Why we should provide social housing tenants with free broad

Does not seem to be that sensible to provide Free Broadband to social housing tennents and why just them. Many actually have more disposable income then those that rent or buy.

There may be some case for a small subsidy but Broadband is now quite cheap and given the UK's current econmic state supplying Free Broadband does not seem sensible. It could also end up diverting funds awy from improving availability


http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/nov/0...

Go find the article about Gov revamping online contact, and it costing less for online interaction and you have your answer.

it will save money.

Why not provide them with a connection which has a firewall with games, porn, shopping etc blocked? Or just with access to .gov and .nhs domains.

Great money saving Idea, with some restrictions you mention, however no them or us, have a free basic service avaiable for all.

Like the free landline telephone for emergencies, free but litre-capped water, and free but meter-capped gas and electricity for everyone?

Free, but capped income; free (capped?) housing?

That's it. I'm off to start filling out all these benefit forms. I used to think the hassle of it all wasn't worth it, but it actually is.

Uncapped housing can be cold and wet.

There can be no justification for providing Free broadband just because someone lives in Social housing. Anyone in genuine need can already get helpwith their phone bill

ATOS Health Care awaits you!

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/nov/0...

I wonder where he gets this from?

My own broadband costs just £3.50 each month

Either TalkTalk essentials so BT Basic not possible or a promo period on Plusnet perhaps?

Doesn't sound like a Plusnet one to me. TT is possible. Could it be some Sky bundle?

Not a Sky price point

There is a case for a social tarrif that allows .gov.uk interactions, and maybe a small amount of usage for free, but things like affordable access to credit rather than the 3000% APR crowd would mean people could afford normal cheap services.

Free access to the internet is available at libraries. Not ideal for downloading porn, but I assume the article intended free internet access for more "worthy" reasons.

I think what the MP is trying to address - however inadequately (and how inadequately, by the way) - is whether the internet is just a middle-class plaything. On the evidence of these forums (and the jottings of the site props too, incidentally), I suspect the answer is unambiguously in the affirmative.

. . . waits for the howls of anguish (or contemptuous silence, more likely, perhaps).

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Does not seem to be that sensible to provide Free Broadband to social housing Tennant's and why just them. Many actually have more disposable income then those that rent or buy.

There may be some case for a small subsidy but Broadband is now quite cheap and given the UK's current econmic state supplying Free Broadband does not seem sensible. It could also end up diverting funds awy from improving availability


http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2012/nov/0...

Social housing,does this still exist? I can remember when there was plenty of social housing (council housing) But thanks to thatcher they where all sold off , and local councils did not invest in building more to replace them, and in many places there is so little available, there are waiting lists for several years, Unless you don't originate from this country
And libraries in a lot of areas will soon by non existent or very scarce, due to the cutback kid millionaire who knows nothing about hardship , because local councils won't be able to afford to run them
But the idea of digitizing most of the benefit services is not going to be a success,
Free internet, have they thought this through?

And if We don't give ATOS IT services uk ltd have anything to do with it god help those who rely on those benefits,

Thjere is no evidence of that at all. Basic Broadband is available at very low cost and the statistics indicate a far greater take up Sky Sports amongst social housing tenants then in other housing types and Sky Sports is not cheap. is not

In reply to a post by smurf46:

. . . waits for the howls of anguish (or contemptuous silence, more likely, perhaps).

Damned if you do or don't then.

Let's assume it is a MCP as you say. What use is it to the non-MC residents?

If it was a MCP wouldn't the vast majority of online polls be middle class respondents, such as ABC1 category? In truth, the last three YG polls show that the unweighted C2DE category made up 32-35% of the respondents.

If we are fair, the average ABC1 category respondent is more likely to have more education than a C2DE category respondent. As such, ABC1 folk will be more inclined to learn about computers, Internet and the like. They will also be able to afford the kit more readily (the PC or other device, that is).

In said polls, the majority are also over 40, Non-LD voters, and English. Such are statistics. Without basis they are meaningless.



Let's come back to the point. Should the benefit class (for want of a better phrase) be given free access to something that everyone else pays for? Should it then be used as a carrot or stick to motivate or demotivate them? Some do not seek work in fear of being worse off if they get a job.

Free Internet all day, or pay for it and lose 8-10 hours of access because you're working.

Edited by camieabz (Tue 06-Nov-12 14:56:46)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Free access to the internet is available at libraries. Not ideal for downloading porn, but I assume the article intended free internet access for more "worthy" reasons.

Not all libraries. Some authorities charge for Internet access in libraries. And even if it is free it may be that some people who are not mobile can't get to the library.

Not that I am supporting free broadband just suggesting libraries are not necessarily the answer.

Some authorities are also closing libraries.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

In reply to a post by smurf46:

. . . waits for the howls of anguish (or contemptuous silence, more likely, perhaps).

Damned if you do or don't then.

Let's assume it is a MCP as you say. What use is it to the non-MC residents?

If it was a MCP wouldn't the vast majority of online polls be middle class respondents, such as ABC1 category? In truth, the last three YG polls show that the unweighted C2DE category made up 32-35% of the respondents.

If we are fair, the average ABC1 category respondent is more likely to have more education than a C2DE category respondent. As such, ABC1 folk will be more inclined to learn about computers, Internet and the like. They will also be able to afford the kit more readily (the PC or other device, that is).

In said polls, the majority are also over 40, Non-LD voters, and English. Such are statistics. Without basis they are meaningless.



Let's come back to the point. Should the benefit class (for want of a better phrase) be given free access to something that everyone else pays for? Should it then be used as a carrot or stick to motivate or demotivate them? Some do not seek work in fear of being worse off if they get a job.

Free Internet all day, or pay for it and lose 8-10 hours of access because you're working.

Its good to see cronyism in practice as for the benefit class in reality you have too include everyone in UK and I could have you spitting out your Egg Benedict over the morning Telegraph with examples legal claimants who have never needed to set eyes on social housing.

Free internet should be done in the name Meditationes Sacrae (1597).

In reply to a post by ian72:

Some authorities charge for Internet access in libraries.

Hmm, that's a shame, our own county council has free internet access at libraries and other locations: http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/libraries/internetandco...

And the government called for free internet access in all libraries by 2011: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8580214.stm

Just bread and water here.

Some people seem to be making the mistake that people in social housing are poor. The simple fact is that very few are . Many have a higher disposable income then those renting privately or who have a mortgage. so providing Free Internent for all social housing tennets does not seem to be sensible.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Some people seem to be making the mistake that people in social housing are poor. The simple fact is that very few are . Many have a higher disposable income then those renting privately or who have a mortgage. so providing Free Internent for all social housing tennets does not seem to be sensible.

You have proof of this of course!!! No? Thought not.
Whilst social housing in your area may be desirable and affordable, that is certainly not the case in most of the country - Hence the initiatives to bring the standards of social housing kicking and screaming into the 20th century. 21st century was just too much to ask for.

Social housing has to be affordable by law so I dont get where you are coming from.NSO data indicates that most social housing tenents have a higher level of disposible income than similar tennents in privte rented accomodaation or with mortages. Clearly they will not have more disposable income than the rich

why should we provide them with free / cheap housing ? Seems a bigger issue than a few quid for broadband.