Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet

ISPs Ask Supreme Court To Kill New York Law That Requires $15 Broadband Plans (arstechnica.com) 148

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
ISPs have asked the US Supreme Court to strike down a New York law that requires broadband providers to offer $15-per-month service to people with low incomes. From a report: On Monday, a Supreme Court petition challenging the state law was filed by six trade groups representing the cable, telecom, mobile, and satellite industries. Although ISPs were recently able to block the FCC's net neutrality rules, this week's petition shows the firms are worried about states stepping into the regulatory vacuum with various kinds of laws targeting broadband prices and practices. A broadband-industry victory over federal regulation could bolster the authority of New York and other states to regulate broadband. To prevent that, ISPs said the Supreme Court should strike down both the New York law and the FCC's broadband regulation, although the rulings would have to be made in two different cases.

A situation in which the New York law is upheld while federal rules are struck down "will likely lead to more rate regulation absent the Court's intervention," ISPs told the Supreme Court. "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. As petitioners' members have shown, New York's price cap will require them to sell broadband at a loss and deter them from investing in expanding their broadband networks. As rate regulation proliferates, those harms will as well, stifling critical investment in bringing broadband to unserved and underserved areas." The New York law was upheld in April by the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which reversed a 2021 District Court ruling. New York Attorney General Letitia James agreed last week not to enforce the $15 broadband law while the Supreme Court considers whether to take up the case.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISPs Ask Supreme Court To Kill New York Law That Requires $15 Broadband Plans More

ISPs Ask Supreme Court To Kill New York Law That Requires $15 Broadband Plans

Comments Filter:

  • ouch my articles (Score:3, Funny)

    by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Thursday August 15, 2024 @04:03PM (#64709474)
    The US Constitution, ladies and gentlemen! It says absolutely everything, and absolutely nothing! And somehow it always agrees with whatever YOU think! Let's give it a hand!

  • To answer the question of who regulates ISP's (Score:3)

    by Turkinolith ( 7180598 ) on Thursday August 15, 2024 @04:05PM (#64709476)
    ISP's: "Nobody"

  • Let them put their own infrastructure in (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drake3d ( 1053628 ) on Thursday August 15, 2024 @04:08PM (#64709482)
    If they use any lines, poles, property owned by the state then they need to accommodate the $15 low-income broadband, and more in my opinion. The is profiting and then there is greed.

    • If they use any lines, poles, property owned by the state then they need to accommodate the $15 low-income broadband, and more in my opinion.

      I dunno where you live, but I've not lived yet in a city/state where the government owns the polls or the lines.....the companies own and maintain them.

      • If they use any lines, poles, property owned by the state then they need to accommodate the $15 low-income broadband, and more in my opinion.

        I dunno where you live, but I've not lived yet in a city/state where the government owns the polls or the lines.....the companies own and maintain them.

        On public right of way strips of land...

        • On public right of way strips of land...

          Possibly in some places.

          But most every pole I see, in neighborhoods...is on private land...my yard for instance, has a pole carrying power, phone and cable.

  • So, leave (Score:4, Insightful)

    by John.Banister ( 1291556 ) * on Thursday August 15, 2024 @04:20PM (#64709516) Homepage
    Nothing requires them to do business in New York.

    • It's a choice between:
      - No profits. Ie, leave.
      - Lower profits than they want. Ie, follow the law.
      - Big profits, enough to pay some legislators. Ie, appeal to SCOTUS.

  • I don't understand why they don't see this as an opportunity. Offer the $15 plan and just throttle it. Should bring in a ton of customers. And an existing customer is more likely to upgrade to a faster plan, vs. someone who is not yet a customer directly jumping to the expensive plan...

    • Probably because install costs will burn up their margins (it's expensive to send some guy out in a van and install whatever needs installing then put up with your questions and bullshit while trying to escape). If it was Wifi only and there was no startup costs, then maybe some traffic shaping would make it affordable, but I'd expect them to NAT the fuck out of you and captive portal everything they can. I doubt the law says they have to give you a "real" IP or allow you anything but access to port 443. If

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        Pretty much all new ISPs (eg starlink) already NAT you for legacy traffic, and existing ISPs are heading that way too. Operating a NAT gateway costs the ISP money, but acquiring legacy address space costs more.
        Before too long all consumer connections will be behind NAT, and you'll be paying extra for a business service to avoid it.
        Only proper solution is IPv6.

        • Zero of the ISPs in my area try to float NAT service. I'd quit Comcast in a moment if they tried. Maybe you are right, though, IPv4 being what it is. I cannot agree that IPv6 is a solution to anything except for IPv6 users. There simply isn't a viable solution that's properly bidirectional, but I would say that it's the closest thing to a solution we've seen.

    • Because of the big lie (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday August 15, 2024 @04:39PM (#64709574)
      So they don't need the meter internet access at all they have plenty of bandwidth. What's more it costs them very little to provide internet service. It's been a while since I saw the SEC filings where they admitted what the total cost including support maintenance and upgrades was but it was well under 15 a month. These plans are still profitable to them.

      It is absolutely critical that internet service providers do not let the general public know how cheap it is to provide internet service because if that ever happens then people paying between 50 and $120 a month for internet are going to start asking all sorts of uncomfortable questions like, why we allowing private companies to price gouge us while providing a substandard service and taking tens of billions in government subsidies or even worse why don't we just make it a public utility like any sane civilization would

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )

        It's been a while since I saw the SEC filings where they admitted what the total cost including support maintenance and upgrades was but it was well under 15 a month.

        Maybe that is true for the major ISPs. It's definitely less true for all the more rural providers.

        • It's pretty close even at smaller scale. There's small independent ISPs charging $30/month for 1Gbps Up and Down in the U.S.
          https://www.theverge.com/23763... [theverge.com]

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Xenx ( 2211586 )
            There is a comparatively significant difference between $15/user and $30/user. That said, I also recognize that there is also a difference between some users and all users. I don't know how that evens outs. I also don't know how much the location matters, due to cost of living/wages or population density. I'm not saying it isn't doable. I'm only saying small ISPs will have a harder time of it.

            I work for a small ISP, but not in NY. I don't have immediate access to customer numbers, and I don't know exactly

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Rhipf ( 525263 )

              There is a big difference between $30/user and $60-$120/user also. If the ISP is charging twice or more what a small ISP is maybe they can afford to eat the cost of the few low income users they are mandated to provide Internet access to at $15.

            • Yeah, the ongoing costs would be mostly wages, once the infrastructure is in place.
              Personally, I think the government should just roll out fiber networks country-wide and then cover the cost by charging ISPs to use them, and allow any ISP to do that. It would best serve the citizens. Internet is too important a utility to leave completely to the supposed "free" market.

        • At least when it's left up to the actual county to provide the internet access. Usually rural communities who can't get a company to roll in and are allowed to build their own internet just give it away for free. It's often not worth the cost of charging for it.

          Several of the red states though have passed laws banning municipal Wi-Fi and the like because once it gets around that internet is actually dirt cheap and we're all being price gouged then this shit's going to hit the fan and everybody's going t

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Xenx ( 2211586 )
            I mentioned it in response to the other reply I got, but prices that low wouldn't even be able to pay the employees where I work.

      • It is absolutely critical that internet service providers do not let the general public know how cheap it is to provide internet service because if that ever happens then people paying between 50 and $120 a month for internet are going to start asking all sorts of uncomfortable questions like, why we allowing private companies to price gouge us while providing a substandard service and taking tens of billions in government subsidies or even worse why don't we just make it a public utility like any sane civilization would

        Most people are aware of the situation but they just roll over and take it. My promotional rate on Spectrum ran out, I called 'em to try to negotiate and they basically said my only option to get a cheaper plan was to cancel and go to a competitor. Funny thing was, the only competitors are T-Mobile, which presently is not accepting any new customers in my area due to the towers being at capacity, or Starlink, which is significantly more costly than Spectrum. I'm presently just using my phone hotspot to r

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dbialac ( 320955 )
          This won't work for everybody, but I tethered off of a T-Mobile phone for years at my old place. I almost never hit the bandwidth "limits", and even then I was never slowed down despite living in a tourist destination. Just doing the tether was enough to save me the cost of the ISP. I now live elsewhere and the cell service strength isn't enough to allow me to do this.

        • I've got three ISP's available at the curb of my house, and mysteriously they all want about $50/month for 300gps.

          Mysteriously, my current vendor will provide that same service for $20/month for 2 years for new customers. I could be a 'new customer' if I switch to another ISP for 3 months, thinking about it.

        • You missed the easy ways to increase your engagement score: - Misspelll a word in the title - 2-choice poll with the responses as either "like this video for A" or "comment below for B" - Use a fake account to post something about how horrible this video is, so nice people comment in your defense (this works if you post an anti-DEI comment too)

    • I would LOVE a $15 slow wired or even wireless connection to connect my home lan to. Since it's just me these days, I just hotspot from my phone since it's unlimited 5mb. A standalone connection would cost me at least $50+taxes from my local ISP and that would be, I think, either 200 or 100mb. $15 for 15mb would be great as far as I'm concerned.

      Won't see it though. I'm rich according to California. Single guy pulling a lousy 62k... RICH I FUCKING TELL YOU!!!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Creepy ( 93888 )

        I'm paying $75, was paying $50 through T-mobile - 15 would be wow. I was actually paying more - $70 for 7/1 DSL and $85 for I think 300/1.5 Cable with Comcast with a bundling agreement, which jacked up my cable rates $45 more than I paid for DISH (after initial discount period), so not a fan. Now $75 for 1Gbit/1Gbit symmetric fiber. Sorry, Comcast - your taxes and fees are more than that, even when bundled.

  • Price controls == Shortages. Always. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Seven Spirals ( 4924941 ) on Thursday August 15, 2024 @04:24PM (#64709532)
    Price controls lead to shortages. This happens in every case eventually. See Cuba or the old Soviet Union for examples. Here's what will happen. First, the ISPs will only sell products that aren't regulated. If they are forced to sell regulated products they will do everything to keep from actually selling them (no advertising, hiding any product/service info, forcing huge delays in delivery, whatever they can do to make you not want it anymore including simply never delivering it despite any promises). Once that happens, you'll have folks start up a black market. Folks who get high speed "business connections" which will probably escape regulation will then start reselling bandwidth to neighbors etc... Whatever they can do to make it more affordable. One guy on the block will get fiber-to-the-premises under a "business plan" and the rest of the block will share a high powered AP in his backyard.

    What will not happen is that some private business will say "Gee, how can we lose some money today? Oh, I know, let's sell our services/products at a loss!"

    • Re:Price controls == Shortages. Always. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Thursday August 15, 2024 @04:40PM (#64709578) Journal

      So what you're saying is, "If you try to control them, they'll throw a tantrum and make things worse"

      Sounds to me like the price controls are not the problem.

      > Oh, I know, let's sell our services/products at a loss!"

      What makes you think $15/mo is selling at a loss? Show your work.
      =Smidge=

    • Once that happens, you'll have folks start up a black market.

      Sounds like they need one anyway.

    • Re:Price controls == Shortages. Always. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Zcar ( 756484 ) on Thursday August 15, 2024 @04:56PM (#64709642)

      Maybe. Maybe not. But that's a red herring. The primary question before the Court is "Is it legal for New York impose such a requirement?" and not "Is imposing such a regulation bad policy?" Maybe the advisability of the policy feeds into some of the analysis, but it's not really what courts should be deciding. I'm sure pretty much anyone can come up with a policy they think is good that would be plainly prohibited by the US Constitution and bad policies it would plainly allow.

      • Maybe. Maybe not.

        Read history. Price controls that under-price goods/services cause shortages. It's been tried, many many times. The only types of price controls that didn't generate shortages are the ones that were too short or too easy to dodge to be effective at controlling prices. If the policy is effective at setting the price of a good/service too low, it will cause shortages. That is unless you don't believe in the law of supply & demand.

        Maybe the advisability of the policy feeds into some of the analysis, but it's not really what courts should be deciding. I'm sure pretty much anyone can come up with a policy they think is good that would be plainly prohibited by the US Constitution and bad policies it would plainly allow.

        I'm not seeing a point here. Are you just saying "Respect Government Authori

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

      That's some Olympic-level mental gymnastics you've done for that analogy. Thing is though, we're not talking about goods that have to be produced, processed, and shipped. In a market like New York, activating broadband access literally consists of someone at the ISP changing a value in a database to add the customer's modem to a whitelist. This isn't the rural midwest where people don't have service because the wires don't exist.

      Even bandwidth shortages wouldn't be a thing (for people on the higher plans

      • It doesn't matter if you're in the middle of NYC and the infrastructure is laid to your building. They are still going to want you to use their router. They will likely need to send out a tech to activate it at your location but at a minimum they'd need to mail it to you. If we are talking Wifi, maybe you'd be correct, but that's not how most folks get access.

        In any case, it's up to ISPs how to price their services high enough to make a profit and thus stay in business and keep serving customers, not Un

        • They will likely need to send out a tech to activate it at your location but at a minimum they'd need to mail it to you.

          A customer can pick up a modem at Walmart, and making BYOD a requirement of the cheapest plan isn't unheard of (it's a fairly common practice in the wireless industry).

          In any case, it's up to ISPs how to price their services high enough to make a profit and thus stay in business and keep serving customers, not Uncle Sam.

          We may agree to disagree on this, but the ISPs should lose their autonomy to set their lowest tier prices when they operate in markets with little or no competitive choices. The other option would be having the government subsidize the costs of broadband service for low-income families, but at the end of the day that's really just corporate

          • We may agree to disagree on this

            Nah, I'd keep trolling you and arguing, but you can be the "bigger" person, I guess. You're just dead wrong and nothing is going to change that, not history, not arithmetic, not economics, because they all favor me on being critical of price controls.

            but the ISPs should lose their autonomy to set their lowest tier prices when they operate in markets with little or no competitive choices.

            Well, that's fine if you want to make sure that under-served markets continue to be under-served. If you were a entrepaneur looking to get into a business that's got few competitors and appears wide open would you think twice if you had some Communist governmen

        • It doesn't matter if you're in the middle of NYC and the infrastructure is laid to your building. They are still going to want you to use their router. They will likely need to send out a tech to activate it at your location but at a minimum they'd need to mail it to you. If we are talking Wifi, maybe you'd be correct, but that's not how most folks get access.

          If you think that you can only use the router and modem provided by your ISP, either you're an idiot or your ISP needs more regulation.

          • Still happens all the time. Customers who use their own modem almost always still have to have it "activated" which usually involves loading some custom firmware or dropping a config on it for the ISP. All that takes some work and interaction, often with a real person, especially when things go wrong. The amount of time and hassle to make a $15/mo account not worth it is debatable, but it's not magic. I've actually run two ISPs in my career and worked for many others. Things vary depending on the transit an

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

      Broadband is not a physical good. How could there be a shortage?

      This sounds like the dogma about getting paid more and getting moved to a higher tax bracket and somehow having less income.

      • Broadband is not a physical good. How could there be a shortage?

        It's finite and has a wholesale cost to the ISP. If you give some away below your costs you have less to give to actual clients.

        This sounds like the dogma about getting paid more and getting moved to a higher tax bracket and somehow having less income.

        Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "dogma" unless it's "a thing which can happen that's real and might be bad." Did you not know this was a real phenomenon ?

        • Sigh, when you cross into a new tax bracket, it only affects income ABOVE that bracket. It doesn't automatically go back and tax you for the income under the bracket. This is true for both state and federal income tax.

          The only way making more could some how cause you to make less would be if you were low income, got a job and made enough to no longer qualify for the handout, but that's not what you are referring to at all.

          https://www.irs.gov/filing/fed... [irs.gov]

          Clearly shows how you are taxed on w2 style income. S

          • I understand and I agree with your basic point. Moving up in a tax bracket doesn't make you earn less than you would have had. Making more takes more effort in most cases. The real question is if they steal most of that additional income, would it be enough to demotivate high productivity individuals and cause them to quiet-quit or leave for greener pastures ? History says the answer to that is yes.

            • I understand where you are coming from. Do I work myself to death for more money or do I take a less demanding job for better work life balance. Taxes are part of the equation but typically are not so punitive that they matter.

              Some people really love money and are totally okay with their 80+ work hour weeks. I think they are nuts but then again, they may be doing this for a period of time to set themselves up financially in a much nicer position then myself.

              I'm not really that ambition and don't try playing

            • I understand and I agree with your basic point. Moving up in a tax bracket doesn't make you earn less than you would have had. Making more takes more effort in most cases. The real question is if they steal most of that additional income, would it be enough to demotivate high productivity individuals and cause them to quiet-quit or leave for greener pastures ? History says the answer to that is yes.

              Its not stealing though. People who equate tax to theft are just whiny moochers who erroneously believe they are self-made and didn't have any assistance in life, as well as not understanding how a society works.

              • Its not stealing though.

                Well, technically it's more like robbery. Stealing would just be them taking your wealth secretly or without any overt threat of force. Since they take it brazenly and with a very real threat of force, it's more like robbery than theft. Anyone who says different is a Big Government authoritarian apologist (like you).

                People who equate tax to theft are just whiny moochers

                In my case I'd rather they use sales tax which is more fair, easier to adjust, and best of all shows folks how much their government is costing. I'd prefer they stop using income tax (robbery, a

        • It's finite and has a wholesale cost to the ISP. If you give some away below your costs you have less to give to actual clients.

          But it's so incredibly inexpensive for the ISP that the "wholesale cost" is almost negligible at scale. Data transfer itself costs infinitesimally fractions of a penny per Gb, and peerage rates at scale are again tiny: all the real costs are fixed costs in installation and maintenance of equipment and lines, and customer service. A small ISP can pay approximately 2K/month for 500Mb/s transit for example, and there are even cheaper ways if you are willing to build out a very tiny bit of infrastructure, and l

    • Price controls lead to shortages. This happens in every case eventually. See Cuba or the old Soviet Union for examples.

      From the US department of state:

      The United States maintains a comprehensive economic embargo on the Republic of Cuba. In February 1962, President John F. Kennedy proclaimed an embargo on trade between the United States and Cuba, in response to certain actions taken by the Cuban Government, and directed the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury to implement the embargo, which remains in place today.

      Here's what actually happens: In Philadelphia, over a decade ago, a bunch of hacktivist types got together and tried to build a city-wide mesh network. The general idea was that it should be possible to provide basic access with low cost hardware at minimal cost. They probably figured it'd be sort of like F/OSS; first the techie kids get involved but eventually it becomes useful enough to shake things up a bit.

      The ISPs lobbied and got it outlawed. Not just you can't use our

      • We already price controls.

        Well, you just got done making a case that they had some severely negative effects, too.

        They just happen to be designed to keep prices high, competition non-existent, and citizens in their proper place as passive consumers. Looks like you want to keep it that way.

        I'd prefer the volunteer mesh network you mentioned have never been banned or legally screwed with in any way. Did you not get that I'm against government interference and against government removing rights from private-sector actors. I mean you built a nice straw man to attack and all, but it's got fuck all to do with me.

    • No, price controls lead to capital strikes and capital flight. Those are what lead to shortages, as big corporations elsewhere will pull out of a market they do not see as lucrative.

  • If a subsidized service is a worthwhile government initiative then they should be the ones paying the subsidy, not the service provider.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by galabar ( 518411 )
      It's cheaper for them to force companies to do it. Rent control, $15 Internet access, requirements for "affordable housing", etc.. It's easier to give things away to your constituents buy giving other peoples money.

      • It's easier to give things away to your constituents buy giving other peoples money.

        I'm totally fine with that when the money comes directly out of the pocket of businesses. They exist and are able to profit because of the benefits provided to them by a functional society, so it stands to reason they should be obligated to pay some of their earnings forward towards the betterment of the society in which they operate.

        And a business that essentially has a monopoly over their respective market has an even greater implied obligation to pay it forward, since society has granted them an especia

    • If a subsidized service is a worthwhile government initiative then they should be the ones paying the subsidy, not the service provider.

      So, reward a company's monopoly status by giving them corporate welfare, basically?

      • ... giving them corporate welfare ...

        Don't complain about the hole in the road, complain about the car that fell in. Here it's "monopoly status" and "corporate welfare".

        If the government wants something, they should pay for it. The equivalence to corporate welfare only indicates the government is making more bad decisions.

        If the government cared about the people missing-out, they'd either build the infrastructure themselves, or remove the rules protecting corporations. Because telecommunications are federally regulated, New York's choice

        • The government build part of the infrastructure.

          The ISP's didn't put up their own poles, they used the existing telephone and power poles.
          They're not taxed on them either. They don't pay rent to use them either.
          They're physically limited too, so they now have a monopoly and no other provider can complete.

    • But the struggling broadband companies, how will they ever survive?

    • The state already allows ISP's to use of their infrastructure for their networks.

      The ISP's don't own the poles.
      The ISP's don't own the land the underground cables go through.

  • I don't get it (Score:3)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday August 15, 2024 @04:57PM (#64709648)

    I hate ISPs much as the next person, but this really doesn't feel like something the government should be involved with.

    I get that there's an issue with the nature of infrastructure granting them a bit of a natural monopoly on transmission (plus government involvement in that infrastructure). But there has to be a better solution than the government simply writing in a service they need to provide with a specific dollar amount.

    Like why can't the government negotiate with the ISPs to buy the plans and then resell them to low-income individuals? From what I can tell the only downside for the government is they're paying directly, instead of creating an indirect tax on the ISPs.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by galabar ( 518411 )
      I think you answer your own question. If polititians can reward their constituents by forcing others to pay, why wouldn't they? You'd need voters to understand that such a policy makes the economy worse -- and there aren't that many people that understand that...

      • Okay, then no more monopoly for the ISP. You can be the infrastructure provider or the service provider, but not both. Right now, the major ISPs in most areas own all the wires and provide the service. A total government granted monopoly.

        Maybe local government should let more players hang wires on the city's poles.

        Lots of different ways we could do this.

    • ...but this really doesn't feel like something the government should be involved with.

      This is exactly the the kind of thing the government should be involved in. The government should own and tend to the infrastructure, and private companies should provide the service. It is a great model that results in great service.

      Where I live, government is prohibited by law from providing Internet service. However, nothing prohibits it from providing the infrastructure, which is exactly what it has done. The local utility has installed fiber throughout the city, and then allowed private ISP's to provi

      • ...but this really doesn't feel like something the government should be involved with.

        This is exactly the the kind of thing the government should be involved in. The government should own and tend to the infrastructure, and private companies should provide the service. It is a great model that results in great service.

        Where I live, government is prohibited by law from providing Internet service. However, nothing prohibits it from providing the infrastructure, which is exactly what it has done. The local utility has installed fiber throughout the city, and then allowed private ISP's to provide the service.

        I went from paying $120 a month for asymmetrical 200/25 cable with massive usage restrictions and ridiculous data caps to paying $70 a month for symmetrical 1000/1000 fiber with no usage restrictions and no data caps. I went from unreliable cable with frequent outages to reliable fiber with no outages. This was only possible because of government intervention. The free market in the U.S. is incapable of matching this.

        So that sounds like a decent model, the natural monopoly stays inside the government and competition happens in the market.

        But I assume your city didn't say those private ISP's needed to give you 1000/1000 fibre for $70/month.

        I'm fine subsidizing broadband for low income individuals, but I don't like forcing companies to offer a specific plan unless absolutely necessary.

    • Like why can't the government negotiate with the ISPs to buy the plans and then resell them to low-income individuals?

      Because your proposed scheme creates more bureaucracy and potential for waste. Telling the ISPs by force of law that they have to offer a cheap plan to customers who pass a means test, is the most efficient way of accomplishing the same goal.

    • Perhaps they should charge rent on the state owned infrastructure they use, and use that to pay for a subsidy program

  • Poor babies won't be able to buy that new yacht or Lamborghini they wanted if you make them stop price-gouging everyone, you big meanies!

  • A Feature, not a Bug (Score:3)

    by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Thursday August 15, 2024 @09:37PM (#64710276)

    A situation in which the New York law is upheld while federal rules are struck down "will likely lead to more rate regulation absent the Court's intervention," ISPs told the Supreme Court.

    Yeah? So? Rate regulation is a GOOD thing, regardless of what the criminals running the telecom industry would have us believe.

  • Understand who, but more importantly where? (Score:3)

    by jamesborr ( 876769 ) on Thursday August 15, 2024 @10:55PM (#64710350)

    Certainly an interesting question regards the small and higher end fiber to the house ISP's, which necessarily only build out (very expensive) in neighborhoods which have sufficient demand and the planning, engineering, right of ways, etc. can take years to complete. The neighborhoods where this infrastructure is already in place will have very, very few users which will qualify for this "new" low cost service based on income. Will the government make them build out their infrastructure for lower income neighborhoods in cities where they have service? If so, it would be a very quick trip to bankruptcy court.

  • Why not $10? Why not $5? Will no one think of the poor??

    Can New York require all car rentals to be $15? Restaurant meal prices? Doctor visits? Surgery? Ponies?

    If not, why not?

  • that price is still multiple times the cost it takes to bring the internet signal to someone's house who is already in a neighborhood which is wired up

Slashdot Top Deals

To get back on your feet, miss two car payments.

Close