Bringing Free Broadband to the Bronx

Out of the five boroughs, the Bronx has the highest number of households [pdf] without broadband Internet service at home.

To combat that, the County Executives of America, a national group of elected officials, has proposed a plan to provide free broadband wireless service to more than 400,000 households in the Bronx. The borough, which also has the highest number of low-income families in the city, was selected along with 11 other counties across the country for the project.

The idea has the support of Ruben Diaz Jr., the Bronx borough president, but it still faces several hurdles. First, the Federal Communications Commission must vote to allow the airwaves to be used for the project. And second, the federal government has to release $122 million for the national project from stimulus money.

The County Executives of America has partnered with M2Z Networks, a company based in Silicon Valley, to build the networks.

In the Bronx, 38.8 percent of people had broadband at home, according to a 2008 City Council report, the most recent available. Staten Island had the highest rate, 57.9 percent, followed by Manhattan, 55.7 percent; Queens, 46.4 percent; and Brooklyn, 41.5 percent. The national average, according to the report, was 45.1 percent.

Last year, the city received $22 million in federal stimulus money to improve Internet access at middle schools and students’ homes, according to Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer, chair of the City Council’s Broadband Advisory Committee.

County Executives of America

Comments are no longer being accepted.

If the city is going to provide FREE WiFi, it should be done on a citywide scale, not borough by borough as a political gesture at the Borough President’s discretion. I live in northern Manhattan and I have to pay money I can barely afford for an Internet connection at home. Why should any other part of the city get a free service with my tax dollars?

There are millions of people in this country who pay for service, but don’t have broadband.

Why should taxpayer money be spent for this?

How about the other people in the city who don’t have it?

This is absurd. Stimulus money should be set aside for necessities and tangible benefits to the economy. Internet access is completely unnecessary, and is entirely a luxury that is far from the essential services that the government should be setting aside the money for ( such as improving the abhorrent public school system).

I think everyone in the whole country should have broadband whether they can pay for it or not.
Ruth Beazer

In think free should be

old age

sorry but I disagree completely.

this is another entitlement that i refuse it to pay for.

you dont have broadband-tough.

go to the library,use one of the wireless setups or rely on old fashioned dial up.

we have much bigger priorities.


You see anything wrong with that? I don’t. Libraries and job centers already provide free internet access for job seekers. How can anyone expect more than that?

sorry but im completely opposed to this.

you cant afford broadband -tough. go to the library,use wireless networks,dial up,etc.

this is another entitlement that i refuse to pay for.period.

Somebody must be doing pretty well to be able to give away free broadband to hundreds of thousands of people. Say what? It’s the taxpayers footing the bill? You mean we 53% of Americans who actually pay for what we need and want?

Of course we all know what comes next- all those poor people don’t have computers to be able to use that broadband internet so how much will it cost the 53% of us who pay tax to ensure each has a computer in which to access the web?

If this goes through I too will demand free broadband, I’d love to have that extra $50 a month in my budget, in fact, maybe it’s time we taxpayers started demanding all the freebies the ‘less fortunate’ get. We are after all paying for them.

These guys are not stupid, they know that with broadband comes millions and millions of dollars of online purchases. I don’t even go to the drugstore to buy anti-perspirant and over the counter drugs anymore, or to the retail store to buy socks or a coffee maker, I order all that stuff online. This is a very smart move and it benefits the whole society. Mark Montgomery

@6 – I am curious how you propose to “not pay”? Do you file a “cafeteria-style” tax return that enables you to only pay for those things you like?

I think this is an excellent idea. High-speed web access may well provide an avenue out of poverty for some low income Americans. As far as I am concerned, anyone objecting to helping out these folks is being narrow-minded, selfish and, yes, likely bigoted.

If a bright child in a poor neighborhood is helped to get a better education and, consequently, a more prosperous life — how can this be bad? Such a child will then grow up to become a productive, tax-paying American (although she or he will then, too, likely come to resent paying taxes and gripe about it here).

As to the naysayers here – have another cup of tea and give it a rest. We are a society — not a mere collection of individuals. In the 1930’s we wisely brought electrification to rural areas and vastly increased overall national productivity. Doing so with broadband today will likely reap similar rewards.

The broadband to be offered for free by M2Z will be at a speed of 768 kbps, which is less than the lowest level of broadband offered for sale. This service will be paid for by advertising, and upgrades to higher speeds will be available for a small fee. Don’t be misled by the word “free.”
In order to provide broadband to the masses, including students who currently have no access to the internet, the idea of some government assistance is appealing and also because M2Z’s service will allow first responders and public safety officials around the country to access an interoperable, always on data service.

Since they’re already giving the welfare crowd free cell phones they might as well pick my pocket again to give them free internet. Just another government giveaway for the Democratic base . November is just around the corner.

and you people wonder why NY is broke and dysfunctional


The difference between the “haves” and the “have nots”.

Yes, I pay my $50/month for high-speed internet access. But I also realize that I have been fortunate enough to understand the importance of making sure that that access is maintained; and fortunate enough to be able to maintain it. For those who cannot afford it–access–cannot afford to give up the money needed for “other” more important things; e.g., food, rent, etc.

It’s a shame… The island city known as Manhattan has become a place of such extreme opposites. A place of the stupendously wealthy and the horrifically poor; with little or no middle-class left to speak of.

Even more shameful… Those who would point a finger and state, “Don’t have broadband? Can’t afford it? Tough!”. (When was the last time you tried connecting to the internet over a 56K dial-up connection?) Remember, without so many social programs, many who now live in comfort would not now live so comfortably.

Realistically… the internet has become the one “place” (albeit virtual) in the world where free information abounds; our children relying on it more and more to simply succeed in school. With local budgets getting cut left and right–along with the budgets of our public libraries–access to the internet gets tougher; especially in areas that are already economically depressed.

And what happened to “No child left behind?” I guess, if you live in a household that can afford the access, that statement still holds true. In the end, I suppose that there are some children that we as a society really don’t care as to whether they get left behind or not.

Call me a bleeding heart liberal, if at the end of the day that’s what makes you feel better, but this can only be a good thing.

This seems like a very good opportunity to help a poor community become more productive, permanently. Just because something is ‘free’ doesn’t mean it’s coming directly out of taxpayer dollars. That would be a gross oversimplification of how money moves within our government.

Or would everyone complaining of having to pay for this rather those disadvantaged enough to not have internet access continue to lack such an incredible avenue for education and entrepreneurship? That way we can continue to just subsidize their lives with welfare, a far more short term solution than this is.

Be careful how your knee-jerks.


completely want broadband and cant afford it go to the library or use a friends computer.

when i was in a very tight finacial situation- i used netzero. one version was free; the other was $9.95 a month.

nothing in todays world is truly “free”. never was and never will be.

To use broadband you need a computer. So all these “low income people” already have computers? Amazing! How low income can they be if they can afford computers fast enough to run broadband? And for the poster that said that it will that it will lead to “millions and millions” dollars worth of purchases…well, I suppose if they are going to use the free broadband to make all these purchased, they must have some money to spend, so why do I have to pay for their high speed internet?

#18 ,
There are a number of businesses selling refurbished computers capable of running broadband for just $99. Students may still be able to obtain one for free.
If you object to 768 K internet that is supported by ads being offered for “free” — do you also object to the free tuition offered by NYC public schools?
Taxes may be used to get the network established, but I do think that their business model is to eventually be self supporting by selling advertising on the 768 K network and by selling enhanced service that is still far slower than what is currently offered by cable or FiOS. Again, don’t be misled by the word “free” — this version of WiFi is not any better than early versions of DSL.

Let’s also keep in mind that radio and TV broadcasters use airwaves that are regulated by the US government and all of that programming is given away for free. I don’t see much of a difference between broadcasters offering free radio and TV programming supported by advertising and M2Z offering the internet. It is not at all like they are about to give away a high speed broadband connection — users at 768K are going to notice lots of buffering, especially if ads are going to be forced through. In the long run, it will be a benefit for students who have limited access to the internet. It will also benefit many others as city employees and first responders will be able to get and send data while still in the field without their having to set up contracts with other carriers. As far as I see it, this is a win win for all concerned.

the internet access that is being offered to the boro is so would get better going to the public library where wifi is offered

I really like to , But i’ve seen a post saying free wi-fi isn’t safe at all.

here is the reference.

@22: Cordless phones aren’t safe as conversations can be picked up via radio; cell phones aren’t save due to issues of possible radiation; cars, buses, trains, planes — we hear about accidents all the time, so none of those are safe. What should we do… crawl under a rock? :)

Thats why I love new york.

hi…from Puerto Rico U.S.A.