Free Internet at Your Expense for Low Income Families

[syrenn]

I selected "Other..." mostly because I believe that there are times when the government needs to be generous too the needy. However, in this case, I do not believe the internet is a necessity and I do not believe that the citizens of the U.S. should be forced to supply internet connections to the poor.

Immie

Its already happening. We have been providing it for several years now to the "poor" to improve their lives. So far i see on results.

And you wonder why they stay bums sucking off the government teet!

San Francisco Public Housing Gets Free Wi-Fi CBS San Francisco- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of SF




Do the math here folks. Thats more then 14k per unit they are spending on FREE wifi. Lets say that again 14 thousand dollars on each unit of public housing to provide FREE wifi.

Yep, a lot of cash because people in SF actually have to make a living to stay there. It also included broad band, and I suppose the wiring for all of this was was quite expensive.

Ain't it great what a socialist government can do, that private enterprise could never handle or consider doing. Tsk!.

They come here because we have a huge hand out. Free place to live. Welfare. Daycare. Meals. Now wifi. Why work? Your right, aint it great....if your a lazy looser. Tsk.

What they get is not free. I am paying for it.

 

[syrenn]

Yep, a lot of cash because people in SF actually have to make a living to stay there. It also included broad band, and I suppose the wiring for all of this was was quite expensive.

Ain't it great what a socialist government can do, that private enterprise could never handle or consider doing. Tsk!.

At a loss, idiot.
They're providing these services AT A LOSS.

In what world is it okay to operate one's government at a loss?

Why are you excited to see our nation fail?

Gee, America operates at loss ever since Powell said we could fight two wars back to back, and Cheney stood up and said deficits didn't matter and Bush gave the uppercrust tax cuts. Not to worry Imbecile. Aren't you one of those people arguing to cut taxes as a means of paying the trillions of debt you owe? LMAO!! Imbecile............

We are too big to fall. Relax, don't worry, be happy! What did you have for dinner tonight? Three courses of meat, vegetables and bread, maybe desert. You are far from starving.

And they are far from starving too. They make out quite good in this city.

 

[syrenn]

A free society requires the broadest possible access to information. (A Democracy cannot function without informed voters)

The internet is a primary mechanism of information.

Providing access to information in a democracy is not charity -- it is an essential ingredient of a free society.

Making access to information class based, e.g., based on wealth as opposed to citizenship, is the opposite of the "American Way".

Tying information production to profit ensures that only powerful corporations will be able to afford and distribute information. This is the quickest way to create an aristocracy. (FYI: this is what wealth always does. First it buys politicians and media. Then it reduces participation to ensure its interests are protected. This is an old story)

During the Cold War America promoted its way of life around the globe. American never tired of mentioning that its citizens had essential freedoms that the Soviets lacked, i.e., the Soviet people did not have access to information. In America, on the other hand, it didn't matter if you were rich or poor -- everyone had freedom; everyone had access to information and political power.

In 1980 the concept of broad access to information and political power started to change. Reagan told us to trust the market. Let profit decide who has access to information and power. Let the market take care of democracy.

By strategically making a fetish of "free loaders", the Reagan Revolution narrowed political participation and created exactly the kind of anti-democratic universe seen in the old soviet union - a world where less people have access to information and power.

Reagan created a world where, increasingly, only the wealthy can afford to produce and access information.

Goodbye Democracy.

Humans are a funny lot. Once they taste money and power . . . they results are tragically predictable.

They already have free access to the internet. Just not from the comfort of their homes.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Nobody is OWED it just because they fucking exist... and while I call for people to give VOLUNTARILY to charities to help causes that speak to their hearts, I do not call for any program that forcibly makes people support others

Except, we already do this. From the streets you drive on to the mail you receive, it's all programs that "forcibly makes people support others." Or did you think your taxes going to roads you never drive on somehow helping yourself?

As for training... get an entry level job... take advantage of any training the company offers... save a few bucks out of every paycheck and save for a community college class.... use a tuition reimbursement program.. the list goes on, buttwad

So you think the poor guy with little to wear and nothing respectable for any job interview is going to get his entry level job how exactly? And what does he wear to work? And how does he get there? Or do you just clap your hands and wish for magic?

Can someone google how many job training programs there are for the poor? IIm on my PDA, but in my little town of Bumfuck, I know of at least a half dozen.

lots. how do people get there? do you think they're particularly good? Here let's try this comparison: do you think any one of those training programs, or the average public school system, is better suited for education?

 

[Big Fitz]

Government provides security. That is how it earns. It provides the means to enforce your contracts, the jails to house the perps, the law to produce order and organization, the courts to determine justice, the military to protect us from the predations of other nations and, so far, the infrastructure necessary for a free market.

Wrong. This is a responsibility of government they are required to provide for the people. Not a "service' to sell. I cannot 'opt out' or 'not purchase' this service, therefore it cannot be said to have been sold for profit.

The people institute governments in order to provide these services for which they provide the personnel and the tax funding. You may opt out and not purchase this service by relinquishing your membership in the group that composes the pool of potential candidates to provide said government. We the people have demanded more, yet refused to pay it. If you have a beef with the government, take that up with your neighbor. The politicians do the bidding of the people, we are just schizophrenic about what our bidding is.

Semantic games doesn't change the fact that the government does not earn.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's a dumb idea to raise taxes for ANYONE just because bankers and auto makers don't know how to balance a ledger.

They should be allowed to fail like everyone else who fucks up as hard as they did. If we HAD let them fail, we'd be coming out of this for real, instead of lying to ourselves that All Is Well!

 

[Foxfyre]

@Fitz, Government provides security. That is how it earns. It provides the means to enforce your contracts, the jails to house the perps, the law to produce order and organization, the courts to determine justice, the military to protect us from the predations of other nations and, so far, the infrastructure necessary for a free market.



I assume the poster is not a pro-lifer then?

I'm fine with eliminating any social safety net as long as we remove all laws from the books that criminalize poverty. No more building codes, no vagrancy laws, no child negligence laws, etc. All those laws are unfunded mandates without poverty wealth transference programs. And if you want to see how long 40 yr olds have been living at home, read some Jane Austen or Dickens or see a Neil Simon play.

I think you may have missed the point a bit.

A social contract based on the Constitutional concept of 'general welfare' does anticipate social services that benefit the whole and that would include building codes, police and fire protection, shared medical facilities, etc. and anticipates that the federal government would PROMOTE that....not PROVIDE that.

The one guiding principle that would direct a true public servant is: Does it benefit all by people sharing services rather than each one having to provide such services for himself or herself? If it can, however, be done more effectively, efficiently, and economically by the private sector, that's where the responsibility for providing it should remain.

And however much I admire Austen or Dickens or Simon, there is nothing in any of their works that suggests that the federal government is good at providing charity to anybody. Nor should be.

The emphasis of the Federal Government in promoting the general welfare should be focused on policy, regulation, and laws that better and enable the people to form a better society. Anytime the government decides to do that for them, however, it will screw it up.

The Founders intended to create the first nation the world had ever known in which people would have unalienable rights recognized and protected and would enjoy the freedom and be left alone to form whatever kind of society they wished to have.

They would have been horrified to think that the government could take money away from you in order to buy votes, influence, and prestige by providing free internet to others.

The Constitution says “provide . . . for the general welfare,” not promote it, or anything else.

I see you prefer privatizing all social services and the military, so the government doesn't screw it up. Very Libertarian of you. You wouldn't last a day as a rugged individual, so might as well cancel yapping on what the founders wanted, or playing the Crystal ball reader about what they thought. You don't even know what the Constitution states, so you should be the last one offering an opinion on the founders.

Shintao may be the first member I will ever put on ignore. Such an annoying little gnat.

Not only does he completely misstate what I said, he derides me for not knowing what the Constitution says.

But for the edification of anybody else as misinformed as he is, here is what the Preamble to our Constitution says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[shintao]

Its already happening. We have been providing it for several years now to the "poor" to improve their lives. So far i see on results.

And you wonder why they stay bums sucking off the government teet!

San Francisco Public Housing Gets Free Wi-Fi CBS San Francisco- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of SF




Do the math here folks. Thats more then 14k per unit they are spending on FREE wifi. Lets say that again 14 thousand dollars on each unit of public housing to provide FREE wifi.

Yep, a lot of cash because people in SF actually have to make a living to stay there. It also included broad band, and I suppose the wiring for all of this was was quite expensive.

Ain't it great what a socialist government can do, that private enterprise could never handle or consider doing. Tsk!.

They come here because we have a huge hand out. Free place to live. Welfare. Daycare. Meals. Now wifi. Why work? Your right, aint it great....if your a lazy looser. Tsk.

What they get is not free. I am paying for it.

You are a real Saint, a god will give you a virgin in heaven. I personally wouldn't live on the strip of land myself, because I can see you all sliding off into the ocean with the next big fault. I guess it will take the wifi with it. And the Wharf.

 

[shintao]

I think you may have missed the point a bit.

A social contract based on the Constitutional concept of 'general welfare' does anticipate social services that benefit the whole and that would include building codes, police and fire protection, shared medical facilities, etc. and anticipates that the federal government would PROMOTE that....not PROVIDE that.

The one guiding principle that would direct a true public servant is: Does it benefit all by people sharing services rather than each one having to provide such services for himself or herself? If it can, however, be done more effectively, efficiently, and economically by the private sector, that's where the responsibility for providing it should remain.

And however much I admire Austen or Dickens or Simon, there is nothing in any of their works that suggests that the federal government is good at providing charity to anybody. Nor should be.

The emphasis of the Federal Government in promoting the general welfare should be focused on policy, regulation, and laws that better and enable the people to form a better society. Anytime the government decides to do that for them, however, it will screw it up.

The Founders intended to create the first nation the world had ever known in which people would have unalienable rights recognized and protected and would enjoy the freedom and be left alone to form whatever kind of society they wished to have.

They would have been horrified to think that the government could take money away from you in order to buy votes, influence, and prestige by providing free internet to others.

The Constitution says “provide . . . for the general welfare,” not promote it, or anything else.

I see you prefer privatizing all social services and the military, so the government doesn't screw it up. Very Libertarian of you. You wouldn't last a day as a rugged individual, so might as well cancel yapping on what the founders wanted, or playing the Crystal ball reader about what they thought. You don't even know what the Constitution states, so you should be the last one offering an opinion on the founders.

Shintao may be the first member I will ever put on ignore. Such an annoying little gnat.

Not only does he completely misstate what I said, he derides me for not knowing what the Constitution says.

But for the edification of anybody else as misinformed as he is, here is what the Preamble to our Constitution says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Silly FOX, The preamble is only an introduction to the constitution, and bares no power in law, policy or regulation. I guess the silly twit is off her meds again, or just can't own up to the fact that she doesn't know what the hell she is talking about. Tsk!!!

 

[Big Fitz]

Yep, a lot of cash because people in SF actually have to make a living to stay there. It also included broad band, and I suppose the wiring for all of this was was quite expensive.

Ain't it great what a socialist government can do, that private enterprise could never handle or consider doing. Tsk!.

They come here because we have a huge hand out. Free place to live. Welfare. Daycare. Meals. Now wifi. Why work? Your right, aint it great....if your a lazy looser. Tsk.

What they get is not free. I am paying for it.

You are a real Saint, a god will give you a virgin in heaven. I personally wouldn't live on the strip of land myself, because I can see you all sliding off into the ocean with the next big fault. I guess it will take the wifi with it. And the Wharf.

wassamatta, get pwned so badly you're going to try and provoke Syrenn? Big mistake little boy. It worked out just so well for corndog.

 

[syrenn]

Yep, a lot of cash because people in SF actually have to make a living to stay there. It also included broad band, and I suppose the wiring for all of this was was quite expensive.

Ain't it great what a socialist government can do, that private enterprise could never handle or consider doing. Tsk!.

They come here because we have a huge hand out. Free place to live. Welfare. Daycare. Meals. Now wifi. Why work? Your right, aint it great....if your a lazy looser. Tsk.

What they get is not free. I am paying for it.

You are a real Saint, a god will give you a virgin in heaven. I personally wouldn't live on the strip of land myself, because I can see you all sliding off into the ocean with the next big fault. I guess it will take the wifi with it. And the Wharf.

Not a chance on the saint thing, and virgins are boring and dumb.

Well i do live on this strip of land, and know what these people strip out of the working people here who pay their way in life. They dont deserve free wifi when the rest of the city must pay for it themselves.

 

[shintao]

It's a dumb idea to raise taxes for ANYONE just because bankers and auto makers don't know how to balance a ledger.

They should be allowed to fail like everyone else who fucks up as hard as they did. If we HAD let them fail, we'd be coming out of this for real, instead of lying to ourselves that All Is Well!

Yes indeed, it would have helped immencely, but not comming out of a crisis as you might suppose. The debts are all real, not just some of them. You need to go back to 2000 before Bush thought it a great idea to spend the surplus.

 

[shintao]

They come here because we have a huge hand out. Free place to live. Welfare. Daycare. Meals. Now wifi. Why work? Your right, aint it great....if your a lazy looser. Tsk.

What they get is not free. I am paying for it.

You are a real Saint, a god will give you a virgin in heaven. I personally wouldn't live on the strip of land myself, because I can see you all sliding off into the ocean with the next big fault. I guess it will take the wifi with it. And the Wharf.

Not a chance on the saint thing, and virgins are boring and dumb.

Well i do live on this strip of land, and know what these people strip out of the working people here who pay their way in life. They dont deserve free wifi when the rest of the city must pay for it themselves.

You get it free at quite a few restaurants and cafés, yes? And AT&T is about to launch WiFi service in the Embarcadero Center across the street from the Ferry Building. That is the heart of the "Rich" business district, fed reserve, etc. You will be able to use that free, right? How do you know they don't deserve wifi, just because you pay for it? That is short sighted on your part. Those people could be hard workers who paid in all their lives until they retired or were injured or laid off. They could have provided you countless services when they were working and paying taxes. You maybe in one of those units yourself is lady luck deals you a bad hand.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

you would be shcoked at how far DSL service from via telcos has ventured out into rural areas.
When Digital Subscriber Line( DSL) service was first introduced, one had to live within roughly 3 linear miles of the nearest Telco central office. A central office is one of those small brick or concrete buildings you see with the Telco name or logo which houses switching equipment for a given area. Now DSL is available many miles out from Central offices.
Perhaps you are closer to getting HSI than you think. It would not be the highest of speeds, but much faster than dial-up. Forget cable internet in the sticks. Cable co's are not public utilities and as such are not required to string cables into outlying areas. Nor will they likely to be. Cable was deregulated 25 years ago in return for allowing cable certain freedoms. Cable companies will not likely surrender those conditions without a huge and very expensive fight.

A good point about private cable companys, because it is that way with other services as well, like all utilities from water to gas. Only PG&E will put in energy to these backwoods people in the sticks. You want water, dig a well. Want gas, buy a tank & LP gas. Until government gets involved it will never get done.

And government should NOT get involved. Because while some think this is just and fair, others, the ones who pay for their and then have to pay the government to fund someone else's so those people do not pay, the ones doing the paying become frustrated.
Do not forget, paying customers can easily become non- customers. Drive up the costs with taxes fees and crummy content while adding the ingredient of "you're paying this much so someone can have what you pay for free of charge" and people will cut the cord.
If the ones paying leave, then who pays for those who are getting the freebie?
See how this works?.....
There are two things wire line pay for services companies hate...Churn and sever....Churn is when customers leave one provider for another looking for a better deal. Sever is obvious. The pay tv industry is in a battle against sever......Internet providers are not far behind.

Cord-cutting may be cause of cable TV's woes Knoxville News Sentinel
Verizon CEO: Cord-Cutting Will Threaten Cable TV - 2010-09-23 2052 | Multichannel News

 

[syrenn]

You are a real Saint, a god will give you a virgin in heaven. I personally wouldn't live on the strip of land myself, because I can see you all sliding off into the ocean with the next big fault. I guess it will take the wifi with it. And the Wharf.

Not a chance on the saint thing, and virgins are boring and dumb.

Well i do live on this strip of land, and know what these people strip out of the working people here who pay their way in life. They dont deserve free wifi when the rest of the city must pay for it themselves.

You get it free at quite a few restaurants and cafés, yes?

Yes, and they have the SAME access to it as i do. It is not free, it is paied for by the restaurant or cafe.

And AT&T is about to launch WiFi service in the Embarcadero Center across the street from the Ferry Building. That is the heart of the "Rich" business district, fed reserve, etc.

It is also BUM heaven. It is open to the public so there is not "rich" or "poor" to it. The "poor" are able to access this area. I am not able to access the "poor" area.

You will be able to use that free, right?

And so will they.

How do you know they don't deserve wifi, just because you pay for it?

How do i know they dont "deserve" free wifi delivered into their free public housing? by virtue of the fact that they are not working and paying for it themselves. The poor ALREADY have access to free wifi as you have pointed out.

That is short sighted on your part. Those people could be hard workers who paid in all their lives until they retired or were injured or laid off.

If the elderely are the targets of the wifi then they dont need it to "look for a better job" now do they? Sorry to burst your bubble here, but the target is the young who have never paid into anything.

They could have provided you counted services when they were working and paying taxes.

The majority of people in public housing are institutional welfare recipients.

You maybe in one of those units yourself is lady luck deals you a bad hand.

That may be, but i sure as hell wouldn't expect or demand anything for free. Wifi is not something you need to stay alive.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sorry. I was just getting the impression that the point you were trying to make was that the deplorable condition of these housing units were the sole cause of the inhabitants.

This project's condition is not unique. When people who do have any self respect are given something for which they did not pay, they will not care for it. Period.
The city of Chicago did not tear out railings, shove all kinds of crap into the plumbing, steal the copper wiring and sell it for scrap. paint graffiti on every square inch of painted surface, steal everything that was not bolted down, break the locks off doors, etc.Why offer internet service to people who for the most part do not own a computer. Or at least one they did not steal.

I am not sure what this has to do with the free internet? I see the same thing in 50% of the top crust & middle class homes being foreclosed on. Somehow they want something to remember the old house by, like all the appliances, wiring, light fixtures, solar, heat & air & hot water, etc. Now I do image these people owed computers, so I see no connection to poverty.

You don't see a connection? Sad.
There is a huge difference between a foreclosed home in a suburban neighborhood and a dilapidated pub,ic housing project in the slums of Chicago.
The issue is what are people who have not the means to even own a computer going to do if HSI became available in that area?...The answer, nothing.....so a whole bunch of money is wasted on providing another taxpayer funded freebie.
How many times must the do-gooders be shown that making the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results is idiotic.

 

[Ozmar]

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

wtf???

 

[Retread Ol' 37]

We already have free public internet. It's called your local library.

 

[shintao]

you would be shcoked at how far DSL service from via telcos has ventured out into rural areas.
When Digital Subscriber Line( DSL) service was first introduced, one had to live within roughly 3 linear miles of the nearest Telco central office. A central office is one of those small brick or concrete buildings you see with the Telco name or logo which houses switching equipment for a given area. Now DSL is available many miles out from Central offices.
Perhaps you are closer to getting HSI than you think. It would not be the highest of speeds, but much faster than dial-up. Forget cable internet in the sticks. Cable co's are not public utilities and as such are not required to string cables into outlying areas. Nor will they likely to be. Cable was deregulated 25 years ago in return for allowing cable certain freedoms. Cable companies will not likely surrender those conditions without a huge and very expensive fight.

A good point about private cable companys, because it is that way with other services as well, like all utilities from water to gas. Only PG&E will put in energy to these backwoods people in the sticks. You want water, dig a well. Want gas, buy a tank & LP gas. Until government gets involved it will never get done.

And government should NOT get involved. Because while some think this is just and fair, others, the ones who pay for their and then have to pay the government to fund someone else's so those people do not pay, the ones doing the paying become frustrated.
Do not forget, paying customers can easily become non- customers. Drive up the costs with taxes fees and crummy content while adding the ingredient of "you're paying this much so someone can have what you pay for free of charge" and people will cut the cord.
If the ones paying leave, then who pays for those who are getting the freebie?
See how this works?.....
There are two things wire line pay for services companies hate...Churn and sever....Churn is when customers leave one provider for another looking for a better deal. Sever is obvious. The pay tv industry is in a battle against sever......Internet providers are not far behind.

Cord-cutting may be cause of cable TV's woes Knoxville News Sentinel
Verizon CEO: Cord-Cutting Will Threaten Cable TV - 2010-09-23 2052 | Multichannel News

So you think if Americans knew they were subsidizing the poor's TV, that they would change providers. That seems fair to me, free competition and all, no skin off the provider. It's like their is no great rush to abandon grocery stores because they take food stamps you paid for. And did they close down the public pool or library because the poor were using them for free, and you were paying for them? If you read your own material you would see they have no idea why people are changing here or there, but thinking it is because of the poor getting a freebie? LOL! That is a real far reach.

 

[Ozmar]

You are a real Saint, a god will give you a virgin in heaven. I personally wouldn't live on the strip of land myself, because I can see you all sliding off into the ocean with the next big fault. I guess it will take the wifi with it. And the Wharf.

Not a chance on the saint thing, and virgins are boring and dumb.

Well i do live on this strip of land, and know what these people strip out of the working people here who pay their way in life. They dont deserve free wifi when the rest of the city must pay for it themselves.

You get it free at quite a few restaurants and cafés, yes?

Those facilities choose to pay for that expense out of their own pocket.

And AT&T is about to launch WiFi service in the Embarcadero Center across the street from the Ferry Building. That is the heart of the "Rich" business district, fed reserve, etc. You will be able to use that free, right?

All of which is provided by private corporations.

How do you know they don't deserve wifi, just because you pay for it? That is short sighted on your part.

Give me a break.

Those people could be hard workers who paid in all their lives until they retired or were injured or laid off.

But most of them probably aren't.

They could have provided you countless services when they were working and paying taxes.

And in one of those units could be the person who mugged me. A lot of maybes.

You maybe in one of those units yourself is lady luck deals you a bad hand.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. You can't live your life worrying that "maybe" that will happen.