[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
[–] captainfarts ago (edited ago)
They should literally fix the pipes too. Some places have terrible plumbing. Of course, I would hope that they wouldn't throw broadband at a building that's crumbling. What's that, Grammy? Your sink has been broken for 5 months? Don't worry. Now you can watch a YouTube clip on sink repair in stunning 1080p... on that old CRT your grandson left you when he went to college a decade ago!
[–] Traditional_Values 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Meanwhile I'm paying out my ass for it. Where's my subsidy? Oh yea, I work for a living. Dem programs.
[–] lepricpolymath 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
This could be beneficial in poorer communities. As a person that grew up in a poor family in a poor neighborhood I'm of the belief that a decent Internet connection can be a major contribution to those that want to improve their lives. I also think that taking it a step further and teaching those individuals just how to find what they're looking for on the Internet would have even more effect.
[–] lepricpolymath 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
I'd disagree with that. I'm now what would be considered middle class and I wouldn't feel fucked in the ass because I did not receive for free what others did. I'm in a good position to pay for my Internet connection, and whilst I take a bit of umbrage with what Comcast charges for it, in the end it's a service I want and am willing to pay for.
I'd also say that this service should probably be heavily filtered. I support its use as a means of education, not entertainment.
[–] alizure 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
While this is ok for those people, what about everyone else who's having to pay out the ass for shitty internet? Its not fair plain and simple. People living in rural areas get horrible internet speeds. For instance, some people living in rural areas get 1MB or less. The speed is inconsistent and those people cant change internet companies because there ARE NO other internet companies. I think the internet companies should be held accountable for this kinda stuff. Its either put up with shitty service, or do without internet. And in today's world the internet is vital for a lot of people.
[–] Headygains ago
I totally agree with this, I grew up in a rural area and until recently my mother still had HughesNet an terrible services but it was the only she could get beyond dial-up. She now has dsl and it barely hits 1MB on a good day.
[–] Headygains ago
So, as a tax-payer who has to pay for my housing/vehicle/utilities I'm incredibly irritated by the reliance on government "Entitlements". I feel entitlements should be earned and not given, it makes no sense to literally give someone the ability to leech off of citizens who are grinding their lives away. If you got everything handed to you would ever want to work for it again? I do agree that the ideas behind these programs are mostly genuine and not bad, but there a huge differences between what happens on paper and what will happen in reality.
[–] SkepticalMartian ago
If they're too poor to afford basic internet, what exactly are they browsing the internet on? I don't agree with the government subsidising a program like this when ultimately it does very little to solve the underlying problem of why they're in that situation to begin with.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
[–] l-emmerdeur 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
I would argue the cost to enter the market is prohibitively high. That, coupled with the fact that internet access is as vital as electricity or water means it should be offered as a public utility.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
[–] HereIAm 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
How is classify as utility and privatized mutually exclusive?
[–] Vanwe 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Exactly this. For an example of how this can be done, look at electricity in Texas. It's one of the things Texas got right. Easiest way to do this would be to regulate "pole access" in order to lower the barrier to entry, while leaving the actual businesses relatively unregulated.
[–] Clash957 ago
I think making in a utility is the best option. Despite what is increasingly become the public opinion that the US Government bungles everything, I don't believe that is the case. After all, the government is supposed to be of the people, for the people. It is hard to argue that one can reasonably function in this day and age without the use of the internet. I also think the United States could use a great public works project such as this so long as we can keep corruption and cronyism to a minimum.