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

"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

[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

[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

[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: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.

Re:Well no kidding

[Daemonik]

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

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?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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: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]

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

[__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?