much more than say $12 an hour; after all it's not like the employees have to pay for the high-speed internet connection that the company is directly capitalizing on or gas to get to work. Good god, I respect Google;s intentions here, but this is going to hurt just as many people by sticking them with dead-end jobs as it will help.

  25. Re:Such a deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You absolutely, positively, without any room for doubt whatsoever, have benefited from many such "handouts" over your lifetime, without which you would not be as successful as you are today.

  26. A joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fiber is a joke. Google chose downtown Austin for this, where the ubber rich live not far from the ubber poor. Unlike other ISPs which set up the infrastructure and offers a deal to attracted subscribers, Google wants customers to sign up first and then get others to do so. If and when there are enough customers in an area, then the infrastructure is laid out, sometime in the future. It wouldn't surprise me that Google is offering this to government housing because it proved to be a flop finding enough paying volunteers and it needs to save face.

    Google is not doing Fiber to compete with ISPs. It can't even get the proper permits and, worse, hire someone who knows about them. It's a totally amateurish enterprise that Google will probably lose interest and leave its customers hanging dry, as it usually does.

    1. Re:A joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a native Austinite, I also wonder about another ulterior motive. A lot of "poor" neighborhoods get college students or 20-somethings moving into there, driving the rents up, and forcing the real poor to have to move to outside the city, either south or east.

      I wouldn't be surprised that part of the reason this is being done is because the "projects" Google is wiring up are likely to become the next trendy places to live, and thus will be making money, come price hikes in the future. The waived install cost is written off to help with taxes and give good PR.

  27. Re:Such a deal! by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

    Possibly. Care to elaborate? I went to a public university, so that was tax subsidized, but I had to do stuff for the privilege (perform well enough to get in, and stay in once I was there), and after I became part of the pool of higher earners who pay taxes to support it.

  28. Couldn't give it to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the service is as good as Google's free wireless in Mountain View they came keep that shi#. It ain't worth the electrons involved.

  29. Re:I wonder if Google knows what's bound to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this reduces commuting in Austin (rush hour on I-35, Mopac, I-75...) it would be most welcome.

  30. Re:I wonder if Google knows what's bound to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oops I meant I-71... it's late.

  31. Watch what happens, Netflix viewing soars in publi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh. People take the easiest road everytime and cheap movies and YouTube line that highway.

  32. internet and fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in California. The Central Valley.. DOS PALOS to be exact. almost considered to be South Dos Palos. I DON'T EVEN HAVE THE FIBER HERE. Come November I will not even have internet, Sprint has taken Clearwire from us now. We live in Housing and won't be able to afford any other service like satellite. Comcast doesn't service us and Verizon doesn't have the fios in our area so we cant get it with home phone. I cant believe there is any place in the USA where there are HOMES and people live and have children that need to have a computer that is connected to the internet.....THAT CAN'T GET INTERNET FOR A REASONABLE AND AFFORDABLE PRICE... LET ALONE EVEN "GET" INTERNET.. I ENVY THOSE OF YOU THAT GET SERVICE ... EVEN MORE.. FREE SERVICE. SHOOT ... EVEN DIAL UP..... LOL LOL