Free Internet at Your Expense for Low Income Families

[Foxfyre]

The federal grant to Tampa was something over $2 million dollars. Now say there are roughly 39,000 incorporated villages, towns, and cities in the USA and say every one of them applied for a federal grant to furnish free wifi for their poor and that averaged out to $1 million per town. The total bill for all the grants would be in the neighborhood of about $12 billion dollars if I did the math right.

What do you think? Would we get our money's worth from that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The federal grant to Tampa was something over $2 million dollars. Now say there are roughly 39,000 incorporated villages, towns, and cities in the USA and say every one of them applied for a federal grant to furnish free wifi for their poor and that averaged out to $1 million per town. The total bill for all the grants would be in the neighborhood of about $12 billion dollars if I did the math right.

What do you think? Would we get our money's worth from that?

Does paying a million dollars to give a town with a population of 500 people free broadband worth it? Of course not. It's not even worth it for companies to wire those towns in the first place.

But that's not what we're discussing here. You're making a false equivalence.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

New York handled this situation in a good way, I think.

They're replacing all the old payphones with wi-fi kiosks on the street. Each one of the kiosks has a touch screen, can be used to make free phone calls, has USB charger ports, and emits high-speed free wifi.

And it's costing the city almost nothing.

 

[danielpalos]

How much is this program costing the individual taxpayer?

doesn't matter. Producers paying for their own AND for poor people to get HSI free of charge.
That's bullshit.
Next thing government will tax us extra so these people can have free cell phone usage.
I am sick and tired of busting my ass to buy the things I want and need only to see do-gooder liberal politicians take even more of my hard earned coin and hand it to those who refuse to produce for themsleves.
Why does a person who lives in taxpayer subsidized housing, lives off the public dole and more than likely CAN work but the system allows them to no work, need with high speed internet access?. Let them use dial-up.. They can get that free through Net Zero.
This is a terrible misuse of taxpayer resources.
Florida may be gaining population, but it is not gaining population of people who are looking to open new businesses and those looking for a prosperous economy. Those people are leaving Florida. The taxes keep rising and the governments keep demanding more from property owners. The real estate market is in a shambles. No one or almost no one can sell a home. The salary structure sucks.....And now this.
Florida.....Saw it off, let it float to Cuba and call it a day.

' + title + '

Healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will enable greater, market friendliness.

 

[Foxfyre]

The federal grant to Tampa was something over $2 million dollars. Now say there are roughly 39,000 incorporated villages, towns, and cities in the USA and say every one of them applied for a federal grant to furnish free wifi for their poor and that averaged out to $1 million per town. The total bill for all the grants would be in the neighborhood of about $12 billion dollars if I did the math right.

What do you think? Would we get our money's worth from that?

Does paying a million dollars to give a town with a population of 500 people free broadband worth it? Of course not. It's not even worth it for companies to wire those towns in the first place.

But that's not what we're discussing here. You're making a false equivalence.

Not if the federal government decided free wifi had to be provide to poor and low income people all over the country just as many other government programs apply to everybody and not just the highly populated areas.

A $2+ million grant went to Tampa with a population of just over 300,000. The big cities like New York, LA, Chicago, Houston have populationas in the multi millions and many other cities are significantly larger than Tampa. The city I live in is the lower end of what constitutes a large city. Considering the general inefficiency expected from large government programs and the extra costs from the significant bureaucracies that are created to implement them, plus the fact that it is likely a rare town that doesn't have somebody who qualifies as 'low income', I think $1 million per incorporated town is probably a pretty conservative estimate.

 

[Indeependent]

How many of those people with free internet have a ghost's chance in hell of getting a prestigious position?

No one starts at the top.

I work in some of these neighborhoods and they don't use their free smart phones for job hunting.

Did you do a survey?

I'd love to hear the methodology you used to come up with that conclusion.

You ever work in an area for 7 years and see how the same people show up for the same low paying job for 7 years?
Methodologies are for agendas.
I believe many people in poor areas use their Internet to find better/good jobs; they simply don't get them in the droves they need to change their neighborhood.

Yes, I have worked "in an area for 7 years". I'm not understanding your point.

What insight into the personal use of smart phones by the locals does that give you, exactly?

It doesn't really help them advance their lives in terms of upward mobility.
It does keep them busy texting and watching YouTube when the upward mobility never happens.
So I am being taxed to entertain people I don't know.