I just read an interesting article on Comcast Internet Essentials. Here’s the good news…
In its first 23 months, Internet Essentials has signed up 220,000 mostly urban households for Internet access that costs just $9.95 a month, making it the biggest digital divide program in the country. In order to qualify for the program, which also includes digital literacy training and the opportunity to buy low-cost refurbished computers, the household must have at least one child enrolled in the federal free or reduced lunch program at public school. Comcast is currently conducting a 23-state publicity tour to further tout the program. They’ve also recently increased the speeds available to Internet Essentials users, to 5 mbps downstream and 1 mbps upstream; by comparison, Comcast’s lowest cost cable and Internet package offers 20 mbps downloading speeds for $70 a month.
Here’s the hiccup…
I’ve [the original author] taken three donated computers to this family and I was expecting to get them all online with this cable modem service. Aha, but not so fast. Comcast’s telephone tech support tells me that Internet Essentials users cannot use Wi-Fi with their cable modems. Hmmm, but nowhere in Comcast’s printed literature about Internet Essentials is this limitation mentioned. And nowhere on the Comcast Internet Essentials web site is this limitation mentioned. Naturally, families who sign up for Internet Essentials get confused about this, but they are not well positioned to advocate for their needs…
Charlie Douglas, a Comcast spokesperson, confirms that Internet Essentials does not offer wi-fi. “A family that has a wifi modem could plug one in and that could be part of it. We don’t offer it as part of our $9.95 monthly service. We provide the cable modem which is a wired connection.” Wi-fi modems retail at about $75–$90.
Douglas says that to his knowledge, the families served by the program don’t miss the wi-fi access and don’t need it. “I haven’t heard anecdotally of this cohort of people asking for wireless options,” he says.
I applaud any program that offers more affordable broadband to people who need it. But this seems a little short sighted. I think it’s a good investment to provide non-adopters with the best technology experience we can. Part of the roadblock for adoption is lack of skills – setting up unnecessary roadblocks does not help reduce that barrier. This article details the story of a tech consultant who spent time trying to set up the non-existent Wi-Fi option. If he spent 30 minutes on it, you know some other folks have spent hours on it! Presumably, if you got a $75 wireless route you could set up a wireless network – but again that requires some technical aptitude that is often not found in the low-income households taking advantage of such programs.
It’s setting up a level of frustration that could backfire in the long term. I suspect people who are able to make the best use of the network on most likely to continue the connection long after the reduced rates are available. That means no frustration; that means getting the connection you expect; that means getting everyone online.
So again I applaud the effort – and the frustration highlights the nice feature of the regular service – but it seems like most households (especially those with students) would benefit from a wireless network at home.
Increasingly households have multiple computers/devices that connect to the Internet. I live in a house with five people and 13 computers/devices. Kids learn quickly to shift from 3G to home wireless to save on their data plans. The iPads/iPods are Wi-Fi-only to save on data plans. And what will this network look like once the Internet of things really kicks in?
This general issue — wired Internet access in a home WITHOUT wireless access at the same time — could be the new “digital divide.”
In Northfield we rolled out nearly 2500 iPads to middle and high school students. These WiFi iPads MUST connect to the Internet — through the school’s proxy server/firewall — to do almost anything: browse, access productivity apps (Google Docs), etc.
The school district estimated, based on surveys, that upwards of 85% of the students had Internet in their homes (that is how the question was asked) but following my discussions with them have come to realize that perhaps as many as HALF their students won’t in fact be able to use their iPads at home because they lack WiFi and cannot afford the $30 or more for a wireless router.
This has prompted a scramble of sorts with students starting to collect and publish lists of locations where WiFi is available and free, particularly on evenings and weekends. Not surprising, it is a small list.
My concern for this issue has motivated my efforts to have the public library (I’m chair of the Library Board) upgrade its Internet service and WiFi capacity and restore Sunday hours that were cut in 2009. The upgrades are happening and there will be a city council vote tonight on funding for the additional hours. Fingers crossed.
Having wireless access at home is a game changer! I remember the first time I has easy access was in Dublin – where they offered access similar to Comcast with the ready-wireless router. It was so much easier than setting up anything myself. And I’m fairly technical and don’t mind the cost of a router. For folks who are less comfortable with the technology or spending – that can be a real stopper.
I will keep my fingers for city council meeting. Good luck!
I was part of an interesting discussion on Internet Essentials. The persons who were charged with promoting it as a part of their day jobs were asserting that the families who were most likely to benefit from the program were often hung up on these requirements:
* Have not subscribed to Comcast Internet service within the last 90 days
* Not have an overdue Comcast bill or unreturned equipment
I.E. – They needed help, but they had Comcast service in the past and couldn’t pay the bill.
The opinion was that those restrictions made the program far less valuable overall.
Good point!
It seems like there should be a way to channel those folks who have trouble paying into the Internet Essentials service as needed. That might help people with sudden change in economic standing (lost job) or people who qualified but didn’t know about the program earlier.
What a boon that could be to help give a family a hand up to accessing education and employment resources!
They still have the other requirements (have at least one child eligible to participate in the National School Lunch Program) so there would be some limit – which might protect Comcast from overuse/abuse of the program.
Wouldn’t a family be able to buy a wireless access point from anywhere for less than $30 and plug that into the modem provided by Comcast? That gets them their wireless. I think Comcast just doesn’t offer their own modem with wifi built in. It doesn’t stop someone from putting in their own
Bill – You’re right; I think you could add your own wireless network. The article quoted a cost for equipment at $75. I suspect your price is closer to reality. YOu bring up a good point.
BUT I think part of the problem is setting up an expectation. If most accounts include wireless network – then I think it would make sense to make that these account don’t include that. Also I think setting up the barrier just makes the account less attractive and might hinder adoption. (I get that it might also nudge people into a market-paying account – but again that requires that users know the options.)
Interesting stories and comments – Hi Hans!
Lots of half-full/empty considerations…220,000 is a lot of people, but it is a relatively small share of low-income families in the Comcast service area. It is good to see that the speed increase to 5 Mb so that video streaming is generally possible if people are getting the full 5 Mb.
I have heard about the people who are current Comcast Internet subscribers and would rather pay $10 than $50 or $70. I don’t blame either party in this discussion, but I can understand Comcast’s goal is to get new customers, not reduce their revenue. I don’t have much sympathy for those who don’t pay their current bills and expect a discounted service now.
I agree with Ann that the lack of a wireless router is more of a tech support issue than a cost issue. I have at least one working router in my closet and I checked on Amazon and there are routers for less than $20. Maybe PCs for People should start collecting and distributing routers too!
I worry about “tech consultants” who are spending 30 minutes trying to connect to a wi-fi network that does not exist!
Thrift stores have wifi routers for under $10.
Great suggestion – although you still have to be able to set it all up. That can be a barrier too. But cheap routers at thrift stores will certainly help some!!