Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comcast Launches Program For Low-Income Families

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the internet-for-the-people dept.

The Internet 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."

cancel ×

229 comments

First low-income post! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471070)

Unfortunately now I can't pay the elec^C^C^C NO CARRIER

Re:First low-income post! (1)

tekgoblin (1675894) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471094)

The program was actually launched a while ago, for some reason websites felt the need to revisit it.

Re:First low-income post! (2)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471738)

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:First low-income post! (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471846)

You still need power for dial-up modems. :)

Cartman's going to love this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471074)

All the poories get on the internet.

Re:Cartman's going to love this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471426)

I wish I could mod this up so the South Park creators will see this. Your presentation is probably not PC but I think it's right up Trey and Matt's alley.

Think of the children. (2)

damnbunni (1215350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471088)

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:Think of the children. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471162)

I was under the impression that internet access was generally available at public libraries.

Public libraries (4, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471354)

That's true today, but the entire public library system is under assault and I would not be surprised to see it dismantled within a decade. Slashdotters routinely make remarks like "who needs libraries when we have Google Books!" Libraries are trying hard to remain relevant. Free, public internet access is one of their real services to the community ... but now on Slashdot, and at town budget meetings, people can stand up and shout "who needs libraries when Comcast offers free^H^H^H^H cheap(er) internet access to (some) poor people (in select markets)!"

Re:Public libraries (0)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471564)

It is not a bad thing if libraries are shut down after becoming less relavent. If cheap/free digital books become as common as TV then we won't need them anymore. We only need a few redundant collections to preserve hard copies in case of an electromagnetic disaster.

Re:Public libraries (3, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471702)

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:Public libraries (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471750)

Yes that is what I was thinking. But we wouldn't need one or two building per town anymore each holding two sets of harry potter books.

Re:Public libraries (2)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471586)

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. (2)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471618)

Slashdotters routinely make remarks like "who needs libraries when we have Google Books!" Libraries are trying hard to remain relevant. Free, public internet access is one of their real services to the community ... but now on Slashdot, and at town budget meetings, people can stand up and shout "who needs libraries when Comcast offers free^H^H^H^H cheap(er) internet access to (some) poor people (in select markets)!"

I've been on /. for a while and I have never posted that we don't need libraries.

In my opinion, we need MORE libraries. And I'll be in the library today.

It doesn't matter how cheap Comcast offers their service. A free, public library is always needed.

Re:Public libraries (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471730)

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.

Re:Think of the children. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471212)

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 dole, smoke drugs/drink alcohol, etc. So unless you propose having everyone take drugs tests, and submit to Comcast for interviews before getting this deal, then I think "Any family with at least one child who qualifies for the free lunch program at public schools" is a pretty fair way to go about it.

Re:Think of the children. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471342)

Right, "assume guilt" (in this case of being a lazy, drug smoking do-nothing) is the policy the US was built on!

Handouts (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471384)

It's not charity to entice people to buy Comcast's services.

They did this because they care sooooo much.. (5, Informative)

chihowa (366380) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471096)

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:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (1)

DanTheManMS (1039636) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471192)

To be fair, from what I hear it was a condition that Comcast themselves offered. Of course, one could then go ahead and say that they had no choice but to offer such a program in order to gain approval for the deal in the first place, so I guess in the end it's a moot point.

Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471714)

At any rate, it's not as if they're losing out. More customers, more total profit, and good PR. Something says we should have made harsher demands on them than "expand your market share."

Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471250)

I get ipadzz?

Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471256)

That's just enough bandwidth to stream Netflix in SD.

Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471328)

A complete DVD-R in 7.1 hours!

Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (2)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471382)

That's just enough bandwidth to stream Netflix in SD.

Then it's better than what I get from Comcast for $100/month.

Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471270)

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:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471400)

...and after 3 years, the deal is done and prices go back to "normal" at which point the Good Thing becomes NoThing (tm). Meanwhile Comcast still keeps NBC/Universal which is a Bad Thing (tm) but that's another story!

Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471778)

By that time NBC/Universal will look like TimeWarner once AOL was done with it. It won't be worth much either.

Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471850)

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:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471512)

Isn't broadband and basic cable some sort of new human right now? Should the poor have to pay anything at all? Are The Rich paying their fair share? /ducks

Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471766)

Still, it is more than what the slashdot community has done.

How does it feel to be lower on the morality scale than Comcast?

Re:They did this because they care sooooo much.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471782)

Good that you can remind yourself that nothing has appeared on the radar that can threaten your current level of hatred and prejudice towards private corporations.

Support Municipal Cable (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471112)

Support governmental cable. When Comcast has the monopoly, you pay!

Re:Support Municipal Cable (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471154)

Ha! Government run services. In the United States. Good luck.

Re:Support Municipal Cable (5, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471194)

If you think it's expensive now, wait till it's free...

Re:Support Municipal Cable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471502)

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.

Welcome to the U.S.S.A.!

Re:Support Municipal Cable (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471662)

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:Support Municipal Cable (0)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471798)

No, it just means that you're paying the real price for those middle class services that you receive from people whose jobs we don't deem to be valuable enough to pay a living wage.

Yeah! Just like my water bill. Oh, wait. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471646)

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:Support Municipal Cable (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471776)

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 Internet comes to mind...

 

Re:Support Municipal Cable (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471170)

Fuck you.

Re:Support Municipal Cable (0)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471258)

Fuck You.

Was some guy riding round town with the girl you love? Is there pain in your chest, but you still wish her the best?

Re:Support Municipal Cable (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471244)

With Comcast, I pay for the internet and cable I use. With a government run cable/internet, I pay for what I use, and what my neighbor uses, and what the guy down the street uses. If I decide not to use it, I still have to pay for it. No thanks.

Re:Support Municipal Cable (1)

dontbgay (682790) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471316)

Really? It's a pretty popular business model to run a municipal exchange just like a for-profit does, just without the profit part.

Honestly, I have a hard time buying the line that its everyone riding off someone else's dime. If the system worked and people like you actually worked to a sensible solution instead of decrying any progress as the second coming of Karl Marx, we'd probably be a lot further along.

Re:Support Municipal Cable (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471372)

Just like government-run water, sewer, and electricity, right?

In this town, our municipal trash collection is pay-per-use as well, actually.

Re:Support Municipal Cable (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471402)

With a government run cable/internet, I pay for what I use, and what my neighbor uses, and what the guy down the street uses, and my neighbor pays for what I use, and the guy down the street pays for what I use.

Re:Support Municipal Cable (2, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471548)

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 that's ok?

Re:Support Municipal Cable (1)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471672)

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!

Who Knew? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471120)

Wow, Comcast is a generous, community oriented company that just wants to help people. I feel all warm and fuzzy.

Re:Who Knew? (1)

tekgoblin (1675894) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471146)

That 250GB bandwidth cap sure makes me fuzzy ;)

Re:Who Knew? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471254)

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 bar so high for what most people want - a basic compliment of cable channels, HD, and a basic broadband connection - that pretty much everyone is going to be low income after they meet their revenue goals. What they wanted for this pretty modest package of services was a modest car payment, not a cable bill.

And of course, their Program Guide is rife with advertising.

Re:Who Knew? (1)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471438)

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:Who Knew? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471272)

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:Who Knew? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471554)

You need WolframAlpha to calculate max throughput per month? Seriously??

1.5Mbits/s * 3600s/h * 24h/day * 30 days/month / 8 bits/byte / 1024M/G = 474G/mo. Considering there is PPP overhead of maybe 1% and retransmissions and reconnects, this gets you down to no more than 400-450G/mo, theoretical.

It's a sad state of affairs that using a calculator these days is too hard.

Re:Who Knew? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471696)

"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:Who Knew? (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471288)

I do half my downloading at the girlfriend's on the weekends, but that's not really a solution

Re:Who Knew? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471350)

I do half my uploading from your girlfriend's on all days.

Re:Who Knew? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471182)

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.

Re:Who Knew? (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471208)

If you want your "lazy ass welfare neighbors" to be no longer "lazy ass welfare neighbors", why not start a business, train them, and hire them? Not everybody is on public assistance by choice.

Re:Who Knew? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471330)

Because if they're in a bad spot, it's obviously because they're bad, lazy people and it's a situation of their own making. Haven't you heard? We all live in a vacuum now. To suggest otherwise is unrealistic, evil socialist talk.

Re:Who Knew? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471616)

Because if they're in a bad spot, it's obviously because they're bad, lazy people and it's a situation of their own making. Haven't you heard? We all live in a vacuum now. To suggest otherwise is unrealistic, evil socialist talk.

It's true! I'm bleeding from my eyes, nose and ears even now.

Re:Who Knew? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471658)

Haven't you heard? We all live in a vacuum now.

Of course I didn't, I'm in a vacuum!

Re:Who Knew? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471560)

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 are angry at your neighbors because your neighbors are getting a crumb... You manage to think of your neighbor as though you were locked in a zero-sum game with him and be a terrible custodian of your own interests. Impressive. Most Impressive.

How elegant... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471124)

A revenue maximizing price-discrimination tactic and a PR coup that should keep those meddlesome regulators from breathing down their duopolist-at-best necks... Plus, the odds are good that at least some of your customers will feel more shafted by the fact that nasty, undeserving, poor people are getting low prices than by the fact that those prices only look low because all the other prices are so high.

Comcastic work, boys.

Re:How elegant... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471150)

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:How elegant... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471306)

This program appears to do just that(in addition to fulfilling their NBC merger requirements at what is likely a fairly low cost). Depending on the area, you can't get that particular internet tier, if they offer it unbundled at all, for less than $20/month and sometimes rather more.

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 find anything that doesn't have at least a $15 base price, and often nickel-and-dimes you up toward $30...

Re:How elegant... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471486)

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 spring for the supersize.

Re:How elegant... (2)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471398)

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:How elegant... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471740)

Before any of you jump all over me, I want you to think about this for a moment (and I'm being sincere). Most likely, this program is aimed at latino and black communities. Historically they rank the highest group of unemployed and last to actually depend on Internet based technologies and services. If anything, this low priced service offering has the potential to bridge the "digital divide". But that's more of a cultural preference than one strictly of cost within that demographic, so I'm not entirely convinced it was ever a vocal problem except for what the politicians are saying.

Another (admittedly biased) view (4, Interesting)

DanTheManMS (1039636) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471156)

As mentioned before, the launch isn't exactly new, and it was a provision of the NBC/Comcast merger. Nevertheless, it has gotten more attention than usual in the past day or two. Here's an alternative viewpoint, heavily biased against Comcast but still worth reading (at least in my opinion): http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Highlights-10-Broadband-in-DC-116216 [dslreports.com]

Comcast 'Cares' about propaganda (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471444)

As mentioned before, the launch isn't exactly new, and it was a provision of the NBC/Comcast merger. Nevertheless, it has gotten more attention than usual in the past day or two.

Especially on NBC affiliates.

Oh, Really? (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471166)

I wonder if the price goes up to $350 a month after a year on that plan?

Unsustainable business plan (2)

avatar4d (192234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471178)

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 (1)

erice (13380) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471260)

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, all bets are off.

Re:Inflation isn't universal (1)

avatar4d (192234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471440)

Touche. Point taken.

Re:Unsustainable business plan (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471358)

The merger consent deal only required them to do this for three years(not 3 years per subscribing household, 3 years, clock starts ticking toward the point where they needn't offer it anymore). It also excludes anyone who has had comcast service in the last 90 days, or owes comcast any money or hardware from past service, or doesn't meet the income criteria...

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 pretty tight lid on overall costs.

Re:Unsustainable business plan (1)

he-sk (103163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471524)

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 it. Now that normal ADSL speeds are maxed out they are offering much faster VDSL lines for the same price.

Poor = Rich (0)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471204)

I guess it pays to be Poor in America! Where else in the world can you do nothing and have everything?

Re:Poor = Rich (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471356)

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:Poor = Rich (1)

dontbgay (682790) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471422)

Are you poor? What are you doing squandering your life away working hard and having nothing? You, too could have it all. More and more people each day are making their way to the good life. All you have to do is slide into poverty! Hell, if its so great, why aren't you trying it, instead of badmouthing those freeloaders on the internet?

Re:Poor = Rich (0)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471700)

I might just do that! Why should I break my back 40 hours a week when I can live off tax payers money and get a bunch of free or discounted services! Clealy I'm in the wrong line of Work (or lack of).

Sickening (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471292)

Why is rampant breeding considered an activity worth subsidizing?

We subsidize scientific research because we want more of it. We subsidize green energy because we need more of it.

Then we subsidize children in an already overpopulated world.

Intelligent people need to get together and demand equal treatment for non-breeders.

Re:Sickening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471530)

Non-breeders will be dead and forgotten in a few years. Breeders have children (votes), which represent power.

Re:Sickening (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471614)

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:Sickening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471796)

7 billion people is too many.

We need to stop encouraging it.

If people want to make some silly lifestyle out of spawning then let them pay for it.

The planet can't and the heavily indebted taxpayer can't.

If the purpose is to help the poor become connected then guidelines should be neutral with respect to children.

I'm tired of being treated like a second class citizen by official policy because I choose not to spawn more resource squandering diarrhea machines.

Re:Sickening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471736)

Maybe the idea is that if dad/boyfriend/acquaintance can download porn (admittedly, slowly), he won't be banging wife/girlfriend/neighbor as often; ergo, less children on the dole.

Corporatocracy (2)

MrL0G1C (867445) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471370)

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.

Just Doesn't Go Far Enough (3, Interesting)

sarbonn (1796548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471406)

While I'll never qualify for this, I still find myself having to criticize Comcast for doing everything possible to avoid helping as many people as they can. The very last line of the stipulation is what ruins it for me, when they state: "and they can't have had Comcast Internet in the last 90 days." If people qualify for it because they NEED it, stop doing everything possible to keep people from being able to qualify for it. Having had Comcast in the last 90 days doesn't somehow make someone who is on the list of those in poverty from being any less poor. Just give them the damn benefit like everyone else who falls into the "need" demographic. Yeah, I know no one really "needs" it, but if they're going through and pretending to be helpful, at least be helpful.

Re:Just Doesn't Go Far Enough (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471534)

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:Just Doesn't Go Far Enough (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471584)

Dont NEED it?

Try applying for a job without the internet.

Public libraries

Re:Just Doesn't Go Far Enough (1)

uncqual (836337) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471804)

If someone currently has Comcast internet access, they are somehow paying big bucks for the service so they obviously think they can afford it.

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 relying on other solutions for internet access (DSL if available, public library, friends and neighbors, school, and the like).

Can I Swipe My EBT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471410)

WTF?? Where do I swipe my EBT card to get this?? And WFT?! 10$!

For low income families WITH A CHILD. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471506)

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.

no choice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37471620)

comcast was REQUIRED to do this. That's why there are so many restrictions on it, to allow the least possible clientbase for it.

I've been on Comcast's low-speed for years (1)

n0dna (939092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471638)

I'm paying way more than $10 a month for it though.

I've got a fix for that. (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471682)

Have some children. That oughtta make everything cheaper!

Wow lots of anger.. but this is really good news. (2)

JMZero (449047) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471686)

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.

Conditioned to hate Comcast (1)

acidradio (659704) | more than 2 years ago | (#37471818)

I think everyone in the US has been permanently conditioned to dislike or loathe Comcast. Comcast could truly change its ways and we would all still hate them! I almost think its time for them to be broken up a la AT&T in 1984.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...