Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Expands $10 Low-Income Internet Plan (arstechnica.com)
Jon Brodkin, reporting for Ars Technica: Comcast's Internet Essentials program that provides $10-per-month Internet service to low-income families has been expanded to make about 1.3 million additional households eligible. Comcast created Internet Essentials in order to secure approval of its acquisition of NBCUniversal in 2011 and has decided to continue it indefinitely even though the requirement expired in 2014. Comcast says the 10Mbps plan has connected more than 600,000 low-income families since 2011, for a total of 2.4 million adults and children, and provided 47,000 subsidized computers for less than $150 each. Advocates for the poor have complained that the Internet Essentials service is too hard to sign up for, in part because of problems with the application process but also because it's usually only available to families with kids in school. That latter issue is what Comcast addressed today, announcing that "adults without a child eligible for the National School Lunch Program will be eligible to apply for Internet Essentials." Previously, pilot programs gave access to some low-income seniors and low-income community college students, but this is the first time that Internet Essentials will be available to adults without children nationwide.
Internet included in rent (mounting a cost of $2 per unit diffused through the renters) and, especially, low-cost Internet are impossible. I know this because everyone rails on my Citizen's Dividend plan for being so horrible as to put the jobless, homeless, unemployed into small apartments with food and clean water but, horrifically, NO MONEY FOR INTERNET, dooming them to a life without cat pictures which is infinitely worse than eating out of people's garbage.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
We must agree to the TWC Comcast merger to support this generous company! They are really so good to people!
"adults without a child eligible for the National School Lunch Program will be eligible to apply for Internet Essentials."
In my part of the country, EVERY child is eligible for NSLP. Every child that wants a free lunch can get one, even during the summer when there is no school in session. It would be discriminatory or hurt the truly needy kid's self-esteem if anyone verified their status, so any "need" requirement was removed. School kitchens are now a year-round operation.
Next year I hear they're going to provide clothing for free, and 24 months from now they're converting the school gyms into very large dorms to provide free housing.
So Comcast is a government sanctioned monopoly, but some how are not subject to PUC regulation. This results in the garbage plans I'm forced to buy. Someone please explain to me why I can purchase a bundled package for $70 or so with internet, a rented cable box, and HBO, yet if I just want internet it's $150 a month. Why is such a bullshit pricing scheme allowed to continue? If Comcast can deliver the service for $70, than a lesser service should never exceed that price. Where's the PUC when you need them? Nowhere, as most of them are bought off. I sure as hell don't expect anything to change if the NBC/Comcast candidate wins the presidency.
I knew being poor in America sucked, but I never realized it would mean having Comcast as your only affordable option. Isn't that a human rights violation or something?
My daughter cant get Section 8 housing because she works a part time job. She can barely afford the crap trailer she lives in, but she is somewhat self supporting.
So it's a big fuck you to those that are trying to be self sufficient but cant afford the normal Comcast $80 a month for 15mbps
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In order to get on the "Internet Essentials, for adults without children" plan, you promise to give all of your future children to Comcast to work in their call centers.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
What about those of us who can't get broadband in the first place?
Weren't our socialist overlords in Washington supposed to put broadband in every home and a chicken in every pot?
I do not believe it at all, given their time spent, households served, and entire U.S. population included. I.e.: something along this equation: 600 000/2 400 000 spread over five years makes precisely 500 000 added users per year, out of 140 000 000 eligible folks. I wonder how many billions of dollars in federal subsidies were received for these world's most expensive(ly) subsidised internet connections.
So Comcast is a government sanctioned monopoly,
No they aren't.
but some how are not subject to PUC regulation.
Federal pre-emption of a communications service by the federal communications agency.
Someone please explain to me why I can purchase a bundled package for $70 or so with internet, a rented cable box, and HBO,
You're getting a pretty good deal. Without HBO I'm paying $140.
Why is such a bullshit pricing scheme allowed to continue?
Ummm, because nobody forces you to watch HBO or cable, so you can easily take advantage of the bundled deal and save a lot of money. Put the cable box on the shelf, connect the Internet, and you're good to go. The Internet doesn't stop working when the cable box isn't connected.
Cause that's what a low income family pays in a First World Nation.
Not $10 a month for a data capped 40 Mbps sub-par service that might as well be in Africa like we have in the US.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
PUC's authority falls under the state legislatures. Many state legislatures are handcuffing their PUC on all things telecom. In my state our PUC told me directly that they would be fired if they even brought up the issue of telecom or broadband.
In my state our PUC told me directly that they would be fired if they even brought up the issue of telecom or broadband.
Who are the PUC's bosses? Fire them at the ballot box.
wheres my $10 internet??!??
I'm guessing there's at least $10 for renting the box from them ... and another $5 in various fees.
(yes, I'm being snarky, but I'd also really like to know what people actually have to pay for the service).
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Hillary could have cinched the black vote if this was 'her' program with her label and face on it.
Is that $70/month or $70/month*. There is a big difference with the '*' usually meaning that in 6 months time the rate will become huge. At least that's the trick they use all the time here in Canada. Still US$70/month is only a bit more that I pay here for just internet alone. Mind you I don't have to deal with Comcast which is probably worth quite a bit per month.
The state legislatures are the ones that need to be removed/fired.
Bingo.
Democrats and Republicans are both equally culpable in the broadband shitshow.
Democrats and Republicans are not the only U.S. political parties. Case in point: Recent polls show Libertarian POTUS nominee Gary Johnson tied for second among millennials and independents.
And even if they were, there's still a way to tie a soap box to the ballot box. Form an IEOPAC around this issue with a policy of always supporting the opponent of each district's incumbent legislator, regardless of party affiliation, if the incumbent acts in the ISP cartel's favor.
I heard that you can get the older Blackberries as an Obamaphone, so why dosen't the gov't have Safelink provide wireless data with that, or at least offer it for 5 - 10$ You can also buy a low end tablet for less than 50 now. Usualy the screen isn't too good, and the Android OS is an older version, but that should be enough for most web browsing. Why don't local gov'ts then roll out city wide WI-FI (and tell the companies who try to stop this "fuck you" instead of kow towing to them), and offer tablets at a low cost, and let low income people know about the budget tablets, or even help subsidise them? These are just rough ideas but the point is the means are available to enable everyone to have internet access just that people needs to put thought into this and actualy roll these programs out.
Obama and friends have been trying to make Internet service regulated as a utility for several years now, but of course, the Republicans have stopped that so that they can continue to get their bribes.
I don't respond to AC's.
CNN with a touch of Tech!
Obama and friends have been trying to make Internet service regulated as a utility for several years now, but of course, the Republicans have stopped that so that they can continue to get their bribes.
Why do the Republicans want "they" (Obama and friends) to continue to get bribes?
One question...
Is the data capped at 64K a month?
It's funny to read this today, as I tried to sign up an internet account for some low-income relatives just last week. They outright refused to sell Internet Essentials and make it a huge pain to learn anything about it on their website, and they would only honor the shown rate for their Performance Starter plan unless I also signed up for phone and TV at the same time. I would be absolutely stunned to learn that anyone was ever actually able to sign up for this $10 internet plan without purchasing any other add-ons or unless this was an introductory rate that ballooned to something much higher after ayear.
I ha something like that except there's one offer for 38 euro per month, it's on DSL and you can get it down to 36 euro by disabling TV reception. Yet you get to keep that fucking embedded PC, wasting physical space, in the cardboard packing and the cardboard that contains all cardboard. So, a new, locked-down Atom PC gets unused for years and you pay to warehouse a big company's crap in your single room appartment.