Diablo IV, Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 Forums - Diabloii.Net
Broadband in publicly funded housing?
Activists for the poor have for a couple of years now been demanding that cable internet be a required part of gov't funded housing. They cite statistics that the poor ($18K a year or less) use the internet as much as a third more than those making $70K a year or more. The activists are saying the internet is an equalizer far more than the TV ever was able to be.
The critics for this say the additional cost will take away from the funds to build more houses. They also say cable internet isn't what publoic housing is about. Public housing is to put 4 walls around and a roof over your head. Broadband while nice and they'd love to be able to provide it, isn't a necessity.
The critics are also asking who is goign to pay for the broadband service? The poor can't afford it. But you know if the building is required to have it, somebody is going to sue to have it provided for them. So not only would the homes cost more, additional tax dollars are going to go to provide for internet access. It'll end up either meaning higher taxes or fewer homes being built. Neither are good solutions for a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.
I work with Habitat for Humanity a lot. I've done a majority of the design work for them over the past 5 years here in Boise. Habitat doesn't allow broadband to be part of the hosue they build. They're primary focus is to put 4 walls around and a roof over your head in the smallest decent space possible. A three bedroom, one bath house can only be 1,050 square feet.
I'm with the critics. I would love to be able to provide broadband for the low-income homes I design. But it's not necessary. The cost cannot be justified, not when eliminating broadband means you can build more homes. And more homes is the most important thing.
So what do you think? Should the gov't require broadband in the publically funded homes? Or should they get by with dial-up like the majority of us do?
Activists for the poor have for a couple of years now been demanding that cable internet be a required part of gov't funded housing. They cite statistics that the poor ($18K a year or less) use the internet as much as a third more than those making $70K a year or more. The activists are saying the internet is an equalizer far more than the TV ever was able to be.
The critics for this say the additional cost will take away from the funds to build more houses. They also say cable internet isn't what publoic housing is about. Public housing is to put 4 walls around and a roof over your head. Broadband while nice and they'd love to be able to provide it, isn't a necessity.
The critics are also asking who is goign to pay for the broadband service? The poor can't afford it. But you know if the building is required to have it, somebody is going to sue to have it provided for them. So not only would the homes cost more, additional tax dollars are going to go to provide for internet access. It'll end up either meaning higher taxes or fewer homes being built. Neither are good solutions for a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.
I work with Habitat for Humanity a lot. I've done a majority of the design work for them over the past 5 years here in Boise. Habitat doesn't allow broadband to be part of the hosue they build. They're primary focus is to put 4 walls around and a roof over your head in the smallest decent space possible. A three bedroom, one bath house can only be 1,050 square feet.
I'm with the critics. I would love to be able to provide broadband for the low-income homes I design. But it's not necessary. The cost cannot be justified, not when eliminating broadband means you can build more homes. And more homes is the most important thing.
So what do you think? Should the gov't require broadband in the publically funded homes? Or should they get by with dial-up like the majority of us do?