ISPs fear wave of state laws after New York’s $15 broadband mandate
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
The point about not providing zero rating in California is an interesting one.
Would the law only apply to services sold in California or just operating there?
If I bought my data plan in Texas and travelled to California, would it be illegal for the ISP to give free data for Netflix while I'm there?
Would the law only apply to services sold in California or just operating there?
If I bought my data plan in Texas and travelled to California, would it be illegal for the ISP to give free data for Netflix while I'm there?
Upvote
87
(88
/
-1)
Shocked Pikachu face that companies keep forgetting that states can regulate when the feds choose not to and keep bitching about both options. Seems to me it would be easier to be held under Title II than to have 50 states and several territories regulating ISP's.
Has doge decided to kill the subsidies that are being handed out to the ISP's yet? Clearly they (ISP) aren't spending the money to provide extra wireline services.
Edit to add, once again, the only ones who win are the lawyers.
Has doge decided to kill the subsidies that are being handed out to the ISP's yet? Clearly they (ISP) aren't spending the money to provide extra wireline services.
Edit to add, once again, the only ones who win are the lawyers.
Upvote
271
(272
/
-1)
Isn't this just ISPs trying to have it both ways by saying "we don't want to be regulated Federally, and we also don't want to be regulated by the States"?
Upvote
313
(314
/
-1)
If you don't want to be federally regulated, you get locally regulated. Localities are not likely to leave their constituents out in the cold on BASIC SERVICES. The real firewall is when a state that is not typically perceived as liberal enacts these kinds of requirements. Like, say, Virginia.
Upvote
168
(168
/
0)
Expect the FCC to try to skate the line where they “regulate” only enough to make sure states can’t do it.
Does it make sense? Of course not.
Brendan Carr has thus far shown about as much sense and care for people as a pebble.
Does it make sense? Of course not.
Brendan Carr has thus far shown about as much sense and care for people as a pebble.
Upvote
133
(135
/
-2)
I get heat assistance in NY, bingo, I'm qualified for 50/10 at $30 with all the little charges included. No problem signing up, a pleasant little old lady voice, no upselling, no push back. The speed is Good Enough and I'm loving it. Feel like I live in S. Korea or Europe where inexpensive net accessibility is an imperative.. So socialist, doncha know.
Upvote
176
(180
/
-4)
Upvote
129
(132
/
-3)
Upvote
161
(164
/
-3)
password123
Ars Scholae Palatinae
"Handouts" have been a conservative media trigger word, so this is just extra funny. Not the part about the lawyers though.
Upvote
67
(68
/
-1)
When companies fear consumers, we win.
When governments fear its people, we win.
When governments fear its people, we win.
Upvote
129
(129
/
0)
Here's an idea* ISPs....don't be terrible to your customers, serve ALL of them, and don't be terrible. If you want to be radicals, treat your employees properly as well.
*That will never happen in real life with the large companies. A Mom and Pop Tin Can and a String ISP like the one I used to have probably does all this. I know they did most of it.
*That will never happen in real life with the large companies. A Mom and Pop Tin Can and a String ISP like the one I used to have probably does all this. I know they did most of it.
Upvote
56
(57
/
-1)
This is a good point. From what I remember, cellular carriers interpreted it as meaning they could not provide selective zero-rated data in California to anyone.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
I live in NYC and get $50/mo gigabit from a small company called Honest. No haggle, all online, the person who came to initiate the service arrived on time and was done in 5 minutes. It was refreshing after spending 2 hours trying to cancel my verizon fios at my previous house. It is amazing what happens when ISPs have competition.
Upvote
95
(95
/
0)
I worked in the insurance industry for many years. The thing about insurance is that every state has their own rules and regulations, sometimes drastically different from others. As you can imagine, trying to sell and administer insurance in multiple states can be tricky. You must know every state law or have access to that information quickly to make a determination.
If an insurance company can figure out how to sell complex policies in all 50 states with their myriad Byzantine laws then a fucking ISP shouldn’t have any trouble at all.
If an insurance company can figure out how to sell complex policies in all 50 states with their myriad Byzantine laws then a fucking ISP shouldn’t have any trouble at all.
Upvote
149
(149
/
0)
I wish more Dem controlled states would actually look at Municipal Broadband and push that more. Why can't New York have municipal fiber providers in competition with the private providers? You hardly have to regulate if you've got a muni provider that sets the baseline standard on price, speed, quality of service, net neutrality, quotas, etc. If the other providers become too much worse than the muni provider, then people will just switch to the muni provider.
Some places even do a scheme where other companies can basically be similar to MVNOs for cellular companies, where they buy service at wholesale from the muni fiber network, and resell the service at a markup, while doing the marketing, customer service, tech support, etc.
Some places even do a scheme where other companies can basically be similar to MVNOs for cellular companies, where they buy service at wholesale from the muni fiber network, and resell the service at a markup, while doing the marketing, customer service, tech support, etc.
Upvote
96
(96
/
0)
A lot of different answers to your question, from certain ISPs having an undue influence on local governments to the fact that you have to proactively budget to create that service. A lot of towns/villages/smaller cities look at the options for muni broadband and decide that available grant money would be better spent fixing roads that have been destroyed by winter or putting a new roof on city hall.
I agree with you more governments should look at it, but I understand why they don't, its much easier to just contract with Lucif-I mean, Spectrum from a time and money perspective for the people making those decisions.
Upvote
46
(46
/
0)
This is what the ISPs wanted. They fought to stop the FCC from putting in standards and rules at a national level. That means the states get to decide what each state wants to do.
If they didn't want this, they should have been fighting for the FCC and Net Neutrality so they could have one uniform set of rules everywhere.
If they didn't want this, they should have been fighting for the FCC and Net Neutrality so they could have one uniform set of rules everywhere.
Upvote
94
(94
/
0)
Ah, poor little isps.
If you don't like it I'll make you an offer I think we can all agree on.
Spend half the money you do on hookers, drugs, pr, and ondonations bribes and spend it on the service you provide.
If you don't like it I'll make you an offer I think we can all agree on.
Spend half the money you do on hookers, drugs, pr, and on
Upvote
38
(38
/
0)
And exorbitant executive salaries and stockholder payouts. All inefficiencies that could be put back into the core business.
Upvote
42
(42
/
0)
Because of lobbying, well mostly anyways. Chattanooga, TN did the municipal broadband thing through its city owned power company, one of the largest around, and got immediately lobbied to death the second they tried to go outside their electrical coverage. Admittedly, Chattanooga is actually a mildly purple spot in a sea of crimson red and IIRC the only reason it got approved at all was through grant money for smart metering, legally the ISP was just using the extra fiber capacity. Basically, whenever there's a chance that a major municipality might try it, there's a full court press of lawyers and lobbyists to make sure it dies in a sea of paperwork.
Upvote
78
(78
/
0)
On the other hand, muni fiber will also generate revenue, and so in the end should pay for itself. Although, you do need upfront financing to get it built in the first place before you get revenue. Muni bonds could be a way to finance that, which would be tax-neutral.
Upvote
48
(48
/
0)
In NY, companies are trying to avoid following the $15 law as it is because they know it's the end for their scammy, extremely inflated prices. Spectrum is insisting their equipment rental fees don't "count" as illegal under the law because broadband does not include "wireless" , so people who only have mobile devices to get online are "choosing" to rent routers "optionally". No one at customer support "has heard of" or knows about the state law, or if the do they say the customer just doesn't understand it. Multiple ISPs are using tactics like this. They know once fair prices become the norm, customers will never again accept the previous status quo. Strong regulation in this area is overdue but also inevitable. Eventually, every single one of them is going to have to bring prices down to earth, for all customers, not just poor ones. No matter how much they stall and whine about it.
Upvote
44
(46
/
-2)
Tough shit for the major telcos and cable companies. I predict you'll see similar New York style regulations in places that are not the South (read: anywhere a state isn't completely dominated by dipshit Republicans).
Upvote
24
(26
/
-2)
Yes.
If they want to eliminate federal regulation, they need to deal with the consequences of removing the simplicity. They don't want THAT either, because it's actually more hassle and expense.
"Fortunately" in many states they've cultivated willing accomplices in governors and state reps who have stayed bought and will fight state regulations on their behalf, while also blocking competition from municipal services.
It's all about greed and not what's best for customers.
Upvote
28
(28
/
0)
The service you're provided is per the contract you signed, which is independent of where you subsequently travel to. AT&T could tie the contract to your residential address, so it won't matter where you bought the data plan. The contract you signed might actually even include a clause that says that "these terms apply no matter where you subsequently travel to", or they could chose to void the contract if you travel to California etc. My mobile contract for example, tells me exactly what will happen if I travel abroad with my phone. It's no different.
They could also set things up such that all traffic processed by their gateways in California follow California law, and explicitly include this in the contract saying the service you receive depends on the jurisdiction you're physically located at the time of service.
I think there are many ways to solve this problem, which is probably why the Law professor that was quoted in the article said this is not a serious challenge.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
I fully support regulating low cost access to essential services including broadband, but this strikes me as crazy. I live outside Pittsburgh and get 300/300 from FiOS for $40 a month, I think with all fees and taxes its around $47. The only reason is that I have a choice, we have both Comcrap and Verizon service in our area, so they both have to compete with each other which keeps prices reasonable for base level services (yes, 300/300 is base service on FiOS). The real answer here is not to just force low costs plans, its to force ISPs to actually compete with each other through regulation and enforcement of their monopoly powers over localities. Make the fiber/coax a shared resource that any provider can ride, fix one-touch laws to allow for faster and cheaper roll outs of infrastructure, and get rid of laws that allow landlords and HOAs from favoring (or in many cases only allowing) a single ISP.
Its nuts to me that republicans/Conservatives espouse free-market capitalism as the fix for regulations, and then turn a blind eye to industries that lobby enough like ISPs to enforce monopolies when it is super clear that forcing actual competition does fix almost all the things consumers hate about that industry.
Upvote
37
(38
/
-1)
I consider this as a good thing. The FCC has shown they generally suck at regulating the Internet and managing deployment subsidies. And before someone says "But the evil GOP...", the inconvenient truth is that 12 of the last 16 years have been under Dem White House control. Time to let the states have a go at it. Both regulating prices and managing the deployment subsidies.
Upvote
0
(7
/
-7)
more power to the states for states choice, except when the states actually get to choose....
To bad the fasc will go to their grave before they admit regulations are a good thing. Though I'm happy to watch them go there, the sooner the better!
To bad the fasc will go to their grave before they admit regulations are a good thing. Though I'm happy to watch them go there, the sooner the better!
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
I imagine that they calculated they will get greater profits by defanging the FCC and battling states in court as they are now, rather than let the FCC actually enforce. Suing is a cost of business to them.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
While I guess 100 mbps is good for future-proofing, I would keep the minimum speed at 48 mbps and update it as needs change in the future. I am sure the ISPs could provide that at low cost for low income users if the law requires it.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I'd be interested to know what happens if someone with in-the-ground infrastructure decides to take their ball and go home. Can the state take it or force a sale at a reasonable price and use it for municipal or even state level broadband?
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
I don't know how bad the current FCC chair is, but I bet if it was Ajit Pai he could somehow convert ISPs to a utility in order to make them federally regulated, and then set arbitrarily high rates to protect their revenue plus no discounts for low income customers or anything like that.
Upvote
-11
(0
/
-11)
you give them too much credit. Project 2025 people think ANY law or regulation is bad because its a "Regulation". These people cannot decide if they are fascists or anarchists. Looking at all the bumbling, they have no clue what they are doing. Well, except for working for russia and china. EVERYTHING they do is designed to destroy our country. Yay fascism and nazis
Upvote
25
(28
/
-3)