For the children

Everybody has to pay some tax.

It's the only practical way to fund things along the lines of road networks, police, defense...and I don't argue with this. Because it's for the greater good.

Not some mythical "For the greater good" which some politicians seem to believe in. No, for a strictly observable and demonstrable greater good that you can point to. "Look, you see that road? We paid for that!"

This isn't a problem to me.

This is opposed to such things as- *takes a deep breath and tries to calm down* - just look at the policies of your local governments. If it has the word "empowering" in the description it's probably an example of a fluffy "for the greater good" policy. I could find one, but it's bad for my blood pressure.

No...I couldn't resist. A few days ago the UK Prime Minister announced that that 300 million pounds would be available to give broadband to the families of poor children.

Surely this is a good idea, right? Well...actualy...no. Free internet access is available throughout most of the UK. No - really, it is. Go to your local library to access the freely available government (ie, tax payer) funded internet.

But surely it's good for the Children? Won't someone just think of the children??

Oh - yes, the children. Let's try and help the children.

Let's not be cynical and think that it's one of a number of last ditch attempts to salvage a dying administration. After all, it's not like they arn't 20% behind in the polls.

But lets look at the details of the scheme. They're proposing vouchers of upto £700 per poor family, means tested of course.

Thats...£700....well, lets see. I can order a stock, off the shelf computer from here for a shade under £200. That's for a single system, one off, from a for-profit company. Imagine the discount they'd offer for say, a thousand?

I admit, I wouldn't want to use this computer myself - but that's because I play games. We're not talking about providing games machines for the poor, but internet machines. I'd bundle office type apps with it as well...

But lets stick with £200. Because I don't believe in feeding evil empires, I'd say ignore windows and stick linux on the beast. Easier to maintain, manage and control. Oh, and it's free. Even with office apps and other toys - it's free.

But how much would it cost to use it as an internet machine?

Now, as to the cost of internet...if we were to go with a cheap dial up modem connection they're available for less then 5p per minute. That's £3 per hour...to be honest, for an hour a week that's rather expensive. For a year that's £150. Hmmm.

Broadband....with 30 seconds of hunting I can find this - internet for £10/month, broadband. Not a great service....certainly won't handle large downloads or the like - but it is enough for academic work. For all of £120 a year, constant access...

Assuming the computer is on for 4 hours a day, with a 250 watt power supply, at 10p/KWH, that's..um...£36.50 over the year in electricity.

So for a year I can get a family online for HALF what the government wants to spend, using FOR PROFIT companies. But the government seems to have forgotten something. You can't give computers away to people who don't know how to use them without providing support.

That's were I'd stick all the money made from the bulk orders. Technical support and educational materials available through the system. How do you make enough money to support that? Well, take the broadband package - get it near cost.

But allow the company to sell the users a cheap and very easy upgrade to increase their maximum download per month. Allow them to make a profit on it. Not a huge one...but enough to make it worth their while...

All in all, this scheme could be made to be very workable. It really could. Back of envelope numbers say I can give one million families internet access. (Compared to the governments

If it wasn't for a very basic point. Why are we providing it in the first place?

The government finances are in a bad way - credit crunch, falling tax revenue while costs are increasing. Why increase spending for something that could have minimal effect?

And why are we means testing this? If parents can't afford the internet, why make a distinction between those who can't quite...and those who don't work?

In my eyes, this is another government handout to the "poor and needy" - read "Long term unemployed with children" in order to buy votes and look good.

This could be a good scheme, maybe. Maybe.

But to be honest?

I believe it has as much chance of actually working on budget, with any significant and measurable improvement to education as...as....as likely as reasonable gun control laws in the UK.

No chance.