Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications United States Businesses

Telecom Giants Head To Court To Kill NY State's Demand They Give Poor People $15 Broadband (techdirt.com) 65

Posted by msmash from the new-lows dept.
Karl Bode, reporting for TechDirt: Recently, New York State passed a new law demanding that regional broadband providers (Verizon, Charter Spectrum, and Altice) provide low-income consumers $15, 25 Mbps broadband tiers to help them survive COVID. The goal: to try and help struggling Americans afford the high cost of broadband during an historic health crisis. Under the proposal ISPs are also allowed to offer $20, 200 Mbps tiers, with any price increases capped at two percent per year. U.S. Regulators engaging in anything even close to price regulation of regional monopolies is, again, said monopolies' worst nightmare.

As a result, the broadband industry quickly sued New York, insisting that the state is forbidden from passing such a law thanks in part to the Trump administration's net neutrality repeal (which basically attempted to lobotomize state consumer protection authority in addition to killing popular net neutrality rules). As the case heads to court, it could have broader implications for other state efforts to mandate lower costs for consumers (in times of crisis or not): "The industry fear is that other states might impose requirements far more onerous than what New York requires, such as by further lowering the price, raising the speed requirements, or expanding the eligibility pool to make broadband affordable for middle-class customers," added Levin.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Telecom Giants Head To Court To Kill NY State's Demand They Give Poor People $15 Broadband More

Telecom Giants Head To Court To Kill NY State's Demand They Give Poor People $15 Broadband

Comments Filter:

  • Seize their lines (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday January 20, 2023 @02:45PM (#63225762)
    we paid for them at least 3 times already. And not just with rampant tax cuts, but with hard cash given over to build out networks that were never built because they weren't profitable enough.

    Internet, like electricity & water, should be public utilities. They're inherently prone to monopoly. There's not just no point to having competition, it's virtually impossible. Competition is for hot dogs and beanie babies, not for the elementary things needed to function in a modern civilization.

    • Re:Seize their lines (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Friday January 20, 2023 @03:38PM (#63225920)

      Indeed - as part of discovery, the state should demand a complete accounting of every penny spent that were given to the telcos.

      Let's see the telcos wiggle their way out of that one.

      • that's a saying from YouTuber Cult Of Dusty, the best shock jock on the platform. And he's right. They will sit there with a straight face and tell you what they did with every penny and dare you to do something about it. Then they'll give a ton of money to GOP SJW candidates who run on nothing but social issues (trans, drag queens, banning abortion, seriously when was the last time you saw a Republican run on the economy? And no "tax cuts for the rich" doesn't count) and the voters get distracted and let t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )
        The problem with that is they can easily earmark the government money for legitimate projects and use it to free up their own funds. If you want to expand the requirement to look at all their funds and spending, there will be pushback there as well and more time spent in court fighting something that may or may not be worth the cost.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )

      You paid the government 3 times to do this. They used that money to maintain the monopolies and fund the people operating in the revolving door that is the FCC.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      Internet, like electricity & water, should be public utilities. They're inherently prone to monopoly.

      The copper or fiber should be publicly owned and maintained, either by the city or by a co-op to take away the profit motive. Then each home should be allowed to choose their ISP. The city could provide a low cost option.

    • Ooh the old steal private property solution. Never works. Never has, never will. Government wants profits the same as private corporations and billionaire CEOs. Never forget that government ownership is simply handing over monopoly to a politician and his friends. End result will be rationing, the elites will get the biggest rations of course. Oh and you wont be able to browse certain places because that could affect somebodys chance at reelection. Socialism is capitalism wherein the same guy who owns the p

      • Ooh the old steal private property solution.

        Oh, you mean the "private" property built with taxpayer funds, on taxpayer easements and public rights-of-way? Fuck off.

        • By that definition private property doesn't exist. Just because someone utilized someone else's tools to build something doesn't mean that person whose tools were used owns everything that person makes. I don't recall signing a contract that says I if I use a road, the government owns everything of mine. Fuck off, I'm no slave. if you don't want me to use a road you built then don't put it in front of me and tell me feel free to use it.

          • By that definition private property doesn't exist. Just because someone utilized someone else's tools to build something doesn't mean that person whose tools were used owns everything that person makes.

            In this situation it wasn't just right-of-ways being used, there are often anti-competitive arrangements in place that don't really belong in a capitalist environment if that's what you're really arguing for - in some situations the ISPs were given subsidies to build out the lines, and in other situations the ISPs basically bribed the state for exclusive access to the lucrative areas.

            I don't really see a good argument for either of those situations preventing the lines from being spun off into a common util

        • Ooh the old steal private property solution.

          Oh, you mean the "private" property built with taxpayer funds, on taxpayer easements and public rights-of-way? Fuck off.

          Can you imagine the number of brain aneurysms if something like the Rural Electrification Project came along today?

          The Well run Republican part of the house of Representatives would do insurrection 2 all by themselves.

          I wonder how our buddy can spin the REP as part of the "Never worked never will" meme.

          What isn't working today is the semi-free market version of if you want power, you pay for every pole and every inch of copper leasing to your house, plus the labor to install it. I've seen estimate

          • The Republicans would not only not be bothered by it, they would likely demand it. If it was the Urban Electrification Project, than they would do as you said.

            Those areas are more likely to be full of predominantly Republican voters, than non-rural areas.

            The Republican's have never had problems with things like the government putting its finger on the scale, picking winners, subsidies, and handouts; as long as they are the ones benefitting .

            The GOP is not "low tax", they are 'high tax" , but what's importan

            • The Republicans would not only not be bothered by it, they would likely demand it. If it was the Urban Electrification Project, than they would do as you said.

              Well, considering that it was an executive order signnd by the very arch enemy of Republicans - FDR, it does seem that the Republicans would have started this. They did eventually cooperate and made it an officially endorsed Administration.

              Those areas are more likely to be full of predominantly Republican voters, than non-rural areas.

              The Republican's have never had problems with things like the government putting its finger on the scale, picking winners, subsidies, and handouts; as long as they are the o

      • It looks to me like the elites are getting the biggest rations already. The ones that are not elected.

        It looks to me like the working and middle classes have bees suffering *massively* under relatively unrestrained capitalism, for the last 50 years.

        Just like they did during the Gilded Age in the US, and during Charles Dickens times in Victorian England.

        Why should the working and Middle classes participate in some economic system where they are getting boned harder all the time?

        The only reason why the Right

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by grmoc ( 57943 )

        So, the corps get to keep our tax money, and then get to turn around and steal space on the ground and air in exchange for.. what exactly?

        Seems more like the corps are stealing from the public than the other way around, and I have no problem sticking them with the bill or having them go belly up and punishing the investors for allowing the corp to attempt to steal from the public.

    • The Internet, like electricity & water, should be public utilities. They're inherently prone to monopoly. There's not just no point to having competition, it's virtually impossible. Competition is for hot dogs and beanie babies, not for the elementary things needed to function in a modern civilization.

      I'd argue the exact opposite. They're so crucial to everyday life, we can't risk them to government-enforced monopolies.

      I personally can get high speed internet service at least three different ways where I live. Maybe four or five, I haven't looked. Clearly it's economically feasible to have multiple providers, at least in some places. Running wires or cell towers just isn't as expensive as we've been lead to believe.

      Take other things like water and power. The momentum these days is to disaggregate the ser

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by grmoc ( 57943 )

        Mandating competition could work.
        Around where I've lived, there has been exactly one reasonable broadband option in a number of different places.
        The big corps pass laws to ensure this remains the case.

        So.. yea. No.

    • ... it's virtually impossible.

      No, it requires a lack of vertical integration: A company that provides data connection, email service, broadband hardware and movies has a lot of leverage over the consumer. Governments allowing this and then refusing to police the resulting oligopoly, is a wilful failure of the system. Any government paying for new cables, being defrauded and ignoring the crime, is a thinly-veiled plutocracy.

      Vertical integration sounds good but the inevitable demand for vendor lock-in turns all the benefits into a me

    • http://www.american-pictures.c... [american-pictures.com]

      Looks like we are not changing anytime soon, so why would I expect these companies to NOT fuck taxpayers over?

  • NY should just increase its income or sales taxes to the extent necessary to fund market rate broadband for whomever it likes.

    • Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Informative)

      by spacepimp ( 664856 ) on Friday January 20, 2023 @03:04PM (#63225816)

      The telcos have been given billions already to build this all out They spent the money on lucrative markets and now they think it is cheaper to go to court than honor their obligations.

    • Great suggestions!

      Let's put a sales tax on carrier-grade switches and routers, and large spools of outdoor / underground rated fiber optic cable. And a windfall tax on telco industry profits. And right-of-way rental on any telco lines that run on publicly-owned right-of-way, which is practically all of them.

      Don't piss off the people that write the tax laws.

  • Don't know why we're still arguing about this. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PJ6 ( 1151747 ) on Friday January 20, 2023 @03:35PM (#63225912)
    Private wealth shouldn't be allowed to control infrastructure, full stop. That's what government is for.

    And no private business is not more efficient. Those who try to make government out to be the enemy and can't do anything, that's propaganda against democracy, from people who want the ultra rich to run everything, and not your vote.

    Those who rail against government and crab about freedom in the same breath? It's the freedom of private wealth they're talking about, not yours.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by smoot123 ( 1027084 )

      Private wealth shouldn't be allowed to control infrastructure, full stop. That's what government is for.

      That's one take. Mine is government exists to protect our natural rights, full stop. Not to provide goodies.

      And no private business is not more efficient.

      Er, you've interacted with both the DMV and Amazon? Who provides better customer service? Who do you think of as the low-cost leader, your building permit board or Walmart?

      Those who try to make government out to be the enemy and can't do anything, that's propaganda against democracy...

      No, it's from people who learned something about public choice economics and who've studies regulatory capture for the last 140 years. Government officials and government regulated monopolies just don't have the incentive to serve y

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by PJ6 ( 1151747 )
        I'm going to assume you made your comments in faith and weren't just trolling.

        Natural rights (and, incidentally, a genuine free market) are only possible when government makes sure individuals and businesses all interact together freely and without coercion. Infrastructure is not "goodies" - it's in its own class because people just can't say no to it in any practical sense. If you give business the ability to twist the arms of a lot of people, it's going to abuse it to make money. Inherent conflict of in
    • The government is not the enemy. It is bureaucratic institution plagued by petty political games, corruption and wasteful spending.
      br> Political spending in 2020 election amounted to 15 billion dollars. Ultra rich people own the government. Because taxes are collected by people with guns but money in the free market require actual effort and work.

    • ... want the ultra rich to run everything ...

      True but it's important to remember the flaw in capitalism. Profit and greed incentivizes people to satisfy your needs, only when supply is efficient. Thus capitalism ensures a supply of something which can easily be the opposite of what you need. More sick people profits healthcare, more no-pay contingencies profits insurance (the capitalist's version of welfare): In short, not delivering a service creates profit. This is fraud enacted when people are vulnerable. Another version of vulnerability is v

    • And no private business is not more efficient.

      SpaceX.

    • I don't believe in public infrastructure at all. The government grows to occupy the entire economic output of a society, then runs the society into impossible debts, eventually the inevitable collapse come in. Instead everything should be completely private, including money and interest rates and all infrastructure, schools, hospitals, everything. Competition through survival of the fittest, no government pensions or handouts to anyone for any purpose. That is what would keep a society going.

    • Private wealth shouldn't be allowed to control infrastructure, full stop. That's what government is for.

      And what do you propose happens when they build it on their own with no government funds? That's how the first mile infrastructure is usually done. Governments typically only pay for last mile, and even then, not all of it.

      And no private business is not more efficient.

      That matter is very domain specific. When it comes to supply chain, there's no question that the private sector is more efficient. By the time the government has had its committees and votes to decide how to respond to market forces, assuming they even respond at all, the private sector h

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PJ6 ( 1151747 )

        If you can't be in opposition to the government, then by definition it's not a democracy. Putin and Xi would consider you to be a model citizen.

        So, let me get this strait, I'm calling attention to a PR campaign against democracy, and somehow that means I'm against democracy, and want to shut everybody up and control free speech like a dictator.

        I love it how you hacks (you paid to post this shit?) try twist words to mean their opposite. And that's the only way you can win, is to confuse people and prevent any kind of productive discussion that could lead to real change. It won't happen here in this thread, or any thread on Slashdot, but if enough

        • So, let me get this strait, I'm calling attention to a PR campaign against democracy,

          Interesting. If it's a de-facto PR campaign, then who is funding it? Who is directing it?

          and somehow that means I'm against democracy, and want to shut everybody up and control free speech like a dictator.

          No. To wit:

          Those who rail against government and crab about freedom in the same breath? It's the freedom of private wealth they're talking about, not yours.

          If somebody is going to "crab" about freedom, then who, but the government, are they seeking freedom from?

          Take for example, if somebody is protesting an abortion ban, is it because they're protesting against the government who institutes the ban, or are they, as you say it, secretly wanting the ultra rich to run everything?

          Remember, you created this dichotomy, not me. These are your own words I'm quoting.

          This

  • Open up the market (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NFN_NLN ( 633283 ) on Friday January 20, 2023 @03:49PM (#63225958)

    Maintenance of the lines and the services should be decoupled.

    Management of the physical cables should be contracted out with the option for anyone to bid every X years and take it over. But ownership lies with the city.

    Then the actual ISP services that go on top of the cables can be serviced by multiple competing providers.

    Similar to gas pipelines.

  • Very foolish. CONgress allotted money for dealing with broadband. Instead of paying companies to have services, or requiring them to offer at certain prices, NY needs to install community owned intranet, hire a company to manage, and then allow multiple companies to compete for internet services.

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close