4 ms·

> Yes, the digital divide that people thought was out there really exists: People in low-income neighborhoods in Kansas City and Kansas City, Kan., aren’t signi

> Yes, the digital divide that people thought was out there really exists: People in low-income neighborhoods in Kansas City and Kansas City, Kan., aren’t signing up for faster Internet service. And that’s despite aggressive publicity and the fact Google is offering a pretty low-cost version of its service to people. It's disturbing to hear this, but not surprising. People in low-income areas tend to be less educated, right? If that's the case, then it stands to reason that you are going to have to educate them on the benefits. I don't think "omg this is superfast!" is the kind of education we need here. If I'm a lower income guy with a family and I get a flyer about "Google Fiber", I might think: - I pay $19.99/mo for DSL/cable. Seems fast enough to me, why go through all this hassle? - I don't see a lot of sports mentioned. I'm not switching to something without ESPN and lots of football on the weekends! (I'm not being mean here. This is in fact THE reason I haven't "cut the cord" and gone streaming only.) - That one-time setup fee is a lot of cash. I could come up with it but, again, why is this thing so much better than what I already have? - Is there going to be a credit check? (this is a big reason the "poor" might like to keep what they already have. Getting signed up for services of any kind when you have bad or non-existent credit is an exercise in frustration, humiliation, and "security deposits". Once you finally get the damned cable hooked up, why would you want to go through that again?)

johnchristopher 14y ago
The arguments you are providing seems plausible but I don't see how you can connect them to the need to educate your clients (which are less educated). It's more about Google providing better information, wether clients are educated or not, right ?
- breckinloggins 14y ago
  Yes, but my point (which was admittedly a little oblique) was that Google should ensure that their information is properly targeted. I don't think a promotion and information campaign in an affluent neighborhood would work as well in a low-income neighborhood. But then, I'm not a marketer. My perspective comes just as someone who has circles of friends in a bunch of different income/social levels and I'm trying to imagine what they would say upon given a flyer or sales presentation that might make me salivate.
  - johnchristopher 14y ago
    On the other hand wether they are educated or not, litterate or not, wether we think they understand the message or not... It might just be that the product or the idea is rejected on its own features. It's a common trait among journalists and politicians to think that if the uneducated/poor rejects the message it's "just" because it wasn't "well formated" or "understood".
ktsmith 14y ago
> - That one-time setup fee is a lot of cash. I could come up with it but, again, why is this thing so much better than what I already have? If you are getting the free tier you can pay the one time fee in monthly installments of $25. One thing to consider about low income neighborhoods is not that people have $19.99/mo DSL/Cable and are happy with it, but that they may have NO internet connection at all because $20/mo is food money. My wife teaches in a low income neighborhood with a very high rate of homelessness and most of her students have no computer and those that do typically don't have internet access.
- breckinloggins 14y ago
  And yet they probably have power and running water. I can foresee a day when internet access (of some speed) is seen as a basic utility and society would no more tolerate entire neighborhoods of homes without internet access than we would an entire neighborhood of homes without electricity. That will be a good day.

johnchristopher 14y ago

The arguments you are providing seems plausible but I don't see how you can connect them to the need to educate your clients (which are less educated). It's more about Google providing better information, wether clients are educated or not, right ?

breckinloggins 14y ago
Yes, but my point (which was admittedly a little oblique) was that Google should ensure that their information is properly targeted. I don't think a promotion and information campaign in an affluent neighborhood would work as well in a low-income neighborhood. But then, I'm not a marketer. My perspective comes just as someone who has circles of friends in a bunch of different income/social levels and I'm trying to imagine what they would say upon given a flyer or sales presentation that might make me salivate.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  On the other hand wether they are educated or not, litterate or not, wether we think they understand the message or not... It might just be that the product or the idea is rejected on its own features. It's a common trait among journalists and politicians to think that if the uneducated/poor rejects the message it's "just" because it wasn't "well formated" or "understood".

ktsmith 14y ago

> - That one-time setup fee is a lot of cash. I could come up with it but, again, why is this thing so much better than what I already have? If you are getting the free tier you can pay the one time fee in monthly installments of $25. One thing to consider about low income neighborhoods is not that people have $19.99/mo DSL/Cable and are happy with it, but that they may have NO internet connection at all because $20/mo is food money. My wife teaches in a low income neighborhood with a very high rate of homelessness and most of her students have no computer and those that do typically don't have internet access.

breckinloggins 14y ago
And yet they probably have power and running water. I can foresee a day when internet access (of some speed) is seen as a basic utility and society would no more tolerate entire neighborhoods of homes without internet access than we would an entire neighborhood of homes without electricity. That will be a good day.