US News - Broadband For The Poor Project

[GhostShip]

A worthy project folks, I,m sure you,ll agree. 

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9914063-7.html?tag=nefd.top

A global nonprofit group is enlisting the likes of AT&T, Verizon, and cable companies for a project aimed at boosting the number of low-income Americans who subscribe to broadband by 2010.

The two-year campaign launched Tuesday by the One Economy Corporation has three major components: getting broadband connections into the homes of 500,000 low-income Americans, enlisting 5,000 young people to train their elders and neighbors in a sort of Technology 101, and dispensing video-based information about a range of topics through a new "Public Internet Channel" accessible via the Web.

According to the 8-year-old organization, whose mission is getting broadband to low-income households, only 21 percent of people earning less than $30,000 per year have broadband in their homes.

Lets hope many folks benefit from their joining of the online community, It is indeed something many people could benefit from educationally as well as socially.

[Cobra]

Sorry, but I don't agree. It's like saying broadband is a necessity for living (hence why it's focusing on low-income people who are, naturally, less likely to have it).

The Internet as a whole isn't necessary for anything (more convenient, yes, necessary, not at all), much less highspeed Internet. If my paycheck was "low income", Internet and television would be two of the first things to go.

Indulging in too many pleasures such as Internet are a reason why many people struggle to pay for their other bills that are far more necessary (such as food). The higher the incomes, the more pleasures they seem to have.

[Bearded Blunder]

I see this as at least a partially good thing, after all those on low incomes tend to be so because of low literacy & in 1st world countries increasingly poor computer literacy (increasingly better paid jobs expect & demand a degree of computer literacy)

Encouraging internet use tends to address both of these (the internet still being largely text based), children of low income paren'ts are far more likely to use their computer & reading skills doing something they want to do, ie going online, therfore improving them, than they are to do dry school work assigned to them, which they have little or no interest in..

Denying or restricting access for these people does disadvantage them to some extent

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

Sorry, but I don't agree. It's like saying broadband is a necessity for living (hence why it's focusing on low-income people who are, naturally, less likely to have it).

The Internet as a whole isn't necessary for anything (more convenient, yes, necessary, not at all), much less highspeed Internet. If my paycheck was "low income", Internet and television would be two of the first things to go.

Indulging in too many pleasures such as Internet are a reason why many people struggle to pay for their other bills that are far more necessary (such as food). The higher the incomes, the more pleasures they seem to have.

Well let me start by saying I fall into that $30k and below a year bracket raising 4 kids and taking care of my wife that does not have a paying job. No, the internet isn't necessary, but then neither is a car really, or electricity, or alchohol, or smokes for that matter, but they are things that make most of our lives even more enjoyable. Broadband internet as a rule in too many areas of America is too expencive to have or too expencive to get. Usually one or the other. The below $30k/yr bracket is being targeted because they are the ones who simply can't afford it. If your paycheck was "low income" like mine then you would know that sometimes you "have" to blow that $20 on a movie at Wal-mart, or some fishing gear, or a night out because simply put, if you don't blow it, you'll never get to do anything. And I live this so I know this.

I see this as at least a partially good thing, after all those on low incomes tend to be so because of low literacy & in 1st world countries increasingly poor computer literacy (increasingly better paid jobs expect & demand a degree of computer literacy)

Encouraging internet use tends to address both of these (the internet still being largely text based), children of low income paren'ts are far more likely to use their computer & reading skills doing something they want to do, ie going online, therfore improving them, than they are to do dry school work assigned to them, which they have little or no interest in..

Denying or restricting access for these people does disadvantage them to some extent

Believe me when I say I know that you don't mean "every" person of low income is poor because of poor education and lack of computer knowledge. That being said I completely disagree with you. More and more American businesses refuse to pay their workers a premium wage for premium work. The workers market here consists of competitive pay for premium work. Granted I know plenty of illiterate poor people who "are" poor due to lack of education. In those cases all I can say is you're pretty much right. However I know more educated low income families and single income families barely scraping by who can't  afford the necessities in life simply because unless you have an engineers degrees in what you do you are considered minimal skilled and won't get mroe than competitive pay rates. And you already know how badly I want broadband. What I want I can't get because it costs too to use or it costs too much to get so that I can use it.

Do I think it's a good thing? Yes I do. Do I think it mecessary? Yes I do, and to explain why I'll follow Quick's example. Educational purposes. Schools in this country are nothing more anymore than glorified babysitters. When I started school as a child I was lucky enough to already know the basics like basic math, reading, and spelling. Some kids weren't so fortunate and the schools actually taught that. Most schools in this country now "require" that your kids know this or they simply toss them into some worthless "special ed" class. With computers and broadband in poorer homes and a community based "pc training" deal at least those parents who don't always know even the simplest answers can have a resource to go and look and try to find what their child needs. Why not dialup vs broadband? Because even as pathetic as it already was, more and more websites are going "broadband over dialup priority" in what they offer and dialup is failing more and more and becoming more pathetic as a means of internet connection.

Well that's my shpeel on it. Hope it's helpfull.

[Lagerlout666]

yup i must admit in any of the pages i have designed i have ner thought of a person on 56k, mostly because of the people i deal with are on dsl/cable lines. But i would imagine someone popping on over to my site might find it a little difficult on some pages, maybe thats something i really should think about more often

An more people is more possible winmxers and more files. give everyone a pc and internet

[White Stripes]

Why not dialup vs broadband? Because even as pathetic as it already was, more and more websites are going "broadband over dialup priority" in what they offer and dialup is failing more and more and becoming more pathetic as a means of internet connection.

disable shockwave slow and java/javascript (use the noscript extension on firefox to enable disable it or in opera globally disable it and use 'site preferences' to enable it on the ones that -absolutely- need it) ... also in firefox install the 'ad block plus' extension...

and then after all that make sure you have the patience of jobe and a locally running caching proxy of some kind...

been on dialup since 1996 and the way the infrastructure upgrades are coming along out here (lets just say im surprised we dont still have to dial using 'pulse') it looks like ill be that way for a very long time... (what do the poor do when the broadband pipe simply doesnt exsist?)

PS due to the multitude of mxmoni lusers on the MX blocking dialup connects even the MX is becoming (has become?) useless...

[Cobra]

And see, that is part of the irony in all of this. I use dialup. I have ALWAYS used dialup, and I really have no reason to move to anything else. It is more than adequate as it always has been. I CHOOSE not to upgrade because the dialup company I am with is far better than any broadband tech I have ever spoken to in nearly every way except for the obvious... speed.

I can see every page just fine. I watch YouTube videos. I download from WinMX and offer free stuff as well... and people are still willing to download from me when they could instead cancel immediately and go to someone else with a faster connection. The only downside is having to wait more than 2 seconds for your page to load. Get over it. It's not a bad thing. Being impatient and feeling like you must have everything as fast as possible is far worse, in my opinion. It isn't going anywhere after all.

That is part of the point I was trying to make before. The other half is that entertainment may make lives more enjoyable, but you still don't need them, which means it's money that could be spent on things that they DO need. I was raised to believe if you don't have the money for it, you don't get it. This includes not being able to buy cigarettes or alcohol or going out to eat. Entertainment comes LAST, and you find other free ways to make up for it such as just playing outside. I have 5 brothers and sisters so I understand having four kids. There was no Internet growing up and before then there was no tv, and before that no telephone. Amazingly, people still managed to find ways to be entertained and accomplish things... and some people still do.

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

My comment was not about feeling like I had to have everything right that second. I have used WinMX for years. Since before my oldest child, my 8yr old was born. I have downloaded gig after gig of stuff. That's not a big deal for me really except that when I first started using dialup I could connect easily at 53.3k/s which was the max possable always. Now even that slow enough speed has been regulated even more to 49.3k/s. My point is that I fall into that category of $30k/y people who don't have the convenience of broadband and honestly couldn't afford it if it were available here. So if they can do anything to make it more available then that's fine. Cheaper is fine too. I think sometimes even when you don't really have the money you have to do something for yourself that takes what you don't have already. At this time I can name 2 individuals that do without things they need to help keep WinMX afloat and available to users. It's never good to be overendulgent. But I also think it's not good to go without everything just because you may not be able to afford it at the time. Sometimes you need and have to break from the norm and splurge a little. As for things we don't need and can do without if we can't afford them, wouldn't that also mean that even when we can afford them we should put that money back or it's ok to blow money as long as you have plenty to replace it?

You said the internet as a whole was not necassary and I disagree. It's proven itself over and over again to be a superb resource for learning and entertainment. Try and take my smokes from me and see how much they really are needed. I could care less about American Idol so take my TV, doesn't really bother me much. I remember days when I had no internet and I did things outside for entertainment, I still do things outside for entertainment and things inside that have nothing to do with computers or the web. Seen times I had no TV, no radio, not even an indoor bathroom, or running water. We used to have a hand pump well to draw water from.