FCC Unveiling $10 Broadband for Low-Income Households

Why is the FCC involved in this? They are supposed to be on oversight, regulatory body, not an advocacy group.

And is there arm twisting by the FCC, a government agency, on private business to do this? Is there tax payer subsidies? This is actually disturbing.

And when did broadband internet become sort form of right? This is just not good.

Lol, so you want the US to look like a joke in all ways all because of your idiotic worship of the free market?

"Verizon and AT&T will reportedly not be a part of the low-income access plan."

Verizon has been pulling out of DSL markets, not sure if they are selling their FIOS also. However, AT&T is not participating because they are complete a#@holes.

wow, if 9.99 more than covers the overhead price then why the hell is it going to be increased. Why the hell isn't that the standard price. It's a very good introductory rate in comparison to what they have now, but it still stinks of horse shit.

I have a better idea... FCC doesn't subsidize ANYONE's internet access, and the Feds can lower my taxes. I'm tired of paying for poor people that continue to make bad decisions and tend to have way to many kids all on my dime.

You mean so we can continue to behind the curve where places like England, Japan, Korea, etc ... get their citizens 50mbs for much cheaper prices. The GOP and you guys can go away with your let's have America actually be behind ... as opposed to leading from behind. "You People" are the reason why the US lags behind the top nations your so caught up in your politics that you don't realize other governments don't give a ...t about ideology they give a ...t about hwat's effective and being at the top. YOu know why China is kicking our axx in the green jobs market, because, they don't give a ...t about their government spending $30+ billion on it to fund companies, subsidize, and do research consequently leading to much much lower prices on their goods like for example solar panels. And you guys bytch about a company like solyndra getting $500 million in loans over several years and still not being able to compete, and us spending a total of $2.4 billion to subsidize our green economy companies, ain't ... squat compared to what other "Big Government" is spending in their nations.

Actually, when the "...f ..." did we become an anti-government nation, I thought even since the beginning it was "Federal Government" vs "State Government (localized)" not some backwards axx idea that government was bad? In any vain welcome to the 21st century and if you can't adapt to the changing landscape you can be like every other great nation that has failed, refused to change with the times and became irrelevant.

Hopefully this will kill AOHell

Ummm .. your taxes don't pay for the poor, they actually, pay for old white people who won't die, considering that 30%+ of our annual budget goes to MM and SS, how is that the poor you are subsidizing? ASDF (things that cover welfare like the "federal lunch program") accounts for less than .5% of the annual federal budget and that's including what states spend. So, the idea that your tax dollars is subsidizing the poor is the greatest myth in American politics. Thank You , Mr. Reagan for creating that image. But since when did politics have to do with truth?

@wildkitten

Soooooo what your telling me is that the private business don't already own our current government already. There is SOOOOOO much of this in reverse where private business "the big ones" bribe and "twist arms" to get what they want out of the government its crazy.

About time the FCC actually stepped in and did their job and didn't get their "arm twisted" to not proceed with this plan!

This is a step in the wrong direction. Not only is 1mbps absolutely paltry compared to the rest of the world, $10 a month is too much money.

I have a 20mbps connection for 40 dollars a month. That is $2 per 1mbps

Now when you factor in overage charges for bandwidth (Which was not covered in the article), it's an even worse deal.

If you want to make change, bring happiness, improve communication, improve the economy, then charge nothing! Even $1 a month fee is a deterrent due to the fact that you would have to sign up. The internet should be free, we pay enough in taxes to provide this for every single person in the world.

Also consider, why do you even have to qualify for this?! It's just another deterrent! Why the hell should poor people have to throw themselves into a "class" in order to qualify for something? It is outrageous to assume people in North America are going to drop their current ISP monthly plan for some dumbass $10 a month 1mbps connection that is almost 3 decades behind in speed.

"The New York Times stated that cable companies aren't expected to sustain a significant financial loss because broadband service typically has a high markup. The meager $9.99 monthly fee will more than cover the overhead costs of providing monthly internet service."

This is why in other countries Internet access is cheaper than here in the US.

The truth has been revealed.

What companies charge for internet access is a joke.

Great, more of my money going to subsidize people I don't care about.

So broadband internet access is a "right" now? What if someone living in the boonies with low income wants a dedicated line going to his house?

Fucking socialist morons!

I thank the poster of this article for showing me how many right-wing "free-market" republican assholes read Tom's... kind of disappointing actually.

Thank you for clicking show if it was necessary.

well, lets see here, if the government pays for the difference that is about 15 or so $ where i live (being about 25$ a month, and an extra 5 for modem rental) so that 15$ comes out of tax payers pockets to provide poor with internet.

personally, i would prefer this to be a library kind of thing, or possibly an internet cafe type deal for the poor, and not in their homes kind.

or will they raise their prices to offset this, or is this so the government doesn't intrude when they do raise their prices collectively. or, even more evil in my book, do they still make a profit at a 10$ a month price?

and the us is already a joke in internet speeds and cost, where in other countries, i could get a 100mbit up and down line for 20-30$ a month.




yet you cant say that, and that being the truth, without sounding like a douche. im behind you on that though.




well. lets say this.

our (usa) government was bought and sold decades ago to lobbyists and corporations, and they stopped giving a damn about the people. its because of that, that many people became anti government, and that they question everything they do. the fact that they seam to help the rich and corporations more than the people is one of the sicker things i find.

the fact that the government is also run almost exclusively by the old, and people who grew up from 12 to when their hair goes grey constantly worrying about what others see them as, and barely living there lives is also another very concerning issue.

here, lets go to a more... hard to side with issue. pot
unless you have ever seen someones life improve due to pot used in cancer patients, or even just generally improving the lives of people, you have no say in the issue. some states have made it legal to have medicinal pot, but the federal government its still illegal.

ever watch an anti drug campaign, many of us realize we were lied to, and thats where many anti government people are born, realizing from early on, we are lied to, constantly.




with the old people, its more of the case that drugs can cost 1000+% more than they cost to manufacture and produce.

research and development costs are the biggest costs, new drugs can cost billions to produce with no guarantee of approval

The nations you mention have sky high taxes, .... and government IS bad.

"with the old people, its more of the case that drugs can cost 1000+% more than they cost to manufacture and produce."

Actually while the patents are in effect, add another 2 or 3 zeros to that, 100,000% to 1,000,000% markup on drugs is quite normal.

I don't care how it gets done, but this is a fantastic step in the right direction. Most of you are off topic, making it political, but it doesn't have to be. I help supply PCs to those in need, where it can be a great benefit to their lives, but the relevance of a PC with no internet these days is... not relevant. Before you say: Get a job, and get real internet, consider it's not available in all parts of the country, and some people CANT GET A JOB. In the same way kids are bussed to magnet schools for better opportunity, providing a low cost solution allows people currently out of the loop to at least have a chance. Think about how far behind your children would be if they didn't use a computer until they were teenagers...Welcome to Costco, I love you.

Of course, if the government got rid of the stupid regulations that prevent completion for internet, we would have it even cheaper, for everyone, faster and not payed for with tax money.


Of course, that means politicians have less power.

Wow... so many self proclaimed experts here on Toms. The reason other countries have better internet than we do are 1, we were first to market. By the time they got internet, there were newer, better technologies to implement for cheaper costs while we were still paying for the 1st generation technology. 2, England is the size of Iowa and France is the size of Texas. Japan is the Size of Montana, etc... They practically live on top of one another while the US spans a much larger area with sparsely populated areas between population centers. It is not cost affective to provide internet to 33% of the US because their nearest neighbors are 10 miles away.

All of this aside, we, the consumer, have been paying FCC charges for years now to subsidize these sparsely populated areas just so they can have phone lines, much less broadband. At least now we can see they are actually doing something with that revenue. On the other hand, Broadband is not a right. It is a privilege. You weigh your wants and needs. If broadband is that important for you, then move. Without Broadband, your kids will still grow up healthy and the sun will still rise in the morning.

Wow... so many self proclaimed experts here on Toms. The reason other countries have better internet than we do are 1, we were first to market. By the time they got internet, there were newer, better technologies to implement for cheaper costs while we were still paying for the 1st generation technology. 2, England is the size of Iowa and France is the size of Texas. Japan is the Size of Montana, etc... They practically live on top of one another while the US spans a much larger area with sparsely populated areas between population centers. It is not cost affective to provide internet to 33% of the US because their nearest neighbors are 10 miles away.

All of this aside, we, the consumer, have been paying FCC charges for years now to subsidize these sparsely populated areas just so they can have phone lines, much less broadband. At least now we can see they are actually doing something with that revenue. On the other hand, Broadband is not a right. It is a privilege. You weigh your wants and needs. If broadband is that important for you, then move. Without Broadband, your kids will still grow up healthy and the sun will still rise in the morning.

Really? Look up where welfare money comes from.

Great; one more social welfare project for our already-bankrupt government to get involved in. For self-aggrandizing lib politicians, there is never a shortage of perceived social ills that require the benevolent hand of big government (paid for, of course, by the beleagured taxpayer) to intervene and allegedly remedy.

So, now broadband internet is an essential necessity? Food and shelter are on thing; this is absurdity.

Great news. I don't understand why helping out the poor and helping kids get computers and internet connections that can help them succeed is such a bad thing. I was a foster kid and I was given a computer once I graduated from high school. Man it was the best gift I had ever been given in my life and I still own that IBM thinkpad and it still works since 2001. That was the gateway I needed to help me learn about computers and I would gladly shell out money to fund projects like this although I didn't read anywhere that we were? I just think people want something to be mad about all the time. I think some of you have just been so lucky in life you really have no idea how sh1tty being poor really is and how much something so small can make such a huge impact on peoples lives. Lighten up a bit guys.

That's nice that they are giving the poor internet access but it's just propaganda to tout it as an improvement. 1Mbps is terrible and I've had more since 2003...you are basically putting the poor a decade behind which is about where they are at now. If broadband doesn't cost the companies anything make it 5Mbps at least. I'd hate to be a young poor kid trying to stream "media" with 1Mbps. That would be a lot of frustration >.>

i still don't see where they are providing low income people with cheap broadband. 1mbps? LOL

Why the hell use microsoft for the OS,what's wrong with linux, this is just not make any sense. 10 USD for 1 mbps, and that's not a normal rate ? :| what's the normal rate for 1 mbps ? 20 USD, i guess internet providers in US are blood suckers

When i read this plan, sounds like a drug dealer operation, give them free first, than suck the blood dry.

I think some people in FCC need to be fired

This is a nice idea, though the speeds are somewhat weak. Regardless, I'd love to have this kind of regulatory oversight in Canada...

I'm all for this! 1mbs for $10 a month for anyone period! Though you don't' get a government subsidized computer. And the ISP can't force you into a higher teir speed, ever.

Though on the flipside there are massive areas in the US that need their lines replaced. My parents are still on phone lines that were burried back in the 50s!

That's splitting hairs man. Comparing the money that goes to welfare and "helping the poor" projects as compared to SS and other retirement aid funds. ASDF (things that cover welfare like the "federal lunch program") accounts for less than .5% of the annual federal budget and that's including what states spend.

Lets say it's 5% hell. That's still trying to say a glass of water out of a 55gallon barrel is worth worth blaming the wrong person for drinking it. That's inane. And if your trying to be "correct" there's another term that better suits it. Anal.

Naturally, when the federal government manages to convince some big businesses to offer something cheaper or free to the working poor, you can count on countless completely idiotic people to jump on it and assume that taxpayer dollars must be being funneled out here. Anyone who bothered to read the article (reading the original on NYT wasn't even necessary!) would see that what's gotten here are COMMITMENTS by the cable companies: the feds aren't giving them any money at all, and the CORPORATIONS are shouldering the whole burden. (which isn't really a burden, since the article noted that they'll still make a profit here, just a smaller one) And for those that refuse to go back and read it, here's something from the NYT article itself:

And yes, apparently broadband access is considered a right in the United States; I distinctly recall BOTH presidents Bush and Obama pushing for universal access throughout their tenures in office: so it's a bipartisan issue here.

Anyone screaming "socialism" here doesn't understand what capitalism is, what a free market is, and sure as hell isn't a capitalist. An initiative like this is actually a clear example of a SUCCESS of capitalism, even if it demonstrates a drawback of the "invisible hand" of the free market. (free market and capitalism are HARDLY one and the same) With a little persuasion from the feds, these cable companies have broadened access in America: it's a win-win situation for those in the business, as these cable companies will surely add MILLIONS of subscribers in an era when big losses are the norm for major businesses, (Netflix, anyone?) earning them both volume AND profits, while millions of Americans will finally be able to ditch AOL.

The only sad part is that the cable companies hadn't thought to do this themselves already; this was a failure of the "Free market," and an illustration why some government influence is necessary; not a heavy hand, but a gentle nudge when the free market's force isn't strong enough to punish the "too big to fail" companies, as was apparent here.

Looks like a Mac but it's a cool case.
thanks.