Free Internet at Your Expense for Low Income Families

[Soggy in NOLA]

A good and timely piece from American Spectator on "positive rights". The central context is health care as a positive right (which is actually an oxymoron) - but the same principle applies to internet access as one.

This thread is about free internet access, so not sure what you are talking about. It sounds off topic to me.

It's spot on Shittowel. And you know it. It's about the ever increasing list of free shit people are entitled to.

Here's an idea.. instead of telling us what you are entitled to.. how a bout a list of your responsibilities.

This oughtta be good.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Internet access... paid for by someone else...... the new unalienable human right.

You get your freedom free, so they get their internet free. Not a bad trade considering you could die or get messed up in the military for freedom.

How fucking stupid are you? Seriously, did your parents do this to you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Internet access... paid for by someone else...... the new unalienable human right.

You get your freedom free, so they get their internet free. Not a bad trade considering you could die or get messed up in the military for freedom.

Okay. IF he is serious here, Shintao's post is my new nomination for the most convoluted and twisted logic of the day.

(I'm hoping he will correct it.)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Internet access... paid for by someone else...... the new unalienable human right.

You get your freedom free, so they get their internet free. Not a bad trade considering you could die or get messed up in the military for freedom.

Okay. IF he is serious here, Shintao's post is my new nomination for the most convoluted and twisted logic of the day.

(I'm hoping he will correct it.)

Shittowel's either perpetually stoned, or, just really incapable of cogent thought.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If we were going to spend the money, infrastructure for rural broadband access instead would be my choice.

It's not just about personal use, there are also lots of farms and businesses out here in the sticks that could and would benefit. You can't expand to internet sales or use many business applications on dialup service, and for many rural small businesses the cost of satellite service (assuming it's available) eats into the bottom line. As hard hit as some cities are, the rural economy in many areas got the bust without really benefiting much from the boom years before it. Any hand up to new opportunity would be helpful.

Although every phone bill has included a fee for rural broadband for years, makes me wonder what's been done with that money.

Sadly the huge lion's share of all federal monies is swallowed up by the bureaucracy and never gets to its intended target. That is why I oppose the federal government doing muich of anything outside of its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Most state governments are far more efficient and local governments evenmoreso--the best solution for most rural problems are private coops by which almost all of the funding collected is assigned to fixing the problem.

I know there are exceptions and we all can probably name at least one. But I think Americans have become far too dependent on government instead of looking to correct what needs fixing themselves. There is a solution for almost every situation if enough heads determine to figure it out and then muster the gumption to just do it.

However there are areas in New Mexico that still do not have any form of public utilities--no electricity, no public telephone service, no broadband, no piped in natural gas, etc. The people who choose to live in those areas accept that as the way it is for those who choose to live where they live. They use propane lighting, heating, etc., or utilize wind chargers or propane fueled generators, satellite phones and computer service, etc. etc. and they get along just fine. After visiting with some of the rugged individuals who choose that lifestyle they wouldn't give up their freedom and way of life for the amenities that we folks in the city enjoy for anything. I sort of envy them actually.

No, I'm not talking about a tax. It's a fee paid directly to the phone company to subsidize them building broadband access in rural areas. It never goes to the government.

I'd like to know what's happening to that money.

Sure, for individuals it's a choice to live in those areas. But until and unless urban farming reaches a scale where cities are going to be self-sufficient in food production, or you want to import all of your produce, y'all need the farms and orchards in more fertile areas near major cities to stay afloat. And the people who live in those areas need to make a living to be able to stay in business, something that's been exceedingly difficult for family truck and dairy farmers in the last 30 years.

And here when they go our of business it's not to sell to agribusiness, it's to sell to developers and that farmland is gone forever. Which means more imported food, more produce lying on a truck for days instead of getting there quickly, and higher dairy prices.

There are a lot of areas like the one where I live, where there are still a huge number of family farms, orchards, and dairies that serve the I-95 corridor. Something as simple as broadband internet access for those businesses can do a lot increase efficiency, which saves both time and money.

In some depressed rural areas unemployment right now is running 20% and real estate isn't moving for people to be able to get out. There are a lot of home based businesses that can be launched or jobs with companies at a distance that can be worked from home to help families cope...but not on dialup.

Yep, I live here so I'm biased. Sue me. But seriously, if you're going to spend the money isn't it better to invest it in an area where some of it will come back in increased earnings, jobs and taxes than to throw it away?

That "fee" is mandated by the federal government, and paid to them for the purpose of expanding broadband access. Any questions about how it is being spent should be directed to them, not your phone company.

Snowe Supports Expanding Fee to Increase Broadband Access

 

[Foxfyre]

If we were going to spend the money, infrastructure for rural broadband access instead would be my choice.

It's not just about personal use, there are also lots of farms and businesses out here in the sticks that could and would benefit. You can't expand to internet sales or use many business applications on dialup service, and for many rural small businesses the cost of satellite service (assuming it's available) eats into the bottom line. As hard hit as some cities are, the rural economy in many areas got the bust without really benefiting much from the boom years before it. Any hand up to new opportunity would be helpful.

Although every phone bill has included a fee for rural broadband for years, makes me wonder what's been done with that money.

Sadly the huge lion's share of all federal monies is swallowed up by the bureaucracy and never gets to its intended target. That is why I oppose the federal government doing muich of anything outside of its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Most state governments are far more efficient and local governments evenmoreso--the best solution for most rural problems are private coops by which almost all of the funding collected is assigned to fixing the problem.

I know there are exceptions and we all can probably name at least one. But I think Americans have become far too dependent on government instead of looking to correct what needs fixing themselves. There is a solution for almost every situation if enough heads determine to figure it out and then muster the gumption to just do it.

However there are areas in New Mexico that still do not have any form of public utilities--no electricity, no public telephone service, no broadband, no piped in natural gas, etc. The people who choose to live in those areas accept that as the way it is for those who choose to live where they live. They use propane lighting, heating, etc., or utilize wind chargers or propane fueled generators, satellite phones and computer service, etc. etc. and they get along just fine. After visiting with some of the rugged individuals who choose that lifestyle they wouldn't give up their freedom and way of life for the amenities that we folks in the city enjoy for anything. I sort of envy them actually.

No, I'm not talking about a tax. It's a fee paid directly to the phone company to subsidize them building broadband access in rural areas. It never goes to the government.

I'd like to know what's happening to that money.

Sure, for individuals it's a choice to live in those areas. But until and unless urban farming reaches a scale where cities are going to be self-sufficient in food production, or you want to import all of your produce, y'all need the farms and orchards in more fertile areas near major cities to stay afloat. And the people who live in those areas need to make a living to be able to stay in business, something that's been exceedingly difficult for family truck and dairy farmers in the last 30 years.

And here when they go our of business it's not to sell to agribusiness, it's to sell to developers and that farmland is gone forever. Which means more imported food, more produce lying on a truck for days instead of getting there quickly, and higher dairy prices.

There are a lot of areas like the one where I live, where there are still a huge number of family farms, orchards, and dairies that serve the I-95 corridor. Something as simple as broadband internet access for those businesses can do a lot increase efficiency, which saves both time and money.

In some depressed rural areas unemployment right now is running 20% and real estate isn't moving for people to be able to get out. There are a lot of home based businesses that can be launched or jobs with companies at a distance that can be worked from home to help families cope...but not on dialup.

Yep, I live here so I'm biased. Sue me. But seriously, if you're going to spend the money isn't it better to invest it in an area where some of it will come back in increased earnings, jobs and taxes than to throw it away?

I hear what you're saying, but I just can't accept that ANYTHING the federal government has EVER done for society was done as economically, effectively, or efficiently as it could have been done by more local government or the private sector.

And the more the federal government takes on, the more expensive, ineffective, and inefficient it gets even as local governments and the private sector are drained of resources they might have used to do it better.

I will give out of my pocket to help a needy child knowing that there are hundreds or thousands of children with similar needs. At least I know I made a difference for that one and took nothing away from the others.

But when the federal government swallows up the resources just maintaining the myriad levels of bureaucracy, that one child helped WILL take much away from any others. For that reason I can't justify a federal program by pointing to a few who are helped.

 

[shintao]

A good and timely piece from American Spectator on "positive rights". The central context is health care as a positive right (which is actually an oxymoron) - but the same principle applies to internet access as one.

This thread is about free internet access, so not sure what you are talking about. It sounds off topic to me.

It's spot on Shittowel. And you know it. It's about the ever increasing list of free shit people are entitled to.

Here's an idea.. instead of telling us what you are entitled to.. how a bout a list of your responsibilities.

This oughtta be good.

List:
1.______________

OK, your turn!!! Lets face it. You want the free ride, but being the greedy person you are, you don't want anyone else having the free ride. Isn't that right SoggyCum Mouth?

 

[shintao]

You get your freedom free, so they get their internet free. Not a bad trade considering you could die or get messed up in the military for freedom.

Okay. IF he is serious here, Shintao's post is my new nomination for the most convoluted and twisted logic of the day.

(I'm hoping he will correct it.)

Shittowel's either perpetually stoned, or, just really incapable of cogent thought.

SoggyCum Mouth is either an imbecile or the village idiot.

 

[Agit8r]

Coming soon for Low Income Folks. . . .Free Internet access and Other Perks

So what do you think? Is it a good use of your hard earned tax dollar to provide free internet access, computer instruction, and low cost computers to folks while you are busting your butt to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, and you pay for your internet access and full price for your computer as well as whatever you need to use it?

Or will the payoff of better skilled and trained people be worth it?

Would you approve of all porn sites, shopping sites, gaming sites, Facebook, Twitter, etc. being blocked by the internet provider to ensure that the computers will be used only for research and educational purposes?

Please discuss.

The Tampa Housing Authority has secured a $2.1 million federal grant to provide broadband Internet access to 23 public housing sites. Details are being finalized with Bright House Networks, which will provide the service, and residents will be connected beginning March 1.

The project will be the first such one in Florida and one of the few in the nation.

Internet access will be available to about 3,400 residents for free for the first two years. After two years, residents will be able to pay for the access for the next three years for $18.35 per month.

In addition to having Internet access, the housing authority also will make available a selection of computer training options, including basic computer and Internet keyboarding, Microsoft A+ Certification and an online computer curriculum for school-age children.

The program also will help residents get computers of their own by offering 1,000 computers for only $125 and will install almost 200 computers in two communities to offer residents a designated work space. The authority also will launch a website for residents to provide information on housing, employment opportunities, and the like.
Coming soon to Tampa public housing: Free Internet access

The question is, who benefits from there access. That would be the corporations. Let corporations pay for it.

See, that's the thing. This is a subsidy for phone/internet providers. Payback for campaign contributions/lobbying. Simple as that

 

[shintao]

Internet access... paid for by someone else...... the new unalienable human right.

You get your freedom free, so they get their internet free. Not a bad trade considering you could die or get messed up in the military for freedom.

Okay. IF he is serious here, Shintao's post is my new nomination for the most convoluted and twisted logic of the day.

(I'm hoping he will correct it.)

I figured I might be expressing an opinion that is above the logic of the village idiots here.

Let me make it simple for you, with crayola in hand. There isn't one American who isn't getting something free out of this government, and the hypocrites bitch when the person getting it isn't them.

I hope you wake the fuck up yourself.

 

[Rozman]

Don't Libraries already do this?How about the Schools set aside a day a week for the unemployed so they might start to look for a job after collecting for 99 weeks.

 

[Sallow]

This used to be a nice building. It was built to house people at low or no cost to them.

Look what happened to it.

You ever been in one of those "nice" buildings?

I was a mover..I know them inside out. They ain't "nice".

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How much is this program costing the individual taxpayer?

You tell me. $2.1 million to provide free internet service plus some other perks for one low income housing project in Tampa Fl. How much would that be if all low income housing projects in Florida are included. In all of the southeast? In all of the south? In all of the country?

The point isn't so much the amount allocated for this project but the precedent being set and the implications of that.

That works out to just over .13/taxpayer based on filings from 2009. Yes, I think I can handle paying an additional .13/year for this program.

Each taxpayer in this country owes $122,121 to pay off the national debt. Where does it end?

 

[Political Junky]

How much is this program costing the individual taxpayer?

You tell me. $2.1 million to provide free internet service plus some other perks for one low income housing project in Tampa Fl. How much would that be if all low income housing projects in Florida are included. In all of the southeast? In all of the south? In all of the country?

The point isn't so much the amount allocated for this project but the precedent being set and the implications of that.

Link?

 

[shintao]

This used to be a nice building. It was built to house people at low or no cost to them.

Look what happened to it.

This used to be a nice house. It was built for rich people who could write it off their taxes.

Look what happened to it.

 

[shintao]

You tell me. $2.1 million to provide free internet service plus some other perks for one low income housing project in Tampa Fl. How much would that be if all low income housing projects in Florida are included. In all of the southeast? In all of the south? In all of the country?

The point isn't so much the amount allocated for this project but the precedent being set and the implications of that.

That works out to just over .13/taxpayer based on filings from 2009. Yes, I think I can handle paying an additional .13/year for this program.

Each taxpayer in this country owes $122,121 to pay off the national debt. Where does it end?

Revolt I assume. You shouldn't be so irresponsible with your money.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This used to be a nice building. It was built to house people at low or no cost to them.

Look what happened to it.

You ever been in one of those "nice" buildings?

I was a mover..I know them inside out. They ain't "nice".

He said "used to". Again, you missed the whole fucking point and go off on some brainless diatribe about how much "you know"

Spare us.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Coming soon for Low Income Folks. . . .Free Internet access and Other Perks

So what do you think? Is it a good use of your hard earned tax dollar to provide free internet access, computer instruction, and low cost computers to folks while you are busting your butt to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, and you pay for your internet access and full price for your computer as well as whatever you need to use it?

Or will the payoff of better skilled and trained people be worth it?

Would you approve of all porn sites, shopping sites, gaming sites, Facebook, Twitter, etc. being blocked by the internet provider to ensure that the computers will be used only for research and educational purposes?

Please discuss.

The Tampa Housing Authority has secured a $2.1 million federal grant to provide broadband Internet access to 23 public housing sites. Details are being finalized with Bright House Networks, which will provide the service, and residents will be connected beginning March 1.

The project will be the first such one in Florida and one of the few in the nation.

Internet access will be available to about 3,400 residents for free for the first two years. After two years, residents will be able to pay for the access for the next three years for $18.35 per month.

In addition to having Internet access, the housing authority also will make available a selection of computer training options, including basic computer and Internet keyboarding, Microsoft A+ Certification and an online computer curriculum for school-age children.

The program also will help residents get computers of their own by offering 1,000 computers for only $125 and will install almost 200 computers in two communities to offer residents a designated work space. The authority also will launch a website for residents to provide information on housing, employment opportunities, and the like.
Coming soon to Tampa public housing: Free Internet access

This is part and parcel of the government as "benefactor in all things" mindset of both politicians and citizens that we all must reject in the future. We have also seen the founders original intent that both Senators' and the Representatives' (to the lower house) purpose was to attend to that business which would benefit the nation as a whole now devolve into a Lisa Murkowski/Charlie Rangel like "bring home the bacon" effort. This is simply a perversion of federal government's legitimate roll of protector of its citizens' individual liberties and the security of the nation as a whole.

In the spirit of Boehner et al's "cut go" rule (any new spending must find its funding by cannibalizing existing governmental programs) the best way to fund this boondoggle would be for the U.S. Congress to deny funds for this program (along with that for the newly approved high speed rail line in FL, etc). If FL still wished to have this program they can exercise states' rights and do it themselves. But this need not involve the hard earned money from those in, say, Boulder CO. Indeed, Florida could encourage Brighthouse to offer this service free by giving them tax credits if they so chose. “Cut GO” would then enter (notably restricted at the state level) by cutting back on other programs, say aid to FL counties to fight fires, trash pick up, free cell phones, or Medicaid funds. However, with the upcoming financial disaster RE many state and municipal employee benefit and pension funding and the resultant threats of bankruptcies, programs like this should be a distant memory in the mists of time.

We have also seen on this thread a do gooder that has no problem volunteering himself, and all other tax payers for that matter, to pay for this. I believe the figure stated was 13 cents per taxpayer (.13/taxpayer). If only. First, this is just one state. Further, as I stated in my first paragraph, this is a past mindset that must be revised considerably. Adding up all such programs along with the present level of the just approved budget extension (to only just March!) their estimated cost has been noted as about 10,292 USD for each man, women, and child in the U.S. (Granted the budget has ‘legitimate’ government spending included but even much of this is contentious.) Obviously not all these people pay taxes, so that individual dollar figure must rise when only those that pay are considered, but sadly, there is more. As of now, almost half of those working, do not pay any taxes…some of these actually receive money from the government. So for those who would actually have a tax liability the dollar figure rises…again.

” Or will the payoff of better skilled and trained people be worth it?

Would you approve of all porn sites, shopping sites, gaming sites, Facebook, Twitter, etc. being blocked by the internet provider to ensure that the computers will be used only for research and educational purposes? “

Looking at your proposed and reasonable caveats to free access to internet content we see the seeds of continued liberal government expansion. Sure free access for the poor seems good, even without porn or games, but it would be only a matter of time before the lefties started their class and race wars and demanded, via supposed 'constitutional rights', that “the poor” should get all that content also. But that would be the good scenario. We currently see Obama’s FCC trying to take over the internet in the name of regulation. Why couldn’t the FCC just outlaw (by regulation) those things so that none of us get them? After all, wouldn’t that satisfy the left’s goal of “equality”?

Simply though, all of this comes under the heading voiced by your poll’s third choice.

Supplying dedicated centers for this would be a repeat of the mistake we know as “the projects” in urban areas. This would also necessitate the hiring of more government employees to safeguard both the computers and facility from theft and vandals. The better solution would be to put the computers in local libraries where identification is required (those so deserving get free library cards.) After all this, it is still not clear how effective government job training programs are in actually training and helping participants find gainful employment. Perhaps, some contributors here can enlighten all of us so regarding. Employer feedback RE these programs' efficacy would be invaluable also. But this Florida effort with Brighthouse doesn't even address this question.

JM

 

[Revere]

This used to be a nice building. It was built to house people at low or no cost to them.

Look what happened to it.

This used to be a nice house. It was built for rich people who could write it off their taxes.

Look what happened to it.

It only turned to shit when the rich people move out, meth head.

As long as they lived there, it ws beautiful.

 

[Agit8r]

seems like internet access is available at most public libraries...