Comcast Launches Program For Low-Income Families 229
wasimkadak writes "Comcast rolled out its Internet Essentials program nationwide today, offering low-income families in its service territory $10/month Internet connections and access to $150 computers. Any family with at least one child who qualifies for the free lunch program at public schools can subscribe to a low-speed (1.5Mbps) Comcast Internet connection for $9.95 a month. Comcast guarantees that it won't raise the price and offers the plan without equipment rental or activation fees. Subscribers also cannot have 'an overdue Comcast bill or unreturned equipment,' and they can't have had Comcast Internet in the last 90 days."
First low-income post! (Score:2)
Unfortunately now I can't pay the elec^C^C^C NO CARRIER
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The program was actually launched a while ago, for some reason websites felt the need to revisit it.
Perhaps because the program was launched only in certain areas? Perhaps because this is the "Nationwide" launch for those outside the pilot areas?
Re: (Score:2)
You still need power for dial-up modems. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the children. (Score:2)
Because unemployed or low-income adults without kids wouldn't have any use for the internet to look for a job or something, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You had to know some would complain about not getting the same handout. The reason people give these benefits to kids is because many of the low-income adults are too old to learn new tricks, you hate to see the children suffer, and frankly there is some hope the kids may turn out better than their parents at being able to hold a job.
I do not think that all people who are low income are lazy do nothings, but I can't separate those who have just down on their luck, and those who like to take the government d
Handouts (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with handouts. The disadvantaged get all the advantages!
Re: (Score:2)
Since you don't have daycare issues, go to the library...or the unemployment agency.
Seriously, get a grip you whiner.
It's a Proxy (Score:2)
Let us say a private company wants to give away its product to the product to the poor and needy. What’s the best way to do this?
Should you hand over last year’s tax return? Not only is it invasive, but many poor people don’t even need to file.
What about the “young adult” (mid 30s) who is still living at home. Should the parents, who may be rich, get cheap internet via their child?
So they are using the school lunch program as a proxy. It’s easy to show poverty without bei
Public libraries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Several years ago a local town library build a brand new computer center as an expansion to their public library system - two computer rooms and a large meeting room. It's its own building down the street from the original library. Even the official title of the project was the "Bookless Library."
I'm fairly sure that's not a wholly unique story.
Now if you want to complain about libraries struggling to stay relevant, let's talk about the "teen centers" with the big screen TVs and game consoles....
=Smidge=
Counter example. (Score:3)
I've been on /. for a while and I have never posted that we don't need libraries.
In my opinio
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdotters routinely make remarks like "who needs libraries when we have Google Books!"
I haven't ever seen such a thing on Slashdot. Many people say that we don't need paper books long-term, but this doesn't translate to "don't need libraries". Quite the opposite, in fact - libraries would be so much easier to run, and we could have more of them, if all books were electronic.
How relevant are Libraries? (Score:2)
I feel (irrationally?) that losing libraries would be a net loss. I want them, but can't figure out why.
However, they seem less and less relevant today. I talk to coworkers or friends (and I'm sure we all know people) who don't read. Heck, I don't read often for recreation anymore either, especially now that we have computer games or Netflix. When I do read, it's usually something that's either on the internet (Project Gutenberg, or the Baen free library).
Libraries used to be where you'd go to find refere
Re: (Score:2)
Libraries are places to house, organize, and lend out books.
So yes, they should go obsolete as books becomes obsolete. There may be a way for them to stay relevant, perhaps all those Librarians with Masters Degrees can think of something.
Re:Public libraries (Score:4, Insightful)
We only need a few redundant collections to preserve hard copies in case of an electromagnetic disaster.
We could call these redundant collections libraries!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Public libraries often have a 30 minute time limit on computer use and in poor and rural areas share a 56k modem between all computers.
They did this because they care sooooo much.. (Score:5, Informative)
The last paragraph of the linked article mentions that they had no choice but to do this:
Though Comcast no doubt loves children and cares deeply about the digital divide, its Internet Essentials program was also a part of the conditions under which it was allowed to buy NBC earlier this year. The company pledged to reach 2.5 million low income households with high speed Internet for less than $10 a month, and to sell some sort of computer for $150 or less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may improve their bottom line, but probably not all that much. A $10 connection is at most $25 million, a rounding error for a company that has $45 billion in revenue.
And that doesn't include the cost of providing that service: bandwidth, cable maintenance, user support phone calls, etc. If the $10 includes a cable modem, then their profit margin is going to be razor thin. (It's kinda skeezy if $10 turns into $15 or $20 through fees, taxes, and "optional" services.)
It's more about PR; even if this end
Re: (Score:2)
The last paragraph of the linked article mentions that they had no choice but to do this:
Do you think a poor family that is getting $10/month broadband (1.5/384) cares that it was part of a merger deal? The upshot is that millions of lower income families are going to get internet -- that's a Good Thing(TM).
Re: (Score:2)
I think the people who disagree with Comcast's abusive monopolies and the contempt they show towards their customers care that it was part of a merger deal, and not corporate philanthropy.
Re: (Score:3)
It was bad enough when they let the students in, and frankly by your UID you're old enough to know better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (Score:4, Interesting)
"They" neither care nor don't care. (Score:2)
Is it really necessary to attribute human emotions to corporations? Some people who work at Comcast probably care very deeply and others couldn't care less. The point is, they're doing it. The end result is what I think we'd all identify as a 'good thing'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's just enough bandwidth to stream Netflix in SD.
Then it's better than what I get from Comcast for $100/month.
Support Municipal Cable (Score:2)
Support governmental cable. When Comcast has the monopoly, you pay!
Re: (Score:3)
Ha! Government run services. In the United States. Good luck.
Re:Support Municipal Cable (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think it's expensive now, wait till it's free...
Yeah! Just like my water bill. Oh, wait. (Score:2)
I meant the sewer service.
Oh, wait again.
Well I'm sure that there's some utility service that the city runs that SOMEONE will find objectionable and claim that they (and 1,000 of their closest neighbors) can do cheaper or more effectively.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, only those of us actually earning income will be saddled with the bill. Remember, to each according to his needs and from each according to his abilities.
If you don't like government-provided services, get the fuck off the Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Government-started is not the same as Government-provided. The Government has played no role in my internet access other than regulations and taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that if it were up to you, nothing would get "government-started," since you'd decry the initial involvement of the government as a commie plot, so we're back to you getting off of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't send half of our income to the government in advance (yet)
Re: (Score:2)
Government is good at infrastructure services. They are bad at innovation, and content.
Corporations are bad at infrastructure but good at innovation and content.
A Government Internet Connection will probably reach most Americans and have great up time, and really wouldn't cost us too much more and probably a lot less. However they may not innovate and in 5 - 10 years we will be stuck with a very slow useless connection. Or they will try to force (more) the content we can and cannot get. FCC for the Inter
Re: (Score:2)
"Government is good at infrastructure services. They are bad at innovation, and content.
Corporations are bad at infrastructure but good at innovation and content.
Absolutely true.
I would add - The government is a great driver of innovation.
Government Internet would not be like TV, and there wouldn't be an FCC. Different eras,. different intent.
If it's like many other infrastructural project, we would get tremendous bandwidth, and low price. It would all be engineered to work together and be upgrade able. How
What is wrong with Leasing out to Companies?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to work in a number of municipalities where the courts allow it. See: http://www.muninetworks.org/ [muninetworks.org]
Some variations that may be better in some locations:
Municipally owed cables or conduits that independent organizations can lease access to provide internet service.
Mutual (cooperative) ownership of the cable and or internet service provider by customers and possibly employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A particular upshot of this is that pipes are something that most municipalities have a huge amount of experience with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like government-run water, sewer, and electricity, right?
In this town, our municipal trash collection is pay-per-use as well, actually.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And other people pay for what you use.
And theres a large scale for economies of scale.
And, oh, with a commercial, you pay for what other people use also!
Example: Lets say I use 80GB/month down and 60GB/month up.
My neighbors with the same plan use only 60GB/month down and 5GB/month up.
We pay the same, but I use more, so in fact, since all the paid money goes for the ISPs backbone connection, they are in part, paying for the infrastructure for some of my connection.
But, since it is a company doing it, I guess
Re: (Score:2)
Except it's cheaper and better.
You're like the people that bought lower grade, poorly made tea leave from the black market for more money then higher quality teas from EITC, because there was a minor tax on the EITC tea to support safe shipping.
Myopic, selfish, Idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I'd be the last to trot out any support for a greedy, incompetent corporation like Comcast, but... hey...
Is bread and circuses from tax dollars really a better idea than bread and circuses from a profit-making entity?
Oh, wait, it's just circuses. No bread. Or jobs.
Carry on then! Let them eat cake!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the internet hasn't been used to create any jobs at all~
BTW - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-2009-stimulus-created-zero-jobs/ [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:2)
His argument is the political uncertainty and the certainty that government services would have to be cut in the future or taxes raised or both in the future cost at least as many jobs and the stimulus might have created, and likely cost better jobs.
I don't like Perry for lots of reasons, I REALLY REALLY hope he does not get the GOP nomination, but he is right about stimulus. Its not a good economic policy to try and smooth over anything but the shallowest dips. It just kicks the can down the road, at gre
Who Knew? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at the rate Comcast's prices have been skyrocketing.
I recently moved from an area serviced by Time Warner to an area serviced by Comcast. The set of services I bought from each (lowest cable package with HD/DVR and consumer grade of cable internet) came in right around $100 with Time Warner, and when I cancelled my service from Comcast last year they had jacked the rates up to almost $150 (both figures are after taxes and fees).
I know there is a geographic component to this, but Comcast sets the pricing
Re: (Score:2)
when I cancelled my service from Comcast last year they had jacked the rates up to almost $150
You can get it for $100/mo from Comcast but you have to call and play their game every year when your "promotional package" expires. It's actually their business model to make you threaten to cancel every year to keep your rates from going up.
Re: (Score:2)
At 1.5 mbps, can you even reach it? According to WolframAlpha, the theoretical maximum is less than 500GB. I doubt in real life you can reach anything close to that.
In other news, for 15 Euros ($20) / month I can have 30mbps, plus 100MB/month for 3G. And it's not a special-offer-for-poor-people.
Re: (Score:2)
"In other news, for 15 Euros ($20) / month I can have 30mbps, plus 100MB/month for 3G. And it's not a special-offer-for-poor-people."
That's a European plan of some kind right? How is that not a "special-offer-for-poor-people."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah me too. Its the warm fuzzy feeling of someone paying $70 a month for the same crappy 1.5Mbps (but advertised as much higher), and knowing that I'm also paying for my lazy ass welfare neighbors net.
Low rent class-warriors are one of the world's more pathetic sights:
Comcast is charging you $70/month for a shit connection and getting away with an almost-certain-to-make-the-already-pitiful-state-of-'competition'-even-worse merger deal by throwing your neighbors a crumb. Are you angry at Comcast because Comcast is farming your sorry ass under the pretense that they operate in a competitive market? Or at the regulators and blowhards of the nation who allow this charade to continue? Of course not...
You
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Haven't you heard? We all live in a vacuum now.
Of course I didn't, I'm in a vacuum!
How elegant... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comcastic work, boys.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep now they just have to find a way to charge wealthier people more for the same bits - up to the point where the person might be wealthy enough to afford political power, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to generally high prices and tepid speeds, there is really a pretty gigantic hole toward the bottom of the ISP market: even in densely settled areas with mature infrastructure buildouts, it can be pretty tricky to
Re: (Score:2)
it can be pretty tricky to find anything that doesn't have at least a $15 base price
How low do you think it can really go in meatspace? That $15/mo probably represents electricity, billing, one or two phone calls a year, and replacing some infrastructure every several years. Plus maybe a few bucks a year into a 'shared pool' to deal with a lightning strike that requires a full local rebuild.
It's already about the same cost as a pizza, or a movie and popcorn. Maybe lunch for two at McDonald's if you sprin
Re: (Score:3)
what i love is not having Comcast net service for 90 days.. so if they have net access due to need but can barely afford it - they can't drop down to the lower rate which suits their cash flow.. unless they go without for 3 months showing that it isn't needed and rather a luxury to them.. basically screwing over people who need it.
and as people say no one "needs" a net connection - but hey no one needs anything really
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Given that this is an (approximately) value-rational, profit-seeking entity attempting to fulfill an obligation attached to a merger deal at the lowest cost, it seems only reasonable to suspect that every term and condition of the offer is either obligatory(as in the case of the price) or designed to reduce the number of takers(90-day requirement, no outstanding comcast bills requirement, househ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess my big thought with this 'digital divide' is....So What?
I mean..when did internet connectivity become a 'basic right'? Is it helpful? Sure. Is it nice and educational? Sure. Is it a necessity of life or necessary to function in society? I have to say no.
If someone doesn't think they need it...well, so the fuck what?
Some people just don't seem to want to integrate more into society as it is today...to
Another (admittedly biased) view (Score:5, Interesting)
Comcast 'Cares' about propaganda (Score:2)
Especially on NBC affiliates.
Unsustainable business plan (Score:2)
Comcast guarantees that it won't raise the price
This is an unreasonable expectation given that the US monetary system has inflation. Eventually they would really have to raise prices or end up losing too much money.
Inflation isn't universal (Score:2)
Comcast guarantees that it won't raise the price
This is an unreasonable expectation given that the US monetary system has inflation. Eventually they would really have to raise prices or end up losing too much money.
The inflation rate is an average. As technology improves, many things decrease in cost faster than the currency declines toward worthlessness. The cost of backhaul for a 1.5Mb service is one of those things. Cable maintence: probably not. So in the forseable future where 1.5Mb/s cable internet is actually useful and desireable, I see no reason why Comcast can not keep their promise. If the Dollar is allowed to sink to it's proper level against the Yuan and we get into hyper inflation then, of course,
Re: (Score:3)
Even if they are losing money on these accounts(which is by no means a given), the time and population restrictions on the offer should put a prett
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the pace of technological progress outpaces inflation. IOW, in a country where productivity keeps rising such a deal will most likely make them money in the long term until the cost of supporting an outdated technology outweighs the income from those contracts. At which point they can simply upgrade you.
E.g. when DSL was taking off in Germany, most DSL providers would offer you an upgrade which doubled the speed of your internet connection without raising the price. They got a renewed contract out of
Corporatocracy (Score:3)
and they can't have had Comcast Internet in the last 90 days.
So they don't really give a crap about children or poverty, they're just trying to grab a few of their competitors customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Just Doesn't Go Far Enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Dont NEED it?
Try applying for a job without the internet. Cant be done as all HR people are lazy as hell.
Very soon you will need internet access as much as needing a telephone. Most executives orgasm at the though of firing all CSR's and require all payments and support to go through the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Dont NEED it?
Try applying for a job without the internet.
Public libraries
Re: (Score:2)
Not all libraries have internet, and if they do, it's often broken, slow, or there's not enough computers for everyone. Computers at libraries are often full of viruses, both the digital type and the organic type. I am not saying that libraries are useless in this regard, but they leave a lot to be desired.
Re: (Score:2)
so you use the libraries internet then.
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal is to get service to those who otherwise couldn't afford it, this restriction seems reasonable. There are obviously corner cases (loss of job, death of primary wage earner etc) where someone's situation changes suddenly.
The restriction also is fairly easy to work around for many people by dropping Comcast for 91 days and either doing without or rely
For low income families WITH A CHILD. (Score:2)
There is a requirement that you have a child, if you don't then they don't want you.
At comcast we feel that families without children are a scourge of humanity and should be eradicated....
I am betting they are getting a government kickback thus the child requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
A kickback in the form of that they offered this so the NBC merger would be allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Couples without children are self-eradicating.
I've been on Comcast's low-speed for years (Score:2)
I'm paying way more than $10 a month for it though.
I've got a fix for that. (Score:2)
Have some children. That oughtta make everything cheaper!
Wow lots of anger.. but this is really good news. (Score:3)
So this is a new thing, it's optional, and it will probably bring the Internet to a reasonable number of disadvantaged children who currently don't have it.
That seems like a good thing.
Now I understand they are doing this as part of a previous deal, and that they could have done more, and that they still have horrible service or whatever. But this is still quite good news. I think this will really help some people - possibly really change some lives for the better - and it will help more people if the news gets around well.
There goes community wifi (Score:3)
We almost had something, with the various community wifi programs, in varying amounts of formality and size, happening around the country. People who couldn't afford the $40+ per month for broadband and didn't need all that speed were sharing access points, and it was mostly good (except which RIAA/MPAA came knocking). Now, in comcast land, the impetus will be crushed for those parents with no money, to get out and do something technical for their community. Oh well, I should look on the bright side, that means that they can share the connection they have without needing to press for cash (much). Too bad you have to have children to use it. It seems to me that such discount plans should be available regardless of whether one has a child. Single people need to hunt for jobs, apply for foodstamps, improve their computer skills, and find ways to fill the empty hopeless hours, just as much as parents do.
stop subsidizing babies! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it pays to be Poor in America! Where else in the world can you do nothing and have everything?
I bet you think those political cartoons on The Onion [theonion.com] are serious commentary...
Re: (Score:2)
Who said the child had to be a biological-related child? Who says he/she can't be adopted?
And, also, one child is hardly "rampant" breeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Without children, it will be challenging to have intellectual innovations, a viable work force, a military, or potential explorers in fifty, sixty, or a hundred years.
Yes, some people have too many. Others have kids at a time when they can support them, and then lose the ability to support them. It's hard to fault someone for having kids they could support when the new inability to support them is something they have little control over.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly required. They offered it as a condition of being allowed to merge with NBC.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - AT&T offers products only to "low income" homes - one i would like.. Life line - its a 10$ a month phone line that can only call 911.. i don't use my home phone - but i have it because i have a kid .. and if i need 911 a land line is the surest thing to always work. Because i'm not "low income" mine is 40$ a month after taxes.. (and no i don't have long distance - and no i don't use it)
Re: (Score:2)
Great...just great. Eternal September [wikipedia.org] all over again...except this time, with more gangsta style language everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
YOu need to think about a job that doesn't require a security clearance, file bankruptcy.
If you are upside down in your house, loose it during the bankruptcy.
Thanks to the republicans a GB, bankruptcy now exceed 3000 dollars, paid up front.
Speak to an attoprnty, natch.
Seek other in your situation. A group of people can take advantage of some scales of economy.
"Why even study for a career when the system seems to take better care of you when you don't?"
That's an illusion. I've been on both sides, in the lion