ISPs fear wave of state laws after New York’s $15 broadband mandate
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I’m sure just like New York’s congestion pricing Trump will think he can just overturn states with an executive order.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Yeah, that’s because in Tennessee you have Marsha Blackburn, the biggest piece of shit on legacy telecom’s payroll. You’ll find her behind every single damn bill that works to keep them as monopolies. That’s what paid her way into the Senate.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
"Turn a blind eye"? Hilarious. It's classic conservative double-speak: "free-market capitalism" means freedom to corruptly rig markets. Always has been, always will. Actually free markets require regulation and enforcement to maintain.
Upvote
34
(34
/
0)
I’d like to see more municipal broadband in California. The state has been pretty good about resisting industry friendly rules that would discourage it, so I’m not sure what the issue is.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Dumbasses: REEEEEE FED GUBMENT BAD NO REGULATION, MORE POWER TO THE STATES!
Same dumbasses: REEEEEEEE DON'T LET THE STATE'S REGULATE!
Uhhhhhh...
Same dumbasses: REEEEEEEE DON'T LET THE STATE'S REGULATE!
Uhhhhhh...
Upvote
2
(8
/
-6)
I think it's no different from you quitting your job because you no longer like the terms your employer is offering.
They can't force you to stay, and depending on how important you were, there might be some short-term pain while they searched for a replacement, or someone else grew to fill your shoes.
Ultimately, most businesses will carry on as usual with very minor hiccups and might even do better.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
South Korea long ago proved that broadband does not need to be expensive to end users. But, you need to let the ISP's pick up the costs from content providers, as in SK, where content providers pay 15x what they do in the US. Sure, this kills a lot of spammy clickbait business models, and the big content providers hate it because those pennies per user do add up at scale. But, it would be a better Internet. In fact, it was moving that way naturally until the big content providers convinced consumers that only they should be allowed to pay for the last mile. So, now we all kick in ~$60/mo to subsidize the content and advertising industry.
Upvote
-6
(5
/
-11)
My experience is that 5G home Internet isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. I’ve had the service with both T-Mobile and Verizon, and despite both of them limiting the number of users of this service to a certain area, it’s still too inconsistent for most people to recommend.
I live in a a touristy part of California, and whenever we would get crowds coming to the beach, which is most of summer, the network would fast in one moment followed by a lot of annoying pausing. Even with network priority, you can’t prioritize everyone with priority at the same time so you get lots of delays.
Performance would start to nosedive around the end of spring and wouldn’t fully recover until fall.
I finally gave up and went back to landline.
This area used to serviced by Verizon FiOS, until they sold it all off to Frontier as they were going all in on 5G wireless everything. My guess is that didn’t work out so well as they wouldn’t have bought out Frontier to get back all the Fios they swore off.
I live in a a touristy part of California, and whenever we would get crowds coming to the beach, which is most of summer, the network would fast in one moment followed by a lot of annoying pausing. Even with network priority, you can’t prioritize everyone with priority at the same time so you get lots of delays.
Performance would start to nosedive around the end of spring and wouldn’t fully recover until fall.
I finally gave up and went back to landline.
This area used to serviced by Verizon FiOS, until they sold it all off to Frontier as they were going all in on 5G wireless everything. My guess is that didn’t work out so well as they wouldn’t have bought out Frontier to get back all the Fios they swore off.
Last edited:
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
The ACP was a federal subsidy to ISPs that refuse to offer affordable service. If there were proper regulations, there would be no need to give ISPs such subsidies. When the news broke that the SCOTUS would not hear arguments against the NY law, I contacted my State officials to voice my support for State level broadband pricing regulations that would apply to all residents and not just low-income.
"Finding the right solution for California will require thoughtful engagement and collaboration from all sides of this issue,"
Well shit, that is incredibly disheartening. On one side, are the citizens getting gouged on broadband pricing, and on the other side are the shareholder's on Wall St who want more and more profits. The moment I read "collaboration from all sides of the issue", I immediately thought of a California version of the ACP, and not real pricing regulation.
"Finding the right solution for California will require thoughtful engagement and collaboration from all sides of this issue,"
Well shit, that is incredibly disheartening. On one side, are the citizens getting gouged on broadband pricing, and on the other side are the shareholder's on Wall St who want more and more profits. The moment I read "collaboration from all sides of the issue", I immediately thought of a California version of the ACP, and not real pricing regulation.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
No. That's not how it works.
I pay x amount for my home connection.
Then depending on the size of the business or you might pay your local isp for a business connection or you might be buying express route connections.
A company like Netflix is going to be paying for cdns, edge servers, and multiple connections from multiple data centers and businesses locations.
Enterprise companies are going to be on unique contracts with rates the isp itself negotiated.
If American isps who have taken in billions of tax payer money aren't getting enough money from businesses then that's their fault and they apparently suck at doing business.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
...And more power to exploit?
This is how red state oligarchs are allowed to starve marginalized people of information and access to services. The states can be trusted to do many things, but protect civil rights and liberties is not one of them.
This is how red state oligarchs are allowed to starve marginalized people of information and access to services. The states can be trusted to do many things, but protect civil rights and liberties is not one of them.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Even if the prices aren't quite as good, the Muni provider isn't constantly lying to you, trying to rip you off, or blowing off service issues.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
it's not just lobbying. There are plenty of ways ISPs can influence legislators such as sponsoring election campaigns, making donations to organizations run by a politician's spouse, funding inauguration ceremonies, etc.
The CPUC's handling of the murderous PG&E corporation is a perfect example of how a utility can get off the hook for literally killing people. That same CPUC is somehow expected to do what is best for the people of California in regards to both AT&T's desire to no longer be COLR, and AT&T's refusal to upgrade their network from copper to fiber. In my County, the plan is to use public funding to pay AT&T to upgrade AT&T's network in an area where AT&T can't compete against Starlink.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
It's Brendan Carr, and he is miles worse than Idjit Pai.
Pai was a disingenuous shill, interested in shoveling money at the ISPs.
Carr is nakedly malevolent, with a direct motivation of hurting minorities and the poor.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
The Federal regulations for broadband pricing were always going to be thrown out in favor of state-level action, regardless of who is president or the FCC chair.
The US Constitution clearly delineates what is under state purview and what is under federal purview. None of the legislative powers granted to the federal Congress in the USC (interstate commerce, coining money, declaring war, and establishing post offices) - nor the subsequent the "necessary and proper" clause - grants Congress or the Executive any power to regulate broadband pricing - at least for the majority of ISPs. The reason is because broadband providers have established state-level business offices / companies to whom you remit your monthly bill. A completely in-state transaction is immune from such federal regulation.
Net Neutrality, on the other hand, likely can be regulated federally, should the Congress ever specifically pass legislation authorizing the FCC to do so. This is because 1) the networks in use involve physical links across numerous states, and 2) a core function of using the internet is to make digital and physical purchases - which generally involve interstate commerce.
The NN regulations that were recently struck down were due to a 2024 SCOTUS ruling striking down the "Chevron deference doctrine" - meaning courts can no longer just side with the government arguing that a federal regulation is legit, if the underlying law authorizing the regulation is too ambiguous. Laws now must be unambiguous or any regulatory authority they grant to the Executive could be nullified by the courts if the regulations seem unreasonable to the jurists.
Edit to add: If you guys are going to downvote this, I'd love for you to at least respond and tell me why you disagree so we can have a healthy discussion.
The US Constitution clearly delineates what is under state purview and what is under federal purview. None of the legislative powers granted to the federal Congress in the USC (interstate commerce, coining money, declaring war, and establishing post offices) - nor the subsequent the "necessary and proper" clause - grants Congress or the Executive any power to regulate broadband pricing - at least for the majority of ISPs. The reason is because broadband providers have established state-level business offices / companies to whom you remit your monthly bill. A completely in-state transaction is immune from such federal regulation.
Net Neutrality, on the other hand, likely can be regulated federally, should the Congress ever specifically pass legislation authorizing the FCC to do so. This is because 1) the networks in use involve physical links across numerous states, and 2) a core function of using the internet is to make digital and physical purchases - which generally involve interstate commerce.
The NN regulations that were recently struck down were due to a 2024 SCOTUS ruling striking down the "Chevron deference doctrine" - meaning courts can no longer just side with the government arguing that a federal regulation is legit, if the underlying law authorizing the regulation is too ambiguous. Laws now must be unambiguous or any regulatory authority they grant to the Executive could be nullified by the courts if the regulations seem unreasonable to the jurists.
Edit to add: If you guys are going to downvote this, I'd love for you to at least respond and tell me why you disagree so we can have a healthy discussion.
Last edited:
Upvote
-19
(5
/
-24)
I downvoted for whinging about downvotes. You've been here long enough to know the board's culture.
Upvote
9
(16
/
-7)
Brendan Carr wrote the FCC chapter in the Project 2025 manifesto. He's awful, go read the chapter
He wants to unregulate all telcos and ISPs, destroy community resources like last mile wires, enforce exclusive monopolies, etc.
Worst of all he thinks he can weaponize the FCC to destroy Section 230 and enforce the demented perverted maga/musk "must carry" interpretation of the 1st Amendment. All that, after SCOTUS ruled that federal agencies can't implement regulations.
Completely wacked.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
I am in agreement. The FCC has always been more interested in enriching Wall St corporations than in ensuring the needs of the citizens are met. That should not be surprising considering that every single commissioner on the FCC was nominated by an ISP sponsored President, and confirmed by an ISP sponsored congress.
"today's extremely competitive communications market"... that cracked me up. Satellite is the only option for internet service where I live; despite AT&T being paid by the FCC in 2016 to provide service to my address. The money was spent, and service was never provided due to there being no requirement that funding recipients must use the money to actually provide service. In the next 5-10 years, AT&T will be paid once again to offer service in my area.
In terms of broadband coverage and pricing, the FCC has always been on the side of Wall St.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
NYC is a nightmare of infrastructures from fibre optic for WallSt, cable everywhere and old copper telecomms from terrestial dialup to T-1 services – all of it outdated. Just ask N.J. who swooped-in to provide better faster optical comms for WallSt.
Not only are those architectures brittle, they’re under concrete; manhole accessible- jackhammer where not. This in a city that can’t bear road construction in any of its five boroughs. Talk about cheap - NYC doesn’t have a chance of supporting $20/mo internet.
It matters not whether Manhattan, Queens, Bronx, etc… the problems differ but the costs will not be recouped at $20/mo.
Layer overtop initial service the Nat’l Security services telecom must accommodate - few know – much less understand — NYC is an online jungle.
FED needs to subsidize NY POPs if they want not to expect their independent telecoms to not go broke - as has the FED
Not only are those architectures brittle, they’re under concrete; manhole accessible- jackhammer where not. This in a city that can’t bear road construction in any of its five boroughs. Talk about cheap - NYC doesn’t have a chance of supporting $20/mo internet.
It matters not whether Manhattan, Queens, Bronx, etc… the problems differ but the costs will not be recouped at $20/mo.
Layer overtop initial service the Nat’l Security services telecom must accommodate - few know – much less understand — NYC is an online jungle.
FED needs to subsidize NY POPs if they want not to expect their independent telecoms to not go broke - as has the FED
Upvote
-13
(1
/
-14)
how many people in New York City qualify for the Statewide low-income broadband pricing? The low percentage of residents that qualify will get affordable service, and the ISPs can simply continue to gouge everyone else and keep shareholder profits high.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Chattanooga was actually a neat place, I lived there for awhile.
They have a free electric shuttle, free bike repair stations, and they pay artists to come live in Chattanooga and make public art. I believe they were working on an EV charging network when I left, way ahead of the rest of the U.S.
And I was there when EPB fiber started—$60/mo for unlimited gigabit fiber was actually incredible. They were a pretty good electric company, too.
Chatt's purplish largely due to the confluence of colleges and universities, proximity of multiple big metros (Atlanta is 1.5 hours away, Nashville 2 hours), and the influence of big white collar employers, I think— TVA, for instance, among others.
(The Tennessee Valley Authority is another fascinating element of the culture melange there. It's a federal government chartered corporation, run strictly private, taking no federal funds for operations, mandated to fund itself through profit, while also being required to meet all the federal regulations normally required of government jobs. You'd think it wouldn't be possible to do so, but I suppose in a natural monopoly, when well run, it is.)
Another of the fascinating elements is that a lot of the youthful progressivism is religiously tinged—Chattanooga has a lot of relatively "left-leaning" churches, likely due to nearby religious liberal arts colleges, and by "left-leaning" I mean, conservative Christian churches that nonetheless seem to take seriously all the bits of the Bible that Christians who are Republicans first seem to leave out. It's like a small evangelical version of stuff like the Catholic workers/labor movements from the mid 20th century.
Neat place, like I said.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
"They urged the Supreme Court to strike down New York's law, saying that "other States are likely to copy New York once the Attorney General begins enforcing the ABA [Affordable Broadband Act] and New York consumers can buy broadband at below-market rates."
So, dear ISPs, by your own argument, if your want the same rules everywhere, just lobby all other states to speed up copying New York and hey presto!
So, dear ISPs, by your own argument, if your want the same rules everywhere, just lobby all other states to speed up copying New York and hey presto!
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
So ISPs lobbied against net neutrality, got a court to go against an explicit recent SCOTUS decision confirming it was within the FCC's authority to declare ISPs as common carriers, and then try to argue that states also can't regulate them. Are they also Kings? Is this the legal theory of Unitary ISPs?
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I hope the states that want to regulate ISPs more closely and especially those who have won legal challenges make a wiki. Not just the wording of which laws passed and what cases to cite in federal courts, but also what arguments the ISPs make, and what counter arguments are successful. Also, details on additional (to original intention) benefits achieved by specific laws that are in place, and what end runs around these laws have been successful. While each state's constitution is different, the behavior being regulated and the desired outcomes are likely quite similar. Particularly since the overturn of Chevron, interstate cooperation among legislators and attorneys could be really helpful in creating legislation that is inherently better suited to surviving the inevitable lawsuits from companies that this legislation prevents form obtaining money by means of fucking up the lives of the citizens.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Virginia is purple tinged. Let's see Arkansas do it.
Till then, I'm pleased to live in California where I won't be completely subject to the inanities of Republican BS on the federal level.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
The other poster said nothing objectionable; they just gave the opinion that, given court precedents and the design of the American system, this was always likely to happen.
Why should they HAVE to moralize over that, and cross themselves three times, and whinge about how they hate that? What is wrong with just giving a non-impassioned, non-moralizing response, regardless of how you actually feel about it?
I'm perfectly fine with people whinging about downvotes. Reddit style mechanics are a lazy way to mod, and all they do is create vicious echo chambers of monoculture.
Allowing the least engaged people to half-read something and bury it is a fucking horrible idea if you care about actual conversations and culture.
Look what we get from it: people sneering at honest pleas for conversation over completely neutral content.
Ars has virtually always been left leaning or leftist, but it didn't used to be against rational discussion. And I know that, because of I've been here since it was a damn glorified link aggregator, before it actually did original journalism. My current account alone is 14 years old, and it isn't my first one.
Last edited:
Upvote
-11
(5
/
-16)
Queue that quote from V For Vendetta...You had me at "ISPs fear."
"People should not be afraid of their
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Yes, if the FCC won't regulate, then the states will. As it should be. You'd think they'd want a single set of rules.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Wut? The speed provided to users has almost nothing to do with the cost. If the ISP is building for gigabit speeds and is doing the right capacity planning, their infrastructure costs are fixed regardless of what they're providing to the consumer. It's why speed based pricing, along with data caps, are almost complete bullshit that's only there to line the ISPs pocket.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Anonymous_Coward
Smack-Fu Master, in training
I mean, in the last few years, our plan has gone from 300Mbps to 1000Mbps with no changes on my part, they just keep upgrading and dropping plans forcing us up, which in turn raises our rates. So, yeah, I'd agree that prices are going up, not down.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Have we forgotten Ajit Pai already?
That administration took, and this administration will take, the position that the FCC can't regulate ISPs, and also that the FCC's regulation (which it can't do) overrides the states.
That administration took, and this administration will take, the position that the FCC can't regulate ISPs, and also that the FCC's regulation (which it can't do) overrides the states.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
That's not accurate. There are many new (and reintroduced old) laws project 2025 calls for. to use one concrete example: P20205 wants to revive a 19th century law, the Comstock Act, to ban any abortion medications and materials preventing materials from being sent through the U.S. Postal Service.
Much of what they want to do they don't do through laws but through executive power... and much of what they want to do is remove constitutional rights (citizenship, press, etc).
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
