Comcast to offer $10 a month broadband Internet to low income households

Earlier this year the cable TV and Internet ISP Comcast completed its merger deal with NBC Universal. While some have complained that the merger created a massive media conglomerate that will limit the amount of programming to consumers there is at least one nice thing that came out of the merger. Some households will gain access to a broadband Internet service that previously couldn't afford to pay for it.

DSLReports.com reports that as a part of the agreement for the NBC Universal merger, Comcast will provide households who make less than $20,000 a year access to broadband Internet service for just $10 a month. That amount of money will give those households access to a 1.5 Mbps download speed and a 384 Kbps upload speed. Normally people would pay $25 a month to Comcast for that kind of service.

The deal, which Comcast actually volunteered to offer as part of the merger agreement, will launch later this fall in the areas of the US where Comcast offers its Internet service. The company said that if a household is under the National School Lunch Program it will qualify for the $10 a month broadband Internet service. Comcast will also give those household access to training and a way to purchase a new PC for just $150. The program is scheduled to run for at least three years, according to Comcast.

Giving access to broadband Internet for more US citizens has been a goal of the federal government. A recent study by the FCC announced that the US ranks 12th out of 33 countries with households that have broadband Internet connections.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Chrome gaining ground on Firefox, IE drops

Next Story

Brink launches player stats page; first DLC pack details revealed

32 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

WHAT.

That is very unfair. thats faster then my ool connection right now!!! Im switching if there are no caps on this!!! =\

I got my first broadband connection on a similar program 10 years ago. Family income had to be less than $40000 and one of the people had to be a student. Brought the price down to about $25 for 1Mbps unlimited if I remember correctly.

well this is great. now EVERYONE can be on the internet wasting time, complaining, scamming, stealing, hacking, etc.

why is people having inet so important? before all this nonsense i didnt see the local newspaper selling half price to the poor.

The US ranks so low on broadband availability (actually, I'm pretty surprised that it ranks as high as it does) simply due to the sheer size of the area that has to be covered and the relatively low population density. It simply isn't financially viable to run the cables to every single remote neighborhood and/or house.

roadwarrior said,
The US ranks so low on broadband availability (actually, I'm pretty surprised that it ranks as high as it does) simply due to the sheer size of the area that has to be covered and the relatively low population density. It simply isn't financially viable to run the cables to every single remote neighborhood and/or house.

Sure it is financially viable to run Fiber to rural area's and then drop copper, these ISP's are making money hand over fist with so much Govt grants and money available for this there is NO reason not to. To leave so many people in the dark so to speak with no possible way to get GOOD broadband isn't right in a country that prides itself on being a power house in industry and communication.

roadwarrior said,
The US ranks so low on broadband availability (actually, I'm pretty surprised that it ranks as high as it does) simply due to the sheer size of the area that has to be covered and the relatively low population density. It simply isn't financially viable to run the cables to every single remote neighborhood and/or house.

hey now, don't use that argument, there are people that claim the size and vast population base being spread out over large areas doesn't make a difference... but besides those stupid people, I completely agree with you... its near impossible to wire a state like I dunno most of the central states where the people could live miles apart... just to much money..... their excuse is "well they get satellite"... doesn't go over to well with me using that argument

sava700 said,

Sure it is financially viable to run Fiber to rural area's and then drop copper, these ISP's are making money hand over fist with so much Govt grants and money available for this there is NO reason not to. To leave so many people in the dark so to speak with no possible way to get GOOD broadband isn't right in a country that prides itself on being a power house in industry and communication.

you obviously have no idea how expensive it is to run fiber in an area that has a population density of 1 per square mile...... it takes x number of people to pay off so much ft of fiber..... even where I am where there is 10,000+ per square mile, verizon is struggling to pay for fiber deployment due to the cost...... $1k to $2k per subscriber in densely populated areas..... even at $100 a month thats about (4-5) years before that is paid off (and before you say nuh uh thats 1 to 2yrs, there is a lot more cost involved then pure profit here.....)... now in a 1 person per sq mile the fiber run costs anywhere between $40,000 and $100,000 with the fiber, splitters, amps, etc..... how is that cost effective?

Stewart Gilligan Griffin said,

you obviously have no idea how expensive it is to run fiber in an area that has a population density of 1 per square mile...... it takes x number of people to pay off so much ft of fiber..... even where I am where there is 10,000+ per square mile, verizon is struggling to pay for fiber deployment due to the cost...... $1k to $2k per subscriber in densely populated areas..... even at $100 a month thats about (4-5) years before that is paid off (and before you say nuh uh thats 1 to 2yrs, there is a lot more cost involved then pure profit here.....)... now in a 1 person per sq mile the fiber run costs anywhere between $40,000 and $100,000 with the fiber, splitters, amps, etc..... how is that cost effective?

Because when they raise the rates (which is a good excuse for faster fiber), after a few years, they'll be out of the red. It might not make money first, but over time, they'd be making a profit.

briangw said,

Because when they raise the rates (which is a good excuse for faster fiber), after a few years, they'll be out of the red. It might not make money first, but over time, they'd be making a profit.

You mean over the course of 50 years or so? As Stewie pointed out above, the costs can easily be in the tens of thousands of dollars to wire an area that might only have one or two potential subscribers.

Stewart Gilligan Griffin said,

you obviously have no idea how expensive it is to run fiber in an area that has a population density of 1 per square mile...... it takes x number of people to pay off so much ft of fiber..... even where I am where there is 10,000+ per square mile, verizon is struggling to pay for fiber deployment due to the cost...... $1k to $2k per subscriber in densely populated areas..... even at $100 a month thats about (4-5) years before that is paid off (and before you say nuh uh thats 1 to 2yrs, there is a lot more cost involved then pure profit here.....)... now in a 1 person per sq mile the fiber run costs anywhere between $40,000 and $100,000 with the fiber, splitters, amps, etc..... how is that cost effective?

Fiber is the new copper for Verizon. This isn't something that is designed to pay for itself in a year or two. Verizon is laying this down as they are hoping to have this earning them a revenue stream for the next 100 years as they enjoyed with Copper.

When you look at it on the same timescale Verizon does then it doesn't look that expensive.

The reality is simple. Rural America needs Fiber to a node and copper to the residence. This is the best way to pay for the speed upgrades in a rural setting. For the other 80% or so of America they should have the density to support pure Fiber rollouts.

Darth Radeon said,
is 1.5mbps good enough for MP gaming on consoles?

why not? people still get that on a LOT of DSL circuits

Darth Radeon said,
is 1.5mbps good enough for MP gaming on consoles?

If you make less than $20,000 a year I think you need to worry about more important things.

Darth Radeon said,
is 1.5mbps good enough for MP gaming on consoles?

I did it for the longest time, with PC gaming anyway. Never had any issues.

Darth Radeon said,
is 1.5mbps good enough for MP gaming on consoles?

People like me used to Multiplayer game on 56kb/s dial-op. On the first Unreal.

no-sweat said,

If you make less than $20,000 a year I think you need to worry about more important things.

I'll be a grad student with a kindergartener, with essentially 0 income. This would help

no-sweat said,

If you make less than $20,000 a year I think you need to worry about more important things.

What, foodstamps don't buy consoles???? I'm sure there are people that are using their welfare checks for games and consoles.

read the fine print, you have to be a low income family, and have kids in school, the internet is subsidized by funds comcast gives the district to cover it... and the "new computer" can be "new" or "refurbished to meat certain standards"

The trouble is with rural areas that can't get the service to begin with. I have to go through my local ISP for phone, cable and internet. I can't get any of the major services without paying long distance fees. Although my local ISP is pretty good fortunately and has no usage cap, but I know many people who are still stuck with dial-up because they can't get broadband in their area at all.

sCrAtCh420th said,
well with this speed you'll never go over any caps , good for grandma & grandpa

grandma and grandpa dont qualify for this

Stewart Gilligan Griffin said,

grandma and grandpa dont qualify for this

They might assuming that they could be the primary guardian for the children or at least live in the household.

azure.sapphire said,

They might assuming that they could be the primary guardian for the children or at least live in the household.

yeah, could, but they said it in a way that its just grandma and grandpa... not grandma and grandpa with their grandchildren living with them since their parents are gone... and they aren't getting social security which would put them above the limits more then likely anyways