PDA

View Full Version : More Obama Socialism/ FCC used



luvmylabs23139
08-17-2011, 02:25 PM
Comcast offering $10 Internet for low-income families who qualify

When Comcast acquired NBC Universal earlier this year, an FCC-mandated requirement was that the cable giant offer cheap Internet access to low-income households. Comcast is making good on the mandate through a new program called Internet Essentials (http://www.internetessentials.com/).

http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2011/08/comcast-offering-10-internet-for-low-income-families-who-qualify/

I am so darn tired of this crap.

troy schwab
08-17-2011, 02:42 PM
More entitlement crap..... with the amount of hotspots available to the public.....this is an absolute waste of money, and borderline discrimination. Obama is an idiot.....period.

Blackstone
08-17-2011, 04:08 PM
What does Obama have to do with this?

luvmylabs23139
08-17-2011, 04:21 PM
What does Obama have to do with this?


You're kidding right?
When Obama can't get one of his socialist moves thru congress, he bypasses them using agencies that he appointed his socialist partners to.
This move by the FCC is blatent SOCIALISM!
Comcast simply raised the rates for regular customers to cover this socialist order from KING OBAMA.

Blackstone
08-17-2011, 04:31 PM
So, when the FCC imposed the same type of mandate on AT&T to provide low cost DSL in 2007, was that Obama Socialism? Or, was that Bush Socialism? Or, was it just the FCC acting independently?

luvmylabs23139
08-17-2011, 04:35 PM
NO idea but it is flat out socialism period. I'm sure since at that point the dems controled congress SOCIALIST PELOSI AND SOCIALIST REID had something to do with it. It is also blackmail!!!!!

Franco
08-17-2011, 04:55 PM
In the late 80's, Bush 41 mandated that a certain amount of radio stations and other public property be sold to minorities. He also signed legislation where broadcast properties sold to minorities would receive tax credits for the seller.

In 1996, the Republicans authored the worse broadcast legislation in our history called the Tele_Com Deregulation Act of 1996. Clinton signed it and the public has suffered from the results ever since. Has anyone's cell phone bill gone down?

Point is that "dumb" or "socialist" are in both major US parties, just different flavors. You don't think that just one political party got us into this mess, do you?

Blackstone
08-17-2011, 05:07 PM
NO idea but it is flat out socialism period. I'm sure since at that point the dems controled congress SOCIALIST PELOSI AND SOCIALIST REID had something to do with it. It is also blackmail!!!!!

You're sure of that? Where's your proof?

Blackstone
08-17-2011, 05:09 PM
Point is that "dumb" or "socialist" are in both major US parties, just different flavors. You don't think that just one political party got us into this mess, do you?

You hit the nail on the head.

luvmylabs23139
08-17-2011, 05:31 PM
You're sure of that? Where's your proof?

I do not have proof but I would be more than willing to place a wager that they were behind it somehow.
Back to the real point,
DO you agree with this SOCIALIST REDISTRIBUTION?
Regular customers must pay more so someone else can get something for next to nothing, do you deny that is socialism?
Do you deny Comcast was blackmailed by the FCC?

Blackstone
08-17-2011, 09:30 PM
I do not have proof but I would be more than willing to place a wager that they were behind it somehow.
Back to the real point,
DO you agree with this SOCIALIST REDISTRIBUTION?
Regular customers must pay more so someone else can get something for next to nothing, do you deny that is socialism?
Do you deny Comcast was blackmailed by the FCC?

Where did you hear Comcast raised your rates to pay for this program? It really doesnít cost them much, only the cost of administering the program. As far as I can tell, Comcast isnít waiving installation fees, and they arenít giving them free equipment. They arenít providing them with a service that has to be generated for each customer. These customers will just have the ability to access the same signal Comcast sends out to all itís customers at a lower cost. In fact, they will only have access the lowest possible bandwidth, about equal to DSL. I donít see where it will cost Comcast much. They just wonít make as much off these customers as they make off you. Besides, these customers are not getting the service for free. What they pay for access probably covers Comcastís costs for providing the service. I see no reason why Comcast would raise your rates to pay for this, and I certainly donít see this as ďSocialist Redistribution.Ē Redistribution of what?

Besides, the internet can be an important learning tool. It can open up a world of possibilities to a kid that may not get a chance to learn about it otherwise. I would certainly rather see a kid get a chance to learn something that might give them a chance at a more productive life, than have to pay for them later if they end up in jail or on welfare.

As far as the FCC blackmailing Comcast, I donít believe so. This was one of the requirements for a deal that granted Comcast approval to acquire NBC Universal. The requirement was consistent with requirements the FCC has imposed on telecommunications providers in the past to meet the goals mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

luvmylabs23139
08-17-2011, 09:50 PM
Where did you hear Comcast raised your rates to pay for this program? It really doesnít cost them much, only the cost of administering the program. As far as I can tell, Comcast isnít waiving installation fees, and they arenít giving them free equipment. They arenít providing them with a service that has to be generated for each customer. These customers will just have the ability to access the same signal Comcast sends out to all itís customers at a lower cost. In fact, they will only have access the lowest possible bandwidth, about equal to DSL. I donít see where it will cost Comcast much. They just wonít make as much off these customers as they make off you. Besides, these customers are not getting the service for free. What they pay for access probably covers Comcastís costs for providing the service. I see no reason why Comcast would raise your rates to pay for this, and I certainly donít see this as ďSocialist Redistribution.Ē Redistribution of what?

Besides, the internet can be an important learning tool. It can open up a world of possibilities to a kid that may not get a chance to learn about it otherwise. I would certainly rather see a kid get a chance to learn something that might give them a chance at a more productive life, than have to pay for them later if they end up in jail or on welfare.

As far as the FCC blackmailing Comcast, I donít believe so. This was one of the requirements for a deal that granted Comcast approval to acquire NBC Universal. The requirement was consistent with requirements the FCC has imposed on telecommunications providers in the past to meet the goals mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Comcast increased the charge for internet as soon as the blackmail was completed by the FCC.
I can't believe you don't consider the gov't insisting someone receiving a service for a reduced rate while others pay not only a higher rate but an increased rate socialism.
Why should my bill be more just so someone pays jack crap??
REDISRIBUTION SOCIALISM!!!!
I am so sick of what I earn being stolen from me either directly or indirectly by the government and to the leaches of society!

Blackstone
08-17-2011, 11:53 PM
Comcast increased the charge for internet as soon as the blackmail was completed by the FCC.
I can't believe you don't consider the gov't insisting someone receiving a service for a reduced rate while others pay not only a higher rate but an increased rate socialism.
Why should my bill be more just so someone pays jack crap??
REDISRIBUTION SOCIALISM!!!!
I am so sick of what I earn being stolen from me either directly or indirectly by the government and to the leaches of society!

So, you think the low cost internet service Comcast is offering caused them to raise internet rates? Did you consider that maybe they raised rates to help offset the $6.5 billion they paid in cash for their stake in NBC Universal? Besides, cable rates are regional, and increases can be regional as well. My internet rate didnít increase after the deal.

You arenít paying more so someone else can pay less. The service their getting is not even the same as what youíre getting. If you can show, not speculate, where internet rates increased to pay for this program, I can understand your ire, but so far, you havenít produced any evidence.

troy schwab
08-18-2011, 07:08 AM
Blackstone,
please tell me why I shouldnt be eligible for 10 bucks a month comcast service. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.......... just saying. It is redistribution, or discrimination..... which would you like to call it?

troy schwab
08-18-2011, 07:12 AM
Blackstone,
BTW, here is some reading for you........

http://cable.tmcnet.com/topics/cable/articles/173831-obama-fcc-appointee-takes-job-comcast-following-fcc.htm

Yep, Obama certainly didnt have ANYTHING to do with it.......ROFL

Blackstone
08-18-2011, 12:38 PM
Blackstone,
please tell me why I shouldnt be eligible for 10 bucks a month comcast service. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.......... just saying. It is redistribution, or discrimination..... which would you like to call it?
I canít believe you feel discriminated against because you donít qualify for everything thatís available to low income families. Comcast doesnít even offer a plan with internet service this slow to its regular customers. Download speeds are going to be 1.5Mbps, which is as slow, if not slower, than DSL. But, if youíre feeling cheated, get your income under $25k per year, get your kid(s) on the school free lunch program, and you will qualify for low cost internet. You might be hungry part of the time, not be able to pay your bills, and have a hard time paying for lifeís normal necessities, but, hey, you would qualify for $10 internet service.

Just to make your day, AT&T is planning to offer a similar program to low income families. So, I guess youíre going to be discriminated against again. I bet Obama has something to do with this too.

I hate to break it to you, but there are going to be a lot of things in life you arenít going to qualify to take advantage of. It might be because your income is too high or too low, or because you didnít go to the right school, or any number of other reasons. Thatís just the way it is.

I still donít get this ďredistributionĒ thing. What exactly is it you think is being redistributed by this program?

Blackstone
08-18-2011, 12:40 PM
Blackstone,
BTW, here is some reading for you........

http://cable.tmcnet.com/topics/cable/articles/173831-obama-fcc-appointee-takes-job-comcast-following-fcc.htm

Yep, Obama certainly didnt have ANYTHING to do with it.......ROFL

You can twist any governmental decision into a conspiracy if you try hard enough. What would Obama have to gain from intervening in the sale of NBC Universal, and sticking in that provision? Iíll ask the question again, was it a Bush conspiracy when the FCC imposed a similar mandate on AT&T? This is not the first time the FCC has done this sort of thing. It is consistent with the goals set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Obama wasnít President then. If you said Obama had something to do with Baker getting the job with Comcast, I might be inclined to give that some credence. Or, if you said Baker had something to do with getting the deal approved, and this was her reward, I could buy that too. But, there is nothing to be gained by making low cost internet services to available to underprivileged kids.

troy schwab
08-18-2011, 12:57 PM
You can twist any governmental decision into a conspiracy if you try hard enough. What would Obama have to gain from intervening in the sale of NBC Universal, and sticking in that provision? Iíll ask the question again, was it a Bush conspiracy when the FCC imposed a similar mandate on AT&T? This is not the first time the FCC has done this sort of thing. It is consistent with the goals set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Obama wasnít President then. If you said Obama had something to do with Baker getting the job with Comcast, I might be inclined to give that some credence. Or, if you said Baker had something to do with getting the deal approved, and this was her reward, I could buy that too. But, there is nothing to be gained by making low cost internet services to available to underprivileged kids.

Blackstone,
Since I currently have DSL, which I pay for........ and I work hard to maintain that privelege, yes, it does piss me off that some "entitled" lowlife, non working parent is gonna get free internet to download porn with while his kid is away eating free school lunches. You want free internet, go to mcdonalds, the library, a hotel........ there are millions of hotspots. And judging by your comments on the article, congratulations on being able to read between the lines. And yes, there is a lot to gain from entitlement voters, when Obama champions the cause........... Gimme a break. I work hard, and get screwed. The deadbeats keep getting social programs to make their life easier. They already dont work, carry cellphones, have cable, etc. Glad we can make their life easier. The new low income housing going in is lowering my property value, and upping our crime rates. Yes I am pissed off. As any american who works should be.

Blackstone
08-18-2011, 01:23 PM
Blackstone,
Since I currently have DSL, which I pay for........ and I work hard to maintain that privelege, yes, it does piss me off that some "entitled" lowlife, non working parent is gonna get free internet to download porn with while his kid is away eating free school lunches. You want free internet, go to mcdonalds, the library, a hotel........ there are millions of hotspots. And judging by your comments on the article, congratulations on being able to read between the lines. And yes, there is a lot to gain from entitlement voters, when Obama champions the cause........... Gimme a break. I work hard, and get screwed. The deadbeats keep getting social programs to make their life easier. They already dont work, carry cellphones, have cable, etc. Glad we can make their life easier. The new low income housing going in is lowering my property value, and upping our crime rates. Yes I am pissed off. As any american who works should be.

I think itís you who is reading between the lines. You have gone from $10 internet to free internet. How did that happen? Now, you have determined that these families are non-working, lowlife, dead beats that are going to be downloading porn. Thatís pretty judgmental on your part. There are working poor in this country. Some might be as you describe them, but I donít think that will be the majority. Maybe some kid will use it to do their homework or do some research. But, you would rather assume the worst. After all, theyíre all the same, right?

I guess they could go to local hot spots to get free internet, but where do they get the money to buy a laptop with Wifi to access them?

You have the right to be pissed off if you want to be. But, this program isnít costing me anything, and some kid might have a better chance to improve their life. Why would I be mad?

huntinman
08-18-2011, 01:56 PM
I think itís you who is reading between the lines. You have gone from $10 internet to free internet. How did that happen? Now, you have determined that these families are non-working, lowlife, dead beats that are going to be downloading porn. Thatís pretty judgmental on your part. There are working poor in this country. Some might be as you describe them, but I donít think that will be the majority. Maybe some kid will use it to do their homework or do some research. But, you would rather assume the worst. After all, theyíre all the same, right?

I guess they could go to local hot spots to get free internet, but where do they get the money to buy a laptop with Wifi to access them?

You have the right to be pissed off if you want to be. But, this program isnít costing me anything, and some kid might have a better chance to improve their life. Why would I be mad?

Public library?

troy schwab
08-18-2011, 01:59 PM
I think itís you who is reading between the lines. You have gone from $10 internet to free internet. How did that happen? Now, you have determined that these families are non-working, lowlife, dead beats that are going to be downloading porn. Thatís pretty judgmental on your part. There are working poor in this country. Some might be as you describe them, but I donít think that will be the majority. Maybe some kid will use it to do their homework or do some research. But, you would rather assume the worst. After all, theyíre all the same, right?

I guess they could go to local hot spots to get free internet, but where do they get the money to buy a laptop with Wifi to access them?

You have the right to be pissed off if you want to be. But, this program isnít costing me anything, and some kid might have a better chance to improve their life. Why would I be mad?

You can call it judgemental if you want, but I actually feel that you are more out of touch with the reality than I am. I see this stuff first hand, daily, here in Erie PA. The lady at the grocery store wearing $500 dollars in gold earrings and necklaces paying with food stamps. Smart phone on her hip, etc. These programs breed this lifestyle. Somedays I wonder if I wouldnt be better off, out of work, collecting my two years of unemployment, getting subsidies and food stamps, complimentary health care, and $10 internet. I do understand the intention of these programs, but there are obviously no checks and justifications within them. These programs are exploited BADLY by millions of americans. Unfortunately, I think the bad apples outnumber the good ones. You obviously seem to disagree, and maybe in your neck of the woods thats the case. But I see way to much abuse of said programs to even imagine offering another, particularly with the state of our economy. The non working scum of this country are coddled by our government, while many veterans and hard working americans are paying for it, with their money and their lives. This is america, anything is attainable..... if you dont mind WORKING for it. Im done.

Blackstone
08-18-2011, 02:03 PM
Public library?

They could use a Public Library in places where there is one. In a lot of low income communities, public libraries have closed or drastically reduced hours of operation because of lack of funding.

But, again, why should I object to them getting low cost internet if it isn't costing me anything and has no negative impact on me?

road kill
08-18-2011, 02:19 PM
They could use a Public Library in places where there is one. In a lot of low income communities, public libraries have closed or drastically reduced hours of operation because of lack of funding.

But, again, why should I object to them getting low cost internet if it isn't costing me anything and has no negative impact on me?
Mr. Blackstone,
With all due respect, the governement has NO business telling private business what to do or how to do it.

If the government wants to subsidize access to public access and government broadcasts, OK?

But in regard to mandating pricing for the companies product, you gotta be kidding me???

Please tell me you got a better argument.......



RK

Blackstone
08-18-2011, 03:21 PM
Mr. Blackstone,
With all due respect, the governement has NO business telling private business what to do or how to do it.

If the government wants to subsidize access to public access and government broadcasts, OK?

But in regard to mandating pricing for the companies product, you gotta be kidding me???

Please tell me you got a better argument.......

RK

The FCC controls what broadcasters can and cannot do, and what they are obligated to do. If I remember correctly, the FCC has always imposed public service requirements on broadcasters. Unless we disband the FCC, it will continue to be that way. This low cost internet service was one of the conditions Comcast agreed to in exchange for the FCC approving their purchase of NBC Universal.

We are only speculating here about how this agreement was reached. I remember there being a lot of controversy over how this sale might negatively impact consumers. For all we know, Comcast could have been the one that proposed it to the FCC as a way of showing how the sale would actually benefit consumers. Iím sure Comcast knows what the FCCís goals are for making telecommunication services available to low income customers. It may have been a bone they tossed the FCC to help sweeten the deal. And, we donít know the FCC mandated the price. This is a special low band width service that isnít even available to regular customers. Maybe Comcast set the price, and this is what they were willing to provide for that price. Otherwise, they could have just given them the same service regular customers get at a reduced price.

Franco
08-18-2011, 03:39 PM
Radio and Televison frequncies are owned by the citizens. Broadcaster pay licensing fees to use those airwaves and the FCC can revoke a lisence when the companies that operate these broadcast facilities are not in complience with the terms in which they are allowed to operate.

Part of the stipulation from day one of the FCC is that broadcasters give a certain portion back to the citizens. I have no problem with that since private companies make billions of dollars annually from the use of the public's property.

Also, having spent a lot of time living in rural America, I know firsthand that there are areas where the only internet service is via satellite. Anyone that has to depend on satellite for thier internet knows how expensive and poor the service is.

luvmylabs23139
08-18-2011, 03:42 PM
The mere fact the the FCC forces taxpayers to pay more for a product to subside somone else is totally wrong. I don't care how they phrase it. It is flat out socialism and theft!
Whether its thru this blackmail method or those taxes they use.

Franco
08-18-2011, 03:47 PM
The mere fact the the FCC forces taxpayers to pay more for a product to subside somone else is totally wrong. I don't care how they phrase it. It is flat out socialism and theft!
Whether its thru this blackmail method or those taxes they use.

Did you ever get broadcast TV or listen to the radio?

How much did you pay for that?

The answer is; if you only have broadcast TV and radio, you pay zero dollars for it.

Cody Covey
08-18-2011, 04:03 PM
The mere fact the the FCC forces taxpayers to pay more for a product to subside somone else is totally wrong. I don't care how they phrase it. It is flat out socialism and theft!
Whether its thru this blackmail method or those taxes they use.

But you aren't paying more so someone else is paying less....you are paying the same and the company is giving a lower price for a service that they don't actually pay for. The bandwidth is there whether that customer is using it or not so $10 is extra. Plus they are marking up the hard ware and installation a bunch. They aren't losing money and you aren't subsidising the poor.

Blackstone
08-18-2011, 04:20 PM
The mere fact the the FCC forces taxpayers to pay more for a product to subside somone else is totally wrong. I don't care how they phrase it. It is flat out socialism and theft!
Whether its thru this blackmail method or those taxes they use.

You keep clinging to the idea this program is costing you money. I have not seen anything to indicate this. The FCC isnít forcing tax payers to subsidize anything. Comcast is providing the service without any subsidies. And, considering how narrow the bandwidth is being offered, $10 just might cover Comcastís costs.

Gerry Clinchy
08-18-2011, 04:21 PM
Did you ever get broadcast TV or listen to the radio?

How much did you pay for that?

The answer is; if you only have broadcast TV and radio, you pay zero dollars for it.

So, if the broadcast companies who bought the licenses paid the govt for those licenses, we (the citizens) were being paid for the use of the airwaves, and getting, in return, the results of what the companies broadcast.

The broadcast companies wanted to buy that airspace to make a profit. Individual taxpayers got something in return, i.e. programs offered. The broadcaster collected advertising income to make a profit (& pay for the license they'd purchased & the production costs).

Not quite the same as the Comcast scenario, where only a certain segment of the population benefit, and other segments "may" actually be subsidizing the low-cost benefit.

I pay $30/mo for DSL, from the phone company; the only alternative to dial-up, one-way cable (from a provider whose service sucks) or satellite. I am close enough to a "substation" that sometimes my download could be as high as 3.0 ... but they don't guarantee that speed; might be as low as 1.0 depending on "conditions".

Good ole FCC ... take a look at those bills for phones, cell phones, cable & internet services. I can hardly believe how heavily taxed they are! Comes to about 10% of the cost of the service. We're worried about a tax on tanning salons? I'd venture that there are many more people who consider a phone or internet more critical to their lives than a visit to the tanning salon ... yet we never seemed to notice that they are taxing those "essentials" at such a high rate.

Blackstone
08-18-2011, 04:37 PM
Did you ever get broadcast TV or listen to the radio?

How much did you pay for that?

The answer is; if you only have broadcast TV and radio, you pay zero dollars for it.

I pay for cable TV and XM Radio. You mean there's someone out there getting TV and radio for free? Well then, I want mine for free too. Damn that FCC for forcing taxpayers to subsidize someone getting free TV and radio while I pay for mine! Itís Socialism, I tell you . . . . Socialism!!!

road kill
08-18-2011, 04:50 PM
I pay for cable TV and XM Radio. You mean there's someone out there getting TV and radio for free? Well then, I want mine for free too. Damn that FCC for forcing taxpayers to subsidize someone getting free TV and radio while I pay for mine! Itís Socialism, I tell you . . . . Socialism!!!

Very good Blackstone, you're catching on!!;-)


HGow does the hunting look out that way this fall?
How are those fine animals of yours doing?

I have missed you.


RK

Franco
08-18-2011, 05:05 PM
I pay for cable TV and XM Radio. You mean there's someone out there getting TV and radio for free? Well then, I want mine for free too. Damn that FCC for forcing taxpayers to subsidize someone getting free TV and radio while I pay for mine! It’s Socialism, I tell you . . . . Socialism!!!

I don't expect a youngster like you to remember way back when, before there was cable TV and satellite radio that foks that watch TV via rabbit ears and listening to thier car radio were all FREE!;-)

My 87 year old mom pays zero for TV but then again, she only gets four channels; ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS.

Blackstone
08-18-2011, 05:13 PM
Very good Blackstone, you're catching on!!;-)


HGow does the hunting look out that way this fall?
How are those fine animals of yours doing?

I have missed you.


RK
Western KS is in a drought. They are predicting bird number will suffer. Pheasants are pretty hardy, so I think they will get through it okay, but quail may be another matter. The quail numbers were just getting decent again after the drought in 2000 Ė 2001. I guess weíll have to wait to see.

I was planning a SD hunt at the end of Sept. for sharptails & prairie chickens, but I suffered a knee injury a week ago that might just put an end to those plans. I canít even get out to train with the dogs, or get them (and me) in shape for the season. Iím bummed! :( I was really looking forward to getting my pup on some sharpies.

luvmylabs23139
08-18-2011, 05:16 PM
I don't expect a youngster like you to remember way back when, before there was cable TV and satellite radio that foks that watch TV via rabbit ears and listening to thier car radio were all FREE!;-)

My 87 year old mom pays zero for TV but then again, she only gets four channels; ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS.


But back then everyone paid the same! One person wasn't paying more while the leaches of society get a deal.

Blackstone
08-18-2011, 05:25 PM
I don't expect a youngster like you to remember way back when, before there was cable TV and satellite radio that foks that watch TV via rabbit ears and listening to thier car radio were all FREE!;-)

My 87 year old mom pays zero for TV but then again, she only gets four channels; ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS.

Our first TV was a black & white RCA in a cabinet. The speaker (yes, one speaker) was on the bottom. Because Detroit was so close to Windsor, Canada, we actually had 4 channels with the Canadian station. I donít think there was PBS back then. I used to watch Hockey Night in Canada on the Canadian station, and on Saturday mornings, my sister and I would watch curling. We didnít understand curling, but those guys sweeping the ice furiously with those little brooms cracked us up!

Cody Covey
08-18-2011, 06:16 PM
But back then everyone paid the same! One person wasn't paying more while the leaches of society get a deal.

They are not getting the same service what do you not understand about that?

dback
08-18-2011, 06:51 PM
I don't expect a youngster like you to remember way back when, before there was cable TV and satellite radio that foks that watch TV via rabbit ears and listening to thier car radio were all FREE!;-)

Well.....not exactly, since you paid for it every time you made a Brewer's Gold, Rapid Shave or Brylcreem purchase.

Gerry Clinchy
08-19-2011, 12:48 PM
They are not getting the same service what do you not understand about that?

However, it's likely pretty equivalent to,or better than, the dial-up service that I paid about $33/mo (with an extra land line for the computer). It would have been $13/mo for ISP without the extra land line.

Now that all TV is digital, even grandma needs a "converter" to continue getting free TV.

Gerry Clinchy
08-19-2011, 12:50 PM
Well.....not exactly, since you paid for it every time you made a Brewer's Gold, Rapid Shave or Brylcreem purchase.

But you still did have a choice to not pay attention to the ads; and purchase some other product other than the one advertised.

As with other media, the ads are what pay for the media. Our newspapers are not supported by paid subscriptions. Their survival depends on the advertising they carry.

Cody Covey
08-19-2011, 03:34 PM
However, it's likely pretty equivalent to,or better than, the dial-up service that I paid about $33/mo (with an extra land line for the computer). It would have been $13/mo for ISP without the extra land line.

Now that all TV is digital, even grandma needs a "converter" to continue getting free TV.

That doesn't mean you are subsidizing their service. Are you also subsidizing the 12MB/s connection I only Pay $30/mo for simply because you pay more?

Terri
08-19-2011, 10:00 PM
The great thing about capitalism is if you do not like how some one runs their business you can go some place different. Get a dish it is better than cable or read a book (books are always better than the movies). If I had my way we would not have a T.V., but the husband and son like to watch sports. The price of going to the games is a lot more than the T.V. bill. Our son was 21 years old before we took him to a pro football game.

Terri