Windows 7: FCC Outlines $9.95 Broadband Service for Poor Homes

Read more at:
Maximum PC | FCC Outlines $9.95 Broadband Service for Poor Homes

Just what we need ... more government spending!

Locally a couple of school princapals were caught getting free lunches for their childern. Nothing much more then a slap on the wrists were given to them.

I seriously doubt that program would really help very many people...first, because it is limited to only a particular sector of the poor. Secondly, because so many of the ISPs are supporting it, because I once had a discounted cable TV service with one of the ISPs listed, and I terminated it, because with programming that was offered wasn't very enticing, and it was nothing more than bait to get me to signup for internet and telephone. While I shall keep my internet connection, I intend to terminate the telephone also, because I can get better service on landline. The point is, that the reason that the ISPs are supporting it, is because they see something in it to their advantage...not necessarily to that of the intended users.

i think thats funny because most of the "poor" people i associated with don't have computers. I just gave away one of my old laptops to a needy family today. we should work on getting them computers first, not internet. children growing up in a home without a computer are going to be way behind the curve

They're out there....

Free Computers For Low Income Families - InfoBarrel

wait a sec.. so just because someones poorer it means they get something cheaper... geez when will the hard working tax payer get preferential treatment over others.

I understand some people cant help there situation and im not trying to stop people getting help... but here in the uk id say 30% of all jobless people are jsut lazy arses!

almost daily in the paper i read "man/woman claims £20k benifits a year for bad back, seen running marathon"
and all they get is a slap on the wrist...
yet if i walked into a bank and stole £20k id go to prison.. i dont see a difference personally... rant over

Badger906:

What part of FCC did you miss? Last I checked, other than U.S. contributions to British defense and a few elements in the foreign aid budgets, Britain is still an independent country. To put it simply: 1) this will cost U.S. taxpayers virtually nothing; 2) there are many people struggling as a result of a protracted recession; 3) giving children a fair shot at success is in everyone's interest; and 4) I haven't met too many lazy unemployed people and I have hired quite a few over the past decade. Oh, yes the U.S. could also save a lot more money by not propping up the defense (and economies) of some European allies. The vasy majority of unemployed people are not freeloaders - sadly the same cannot be said about quite a few countries around the world. We need to deal with enough right wing, closed minded, alleged conservatives on this side of the Atlantic. So why exactly is an internal political decision here any concern of yours?

Stephen

Geez nothing like a first post keyboard warrior..

yeah i know its US only its was just a rant in general.

The internet is NOT a essential element in life..

And just because you havent met any lazy people doesnt mean they dont exist

And my main point was WHY should someone with less money get it cheaper.. maybe some some people need the internet, pay full whack but struggle as a result.
Lets ramp the argument up slightly.. say you just bought a house and paid $300,000, its a new house and all new neighbors.. next day "Bill" moves in next door.
You great Bill and then he says "cant believe i got this house for $50,000, that new help the poorer people is great"

Would you honestly be feel happy knowing you paid for something that someone else can get cheaper, jsut because they have less money?

Why not lower prices across the board and help everyone out.

And before you bring armed forces into it, dont forget when helped/followed you into Iraq and Afghanistan, so dont imply your "propping" us up

It's very apparent that this topic can only turn political and I suggest it was well intentioned but should be pulled to observe our rule #8