Obamaphone = waste, fraud, and abuse

[SunsetBengal]

(07-24-2015, 06:02 PM)CharvelPlaya Wrote: How was that a copout? I have no problem paying taxes and for programs to help people out. A lot of times, it saves families and helps them get back on their feet. Now, having said that, I do think their should be welfare reform, and something needs to be done with the people who abuse it and are lazy.

Do you get that a computer and internet is a useful tool to find a job? If one is poor, they might not have a car. Sure, they can take a bus or hitch rides.

Ever hear the old adage that goes something along the lines of;  Give the man a fish, he will eat for a day.  Teach the man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime.

And, the Conservative point of view is not mean, or condescending.  It's more a matter of 'we don't want to hear your freakin' sob stories, everyone has their own problems to deal with".  Conservatives are more than willing to help people help themselves up, it's just a matter of people taking advantage of the opportunity, rather than milking the "free tap" for all that it is worth...

[jmccracky]

Sunset, I dont disagree with that line of thinking. I just feel that there is a much bigger picture than what you guys see. Its all good man. I like seeing other people's take. This is just how I feel about it.

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2015, 05:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If they can't afford 8 dollars a month then no they don't need the Internet.

They could easily make the 8 dollars by ether fishing or cutting grass.

So the fact that their parents are poor means they don't need internet?

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2015, 06:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't they have computers with internet access at the public libraries?

Yea, which works out great if you live near one. The kids who are from the poor area that feeds to my school don't have a library within walking distance, nor is the school within walking distance. Not that that matters as the school's media center closes before 4.

Providing cheap broadband at home is a great resource for these kids.

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2015, 07:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, which works out great if you live near one. The kids who are from the poor area that feeds to my school don't have a library within walking distance, nor is the school within walking distance. Not that that matters as the school's media center closes before 4.

Providing cheap broadband at home is a great resource for these kids.

How about this? At my work we have filters on our server (sites are blocked). For instance I cannot check Fantasy Football because of the word Fantasy. If we pay/subsidize your internet we should be able to monitor where you go

[jmccracky]

(07-24-2015, 07:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How about this? At my work we have filters on our server (sites are blocked). For instance I cannot check Fantasy Football because of the word Fantasy. If we pay/subsidize your internet we should be able to monitor where you go

So no fun for the poor people again?

Kidding bro. That's not really a bad idea, I guess. It's something to think about. A compromise, if you will.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-24-2015, 07:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How about this? At my work we have filters on our server (sites are blocked). For instance I cannot check Fantasy Football because of the word Fantasy. If we pay/subsidize your internet we should be able to monitor where you go

OK big brother.  You and you're buddies are already monitoring everything, regardless of who pays for it.

Why are we paying such ludicrous amounts for broadband access as it stands?  St Lucy didnt want to touch that earlier.  So you're ok with certain institutions not being taxed at all, placing a greater burden on the common man, but want to ***** about a tiny subset of the population getting assistance to get online to better themselves and possibly become taxpayers...

Sounds like a few of you just want to ***** about taxes and feel better about yourself by reminding those in need YOU OWN THEM.

 

[*bfine32*]

(07-24-2015, 08:27 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: OK big brother.  You and you're buddies are already monitoring everything, regardless of who pays for it.

Why are we paying such ludicrous amounts for broadband access as it stands?  St Lucy didnt want to touch that earlier.  So you're ok with certain institutions not being taxed at all, placing a greater burden on the common man, but want to ***** about a tiny subset of the population getting assistance to get online to better themselves and possibly become taxpayers...

Sounds like a few of you just want to ***** about taxes and feel better about yourself by reminding those in need YOU OWN THEM.

 

If you don't want a Big Brother, then don't ask him for a handout.

To answer your economics question about Internet; it's supply and demand. Many Cable companies have a geographic monopoly (like Electric, water, ect..). They have no competitor, so pay what they ask or go crappy DSL. I already stated in this thread that I have no problem with subsidizing internet (more so than Cell Phone) to the less fortunate. I just don't want to pay for them to be on facebook all day. It costs me enough to do that for my own family.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-24-2015, 08:27 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Sounds like a few of you just want to ***** about taxes and feel better about yourself by reminding those in need YOU OWN THEM.

What's the difference the government owns people who are dependent on the government for their essentials.

[BmorePat87]

(07-24-2015, 07:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How about this? At my work we have filters on our server (sites are blocked). For instance I cannot check Fantasy Football because of the word Fantasy. If we pay/subsidize your internet we should be able to monitor where you go

That's up to the FCC to decide. I don't know if there are any current rules/laws that prevent an ISP from censoring content to a paying customer.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-25-2015, 10:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's up to the FCC to decide. I don't know if there are any current rules/laws that prevent an ISP from censoring content to a paying customer.

The FCC needs to stop deciding anything. They have done enough. They can start rolling back their nonsense. Like deregulating the cable industry. Allow prices to come down and service to go up.

[BmorePat87]

(07-25-2015, 03:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The FCC needs to stop deciding anything.   They have done enough.   They can start rolling back their nonsense.  Like deregulating the cable industry.   Allow prices to come down and service to go up.  

I'm not sure the FCC is the one telling Comcast to sell slow service for a lot and not upgrade their infrastructure.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-25-2015, 06:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm not sure the FCC is the one telling Comcast to sell slow service for a lot and not upgrade their infrastructure.

Where is Comcast selling slow service? And where is Comcast not upgrading? Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint have been seriously upgrading nationwide. Until net nuetrality then expansion was backed off. So the only thing holding them back is the FCC.

And the FCC is limiting competition for cable providers. They allow Comcast and time warner to divide up the map so they aren't competing against each other.

[Vas Deferens]

(07-25-2015, 06:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Where is Comcast selling slow service?  And where is Comcast not upgrading?  Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint have been seriously upgrading nationwide.   Until net nuetrality then expansion was backed off.   So the only thing holding them back is the FCC.  

And the FCC is limiting competition for cable providers.   They allow Comcast and time warner to divide up the map so they aren't competing against each other.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-25-2015, 07:33 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: You have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote: Stephenson said. AT&T last week said it expects to invest $18 billion in its network next year, but added the number could drop if the uncertainty persists. Specifically, the company's goal of bringing faster fiber-optic lines into new cities could be put on hold until it gets more clarity on any potential Internet regulations.

AT&T had planned to invest in bringing its GigaPower 1-gigabit broadband service -- a competitor to Google's superfast Google Fiber service -- into 100 cities next year.

"We can't go out and invest that kind of network without knowing the rules governing the network," Stephenson said.

[BmorePat87]

(07-25-2015, 06:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Where is Comcast selling slow service?  And where is Comcast not upgrading?  Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint have been seriously upgrading nationwide.   Until net nuetrality then expansion was backed off.   So the only thing holding them back is the FCC.  

And the FCC is limiting competition for cable providers.   They allow Comcast and time warner to divide up the map so they aren't competing against each other.

Our internet speeds are far below what they could be. The speeds we get are a joke.

Google is offering better service for the same prices in select markets. The only thing stopping that from being everywhere is upgrading the infrastructure.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-25-2015, 08:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Our internet speeds are far below what they could be. The speeds we get are a joke.

Google is offering better service for the same prices in select markets. The only thing stopping that from being everywhere is upgrading the infrastructure.

Which they are..

In my region, Google is planting thousands of miles of FO cable.  I know this because another Surveyor I know is working on the project.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-25-2015, 08:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Our internet speeds are far below what they could be. The speeds we get are a joke.

Google is offering better service for the same prices in select markets. The only thing stopping that from being everywhere is upgrading the infrastructure.

Imagine how many choices we would have if the industry was completely unregulated and anyone could start a new service

[JustWinBaby]

(07-25-2015, 11:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Imagine how many choices we would have if the industry was completely unregulated and anyone could start a new service

Yeah, but you know, the equipment costs a shit-ton of money.  More or less, the consumer "outrage" is directly proportional to need....ie supply & demand.

[BmorePat87]

(07-25-2015, 08:38 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Which they are..

In my region, Google is planting thousands of miles of FO cable.  I know this because another Surveyor I know is working on the project.

Yea, google is the shit. I read that comcast is starting to expand a 2 gig service in Chattanooga to compete with the city's 1 gig service. It'll be over twice the cost, though.

(07-25-2015, 11:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Imagine how many choices we would have if the industry was completely unregulated and anyone could start a new service

or if local governments upgraded the infrastructure themselves like Chattanooga, we could see companies expand their services. Chattanooga offers 1 gig service for $70 bucks a month. It's not a surprise that Comcast is now trying to put in the system to offer 2 gig service there. You also realize a lot of the issue is that these big telecommunication companies put a ton of money into politics to prevent competition, right?