Telecom Fights Price Caps as US Spends Billions on Internet Access (washingtonpost.com) 30
AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon are quietly trying to weaken a $42.5 billion federal program to improve internet access across the nation, aiming to block strict new rules that would require them to lower their poorest customers' monthly bills in exchange for a share of the federal aid. From a report: In state after state, the telecom firms have blasted the proposed price cuts as illegal -- forcing regulators in California, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and elsewhere to rethink, scale back or abandon their plans to condition the federal funds on financial relief for consumers. The lobbying campaign threatens to undermine the largest burst of money to upgrade the country's internet service in U.S. history. Enacted by President Biden as part of a sprawling 2021 infrastructure law, the funds are intended to deliver speedy and affordable broadband to the final unserved pockets of America by 2030 -- a goal that the White House likens to the federal campaign nearly a century ago to electrify the nation's heartland.
time to ban caps unless they want to put an meter (Score:3)
time to ban caps unless they want to put an meter at the home that is at the same standards as an power meter.
Re: (Score:2)
I would normally say that the consumer has the ability to boycott providers to get prices lowered, but that does not work when the government supports oligarchies that control access from most residences and workplaces
Um, wasn't Google Fiber going to change this? Whatever happened to that?
Re: (Score:2)
These companies want to make their own profits on their own terms with their own resources? So be it. They want to take money from the taxpayers? Then they have to play by the rules.
A bigger problem than price... (Score:5, Informative)
...is availability
Our area has no good choices, at any price
Our local ISP tried for years to install fiber, and ran into endless roadblocks
The telecom monopolies seem to have the attitude, we won't serve the area and we will use every dirty trick in the book to prevent others from serving it
Re: (Score:2)
In San Diego we have numerous choices but they all conveniently start at about $50...ALL OF THEM!!! They continue to also offer more service but the price never goes below that, regardless if you need all the extra speed they are pushing or not. Drives me nuts.
I hardly need gigabit Internet. I would be happy with 50mb down but the cheapest service is something like 250mb down.
Since it's just me, I just use my unlimited 5mb hotspot. 5mb is barely doable but comes with my phone plan. I'm not paying double my
Re: (Score:2)
Share it with neighbors.
Time to Nationalize the Internet (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, access to the Internet has become part and parcel to existence, and so the government needs to guarantee universal access, and make it cost-free for the economically vulnerable.
Providing for the general welfare of the United States, as required in the Constitution, commands government to provide for everyone's basic needs, including housing, food, heat, air conditioning, and access to the Internet. There's no reason in the world that the "richest" country on Earth should have half of its citizens
Re: Time to Nationalize the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
What is needed is competition. Government services will result in lazy beauracrats that don't care if your service is broken or slow, they get paid with your taxes anyway.
No, what we need is to kill the stranglehold the large companies have, using regulation, zoning, monopolistic contracts, etc. that prevent new companies from entering the market and offering service.
How many stories have we seen about small local companies being killed on the vine because they weren't even allowed to compete?
We don't have a free market in many places. We should. It would solve a lot of these issues and require zero tax dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
Har-de-har har.
Competition? We had that in the late nineties. The big companies *ATE* the smaller companies. In Chicago, inside of two or so years, my original ISP was eaten, then that was eaten by RSN.
And then there's the big companies, who want insane amounts of money for you to get a line, if you're in a rural area (I've friends who've had that issue.) And the small companies would *have* to connect to the big guys, and they'd be priced out.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. Capitalism does not work, and works even less well for access to a limited resource like last-mile wire.
Competition rapidly turns into monopoly.
The ONLY fix is socialism. ALL inherently limited resources should be owned by the whole of the people, not by corporations. Nationalize the ISPs, nationalize the water companies, nationalize the electric companies.
the power gird covers more the of the usa then (Score:4, Interesting)
the power gird covers more the of the usa then internet from isp like comcast.
Just say that they must cover the full area with no install fees other then the basic install fee. so no $50K fee to run an cable under the street to service an home that all other home get service all ready.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with your joke is that the first sentence is true until the second comma.
Comcast/Xfinity are shitbags (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I hope some of this federal incentive is being used to grow competition.
Maybe we need to have a fiber network as a regulated infrastructure monopoly, and have competition for internet service over that infrastructure.
Re: (Score:1)
Competition is not the solution. Socialism is the solution. Capitalism is the problem.
monopolies gonna monopolize (Score:5, Interesting)
time to treat them as utilities.
Price controls as a condition of aid (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds reasonable to me. If some state agency or state court says forcing providers to lower rates is against state law, the court should rule that providers in that state are ineligible for the aid until the state law is changed.
That would put all providers in that state on the same playing field: None would get the aid, but none would be forced to lower rates.
Re: Price controls as a condition of aid (Score:1)
Price of living (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You missed a very important task - getting a job requires the Internet as well.
Any retail job - all the job applications are online. There are minimum wage entry level jobs. You can ask, but most people will say to apply at the website.
Still, most jobs require application over the Internet - I'm sure the next job you're considering is being done online - either through some online job portal or you're emailing your resume around to people you know.
And then those interviews are often done remotely and not in
The comments so far.. (Score:1)
These kinds
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on where you live, you might find that "you have to pay for it' can be stretched quite a ways. For example, in some states and cities, you can't be disconnected from electricity during the winter. If you end up poor enough, the government at some level will pay for you to have reasonable amounts of it.
And there's actually a subsidy out there if you're low enough income that will cover at least part of your internet bill. I've gotten "you may be eligible" flyers about it in the mail.
follow the money (Score:3, Interesting)
This is how capitalism works. Till the legalized bribery of "Citizens United" is overturned by legislation, citizens have been reduced to surfs.
Re: (Score:2)
Even without regulatory capture, the telcos will structure their business so that people with money can pay for a premium service. This means caps for regular people, and "fast lanes" for the wealthy. If I was them, I'd lobby for local government to maintain the last mile so that caps and throttling can all happen in the data center, and local governments can foot the expensive bill for last mile network maintenance, especially in rural areas.
My money (Score:2)
If I'm giving you my money you have to adhere to my conditions. If you won't abide by my conditions you don't get my money.
If these companies want to get their socialist money, this is the price they have to pay. Clearly, they can't operate without the taxpayers endlessly propping them up.
Long-term silliness. (Score:4, Interesting)
The way it's worded in the summary is funny, and makes you think the telecoms are fighting getting money. They don't want to lower the end-user cost for their poorest customers. They are told they need to in order to access the next round of funding for building out infrastructure to poorer areas/rural areas. They want that money regardless, and this is the first time that the government has asked them for some sort of good-faith effort in order to earn it, rather than just handing them blank checks for empty, and ultimately broken, promises.
Of course they're fighting it tooth and nail. This free money from the government for infrastructure improvements that never actually materialize are VERY important to executive bonus structures. I find it both hysterical, and aggravating, that they don't want to give ANYTHING to receive this government funding. Not even the empty promises of yesteryear.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the government should stop paying them for promises and start paying them for delivery.
Just say the government will pay x amount per person / household who are connected, and telcos can invest their dollars first before then can earn government moolah.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the government should stop paying them for promises and start paying them for delivery.
Just say the government will pay x amount per person / household who are connected, and telcos can invest their dollars first before then can earn government moolah.
In a sane world, this would be a solved problem because our idiotic government wouldn't have been throwing cash at them for nothing for this many decades without some form of beating being applied, or at least a bleary-eyed official going, "Uh? Duh? WaH?" Instead, they're usually cheerfully talking about the next round of funding, while ignoring the complete lack of movement for the last round.
Don't like the rules? (Score:2)
Public non-profit (Score:1)