In a move to provide low cost high speed internet access to lower income households, a partnership between the FCC, cable companies and a computer recycler looks promising. Could this also be the beginning of more competitive cable rates for the rest of American households? Could there be any unintended consequences associated with this program? Read about it here, then post your comments.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/providing-internet-access-to-the-poor-11172011.html?chan=magazine+technology+channel_news+-+politics+%26amp%3b+policy
This type of competitive cable rate will create a substitute. Right now I pay about $40 for 15 mbps; If after some time I think that 15 mbps for $40 is too much I will switch to less (1-4mbps) for $10. And hopefully this will create enough competition so that I can get 15 mbps for less than $40.
ReplyDeleteUnintended consequences may appear, and it's basically inevitable. We all hope for the best, but no one is 100% perfect. However, I think it's worth a shot.
Why are rewarding the poor for being poor? We need to start helping these poor families becoe self sufficient not reliant on handouts and entitlements. The is just a charity power play by these big companies and there is no way that they are going to keep this up for long. I mean it even says that this will be a 2-year contract at 9.95 but what will happen after 2-years ?? Hmmmm rate increase maybe ?? Also I am sure that the normal subcriber is going to pay for this in the long run just to cover the costs of this program. My tax dollars pay for public internet use at all public libraries. These should be used for the reasons listed in this article, education, job seeking, etc. Why would we reward them when they are not even utilizing the resources currently avaible to them.
ReplyDeleteIn an ideal world this act would inspire a movement for other companies to join in. It would give them a chance to make a difference to children who don't have, and can't get to places that have public internet. Will it work the pessimist in me has doubts, but it's well worth the shot.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is for everyone this helps there could be half a dozen other homes where the internet isn't used what it was intended for.
If I owned one of the major companies like Commcast, COX, or Time Warner i would jump on this too. Im sure they could take a little hit, if there is one, to gain all these customers. Like that FCC rep said, "lets get the last third of the population". To me it looks like an oligopoly is brewing. Thats good its not coming from tax payers but still, there has to be some hidden motive. I dont think any company would take on something that would involve millions of people and do it as charity. Definitly just hope it is what they say it is.
ReplyDeleteI do not see anything happening with cable or sattelite television because most people are still intelligent enough to recognize that it is not necessary for anything. The argument can be made for internet much easier. As for unintentional happenings, the only things I could see coming about are more families expecting more, and possibly those not in the income range wanting the same option. Though the latter is highly unlikely.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as a free lunch. They say they will not raise tax rates to pay for this free service. Who will pay for the increase cost to the internet and cable companies? Those who currently paying for internet at competitive rates will incur the increase costs. What about those who do not qualify for the free Lunch program? Are you going to price them out of the market? Internet is not a basic human need. There is free internet at local public libraries. This is an overreach by the federal government.They are only going to do damage to a competitive industry.
ReplyDeleteWhile I hardly think this is a perfect solution, I really don't think me crying about it being unfair is the right response either. The main challenge I see is that there are simply too many people that manipulate systems that are intended to help. I just don't see this being used by the majority to look for jobs. Those of us who pay the higher price will still be getting a better service, and they are still being asked to pay even if it is a much smaller amount. What would I rather complain about... being poor or paying more for a better internet service?
ReplyDeleteThis is a great idea but im not sure if it will fly. It will give children more oportunities to learn and do school stuff as well. One thing to think about may be whether this will raise prices for everyone else in order to make up for the lower prices given to the lower income households. This I think in the long run will be very beneficial to our society.
ReplyDelete