Free Wi-Fi Program in Los Angeles Fails to Provide Free Wi-Fi (latimes.com)

The Los Angeles Time found no internet connectivity in 24 public locations, despite a three-year, $500,000 grant to provide them with free Wi-Fi service. Investigations both last year and again in March found that none of the 18+ locations checked were able to successfully connect to the internet, prompting a PUC investigation that confirmed only two of the hotspots were working. The grant was part of a $315 million state-wide program using surcharges on utility bills to promote high-quality communication services, though in Los Angeles most of the money for "underserved" areas was being directed to outreach and education. The Wi-Fi company's executive director said maintaining their networks had proved to be difficult, though one economist argued it would've been more productive to give net-access subsidies directly to the poor, a program the FCC recently voted to expand.

Comments

Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, please

[io333]

Because of all the taxes I pay so everyone can have free phones, food, rent, medical care, iPads and internet access, I really can't afford to pay for internet any more. Can you tax all the people you give all my tax money to, to pay for my internet too? Please?

"free" never fails to disapoint

[MrLogic17]

This is commonly the result of the government promising something free.
The taxes get collected, no doubt, but the promised freebie never quite pans out.

Keep that in mind when voting.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[Daemonik]

Odd, you point out the government side of the problem.. but not the corporate side that takes the money, pockets it and ignores the reason they were given the money in the first place.

So keep in mind when voting, we need more regulation and oversight of corporations that take government money folks.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[Jayson]

His point is that the government will never had enough of oversight of itself -- it shouldn't have had this bad of a failure for so long -- to fix these problems. Saying it would all be better if the government just did something it historically never been able to do well is a fool's dream. Lacking a profit motive, governments have very little natural force correcting them, especially when it comes to bureaucrats paid according to union standards and protected by them. They really don't care if anything works out at long as then can show then put forth even the smallest effort.

You asking for more regulation after giving tax money to a corporation reminds me of the Ronald Reagan quote: "If is move, tax it. It is keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

The problem with government run anything (from democratic socialism to Marxism) is that it never works out like its planned, and those that support it just keep up with the same hitting their head again the wall mantra, "But that wasn't what was supposed to happen; that wasn't real [insert personal economic philosophy]." They never seem to learn that there will always be a huge gulf between theory and practice when it comes to the political economy. Capitalism self corrects around it and uses our worst side -- the greed -- to make the world better.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[mi]

but not the corporate side that takes the money, pockets it and ignores the reason they were given the money in the first place.

Whether it is "corporate" is irrelevant here — the defining characteristics is that the service was paid for by the government. The official approving the check did not spend his own funds.

So keep in mind when voting, we need more regulation and oversight of corporations that take government money folks.

The regulations are already insanely complicated — I just had to study them (at the most basic level) as part of starting a new job. They are bona-fide crazy as they are, and it does not help.

No. The solution is reduce — drastically — the amounts of money at the government's disposal.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[Anonymous Coward]

His point is that the government will never had enough of oversight of itself -- it shouldn't have had this bad of a failure for so long -- to fix these problems.

Except that the oversight being discussed isn't of itself but of the corporations in charged with providing service.

Saying it would all be better if the government just did something it historically never been able to do well is a fool's dream.

You're right. Historically governments are great at making promises to the poor but doing little to actually help them with various initiatives and then further ignoring any complaints that are made (those greedy, poor bastards). Yet things like food stamps, unemployment insurance, social security, etc have been large successes*.

Lacking a profit motive, governments have very little natural force correcting them, especially when it comes to bureaucrats paid according to union standards and protected by them. They really don't care if anything works out at long as then can show then put forth even the smallest effort.

Cut out the "union standards" bit and you described virtually all bureaucrats. Profit motives don't magically solve that problem or we'd see white collar workers paid a lot less than they are. Meanwhile, can we be honest and say that you're real complaint is that their pay is your tax money and you'd like to not pay them. Well, I'd love for the goods I need to cost less and bureaucrats to make less, but that's not how the world works.

You asking for more regulation after giving tax money to a corporation reminds me of the Ronald Reagan quote: "If is move, tax it. It is keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."

You mean like Iran-Contra?

The problem with government run anything (from democratic socialism to Marxism) is that it never works out like its planned, and those that support it just keep up with the same hitting their head again the wall mantra, "But that wasn't what was supposed to happen; that wasn't real [insert personal economic philosophy]." They never seem to learn that there will always be a huge gulf between theory and practice when it comes to the political economy.

Meanwhile, we have laws against murders and they still keep happening. And we keep getting "tough" on crime and things haven't changed much (crime rates going down actually started before prison terms started rising). So, you'd agree we should start making things like murder have a max of, say, a 7 year term? Because you quickly reach the law of diminishing returns and the whole deterrent effect? Yea, "but that wasn't what was supposed to happen" if the crime rate ever rises. And if we are going to be speaking honestly, I'd agree this program was a bad idea from the start. But your hyperbole doesn't excuse the issue, and the people involved both in government and in the private sector should be held accountable. Oh, right, but that might be a form of regulation. Well, not to worry. Nothing will happen, and you can continue to moan about it.

Capitalism self corrects around it and uses our worst side -- the greed -- to make the world better.

And lots of wealth redistribution for agricultural subsidies. And regulations that slow down, though not stop, rampant mislabeling of goods. Hell, labeling laws in general have massively improved the life of most people but there's no real way by greed to standardize on those--most of that comes about through collaborate international organization (with urging from governments), not competition. Let's not forget how IP laws have set the stage for large masses of people to sell $0.10 discs at $20 and grant a lot of people jobs.

Oh, what were you saying again? Right, capitalism is a PART of making the world a better place and using greed, which is NOT our worst side**, as a

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[wbr1]

Like Verizon here: https://www.techdirt.com/blog/...

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[Daemonik]

You people, you do everything you can to deflect from the corporate greed that creates these situations.

Why did this service need to be provided by the government? Because corporations don't want to serve the public good, they only want to make as much profit as possible. They kill competition, don't deliver half what their marketing material promises, outright lie, dodge their customers and do whatever they can to force their beleaguered customers into arbitration or other avenues to limit their accountability when they're inevitably held accountable.

The reason those regulations are so insanely complicated? Decades of corporate sharks chipping away at the laws to create new and ever more inventive ways to steal from the public.

The solution is to force corporations to adhere to some damn ethics. Hold CEO's responsible and if corporations are people? Then how about we 'execute' a couple, just to remind the rest that they're not above the law.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[Daemonik]

Capitalism self corrects around it and uses our worst side -- the greed -- to make the world better.

No, it does not make the world better. It just has really impressive marketing to make you think it does.

'The Market' does not choose the best choice, just the most profitable one. Its only metric of 'good' is profit, and nothing else matters.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[mi]

Why did this service need to be provided by the government?

Because there was no sufficient demand for it in the first place. Economics 101.

Because corporations don't want to serve the public good, they only want to make as much profit as possible

Of course, they want to make profit, what's wrong with that?

They kill competition

The government does that — when it picks the "winner" based on the sympathies and biases of the bureaucrat(s), who do not spend his own money and is not even planning to use the purchased service himself (and sometimes even take bribes). This — government picking the winner — is what kills the competition and allows the thus-picked winners to do all those nasty things you claim to be unhappy about.

Then how about we 'execute' a couple, just to remind the rest that they're not above the law.

There is no law in the US, that provides for capital punishment over ethics violations. You would have to become above the law yourself to start killing people over it...

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[Daemonik]

Because there was no sufficient demand for it in the first place. Economics 101.

Yes, all the places that had to start their own municipal ISP's after begging their incumbent providers to sell them service repeatedly fell on deaf ears was not "sufficient demand". "Sufficient demand" is code for "profitable demand". For some services, like medicines or utilities, the needs of the people to access those products trumps the need for quick and easy profits.

Of course, they want to make profit, what's wrong with that?

Nice deflection there. First you say corporations "make the world better" and rather than defend that statement which is so obviously wrong a 4 year old can poke holes in it, you ask why is making a profit wrong. In and of itself, profit isn't wrong, as long as the methods and means to create that profit do no public harm.

The government does that — when it picks the "winner" based on the sympathies and biases of the bureaucrat(s), who do not spend his own money and is not even planning to use the purchased service himself (and sometimes even take bribes). This — government picking the winner — is what kills the competition and allows the thus-picked winners to do all those nasty things you claim to be unhappy about.

You simply can't admit your own delusion. You fault government officials for taking bribes to rig the market BUT WON'T FAULT BUSINESSES FOR PAYING THE BRIBES!!! Where do you think the money comes from? Some secret government bureau that bribes itself??? If businesses weren't fronting the money, there wouldn't be corrupt government officials! The two things are not separate from each other.

Plus the government creating standards and the occasional monopoly can also CREATE a market. The only reason we have coast to coast telephone service today is because the government subsidized it, gave Bell a monopoly on it to pay for it all, and provided right-of-way for the lines. If they hadn't "picked the winner", we'd have the phone system of your average 3rd world country and Verizon's equipment wouldn't talk to AT&T's.

Damn you Libertardian's are thick sometimes. Government does more to help business than hinder it, especially when it comes to holding back the unrestrained greed and forcing standards which enable equal competition.

There is no law in the US, that provides for capital punishment over ethics violations. You would have to become above the law yourself to start killing people over it...

I was talking about "killing" corporations, which are only "people" in legalistic terms. Because a corporate death penalty for egregious corporate behavior would be a good thing.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did this service need to be provided by the government?

It didn't.

Instead of taxing people, and using that tax money to fund a government body which contracts out the work to a corporation and fails to make sure they're actually providing the service, how about just cutting taxes and letting people spend the same money directly? Someone buying their own internet access is going to be a lot more assiduous about ensuring they get adequate service than a bureaucrat who's overseeing a project for the benefit of others (and won't even get fired for failing to do so).

There's a role for government in making sure that there's a competitive market, so consumers can choose being multiple providers - but letting the government control all expenditure fails badly in many cases, as we see here. And your solution to this is *another* layer of bureaucracy?

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[turbidostato]

"Whether it is "corporate" is irrelevant here â" the defining characteristics is that the service was paid for by the government. The official approving the check did not spend his own funds."

That means that nothing but, maybe, little pop & mom business can work as basically no one in a bigger company (and nobody at all on a publicly traded one) is spending their own funds either.

And then, given that neither corps nor government can work, I still prefer government to be the one managing funds for all the basic things -at least there I have ballot power.

"The regulations are already insanely complicated"

Because, with time, they either have been demonstrated to be needed to cope with corporate greed or created by corporate greed by means of lobbying to better suit their desires. See? Another benefit to go with government managed basic services it's that you could severily cut regulations on these fields as they'd be unneeded once you take out corporations from the loop.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[fche]

"Sufficient demand" is code for "profitable demand".

Of course it does. Demand is apprx. infinite for products and services at a price below their cost.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[Anonymous Coward]

This is commonly the result of the government promising something free.
The taxes get collected, no doubt, but the promised freebie never quite pans out.

Keep that in mind when voting.

Graft and corruption. The gift that keeps on giving.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did this service need to be provided by the government?

It didn't. People who have a use for wifi (=own hardware like tablets and laptops) usually also have cell service. People who can't afford the hardware don't need the wifi. There might be some small fraction of the population that might have the gear to benefit from government-provided wifi in only 24 spots across the ginormity of LA (including eight parks), but I doubt the number was ever very high: it requires a degree of foresight that doesn't usually coincide with poverty. This wasn't a municipal ISP for everyone: this was a tiny project to provide a service that wasn't needed in a quantity so limited as to be absurd. The fact that no one noticed that it didn't work until now should be proof enough that this service did not need to be provided. Nobody was ever going to use it even if it did work.

The solution is to force corporations to adhere to some damn ethics.

Government can (and should) sue for breach of contract, provided that there was a contract in this case. I don't know if there was, though there should have been. The problem with your statement is that the same people who handed out money to a pointless project and then failed to oversee the project are also, in your view, responsible for overseeing ethics. They've failed on two counts: what makes you think that they'll succeed a third time?

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[lsatenstein]

This is commonly the result of the government promising something free.
The taxes get collected, no doubt, but the promised freebie never quite pans out.

Keep that in mind when voting.

Nothing from governments work unless the work is audited, and there are scheduled payments based on signed off delivery demonstrations.

And when the contract is for profit, where the profit is in the installation, but not in the maintenance, you are in the situation indicated above.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[mi]

no one in a bigger company (and nobody at all on a publicly traded one) is spending their own funds either.

Though you are right about some level of inefficiency creeping in due simply to the size of the enterprise, there is still a big disadvantage to government-run ones. Private corporations have a "chain of command" with owners/share-holders at the top. They wield control in proportion to their stake and are empowered to hold people responsible.

Government officials reports to the head of the Executive (Mayor, Governor, President), who is elected based largely on the on popular vote with the size of the voters' "stake" having no relation to their vote. Even legally a duly-elected Executive can not usually be sacked for mere inefficiency — normally some sort of "crimes and misdemeanors" is required.

Do you suppose, anybody will be fired in LA government over this scandal?

And then, given that neither corps nor government can work

Corporations can — and demonstrably do — work quite well. Name me one success of the Federal or State government, that would compare to, say, the spectacular success of Apple with an iPhone or even, to put us back to topic, the more modest (but still impressive) success of Comcast with Xfinity WiFi.

I still prefer government to be the one managing funds for all the basic things

Then you aren't only a Statist, but a fool! Because competition is a much more effective tool than a vote. If I don't like Coke, I do not need to "raise awareness" nor picket city hall — I can just switch to Pepsi. If I don't like Verizon, I can switch to AT&T. But — thanks to sentiments like yours — I can not switch my commuter-rail company and all of the highways in my State are equally ill-maintained. Likewise the poor in LA can not, probably, get a decent WiFi now, because the government already picked the "winner" for them...

at least there I have ballot power.

You can buy stock too, you know — and gain ballot power over a corporation that way. But, if you put all your trust in the citizen's right to vote, wouldn't you prefer the government to take care of everything — not just "the basics" — for you? And, if not, why not?

cope with corporate greed or created by corporate greed

Corporate greed is normally best satisfied by delivering the goods and services consumers want . The main diversion of that greed into other, less useful, channels is government officials spending monies confiscated from captive taxpayers on something, consumers do not care for (or even actively oppose).

Except in a very few cases (such as military), the matters — including charity — are best left to citizenry, rather than entrusted to government.

If you choose to reply, please, be sure to state unambiguously, whether you agree, that

1. taxation is confiscation;
2. such confiscations by the government against the will of the governed should therefor be minimized.

Replies without clear answers to the above two questions will be returned unopened. Thank you.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[turbidostato]

While all my previous post was basically tongue-in-cheek (well, at least in this context), this I have problems to support:

"Corporate greed is normally best satisfied by delivering the goods and services consumers want"

This may have been true in the past and it is probably still true at the level of short corporations but it is true no more when talking about big corps. "delivering the goods and services consumers want" is just *one* of the tools they have to satisfy their greed and it seems to me that when compared to ability to bribe, power of marketing, etc. it is one that is fastly losing ground.

Re:"free" never fails to disapoint

[turbidostato]

I thought it better and I think to be able to answer about the more serious part of my previous message.

But first, at your request:

"If you choose to reply, please, be sure to state unambiguously, whether you agree, that
taxation is confiscation;
such confiscations by the government against the will of the governed should therefor be minimized."

I have no problem to accept that "taxation is confiscation" once you got confiscation's definition to include taxation. Even without the "taxation/confiscation" issue you don't need the "therefore" part: in a democracy nothing should go against the will of the governed -that, of course, includes taxes. On the other hand, let's remember that democracy doesn't insure the best government, but only the most deserved.

But, of course, "I see what you did here!": you planted a word full of negative connotations -"confiscation", along another one, "taxation" in this case, to implicitly transfer the "bad karma" of the former to the latter. It's a good trick, let me try: "rape is sex too" or "using antibiotics is assassination". Sorry, that trick, albeit good, won't work on me.

Now, my turn.

First, repeat with me: While Soviet Russia was a form of statist regime, not all possible statist regimes need to look like USSR.

Regarding the line of thought "private companies answer to the money, government answers to nobody" (and variations thereof, like the one in your first paragraphs): the truth is that both answer more or less to the same degree: the "chain of command" is more or less the same in private and government organization (no wonder: people haven't invented that many qualitatively different ways to organize big number of peoples). Even in your example, there's no qualitative difference between a CEO and a major -except that the CEO election is much more opaque; on the other hand, while in one case shareholders are at the top, in the other they are the voters; while in the company the shareholders "vote" with their money, in the government, they vote with their ballots. You *may* have a point if you somehow defend some kind of correlation between money and ability, in order to bypass the biggest critique that can be done to democracy: "one person, one vote doesn't allow to those more capable to hold a heavier weight in decisions" (Ortega y Gasset wrote a whole book on the issue, The Revolt of the Masses).

"Market is more efficient than central planning." This, on itself, is already problematic: if that's the case, how is it that each and every corporation in the whole world, with all their MBAs, all the money thrown into business efficiency studies, end up self organizing into central planning, pure USSR way, and no one, not a single one in the whole world, choose to organize itself in a way resembling free market? The other problem is that while central planing was doomed in the past, that doesn't necessarily means that can't be done now or in the near future: market/sociological studies, big data, high performance computation... are not only reachable by private institutions but by governments too and so it seems that China-the government (I'm not talking about China-the people here) is doing quite a good job at planning their economy.

But even the "Market is more efficient than central planning" assertion is misleading from the beginning because it is begging for the *false* identity that "free market" goes tied to private property and "central planning the USSR way: we decide in advance how your toilet paper is gonna be and how many rolls is the country to need in the next five years" is the only option for a statist economy, which is false: what characterizes statism is *not* central planning but just public ownership of the production means, nothing more and nothing else.

On one hand, as I explained above, free market already makes heavy use of central planning so that, by itself, can't be a showstopper; on the other, there's nothing forbidding

Re: Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, pl

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think the internet exists? If not for spending that benefitted you, it would probably be at best a bunch of segregated systems.

Well no kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

Wireless at this scale has failed everywhere it has been tried, yet these project continue to receive stupid amounts of funding. Wireless works well at small scales but it just doesn't scale well beyond that. Add in a bunch of semi-qualified cronies sucking off the tit (ahem - operating these things) and there is no hope for success.

Any money that isn't going directly into fiber deployments is money wasted.

Re:Well no kidding

[Daemonik]

Funny, NY's free gigabit WiFi is working just fine.

Re:Well no kidding

[Jayson]

I was about to mention NYC. I wouldn't say it works fine, but it does work better than most places. The subway stations also have a fairly restricted number of people at a time though, and that is where it works best for me. Also, not everybody business and local is trying to down on it 24/7. I wonder what the peak usage is? I guarantee it is much lower than other places.

Re: Well no kidding

[Frosty Piss]

That's teat, not tit.

Re:Well no kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried it in San Fran 2 years ago; worked pretty damn awesomely.
Was all alone in some small-ass self-serve laundry and was getting 20 Mbps down / 5 up at 10pm.

Re:Well no kidding

[RockDoctor]

NY's free gigabit WiFi

Woah, hang on. GIGAbit WiFi? I've not been giving a fuck about WiFi standards for over a decade (since I wired the last house, just before gigabyte ethernet came out), but I hadn't heard of gigabyte WiFi ... Oh, I see. the old bit/byte bait'n'switch. So, gigaBIT wiFi translates to 125 megaBYTE ... which is 2-4 times faster than the last time I looked, and that sounds about right.

I'd take it that that's 125Mbyte per access point. So if you've got 100 users (phones, tablets, station infrastructure on a VPN), that'd be about 1MB/user. Sounds reasonably scaled. Going to suck when the station is crowded, but anything would suffer under rush-hour like surges.

Re: Well no kidding

[RockDoctor]

Are you speaking EN_US or EN_GB?

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] so everyone can have free phones, food, rent, medical care, iPads and internet access [...]

Where I can sign up for this?

*crickets*

That's what I thought.

Well...

[Etherwalk]

Step 1: Walk into closest building

Step 2: Tell them you will pay them $5K/year for adding a public hotspot

Step 3: Profit!

The real problem: Internet in US is expensive

[fraxinus-tree]

Here in Eastern Europe, telecoms simply failed to recognize the potential of the Internet and did almost nothing to secure a monopoly. So EVEN THE POOREST people have Internet access. $10/month is pretty usual broadband deal in Bulgaria and you can find one as low as $5/month if you look harder. Minimal salary here is ~$240/month (for comparison).

Re:The real problem: Internet in US is expensive

[JBMcB]

The absolute minimum wage in most places in the US is around $1,200/month. So roughly 5x $10 / month is around $50/month for broadband, which is around what we pay. So, it's about the same, then?

Re:The real problem: Internet in US is expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Minimum wage in France is around 1200€ and you can get a decent 100M/20M fiber connection for 20€/month (TV and unlimited free international phone calls included).

Re: Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, pl

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] a bunch of segregated systems.

The pre-1994 Intenet: CompuServe, AOL, BITNET, APRANet, the BBSes connected together via Fidonet, and many others.

a document doesn't mean it is true

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the PU really believe that in less than one year all of those sites stated as working in the document failed? Why can't the PU require the company to refund the money or get the system working? If there is not validation process then who the hell is allowing these kinds of scams be handed out using public money?

You want internet? PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!

[p51d007]

Tired of this "you have a right" to pretty much anything...for FREE crap. I never asked NO ONE for ANYTHING since I was 18. Everything I have is because unlike a lot of idiots, I wasn't out smoking dope, partying, drinking, having 4 children by 3 different "baby mama's". I worked my but off, got out of college & have been gainfully employed for over 30 years. Of course in my 20's, I got into credit card debt, but, I did without a new car all the time, vacations, big screen this and new cellphone that and paid it all off in 2 years. I have a lot of money in the bank, retirement set up, NO debt, an 815 credit score. Why should I have to pay for some other idiots non responsible life? All a lot of them do is just sit around all day, smoking dope, having babies and NEVER WORKING A DAY IN THEIR LIFE, and, then they blame ME for their problems. GET OFF YOUR LAZY A** and WORK for a living. "But...but...I'm only "qualified" to work a minimum wage job at the age of 30, we need a "living" wage". And that's MY FAULT why? That 15 bucks an hour crap ain't gonna work anyway, because those jobs will mostly GO AWAY. The ONLY ones that benefit from that increase in minimum wage ARE UNIONS. Why? Because their contracts on wages, ARE TIED to a percentage of the minimum wage. Whenever it goes up, their salaries automatically go up! Stupid fools!

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[mi]

Where I can [sic] sign up for this?

You can start here... And some people have claimed to support the sitting President for the sole reason of having received such a phone. Racist but true.

Capitalists made the cell phones (and WiFi) possible, Socialists are making it a civil right .

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, p

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet what do we have today?

Besides, all of these benefitted from government actions anyway.

Well, unless you count the internet being their ultimate death.

Re:You want internet? PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!

[Anonymous Coward]

You want air? You want water? PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[Anonymous Coward]

many people on the dole just end up dead or chained in some basement somewhere.

You seem to have some knowledge on the subject. I've always wondered what percentage 'many people' are? 80%, 90%? And do basements even exist in LA? California? I've known a couple dozen people who lived in LA and San Diego, yet have never seen a basement. I always considered them a midwest or eastern US fixture.

Re: You want internet? PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!

[jmac_the_man]

Where do you live that you don't have to pay for water?

Re:You want internet? PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You're the embodiment of the archetypal old man. Are you even aware of the actual reality around you, or do you completely immerse yourself in the fantasy land that you describe here?

Ongoing funding is needed

[imidan]

I scratch my head when I see a program like this. The business got a half million dollar grant from the public utilities commission to set up free wifi for underserved areas. But they were missing any kind of authority or leverage to install the equipment, even on city property, and wound up finding local businesses who would agree to let them set up the equipment in their buildings.

What they apparently didn't have was any plan for maintaining the equipment and service once they installed the hardware. TFA says equipment was stolen, or disconnected, or shut down, and the business didn't even know that was the case. Seems to me that if you wanted to build such a system, one of the most basic elements would be a monitoring component that gave you some idea of the state of the equipment you'd installed.

Of course, monitoring and maintenance require ongoing commitment of funds, which are almost never part of these types of grants. The idea, apparently, is that you're going to use the initial grant as start-up money, and before it runs out, you'll find some other source of money. But the approach that these guys took seems so wrong-headed that I don't see why anyone would give them more money.

Re:Ongoing funding is needed

[Rockoon]

What they apparently didn't have was any plan for maintaining the equipment and service once they installed the hardware.

It doesnt sound to me like they were actually able to install the hardware that they planned to install, let alone put it where they wanted to install it.

You can't put anything on the corporation when the government doesn't allow it to do any of the things the government hired it to do.

Sure, maybe this is someones cousin.. maybe it always was a crony deal (probably true more often than not in california.) The government is still ultimately responsible. The government planned to and then taxed the people to get the money to implement the project. Previously the government had already implemented active regulations that would obstruct any such project from being implemented. The government then contracted the job out to a corporation that, do to those active governments regulations, could not deliver no matter how hard it tried. The government then ignored the fact that the project went uncompleted for years.

At the core of it all... the government never had a real plan to deliver the stated service. ..but it went ahead and spent the money anyways.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

You can start here [obamaphone.com]...

The same program that President Ronald Reagan started to help people afford a phone line?

The FCC established the Lifeline program in 1985 to ensure that qualifying low-income consumers could afford phone service and the opportunities and security it provides. Congress supported and strengthened Lifeline in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requiring that affordable service and advanced communications be available to low-income consumers across the country. In March of 2016, the FCC modernized Lifeline for advanced services by beginning a transition toward support of broadband service. Learn more about Lifeline modernization from this press release.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/lifeline-support-affordable-communications

Capitalists made the cell phones (and WiFi) possible, Socialists are making it a civil right.

You need to stop watching Fox News on TV, step outside and get some fresh air. Real socialists don't exist in the United States.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

[...] if anyone wants to wade through all of the programs.

Most people who complain about government programs have no first hand experience at what they're talking about. When I was out of work for two years (2009-2010), I was told I could not qualify for food stamps until I filed for bankruptcy. After I filed for bankruptcy in 2011, I couldn't get food stamps because I made too much money from working 20 hours per month at a part-time job that paid more than minimum wage. I spent months eating bulk beans and rice until the economy turned around.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

I always considered them a midwest or eastern US fixture.

You're more likely to find basements in old Victorian houses on the west coast. The five-bedroom frat house I lived in with 12 other guys in Silicon Valley had a basement for the washer and dryer, storing personal belongings in boxes, and 30+ years of frat house graffiti scribbled on the walls.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, p

[__aaclcg7560]

Yet what do we have today?

World Wide Web, which also replaced the Wide World of Sports.

Well, unless you count the internet being their ultimate death.

That's like complaining about the phone replacing the telegraph, the fridge replacing the ice box, or porn replacing your girlfriend.

Re: Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, pl

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Bernie is noting that we are already spending more per capita than other countries, so why aren't we covering everybody?

Where is the money going?

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

I am sure filing for bankruptcy disqualifies you from many things in the future that people take for granted also, like loans/credit.

Bankruptcy had zero impact on my circumstances. I was able to rebuild my credit history in a year. I got a credit union loan two years ago for $2,500 when starting my government IT job took longer than expected and I needed money to cover one month of expenses. Five years after filing for bankruptcy, I'm just starting to recover financially from the Great Recession.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

the link validates io333's downmodded accusation

As a moderate conservative, I call it BS.

One is running for President right now.

Bernie Sanders uses the socialist label the same way that Donald Trump who uses the conservative label to get free press. Neither of them are who they claim to be.

And he is not merely a Socialist, he is a Communist.

Communists as a boogeyman disappeared after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. You going to have come up with something a lot more scarier than that to scare uninformed voters. That is why the Republican Party is being reduced from a national party to a southern regional party. Hard to run a political campaign on fear when the bogeymen no longer scare people and the brain trust for new policy ideas runs on fumes.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[mi]

As a moderate conservative, I call it BS.

Whoever the crap you call yourself, "calling BS" is not enough. You have to provide arguments. And you have not. You stated, io333's earlier claim of there being freebies like cellular phones for the "poor" was incorrect. I gave you a link. Instead of admitting mistake, you "call it BS". Fail.

Bernie Sanders uses the socialist label

If you wish to discuss Bernie Sanders, please, follow-up under my earlier post on the subject with answers to the three questions at the end of it.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

You have to provide arguments.

Drivel from the right wing echo chamber does not constitute an argument. Epic fail!

If you wish to discuss Bernie Sanders, please, follow-up under my earlier post [slashdot.org] on the subject with answers to the three questions at the end of it.

Wow! I'm getting all the political nuts tonight. Fortunately, I have better things to do. :P

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[Anonymous Coward]

Sanders is talking about "free" collage education. That is 100% pure socialism. When you take money from one person and give to another. that is socialism.

Trump has never labeled himself a conservative, nor acted like one. Democrats have successfully ran campaigns based on fear. "War or women" "black lives matter" "anti this anti that" These are all made up wars by Democrats to scare people. The biggest group in this country is conservative, Republicans leaders need to stop listening to the media and run a conservative candidate and stop letting Democrats run this country into the ground.

This free wifi thing... EVERY democrat plan like this fails. Look at Obamacare, it is starting to crumble because it could never work.

If a politician is offering something for free, that is a socialist. Nothing is free.

Nice try, but some of us are old enough to know

[Anonymous Coward]

(because we remember) that Reagan implemented "lifeline" telephones as a way to remove an excuse Democrats were offering for the welfare hammock.

In 1980 while Reagan was running for office, the Democrats were in total control of the government and were ruining the economy. We had double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, and we had gasoline rationing where you were limited in how much you could buy and could only buy on certain days based on your license plate#. Back then, Democrats were arguing that we needed all sorts of huge welfare programs because poor people could not be expected to work for a living because they did not have telephones that employers could use to contact them. Reagan countered that by giving them minimal phone service (that at the time was about $12 per month) that provided very limited connectivity (thereby not removing the work incentive by giving them something for free that was equal to what people with jobs had) we could save money as these jobless went back to work.

The phones Reagan provided would only do local calls and were limited in the number of minutes per month. They were adequate to allow employers and prospective employers to call a person, but were far less than what that person could afford to get for himself as soon as he got a job. They were not cellphones that could be used to play online games and look at porn.

Now, most working people in the US are paying more than $50 a month for cell phones (in part because of all the wealth-redistribution fees - just STUDY you bills), and many limit their plans and/or phones to keep their budgets under control - only to see some person who refuses to work walk by with an Obama smart phone with a possibly better plan. This is how the whacko left seeks to implement "social justice" via re-distribution of wealth, and yes, it's Marxist. In traditional America, people don't get stuff they want handed to them, they have to either work for it like everybody else or convince people they are in need of charity. Charity is when a person CHOOSES to give something of his own (NOT something he stole from somebody else at gunpoint) to some person who is truly in need. Charity generally only lasts for as long as the giver is convinced that the recipient is in genuine need and is genuinely seeking to improve himself enough to get back on his feet. Socialists don't generally care if the recipient is deserving of help and don't generally seek to get the recipient back onto his own feet - because it's all somebody else's money and because the recipients are potential voters for socialism.

Re:Nice try, but some of us are old enough to know

[__aaclcg7560]

They were not cellphones that could be used to play online games and look at porn.

My understanding is that these Obama phones are voice-only cellphones that don't include a data phone. It's very hard "to play online games and look at porn" when a cellphone doesn't come with a data plan. If the Obama phones did come with a data plan, it's not going to be an unlimited data plan that everyone pays $50+ per month.

In traditional America, people don't get stuff they want handed to them, they have to either work for it like everybody else or convince people they are in need of charity.

The next 20+ years will be interesting as the baby boomers retire and the workforce (tax base) shrinks. Two-thirds of the federal budget will go to social security and medicare. Taxes will have to go way up to pay for everything else. I'm sure your charity to your fellow human beings will be hard pressed in the years to come.

Re:Nice try, but some of us are old enough to know

[Rockoon]

My understanding is that these Obama phones are voice-only

Make up your mind. You are also in an argument above denying that these phones exist at all.

Intellectual honesty isnt hard, but sometimes it means having to change your views to honest ones. I dont know how many years you have left.. but I'm betting that eventually you will find the time. Until then, nobody wants to hear the opinion of a rabidly dishonest cunt.

Re:Nice try, but some of us are old enough to know

[__aaclcg7560]

Make up your mind. You are also in an argument above denying that these phones exist at all.

I don't deny that there is a federal program that President Reagan started to provide subsidized phone lines for the poor, which has been updated several time by Congress since then, and now offer subsidized cellphones. Voice-only phones, if I'm not mistaken. Most of the homeless in Silicon Valley have them. I never seen one used to play online games or watch porn.

According to my Tea Party relatives in Idaho, Obama phones are iPhones. I've been trying to track down that link for years. If such a program exist, I want to sign up for it. No reason for me to pay $80 per month for my existing iPhone if the government is handing them out like candy.

Until then, nobody wants to hear the opinion of a rabidly dishonest cunt.

*cough* Donald Trump *cough*

Re:Nice try, but some of us are old enough to know

[Rockoon]

*cough* Donald Trump *cough*

I get it... people that call you out for being a dishonest cunt are trump supporters. That whole "us" vs "them" mental disorder of a rabid lying cunt like... you, and trump.

Re:Nice try, but some of us are old enough to know

[__aaclcg7560]

That whole "us" vs "them" mental disorder of a rabid lying cunt like... you, and trump.

Uh, no. The Republican Party is based on "us" (angry old white people) vs "them" (everyone else). Otherwise known as the southern strategy for the last 40+ years. After the 2016 elections, the Republican Party will go from a national party to a southern white minority party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy/

Re:Nice try, but some of us are old enough to know

[Rockoon]

The Republican Party is based on "us" (angry old white people) vs "them" (everyone else).

You are proving again that you have this mental disorder. Amazingly you do so by waving your hands, declaring what those other people think.

Re:Nice try, but some of us are old enough to know

[__aaclcg7560]

You are proving again that you have this mental disorder.

What mental disorder would that be?

Amazingly you do so by waving your hands, declaring what those other people think.

I don't have to declare what those "other people" think. I listen to what they tell their own supporters. In Donald Trump's case, what the Republican Party has been saying in private for years. Mitt Romney's 47% comment at private fund raiser wasn't a verbal slip, it's what "those people" believe.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

Sanders is talking about "free" collage education. That is 100% pure socialism.

Like the G.I. Bill that kicked off one of most robust periods of American Capitalism in the 20th century?

The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-346, 58 Stat. 284m), known informally as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). Benefits included low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend university, high school or vocational education, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to every veteran who had been on active duty during the war years for at least one-hundred twenty days and had not been dishonorably discharged; combat was not required. By 1956, roughly 2.2 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits in order to attend colleges or universities, and an additional 5.6 million used these benefits for some kind of training program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill/

When you take money from one person and give to another. that is socialism.

That's called taxation. Who else is going to pay for civilization?

Trump has never labeled himself a conservative, nor acted like one.

Apparently, he did. You need to pay closer attention.

"I am a conservative person. I am by nature a conservative person," the outspoken billionaire said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "I never looked at putting a label on myself, I wasn't in politics."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-insists-conservative-article-1.2332241/

The biggest group in this country is conservative [...]

Uh, no. Independents are 43%, Democrats are 30% and Republicans are 26%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

Look at Obamacare, it is starting to crumble because it could never work.

Because of ObamaCare, my monthly premiums for healthcare from my employer went from $500 to $180. That's for better coverage at a lower cost.

Nothing is free.

You should take your own advice and stopped listening to the "fact free" drivel that comes out of the right wing echo chamber.

Government - the worst possible way to spend

[SuperKendall]

Government is, with the exception of the military, the worst possible place you can put money to help others.

I add in the military as an exception only because they do things on a scale and with abilities that are simply beyond private companies - no private company can deploy something like an aircraft carrier so close to disaster zones for example.

But for every other government agency, you will absolutely get 10x the amount of wastefulness, incompetency, and just sheer graft that you'll find with a government organization that only cares about growing headcount and paying themselves to do as little as possible.

There's a reason when a disaster occurs that calls come into to donate to the Red Cross, not send more money to FEMA...

Re:Government - the worst possible way to spend

[Daemonik]

There's a reason when a disaster occurs that calls come into to donate to the Red Cross, not send more money to FEMA...

Because they're stupid? Something like 30% or more of the money you donate to the Red Cross goes to fundraisers and management, not people in need.

Most charities are scams and spend the majority of the dollars they rake in from sympathetic chumps on their own executives or to professional fund raising firms.

Re:Government - the worst possible way to spend

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're stupid? Something like 30% or more of the money you donate to the Red Cross goes to fundraisers and management, not people in need.

Most charities are scams and spend the majority of the dollars they rake in from sympathetic chumps on their own executives or to professional fund raising firms.

Something like 30% or more. Really? Could be less too. Hard to tell from that muckraking left-wing link you provided. Most charities are not a scam. Do some research before you give. There are plenty of resources online to do so.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[Anonymous Coward]

Cut the defense budget back to inflation-adjusted Clinton-era spending and you could pay for a whole lot of "free stuff"

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[ArylAkamov]

What do you mean by political nuts?

You said it wasn't a thing, he provided evidence proving it was.

Crying about 'muh right wing echo chamber' doesn't disprove that obamaphones are a thing, which is what his post was about.

Why is free internet a entitlement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a waste of money to have government involved in providing services like this. Free internet can be found in many public places. Even in a small town like mine of less that 2500 we have several public accessible PC's at the library, many restaurants have free access and other retail business has it. Even today some people are just not interested in the internet. Especially the poor and uneducated.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[Rockoon]

Drivel from the right wing echo chamber does not constitute an argument.

I am a bystander here and it looks to me like you were full of shit. He did provide a link, and you just continued to wave your hands as if it didnt exist.

As a "moderate conservative" surely you understand the value of veracity.... so surely you know that you are swimming in your own shit right now... but hey...maybe you don't...

Re: Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, pl

[Anonymous Coward]

Wifi was not invented by capitalists but by a federally funded state owned research agency in Australia

State capitalism is not socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Here the state is directly subsidising businesses (who have ripped them off). Some suggest that the state should have subsidised businesses indirectly through vouchers (which would probably be more reliable). The option of the state actually setting up the wifi infrastructure itself seems to be taboo in corporate owned America

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[Hognoxious]

Sanders is talking about "free" collage education.

I don't think he'll be able to cut it, and even if he does it won't stick.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[BitZtream]

Northern Europe has a few countries like that, Norway? Denmark? One of them recently decided everyone get a base income, thats where you want to live.

Right up until their economy collapses from the influx of dead beat freeloaders sucks the system dry and no one has anything other than a drained economy and a bunch of people who contribute negative amounts to the system.

If thats too much effort for you, there have been free cellphones for years, there have been free (subsidized) internet plans for years (or NetZero), welfare will cover your rent and food.

If you want to be a dead beat mooch, there are plenty of American's who can illustrate to you exactly how to do it within America ... but I'd prefer deadbeats move to Denmark.

Re:You want internet? PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!

[Hognoxious]

I never asked NO ONE for ANYTHING

So you DID ask someone for something?

Gravy Train, Gravy Train, How I Love Thee

[Anonymous Coward]

Yippee!!! More money for the SJW industry.

"Los Angeles Time"?

[Anonymous Coward]

America/Pacific UTC-8 Los Angeles

Morris Day sucks.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

If you want to be a dead beat mooch, there are plenty of American's who can illustrate to you exactly how to do it within America.

The people who complain about "dead beat mooch" have yet to demonstrate to me what they're talking about. Most often they only hear what someone else or the right wing echo chamber told them.

Was it socialism when the federal government gave away grants of land under the 1862 Homestead Act for people to settle in the West?

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

He did provide a link, and you just continued to wave your hands as if it didn't exist.

A link to the right wing echo chamber doesn't make it legitimate.

As a "moderate conservative" [...]

Why the quotation marks?

[...] so surely you know that you are swimming in your own shit right now.

This is Slashdot. You must be new here.

... but hey...maybe you don't...

That would be Donald Trump.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

Crying about 'muh right wing echo chamber' doesn't disprove that obamaphones are a thing, which is what his post was about.

The federal program got started by Ronald Reagan and updated several times by Congress since then. Why don't we call them Reagan phones instead? Will they be called Hillary phones next year?

Why don't we admit that "Obamaphones" is a slur against a federal program that some people find useful because other people don't like the current president?

I'm shocked, shocked to find that!

[mpercy]

Surely the government-funded free stuff works as designed?

Just jack up minimum wage

[Anonymous Coward]

then they can afford their own internets.

Problem solved.

Re:Just jack up minimum wage

[Anonymous Coward]

no way. we can have inflation on prices only, never wages. that puts money in the hands of the slaves which the rich would never allow.

Minimum wage

[phorm]

Great. Now how many people at minimum wage get full-time wages at a given employer? How about additional costs?

Quoting a monthly figure is not useful when wage is hourly and highly variable as such.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[dl_sledding]

Sanders is talking about "free" collage education. That is 100% pure socialism.

Like the G.I. Bill that kicked off one of most robust periods of American Capitalism in the 20th century?

Whoa fucking whoa!!!! You're gonna compare giving just any person a free, tax supported college education to the GI Bill? For servicemen who served our country??!! What in the flying fuck is wrong with you!!??

These men and women put their personal and professional lives on hold to serve the country, making very little monetary compensation and many put their lives at risk, to protect assholes like you. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you little communist dicksuck.

And note that I did NOT use AC for this! Those "fuck you"s are from my heart and soul!

I firmly believe that the women and men in the armed forces have earned our respect and our thanks, and we owe them much more than they are given in return.

Take your anti-military, never-held-a-real-job socialist asshole Sanders and move to somewhere you'll be more comfortable, maybe like Cuba or China. You'll fit right in there!

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[Anonymous Coward]

> a lot **more** **scarier**

Uh-huh.

CAMACHOOOOOOOOOOOO

Re: Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, pl

[Coren22]

IEEE is in Australia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

You're gonna compare giving just any person a free, tax supported college education to the GI Bill?

Going to college used to be free. The G.I. Bill was a government program that worked extremely well.

These men and women put their personal and professional lives on hold to serve the country, making very little monetary compensation and many put their lives at risk, to protect assholes like you.

I work with veterans every day as a government IT worker to protect their personal data from the bad guys. They thank me for the daily service I put in on their behalf.

And note that I did NOT use AC for this! Those "fuck you"s are from my heart and soul!

You need mental help. Fortunately, Obamacare covers that.

Take your anti-military, never-held-a-real-job socialist asshole Sanders and move to somewhere you'll be more comfortable, maybe like Cuba or China. You'll fit right in there!

As a moderate conservative, I'm not voting for Sanders. But he is only person talking about reinvesting in America.

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[dl_sledding]

You're gonna compare giving just any person a free, tax supported college education to the GI Bill?

Going to college used to be free. The G.I. Bill was a government program that worked extremely well.

So what the hell does that response mean? You are avoiding my point altogether. Gas used to be 10 cents a gallon: should we subsidize drivers for the high costs of fuel now too? Because there isn't much of a difference between the two.

Now, to address the point that I THINK you are trying to make: the current outrageous cost of an education. How about trying to reduce the costs, rather than having society pick up the tab for everyone's education? The problem in academia right now is the cost of administration, and the 7-digit salaries that presidents seem to think they deserve (here's a reference for ya: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...). FIX the problem, don't just drop it on the shoulders of society. And if the bill IS footed by society, then society should get to decide what that college education is. That decision should be taken out of the student's hands and put into the hands of those paying for it, who know what positions are needed to be filled.

These men and women put their personal and professional lives on hold to serve the country, making very little monetary compensation and many put their lives at risk, to protect assholes like you.

I work with veterans every day as a government IT worker to protect their personal data from the bad guys. They thank me for the daily service I put in on their behalf.

Maybe you should think about that a little more, before you write something that infers that a program meant for veterans is less important than one for someone who has not done anything for this country or society. Our veterans are treated like second-class citizens when you consider what they have given up for this country. Meanwhile, here you are, working for the government, with tax dollars as your payroll, suggesting that they DON'T deserve the meager benefits that this country DOES give them! What an asshole you are!

And note that I did NOT use AC for this! Those "fuck you"s are from my heart and soul!

You need mental help. Fortunately, Obamacare covers that.

First of all, I do not need Obamacare. I am lucky enough to have a job that has health insurance as a benefit (though they do not pay 100% and I make up the difference). That being said, I do believe that the PPACA is a needed program, and shouldn't simply be thrown out offhandedly. All of these PPACA resinders out there are complete and total idiots, as far as I am concerned. This country has been trying to get some kind of subsidized health insurance program in place for 50 years, and now we have one. Are there issues with it? I have no clue, and none of those in the "Rescind Obamacare" group seem to be able to show specific reasons why it should go. And they don't seem to be able to make the intellectual leap of FIXING the broken parts (that they can't point out). It's simply a matter of "They brought it into being, so it MUST be bad and needs killing!!!" That's extremely wasteful both fiscally and chronologically. So, no, I don't agree with the vaporization of the PPACA, rather I believe that if something is broken, fix it. Which, incidentally, flies in the face of today's society, so I am not surprised by the reaction.

Secondly, why do I need mental help? If I have an extreme prejudice to what you are saying, you think I should do it as a cowardly AC instead? That's probably what you would do, but I have the balls to stand up to an asshole like you in full view of the public, using my real account. Maybe in this current world that means I need mental help, but where I come from o

Re:Can you pay for my Internet Access too FCC, ple

[__aaclcg7560]

Meanwhile, here you are, working for the government, with tax dollars as your payroll, suggesting that they DON'T deserve the meager benefits that this country DOES give them!

That's YOUR OPINION, not mine. For the record, I could make 40% more money in the private sector. That's a lot of money to leave on the table to help veterans.

What an asshole you are!

I wouldn't be working in IT if I wasn't.

I can only infer that you do not agree with those points, so your "I help veterans every day" BS is simply that: BS of the highest order, to the point that it's hypocrisy

I may be an asshole, but I'm not a nitpicking asshole. Just because I don't respond to every point you raise, it doesn't mean I agree or disagree. I have a limited amount of time to troll the trolls on Slashdot. ;)