not saying people should be locked out, but for government assistance the job should be in demand, we have a shortage of scientists an abundance of art history majors (or similar professions) why subsidize both when we really need just one?

Ok, let's be clear: This plan will NOT be an added cost to either the cable companies or the taxpayer. In fact, the cable companies will profit from this.

1. The "broadband service" they are talking about is 1mbps service, as opposed to the typical 10 to 15mbps service these companies already offer. It is "broadband" only in the sense that it is faster than dial-up.

2. This measure will increase their market share, gaining them additional customers.

3. This measure will "fill in the gaps" in their existing service. The costs to provide service to 100% of the houses on a block are not significantly higher than the costs to provide service to 50% of the houses on a block. But, It will take 12 to 15 of these customers to increase network congestion the same as one regular customer. The cable companies will earn $120 to $150/month from those new customers, and only $40 to $50 from a traditional customer.

if we didn't allow monopolies and contracts the u.s. could have a much more significant amount of competition to where this is not needed, but the anti consumer atmosphere of the u.s. keeps that from happening

Some hate science and love art. The basic point of my question is who decides? Government? Now that doesn't sound just communistic it sounds totalitarian. What about a incentive to get individuals into at demand professions such as lower student loan rates for those professions? That I could see.

That is pretty much what I suggested, government backed student loans have lower rates then non government backed loans, hence the benefit to the student going after an in-demand degree, the people who love art can still go to college but will get the higher -non government backed loans

Exactly. You're not forcing people into a profession but giving them an incentive. From my own personal experience I can tell you that there are some who can't compete the requirements for a science degree, that's why they choose a liberal ars degree. The core courses for both are different. If I had to take anything beyond algebra I wouldn't be able to complete a BS degree so a BA degree is my best choice. There are others who thrive on hard science and could not grasp the elements of film theory. We all have our own abilities and shortcomings.
The problem I see with this approach however is you are providing an incentive for students to complete a degree that they won't compete until 4-6 years later. How do you predict what careers would need to be filled the most? By the time those individuals complete their education the field they have chosen may be saturated.
Don't forget that 1) an undergrad student changes their major about 3 times before the graduate and, 2) most undergrads do not work in the field related to their degree. Is this related to job market or personal choice? :dunno: