Google Fiber Uptake Low Among Poor

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I think I'm going to have to agree with Google's spokesperson on this one. I just don't think a 1Gbps internet connection is a priority when you barely have enough money for the basics.

The study found that just 10% of lower income residents polled took the $70, 1 Gbps option -- and 5% took the company's 5 Mbps service, which while free does have a $300 installation fee. That's in contrast to the 42% 1 Gbps uptake rate and 11% 5 Mbps tier uptake rate in five nearby "middle- and higher-income neighborhoods."
 
I bet Google took this route to avoid activist playing the race card stating that Google discriminates against low income black communities and only target rich white communities.
 
"Addressing the digital divide is going to take a lot more than any Internet offering, because some people still don’t see the relevance of the Internet in their lives," Google Fiber's Erica Swanson states.

I wholeheartedly agree. This is also the reason why the poor stay poor, for the most part. They don't see the point of investing what little they have to advance their lives. They say "it takes money to make money." Well, yes, but you have to start with something. Even if you think you can't afford it, you have to start investing in your future in order to advance. People have to take a chance, or they'll stay poor.

I know this from experience. I've been poor, three times. I've lost everything twice. I had to back to living with my parents once and go live with my sister once. It was miserable and humiliating, but I persevered and made it back. I worked minimum wage jobs, I took every temporary and contracted job I could get to survive, but while doing so I invested in computer hardware and software and got my skills to a point that they are needed everywhere. Now I'm in a position that if I lose, I won't have to go back to that.

The poorest people in the US still have enough that they can invest in their future and move forward. Even minimum wage is enough for that. They aren't serfs. They have the choice to invest in their future, develop skills, and move up. The internet is an incredible tool for that. It's SO much easier with the internet than it was back in my day. They only have to try. They only have to invest that little bit into an internet connection and computer to be able to do it.

It's scary. It's taking a chance. It is also the only way out. They must try in order to succeed.
 
Honestly, if I had barely enough money to feed and clothe myself and my family, I wouldn't be spending any more than I had to on internet service.

It's refreshing that people are being smart with their money, and paying the $300 installation fee for perpetual free internet, albeit at a relatively slow 5 Mbps, rather than going to some DSL competitor and paying an amount per month, to avoid the $300 fee.

Just goes to show that low income people are more responsible on average with their purchasing decision, than the right wing nut jobs give them credit for :p

The "on welfare but still have the latest $120 Puma's" crowd is in actuality a tiny tiny minority of the poor.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041160038 said:
Just goes to show that low income people are more responsible on average with their purchasing decision, than the right wing nut jobs give them credit for :p

The "on welfare but still have the latest $120 Puma's" crowd is in actuality a tiny tiny minority of the poor.

It's really the LEFT wing nut jobs that don't trust/believe in the poor. Their assumption is that the poor can't make it on their own, and need food stamps, housing, welfare, obama phones, etc.

The Right believes the poor can make it on their own, and that most just need a push to get out of the hammock an get a job.

The main complaint from the right about "on welfare but still have the latest $120 Puma's", is that they are spending other people's money on expensive shoes.

If you earn the money yourself, then I don't care what you spend it on. However if you are getting handouts from the taxpayers, then the taxpayers have every right to demand that it be spent responsibly.
 
good for them. its Internet access, having it be super duper fast isnt going to change your life that much. you can stream, game, read, research, etc just fine at those speeds...they phrase it as if anything slower than the fastest tier is the equivalent of having no internet access at all.

for the poor, having computers/tablets to get on the internet is a hurdle in itself. Now I have to keep the lights on to use it, pay for it and buy equipment to take advantage and hope the roaming crackheads dont come and take my shit while I'm out too. It really is a different world for the poor than the Right or the Left would lead most non-broke people to believe.
 
There's nothing special about someone with alot of money versus someone with little money. Money doesn't equal intellectual capability. Poor or rich, people are the same. People are people. That's the great thing about reality, its natural disasters, diseases, and mortality. The chemical that makes the rich man happy is the same one that makes the poor man happy. And when both are sad, its the same. You can't throw money at stopping old age.

I think if you switched around their financially, the rich man and poor man could adapt to the others financial situation and make responsible decisions.
 
^^

And when I say switch around, I mean switch around a reasonable poor man and a reasonable rich man. Giving the cocaine addicted rich guy little money, and the impulsive gambling poor guy alot of money isn't a very good idea. Those are extremes and not what I mean.
 
This is nothing more than a loss leader so that in the future they can justify their not going into the poor neighborhoods.
 
It's really the LEFT wing nut jobs that don't trust/believe in the poor. Their assumption is that the poor can't make it on their own, and need food stamps, housing, welfare, obama phones, etc.

The Right believes the poor can make it on their own, and that most just need a push to get out of the hammock an get a job.
Both the left and right politicians believe the latter, but the left wing politicians figured out a while ago that they purchase a crapload of votes by giving handouts.

A vote is a vote is a vote, whether or not you've ever even made an attempt to contribute anything to society.
 
This is nothing more than a loss leader so that in the future they can justify their not going into the poor neighborhoods.

Google benefits the more people have internet access.

This is widely suspected to be the entire reason behind Google Fiber. Get more people on the internet, and the faster the better.

If I had to wager a guess, Google doesn't really want to be in the ISP business at all, but they are doing it in order to show that it can be done, and prod other ISP's into improving their offerings, partially by disproving what their lobbyists are telling congress, and showing that it actually can be done.
 
Oh, for reference, I have google fiber and pay $70/mo for just internet.

I also happen to know a family that is poor to the point that they get a free-rent house (albeit in the ghetto) and food stamps and they sprung for the $120/mo cable+internet package. This is a family where the husband will often pawn their possessions to buy alcohol, cigarettes, and whatever else can get you high.

Now this was a few months ago and I stopped talking to them when they were trying to get me to pay for the used car they can't afford, so I have no idea if it's still hooked up.
 
Both the left and right politicians believe the latter, but the left wing politicians figured out a while ago that they purchase a crapload of votes by giving handouts.

A vote is a vote is a vote, whether or not you've ever even made an attempt to contribute anything to society.

No, the politicians do it because having hordes of starving/homeless poor willing to commit crimes to feed themselves and their poorly planned families is more expensive than giving them some food stamps every month. Let's be practical about it. Some poor would work. Some poor would resort to crime, and we can't afford more crime with our prisons already so overcrowded by non-violent offenders.
 
Oh, for reference, I have google fiber and pay $70/mo for just internet.

I also happen to know a family that is poor to the point that they get a free-rent house (albeit in the ghetto) and food stamps and they sprung for the $120/mo cable+internet package. This is a family where the husband will often pawn their possessions to buy alcohol, cigarettes, and whatever else can get you high.

Now this was a few months ago and I stopped talking to them when they were trying to get me to pay for the used car they can't afford, so I have no idea if it's still hooked up.

There are always going to be people who do things they aren't supposed to and make poor choices, but these people are in the minority, and are NOT limited just to the poor.

Most poor people are very hard working, decent people.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041160201 said:
Google benefits the more people have internet access.

This is widely suspected to be the entire reason behind Google Fiber. Get more people on the internet, and the faster the better.

If I had to wager a guess, Google doesn't really want to be in the ISP business at all, but they are doing it in order to show that it can be done, and prod other ISP's into improving their offerings, partially by disproving what their lobbyists are telling congress, and showing that it actually can be done.

I believe the opposite. Google wants to be in this business. Primarily because it provides an extremely sought after revenue stream. Why do you think companies linked to a system of revenues based on a recurring billing scheme have such high valuations. The consistency is what people want. If Google can add in 20 years 50 to 60 billion a year in stable revenues that will allow them to broaden their goals into the crazy things they want to do. The search market is extremely profitable but it could go away very quickly if users tastes change. If Google has a service that very few others compete with its likely that they will be around much longer. Sure few really compete with Google in search now but that can change very quickly if someone comes along with something better and gets some money to put it into use.
 
No, the politicians do it because having hordes of starving/homeless poor willing to commit crimes to feed themselves and their poorly planned families is more expensive than giving them some food stamps every month. Let's be practical about it. Some poor would work. Some poor would resort to crime, and we can't afford more crime with our prisons already so overcrowded by non-violent offenders.

So we can't afford to house more criminals yet we give out 20 year sentences for an ounce of pot. Yes, lets give out billions of dollars worth of vote buying gimmes, but lets not address the actual problem plaguing our criminal justice system. Also known as idiotic sentencing for minor drug offenses.
 
"...because some people still don’t see the relevance of the Internet in their lives," Google Fiber's Erica Swanson states.
I smell old people....

Uh...Who cares about these people? It's not like their search ad revenue and data mining matters to Google...
 
If Google Fiber was available in NC where I live, but required a $300 installation fee, most people would skip it also. Many of these people refused to get county water because of the installation fee. So they kept using their wells that are contaminated with DDT from the farming in the area. Hell very few areas have county sewage because the citizens voted it out because of the cost of installation. And 99.9% of them have septic tank sewage systems that are perpetually stopped up because when it rains the water table is less than 5 feet.

The only way we got water in was that a group of individuals went door to door and literally begged each family to vote for it in. They carried the signature pad with them because they knew these people wouldn't come to the meeting to vote. I would assume that the same mindset exists in other places in the USA. Looking at the study the majority of even the middle class and upper class didn't take the $70 package.
 
If Google Fiber was available in NC where I live, but required a $300 installation fee, most people would skip it also. Many of these people refused to get county water because of the installation fee. So they kept using their wells that are contaminated with DDT from the farming in the area. Hell very few areas have county sewage because the citizens voted it out because of the cost of installation. And 99.9% of them have septic tank sewage systems that are perpetually stopped up because when it rains the water table is less than 5 feet.

The only way we got water in was that a group of individuals went door to door and literally begged each family to vote for it in. They carried the signature pad with them because they knew these people wouldn't come to the meeting to vote. I would assume that the same mindset exists in other places in the USA. Looking at the study the majority of even the middle class and upper class didn't take the $70 package.

I would never move anywhere without public water service and a public sewer system at ANY cost for ANY reason.

These are bare minimum public services to me.

I'd also refuse to move anywhere without at least one broadband provider at 25+ Mbps

I don't understand why people keep living in places like this. They are doing it to themselves!
 
Wonder what would happen if the installation was free for poor families, but came with a couple of Chromebooks with Google Services attached. Would they trade marketing and a loss of privacy for free internet?
 
Wonder what would happen if the installation was free for poor families, but came with a couple of Chromebooks with Google Services attached. Would they trade marketing and a loss of privacy for free internet?

Shoot, I'm not poor and I'd trade marketing and loss of privacy for free internet (if it was a decent service) :p
 
Minimum wage assumes you live with parents or relatives, or earning roommates. Or working spouse. And two jobs or paid overtime.
Job hunting means wheels and phone at a minimum. Cleanliness, reasonable clothes.
Some places buses are enough for transport, most, not.
Internet, yes labor dept, libraries, can be enough. Or wifi with laptop or tablet. Or a smart phone, possibly.

160 hours a month at $10 an hour gross is $1600 a month. Rent and utilities? $1100? more Phone $30-120.
Internet $25-60. $1600 a month gets about$14 EBT. Food banks and soup kitchens take time.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041160301 said:
I would never move anywhere without public water service and a public sewer system at ANY cost for ANY reason.

These are bare minimum public services to me.

I'd also refuse to move anywhere without at least one broadband provider at 25+ Mbps

I don't understand why people keep living in places like this. They are doing it to themselves!

Ha ha that is most of North Carolina. We have areas with outdoor toilets still. We call them an "Outhouse". Kinda sounds like Outback huh? About 15 years ago they did try to have most of them removed, but you still see them on the way to Greenville, NC for example.

NC is mostly about agriculture, but we do have areas like Charlotte and Raleigh where Epic Games resides for example. Unreal Engine is what they are famous for. The lawmakers extol the virtues of living in a Christian state when they run for office. So right off the bat we're behind the 8 ball and the main reason that nothing changes around here.

:)
 
Ha ha Google is already spying on us anyways. :)

Exactly ... I had the same attitude with being fingerprinted for Global Entry ... I figured the government probably already knew tons about me but at least with the Global Entry I got the improved border crossing privileges and access to TSA Pre at the airports :cool:
 
Not only would it be difficult to come up with $300 for a large portion of our nation's working poor, but it's unnecessary since they would qualify for $10/month dollar DSL service.

I would only pay $300 dollars if I had the spare money and I owned the home. Otherwise, I'd feel I was better off paying for high speed internet that same amount spread over 3 years from a different provider.
 
I wholeheartedly agree. This is also the reason why the poor stay poor, for the most part. They don't see the point of investing what little they have to advance their lives. They say "it takes money to make money." Well, yes, but you have to start with something. Even if you think you can't afford it, you have to start investing in your future in order to advance. People have to take a chance, or they'll stay poor.

I know this from experience. I've been poor, three times. I've lost everything twice. I had to back to living with my parents once and go live with my sister once. It was miserable and humiliating, but I persevered and made it back. I worked minimum wage jobs, I took every temporary and contracted job I could get to survive, but while doing so I invested in computer hardware and software and got my skills to a point that they are needed everywhere. Now I'm in a position that if I lose, I won't have to go back to that.

The poorest people in the US still have enough that they can invest in their future and move forward. Even minimum wage is enough for that. They aren't serfs. They have the choice to invest in their future, develop skills, and move up. The internet is an incredible tool for that. It's SO much easier with the internet than it was back in my day. They only have to try. They only have to invest that little bit into an internet connection and computer to be able to do it.

It's scary. It's taking a chance. It is also the only way out. They must try in order to succeed.

Solid post man.
 
"Addressing the digital divide is going to take a lot more than any Internet offering, because some people still don’t see the relevance of the Internet in their lives," Google Fiber's Erica Swanson states.

I'd settle for fair broadband rates, as opposed to Comcast's relentless increases on internet-only service. Our current rate is $70/mo and combined internet/cable service is $75. Funny how Comcast immediately points to channel costs as their justification for these increases, yet what channel costs exist with internet service?
 
Our current rate is $70/mo and combined internet/cable service is $75.

I wish my Comcast combined internet/cable service is $75. For me its nearly double that and I have Digital Starter.
 
Poverty is 'a state of mind' and an enculturation. Cash flow is merely a symptom.

Most poor adults grew up without books around, and they don't read for pleasure. If one doesn't pick up reading before a certain age, it's always going to be a chore. This is a much more significant barrier to internet usage among working class and poor people in America than the cost of bundled internet and hardware.
Cable TV hasn't had uptake problems among the lower income demographics...
 
Poverty is 'a state of mind' and an enculturation. Cash flow is merely a symptom.

Most poor adults grew up without books around, and they don't read for pleasure. If one doesn't pick up reading before a certain age, it's always going to be a chore. This is a much more significant barrier to internet usage among working class and poor people in America than the cost of bundled internet and hardware.
Cable TV hasn't had uptake problems among the lower income demographics...

Perhaps, but becoming knowledgeable and learned is hardly the best way to get rich. A poor person who reads Hume and Russell will just become increasing disappointed and disgusted at his situation, made all the more worse by the knowledge that so many rich people are neither knowledgeable nor learned.
 
No, the politicians do it because having hordes of starving/homeless poor willing to commit crimes to feed themselves and their poorly planned families is more expensive than giving them some food stamps every month. Let's be practical about it. Some poor would work. Some poor would resort to crime, and we can't afford more crime with our prisons already so overcrowded by non-violent offenders.
Except they take the food stamps and STILL are the ones committing almost all of the violent crime. So perhaps that is a strategy, but not a very successful one as you just teach people to feel entitled to free stuff, be it handouts or looting/thieving... anything but hard work.
 
Except they take the food stamps and STILL are the ones committing almost all of the violent crime. So perhaps that is a strategy, but not a very successful one as you just teach people to feel entitled to free stuff, be it handouts or looting/thieving... anything but hard work.

If they were out there unable to feed themselves, you can bet it would be a lot worse.

Besides, crime is at record low levels, just about everywhere in the country after having peaked in the 70's, so something is working and moving in the right direction.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041160876 said:
If they were out there unable to feed themselves, you can bet it would be a lot worse.

Besides, crime is at record low levels, just about everywhere in the country after having peaked in the 70's, so something is working and moving in the right direction.
two things:

don't justify ducman's nonsensical ramblings with responses
PRWORA, passed under Clinton, mandates that TANF recipients work in order to maintain benefit eligibility (that's only recently been relaxed under Obama to allow states more flexibility in response to the current economy). It also caps benefits at 2 years consecutive and 5 for life.

I've pointed this out to him before.

The second thing is that we are no safer as a nation. When people talk about crime data in the US they usually refer to the FBI published UCR data. That data is a national average of all crime statistics reported to the FBI by local police departments (which are also dependent on crime being reported to them in the first place).

Violent crime peaked in the 90's, not the 70's, but the 70's is when we recognize that crime became a huge national problem after having been relatively static for the previous sixish decades. The national average for some crime has finally come back closer to what it was in the 70's, but it's always (now, during its peak, even at its lowest points) been higher than other Western democracies and higher by a very wide margin.

The problem with using national averages to understand crime trends is that the data hides local problematic areas. For example, it's certain true to say that some places, like Ashland, OR are much safer than they were say ten years go, but that's not true about places like Chicago or Detroit, where the murder rate is upwards of 8x the national average. In places that have highly concentrated social problems things are worse, and much worse at that, than they've ever been and getting worse. This is despite the fact that we pump hundreds of billions of dollars into our criminal justice system every year and incarcerate people more often and for longer periods of time. We are definitely not going in the right direction.
 
......
I think if you switched around their financially, the rich man and poor man could adapt to the others financial situation and make responsible decisions.

this is demonstrably false. There are numerous examples of the poor winning the lottery and ending up worse off than when they started. This could be selection bias, though.
 
Back
Top