Broadband in Boston is a Number One priority?

Yeah I am against this, I'm all for folks to have broadband, but to subsidize it? No thanks. Its not a necessity like electric or heat. Your life won't end if you don't have the internet. The reasoning they do this has little merit, as many Career Centers, Libraries, and Schools already offer free internet access. Why should my tax dollars pay for these? I already pay for public internet access (libraries, schools), why should I pay for private homes. If people need to do these 'reasons' they claim, they can use the library or some other free internet place. If you want to do these things, and don't have internet at home, you'll find a way to do them regardless. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Someone also claimed that these folks also would need to have a computer to use this service? So uh yeah if they are low income, where is the money coming from to buy a computer? And even if they do, whats stopping them from using the internet connection for its non-intended purposes by this program (i.e. Facebook, Porn, eBay etc). How do we know what they are doing? As is, the state can't even control EBT purchases, let alone a computer network. I know when you receive subsidized land line service, you aren't allowed to make any long distance calls (its blocked), and pretty much its meant for emergencies only (or local calls). Why can't we do this for this program too?

What the state SHOULD be doing with this money is instead of giving people internet connections at home, they should be forcing broadband providers to offer an economy service. Everyone knows broadband is so over priced and the providers just get you because they know they are a monopoly. How about the gov't tell broadband providers to be more competitive to lower prices? This way everyone can benefit, not just a select few of low income folks. I know *many* people who would pay 10-15/mo just to have basic service, because a 768k link is all you need for basic browsing and email.

The other thing the gov't should do is just give the $ to the libraries for media rooms (Computer rooms), again so everyone can benefit, not just a certain amount of folks.

I'm sorry, nothing good will come out of this. What's next? Free Cable TV? Free Maid Service? It's almost getting to point where you're better off being at the poverty line than having a job and making money. You can get everything paid for at the poverty line.. free Medical, Dental, Tax Help, Utility Help (Gas & Land Line), Heating Assistance, Sec 8, Food Stamps, EBT w/ Cash, Cell phone service (yes folks, free cell phones), and now free internet. Really? Where does it end? People will never want to get off of their ass and improve their lives if we keep giving them free stuff. Remember folks, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I do not fall under low income but can I get some cash because there is only one choice of internet provider where I live.

Like the post says, the real problem is that there is no real competition between providers thus they can charge higher prices across the board for internet access.

More competition = lower prices = more people can get internet access.

If the library would have been simply given this money instead, I'm willing to bet they could keep all of the branches open with free-flowing internet for EVERYONE, not just the poor who can't afford cable internet for longer than whatever this sleazy plan is slated for.

Hell, why does it have to be cable internet? I'm willing to bet there's cheaper DSL and most of these people probably already have phone lines even if they don't have cable in their walls.

The money also could have been spent on free Wi-Fi hotspotting the entire city (like Brookline) where everyone would have benefited from it as well...so instead of subsidizing only the poor, it would have subsidized all of us. Then you just hand out free WiFi USB dongles to the poor.

Since none of these options were the answer chosen, and some are even cheaper and more efficient (or both), than the proposed solution of simply paying Comcast...one has to wonder if this whole thing isn't more welfare for Comcast than it is the poor.

Sigh.

Why is it whenever a politician talks about a subject, the phrase "number one issue" always comes up. If we were to tally all of the "number one issues" how would they all rank with each other?

Sorry, just annoyed with use of language amongst those who are suppose to represent us at times.

Besides that, FIOS, though not in Boston, has mainly stayed concentrated in the NE corridor. I constantly hear all the time on CNET's BOL that they wish they had the option of FIOS in San Francisco, but Verizon is not expanding out in their areas.

The problem ultimately is that the 3 major carriers here, and elsewhere in general, don't have a major incentive to improve or expand their coverage. They could tap all of the dark fiber cables that were installed in the late 90s and early 2000s, but why go and finish the last mile connections from the curb to the homes/apartments, when they can ink out every possible cent with the older infrastructure they have already? This is part of the reason why Comcast and Time Warner restrict the amount of data one can download per month to stifle heavy users on their networks. Otherwise, dear goodness, they would need to improve their infrastructure and that would require money!

With all of this discussion, I feel like I'm back at UMass Amherst again.... Valid points on both sides

Ok a couple of you took what I said and twisted it. I never said "low income people" nor specifically name any race. Its not the who, its the what is the problem here.

We've gone a bit too far offering subsidies. This isn't about race or financial situation. Again, where there's a will, there's a way. If you want the internet, you'll pay for it or find a way to get to it. Your life does not end if you don't have the internet at home. I'm sorry, no point will change my opinion about that. As hard as it is to believe, we did survive before the internet, and can do so without. Yes its a great thing and I love it, I even have made a fortune working for internet companies. But I don't think my tax dollars should subsidize people getting the internet at home.

As I said previously, 768k/100k up is sufficient for most peoples use. Why can't the ISPs offer a cheap under 15/mo package? Its all about money. Why lose money on a discounted product when you can get the government to give you a subsidy and call it "help for low income folks" when its really government charity for corporations, namely Comcast. Comcast, who has some of the most expensive internet packages around is making hand over fist, and the government really has no other choice than to team up with Comcast since Comcast is now a monopoly thanks again to this same government. Again its all corporate Welfare.

Maybe create tax breaks for companies who service these areas. (yes this is sorta corporate welfare, but good kind since it will spur growth and industry). There's pre-paid cellular now, why can't folks have pre-paid internet at home. Almost always internet installs (Cable or DSL) are 'self' installs. They just turn the box and/or line on. The user does the rest. Or maybe just have Pre-paid WiFiMax. Again the technology exists, why not do it? Lots of lower income people (and not so low income people) use prepaid because you pay as you go and it fits in with their lifestyle.

I, 100% support the effort to make the internet more available around the country in general. I know what having access can do. I, personally, am thankful for the internet as it has advanced my career, but I don't think of the internet necessity to live. Its a 'nice to have' but you're not going to die (literally) if you don't have it.

And I just don't think my tax dollars should be spent this way. We have libraries that are hurting right now, if the internet is so big and helpful, why aren't we building/saving libraries. The 'new' library of the future could be bookless and you get handed an ipad when you walk in. The library would end up looking more like a Starbucks than a library (as it would be mostly seating since the books would be gone.) I think this would be a better solution and serve far more people than just low income. Then everyone benefits, not just a certain group of people.

I think my bottom line is, its great there's initiative to service folks who may not have any other option. But I don't think we need to throw money at the problem to try to fix it. We have laws and policy, and if they aren't working to spur growth in this area, lets look at them and change them first before spending money we really don't have at a problem that may or may not work.

a) Does Mayor Menino have WiFi setup throughout the Financial District?... b) does the Mayor have WiFi have setup in the areas adjacent to the Financial District?