ISPs Brace For State-Level Price Regulation as New York's $15 Broadband Law Sets Precedent 117
A New York law mandating low-cost broadband is inspiring similar legislation across multiple states, despite industry opposition. The law requires ISPs with over 20,000 customers to offer $15 plans with 25Mbps speeds or $20 plans with 200Mbps to income-eligible residents.
Vermont, Massachusetts, and California legislators have introduced comparable bills following New York's success. Vermont's proposal mirrors New York's pricing structure, while Massachusetts goes further by requiring 100Mbps speeds for the $15 tier. AT&T responded by withdrawing its 5G home internet service from New York rather than complying with the mandate.
Industry lobby groups continue fighting these regulations, with USTelecom warning that state-level price controls will "undermine connectivity progress" and "discourage investment."
Vermont, Massachusetts, and California legislators have introduced comparable bills following New York's success. Vermont's proposal mirrors New York's pricing structure, while Massachusetts goes further by requiring 100Mbps speeds for the $15 tier. AT&T responded by withdrawing its 5G home internet service from New York rather than complying with the mandate.
Industry lobby groups continue fighting these regulations, with USTelecom warning that state-level price controls will "undermine connectivity progress" and "discourage investment."
Easy (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps it's time for ISPs to donate some money into the Trump inauguration fund?
US internet is the most expensive in the world (Score:5, Insightful)
US broadband prices are the highest in the world (while the quality of service is mediocre at best). Consumers have little power in this market due to the de-facto monopoly (well, duopoly, or, may be, 5 total if mobile providers are included). It might have been better to force competition (by requiring providers to share the lines with virtual telcos), but that never materialized. So - price controls, works for me. They are a utility (all the bleating about "innovation" notwithstanding).
Re: (Score:2)
This is the kind of shit DOGE should be working on, instead of randomly firing Fed employees and see who turns green from food poisoning.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
This is the kind of shit DOGE should be working on, instead of randomly firing Fed employees and see who turns green from food poisoning.
DoJ, the FTC, and state level agencies seem like appropriate, well-established organizations to handle any abusive monopolies which exist. I don't think we need to get DOGE involved.
That said, the single biggest monopoly the DoJ and FTC can't address is the federal government. That's what DOGE is targeting.
What is efficiency? (Score:1)
USA citizens are not necessarily demanding gigabit fiber out in the boondocks. I was paying $60 monthly for 3mbps ADSL well past 2019. I've since moved, but the ADSL didn't even meet Obama's 10mpbs cellular mandate, much less the 25mbps hardline mandate. Ping times were better on ADSL than cellular, and hardline obviously gets more than 1 b
Re: (Score:1)
People don't need government as an excuse to do anything you list. If anything, government does a LOT to prevent individuals from doing all sorts of horrible things. Much of our country's prosperity is built on government as well from the roads that facilitate commerce to the schools that educate our future workers. Or do you think all roads being toll roads would be good for commerce and schools that poor families cant afford to send their kids to are better options?
You can also thank government for your f
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to poke holes in my list but everything I listed got massively better when government started getting involved. Government is literally responsible for the first world lifestyle, you're just not acknowledging all the day to day ways your life has been made better by government. No, government is not perfect as you seem to need it to be but nothing in this world is so that's an unreasonable expectation.
The whole reason third world countries are so shitty is because of a lack of effective govern
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your rosy take on the private sector providing vital services out of kind benevolence is what doesnt hold up here. All you're doing is pointing to oddball outlier data, nothing you list was the norm for the time. You even had to go all the way to UK to find contrary examples.
You point to things like short comings in the modern FDA but neglect to acknowledge how much safer our food supply is with it than how things used to be.
You point to things like short comings in government housing while conveniently fai
Re: (Score:2)
Just want to add on to your post that the act of Congress that basically started the modern FDA came in response to a particular event. Before that, the FDA pretty much just had control over product labeling. Then came elixir sulfanilamide. Sulfanilamide was an existing and successful drug from Massengill. They wanted a liquid form, both for adults, but especially for children. The chemists at Massengil looked for something that they could dissolve it in and one of them came up with the perfect solution. Di
Re: Our government is also a Democracy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you obviously don't live in this reality. I'd ask where you're from but I don't care
Re:US internet is the most expensive in the world (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments, like any organization or group of people, can good or bad. However, if you believe that taxation is theft, then you already fundamentally don't understand government to begin with - invalidating your thoughts and opinions on the matter.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can easily stop paying taxes though it does mean giving up the benefits that those taxes bring. Income tax for example is only charged on those who take advantage of the environment that those taxes create by having a well paying job.
Re: (Score:2)
You, well maybe not *you* specifically, can dodge income tax by not having a real income. The rich literally do it all the time.
The taxes that originally paid for infrastructure and schools don't cover the rise of maintenance costs and inflation over time. And when it comes time to increases those funds so things can get fixed, people like you bitch and moan about it or vote against it. "Oh, I don't have any children in school so I don't want to vote yes on this levy that will increase my property taxes!" O
Re: (Score:2)
You can do it with legal (and illegal) deductions if you want to or have to stay in the system. There are other ways to dodge the income tax, too, but you'll just get his with a different tax. Which was kind of what I was insinuating. You can easily dodge income tax, especially if you're rich. However, the income tax is usually a better choice than the other taxes.
The feds pulled in $4.9 trillion in 2023, plenty if they didn’t piss it away
Wrong. Bridges and roads alone cost around $2.6 trillion to fix.
Schools cost just under $1 trillion to operate and maintain alone.
We're already n
Re: (Score:2)
When I was young, there were stories of people who rejected paying taxes and would get dropped off the middle of the Alaska highway and head into the bush.
And here you are pretending that having roads, law and order, courts to enforce contracts, an army to kill the occupants of where you live so you can buy your house doesn't make America different then tax free places like Haiti or Somalia.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot claim all taxation is worse than theft, and income tax is even worse than that, and then quote about coercive taxation when you don't understand the taxes to begin with.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: US internet is the most expensive in the world (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somalia actually does have personal income taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah to pay for things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and military. You are almost guaranteed to need 2 of the first 3 in your lifespan, unless you die before 60. I served in the military and was thus paid by taxes, so thank you for that. Despite that, I do agree that our military spending is out of control and way too high, but those serving do *deserve* to get paid - some deserve a bit more, some a bit less. That income tax money also gets divided up for the infrastructure maintenance (shitty a
Re: (Score:1)
Also on the same topic, governments are the most evil organizations in history, outstripping even churches in their brutality.
I don't think many churches committed great evil without government support. Granted, for much of history, there was no distinction between church and government so it's a little hard to separate the two.
In the 20th century the greatest atrocities were committed by governments or quasi-governments (and here I'm thinking of large scale rebel groups). But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Governments are forces for tremendous good too. For example, having a reasonably impartial and predictable
Re: (Score:1)
Re:US internet is the most expensive in the world (Score:5, Insightful)
They are a utility (all the bleating about "innovation" notwithstanding).
I agree. Treat them like electricity. Corporate profits are at a set percentage, and everyone pays fairly for infrastructure buildout, but the provider has to make a rate case to a public service commission. In addition to that; the provider should be required to service everyone in the service area. No more of this "You don't qualify for Fiber because it's not in your part of town" nonsense. Buildout should be mandatory.
Re:US internet is the most expensive in the world (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:US internet is the most expensive in the world (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a government-enabled line sharing requirement which has never been enforced but which would break the monopolies. Unfortunately, it's tied to the FCC classifying ISPs as telecommunications services. And that saga is still ongoing.
Re: (Score:2)
There are no government enforced ISP monopolies,
Yeah there are. Many cities have franchising agreements for Cable, and they treated ISPs as cable companies. Google Fiber got tied up for years in the courts in many cities they had wanted to roll out to due to Incumbent monopoly providers filing lawsuits and delaying the rollout every step of the way. Government obstruction by allowing large providers to take them to court and draw out the cases for many years or decades effectively blocking thei
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably trying to say something like: "Our legal system is too easy for rich people to exploit." Which... is valid, but a very difficult thing to resolve. Our legal system is so cumbersome specifically for the purpose of preventing exploitation. People have been exploiting legal sy
Re: (Score:2)
You're blaming the government for lawsuits from NGOs?
Yes; the government is the result of the impediment no matter how you look at it.
The disputes are of course due to laws on the books, and if the monopolists' interpretation is correct then those laws impede the competition.
If not.. The Judge is still a government figure, and they are still handing down the temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctions which freeze all progress for years until the legal matter is settled. Due to the nature o
Re: (Score:2)
There are no government enforced ISP monopolies
Strange. I live in the middle of a fairly major American city and my choices are a business class or a consumer class connection from one ISP. I could do cellular, but that is only because the laws of physics trump the laws of man.
So how did this situation occur if there are no government enforced monopolies? Is my city just not a desirable place to offer Internet services to? But if that were true, why is the ISP that is here, here?
I dunno man. I guess there are no government enforced monopolies but it sur
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is not that the government has caused these monopolies, monopolies are a natural consequence of a free market. The problem is that the government has failed to act to break them up or curtail them. Monopolies are a particularly tough nut in a industry like ISPs, which have such an extr
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is not that the government has caused these monopolies, monopolies are a natural consequence of a free market.
Strange, when I tried to compete by organizing a community ISP, the State Legislature went into a session and passed a law blocking that.
But yeah, it is only a natural monopoly. The State is not creating monopolies, it is just bad luck on my part. Maybe my next idea will be more successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should make a federal law that states last mile to the house is owned by the state and any player can play in the free market. Just like dial up.
But that would require BIG Government to make a Federal law.... so.....Small government wins!
Re: (Score:2)
There are no government enforced ISP monopolies, that's a fever dream of people who think that unregulated redundant infrastructure [dreamstime.com] is a good thing. There is a government-enabled line sharing requirement which has never been enforced but which would break the monopolies. Unfortunately, it's tied to the FCC classifying ISPs as telecommunications services. And that saga is still ongoing.
There are no government enforced ISP monopolies, that's a fever dream of people who think that unregulated redundant infrastructure [dreamstime.com] is a good thing. There is a government-enabled line sharing requirement which has never been enforced but which would break the monopolies. Unfortunately, it's tied to the FCC classifying ISPs as telecommunications services. And that saga is still ongoing.
Clearly there is a need to avoid multiple lines carrying the same product. We saw the impavt when the phone and power companies did that. What is needed is break the ISP from the infrastructure. InfrastructureCo supplies the connection to all ISPs and is paid for use, much as gas or electric is provided. Google could build out GoogkeFiber but would provide access at a fixed price to all ISPs. Granted, Google would get the money but the price would be regulated at a small profit after expenses. Even better w
Re: US internet is the most expensive in the world (Score:2, Informative)
US broadband prices are the highest in the world (while the quality of service is mediocre at best).
Neither of these claims appear to be true, nor even close to being true
https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]
Re: (Score:1)
To be more accurate the US is more expensive than:
Canada Australia UK Ireland Sweden Finland France Spain Portugal Japan Korea Netherlands Belgium Mexico Brazil, many of those over double the price according to those stats
But hey we are cheaper than Haiti, Sierra Leon Norway Gabon Curacoa Gambia Barbados Palau and Oman
Re: US internet is the most expensive in the worl (Score:2)
Why don't you actually look at the data instead? That list has the US at 8 cents per megabit per month. Canada comes in at 66 cents per megabit per month. That's a hell of a lot more expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he was pretty clearly referring to the "broadband cost per month" column where the USA is pretty high, and is probably more relevant when talking about base-level internet service.
Re: US internet is the most expensive in the worl (Score:2)
No, that's not it. When I make arguments, where possible I make them data or at least evidence driven. He makes arguments from his gut. But what he doesn't understand is that everything in his gut eventually turns into shit. After it inevitably does so, he then justifies it by claiming that he's trying to care for people...but that's not actually true: The only people he cares for is his own tribe, and he doesn't realize his own tribe is more sociopathic than his perceived enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you list for us which countries offer less for more? Because it would shit up your argument? Wow, how unusual for you.
Re: (Score:2)
That list is literally on the page he linked, at the bottom. US is at 8 cents per megabit which is much closer to top of value for money on the list than bottom. Sweden that is often cited as one of the good early adopters is at 14 US cents per megabit. My native Finland is at 20, Germany is 104, France 4. No, that's not a typo.
So there doesn't really seem to be a significant correlation in "offering less for more". Probably mostly a factor of local specifics (some have really high speed on offer at signifi
Re: (Score:2)
That list is literally on the page he linked, at the bottom. US is at 8 cents per megabit which is much closer to top of value for money on the list than bottom.
From that webpage, the US is at $0.08/Mbit and $65.00/month. That implies an average max bandwidth of 812.5Mbit. And not just 812.5Mbit but at $65/month. This is just not even close to believable. Are all these numbers just totally made up?
Re: US internet is the most expensive in the worl (Score:2)
Not at all. I personally pay $65 for symmetric gig fiber in Phoenix. No data cap. That's with CenturyLink. You'll more commonly see around $80/gig fiber, which is more inline with that data. It's a median figure. That doesn't mean you'll find that in every location in and given country. The US isn't at all alone in that.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the average quality of internet that you pay for compared to what you actually get is awful. I pay for 2gigs. I don't get anywhere close to even 1 gig. That should be straight up illegal. Major ISPs don't "progress connectivity" and they barely do any actual investing in their networks. They don't have fallback redundancies. Their entire network infrastructure is designed like shit.
Re: US internet is the most expensive in the worl (Score:2)
How are you even measuring this?
Re: US internet is the most expensive in the worl (Score:1)
Well why don't you try the same argument as the guy who posted before you? He listed Canada as being cheaper than the US. Ok great, they pay roughly $58/month for roughly 80mbit. The US will pay $7 more for roughly 800mbit.
I'd argue the former is dog shit, the latter is not. But congratulations, Canada is technically cheaper, which I guess is a win in your book, because we all know you love to eat dog shit
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I pay $52 for 100mb in San Diego.
Personally, I think these mandatory lower speed lower priced Internet should be for everyone and not just people that are inefficient with earning and spending money.
If you do it just for the welfare base, the end result is everyone else will have to shoulder the difference. As someone working and not eligible for anything, I'm rather sick and tired of it.
I mean, I work a high school drop out job but since I show up on time and have stuck around, I'm doing decent enough
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I pay $52 for 100mb in San Diego.
That's not too terrible. I pay $80 for 400Mbps in Humboldt. But I've also lived places where the only options are dialup for $20 or 10Mbps from a local WISP for $100. Further, what you or I pay only constitutes a percentage of a percentage of the relevant data. Your experience is important, but mostly to you.
I work a high school drop out job but since I show up on time and have stuck around, I'm doing decent enough. [...] I work in a grocery store putting yogurt on the shelf. Anyone can do this job and we're fucking hiring. Apparently it's beneath people to work for a living but taking handouts from the government is a-okay. Fuck that noise.
A lot of the people on assistance programs are single parents who cannot leave their kids alone to work midnight down, if that's what you're talking about. IME the stocking jobs which are hard to fill a
Re: (Score:2)
It's expensive in San Diego. I pay a hair over 2k for a one bedroom and I live alone. I can't do anything about someone that loaded up on children instead of education. I've also been working since I was 16, so I don't come from money. In fact, I didn't have any kind of spending money until I got a job.
You mention single moms with kids. I have several working with me. They all put in their 40 a week and it's not always wonderful hours but as you say, they have to work around their children's schedules as we
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't think anyone should be remotely comfortable on that assistance. We never were.
You suffered, so you want other people to suffer.
I would like to see more of a sliding scale, so as your income increases your benefits gradually drop.
That is absolutely, positively how it works now.
Right now, we tend to discourage work because once you pass a fairly low threshold, you lose it all.
Yeah, that's because eligibility is based on the federal poverty level, which is in turn indirectly based on the federal minimum wage, which as you may have noticed is not a living wage. Similarly, Medicaid share of cost is based on a "maintenance need" amount of $600, which is to say, they assume you can live on $600/mo.
Re: (Score:2)
You suffered, so you want other people to suffer.
He is asking for exactly the opposite. You on the other hand don't just want other people to suffer, you want everybody to suffer equally, because this is your idea of "caring" for people. Why do I say that? Because we've already seen what happens when countries do things your way on a large scale. The price they're stipulating here is literally below cost. Setting price ceilings at below cost, or even to where they're simply not profitable, is exactly how Venezuela turned from the wealthiest, most prospero
Re: (Score:2)
The price they're stipulating here is literally below cost.
Good, when they die they can be replaced by municipal service.
Not only is that wrong, it would literally take two fucking seconds to google it.
I'm sure it seems wrong if you don't know the meaning of the word indirectly. Most low-income workers earn at or near minimum wage, which in turn results in the thresholds being based on them. In California this is a boon to those seeking services, especially after that rapey DINO fuck Bill Clinton signed his welfare reform act in 1996 and created ABAWDs. We've been on a waiver since Covid hit, and the state just got another waiver (this time it'
Re: (Score:2)
Good, when they die they can be replaced by municipal service.
You're a lot like Donald Trump. You want to tear down the system before you even have an idea of what it's replacement would look like, or whether it would even be a good idea to tear it down at all. For one thing, municipal broadband, which generally works well so far, has always been self-sustaining. It can't do that at below cost. In fact, the most successful municipal broadband in the country is Utah's Utopia fiber, which basically works like this: Users pay a monthly connection fee to cover the cost of
Re: (Score:2)
It's only moderately amusing that you think you know how to deliver a psychiatric diagnosis. That was a lot of effort for very, very little reward.
Re: US internet is the most expensive in the worl (Score:2)
It's only moderately amusing that you think you know how to deliver a psychiatric diagnosis.
No, I don't think that. But you do. Or to be more precise, you project.
That was a lot of effort for very, very little reward.
No, I simply spend a lot less effort towards typing than you do.
Re: (Score:2)
"Simply" is a good description for how you do things.
Re: US internet is the most expensive in the worl (Score:2)
Pretty much. Unlike you, I do things the smart way, not the hard way. That's why my time is worth a hell of a lot more than yours.
Re:US internet is the most expensive in the world (Score:5, Informative)
In my neighborhood we have AT&T fiber. I have gigabit service but could rarely get a transfer speed above 200mb. I submitted support ticket after ticket pointing to an upstream connection that was saturated on their network. Crickets.
About 6 months ago spectrum laid fiber in our neighborhood. Before Spectrum turned up their service my 1G fiber is now transferring files at 900mb and the upstream bottleneck is gone.
Competition matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would have agreed with you up until around 2017. But ever since the cable companies rolled out DOSCIS 3.1 gigabit service and other companies are figuring out how to start using all that installed "dark fiber," most metropolitan areas can get 500 to 1,000 megabits per second download speed Internet, and the pricing is good because of the competition between cable and fiber optic ISP's.
Re: (Score:2)
Same with many services like health care, TV, etc. :(
Re: (Score:3)
This submission has nothing to do with voter suppression and everything to do with ISP regulations finding success at the state level (and spreading to other states).
Whether these regulations will make a difference for low-income households remains to be seen, but it is clear that they are spreading to more states and that lobbying efforts against them haven't been very successful.
Re: (Score:1)
What a nuisance OP is for this site! Here is a short sample of the same he posts here in a loop:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
I mean there's solid evidence that Republican voter suppression prevented 7 million Americans from voting.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
If he had the political capital to kill the filibuster he would have had the political capital to protect our elections and Trump wouldn't have become president because the 7 million people Republicans stopped from voting would have voted Trump
It's relevant because the ISPs (Score:2)
So the ISPs are going to use whatever tools they need to stop that. They will need a corporate majority in the state legislature to do that. Again, the voters are against them, so they will turn to voter suppression to get that majority. In some cases they'll need a super majority because it's hard to control the governorship since it's a state
Signature requirement during voting (Score:1)
Estonia, which has the world's most advanced voting system, has Internet-based voting with digital ID cards (in addition to paper), whic
Re: (Score:1)
It's to help deter one of the least-efficient forms of voting fraud: Having someone impersonate you at the polls.
As fraud goes, it's inefficient: The bad guy has to go to the polls, swear he's someone else under penalty of perjury (a felony in most places), cast the victim's vote (a separate crime), then what does he have to show for it? He's changed ONE vote.
Voter fraud was easier back in the days before we got serious about preventing it. Google "Box 13 scandal" or research the propensity for cemeterie
Comcast just offered me 1gb/20mb for $25 a month (Score:3)
I switched to Metronet a few years back for 5gb/5gb internet for $110 a month. Yesterday comcast just offered me via mail 1gb internet for $25 a month for 3 years. If they can afford that than this is a non-issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait 1gb downstream and 20mb upstream? Am I reading that right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, in my area comcast is lucky to break 25-30mb upstream. Downstream is usually good though. Metronet is symetric so I get 5gb/5gb.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes very little sense, even if you just download, you still need enough upload bandwidth to send back ACK packets and 20mbps seems pretty thigh for me to theoretically meet the ACK packets upload bandwidth requirements to be able to download at 1Gbps.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing! 1 gbps should require around 35 gbps upstream just for ACK. Actually slightly more than that:
https://www.reddit.com/r/netwo... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but there are tricks to be able to send less ACK packets they might use on their modems or on their network somewhere but basically I'd say basically forget about doing anything else if you ever manage to download at 1Gbps like making a VOIP phone call or use video conferencing. They would need to do traffic shaping in order for these thing to still work while downloading at max speed and it would lower your download speed.
So basically the advertised 1Gbps download speed would be bullcrap anyway with 2
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to modern async cable infrastucture. They advertise "up to 100Mbps upload speeds", but only if you use their modem. Otherwise you are lucky to be in the 25-35Mbps range.
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, comcast/xfinity has horrendous upstream, in my area they are offering 1.2gb/25mb for $95 a month promotional pricing vs AT&T offering 1gb/1gb for $90 a month without a promotion. The differance is AT&T is fiber, and comcast is still copper.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty average for cable. Mine though Cox is 1gb/30mb.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the upstream amount?
Re: (Score:2)
Previously when I had comcast I received 1gbps down and about 20-30mbps up.
With metronet I get 5gbps down and 5gbps up for roughly what my 1gbps xfinity previously was charging.
Re: (Score:2)
I switched to Metronet a few years back for 5gb/5gb internet for $110 a month. Yesterday comcast just offered me via mail 1gb internet for $25 a month for 3 years. If they can afford that than this is a non-issue.
I use Tmob 5g and while not as fast, it’s good enough for streaming. Upload speeds are slow but not an issue for me. At $25/month it beats ATT and Verizon
Price is one thing, but (Score:2)
...availability is more important
There are NO good options available in most areas outside of big cities
And no, wireless is NOT the answer, we need fiber!
Its funny (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
States and cities can "mandate" the price of internet but they cant mandate the costs of prescriptions, insurance, gasoline, or utilities. I dont know what the average cost is of a 100mgps infrastructure but 50 cents per day seems low. In any case, I really don't believe internet should be the priority.
There's that and there's the lack of transparency. If we want to ensure low income people have low cost internet service, how about writing them a subsidy check? The at least it's very clear who's paying the subsidy (the other taxpayers), who's getting it, and how much are they getting. Of course, maybe that low income person would prefer to spend any subsidies on food or a car, not internet service.
The beauty of the one-big-subsidy approach is it gives the poor person the power to decide what's best for th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather not subsidize anyone. However, if it's a choice between businesses and individuals only, I'll go with your least-worst option of giving freemoney to individuals.
Completely agree. I'd much rather give people money and trust them to spend it wisely or poorly over the Gordian knot we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
That allows the ISP to charge an arbitrary amount, paid by the government, for servicing anybody considered "low income".
If the government says there is a limit on how much we will subsidize but that the ISP must provide the service, this is EXACTLY THE SAME as what is being proposed here, except with less government expenses.
Re: (Score:2)
That allows the ISP to charge an arbitrary amount, paid by the government, for servicing anybody considered "low income".
If the government says there is a limit on how much we will subsidize but that the ISP must provide the service, this is EXACTLY THE SAME as what is being proposed here, except with less government expenses.
Let's stipulate that both of us would like to help low income people get internet access. Can we agree on that? I personally think we have bigger fish to fry but let's take it as a given we both think this is a problem worth solving.
The big difference is the subsidy approach uses the price system to determine what services are worth providing and at what price. An explicit subsidy makes it very clear it's taxpayers who support and are providing this benefit. Mandating a service offering hides that other rat
Re: (Score:2)
I am strongly in favor of the simpler system.
There has to be a price for the user of the internet service, so we don't waste time and money making it work for people who don't want it. Let's say that is $15.
There is a cost to the ISP to provide this service. Let's say it is $50. This is assumed to include anything the ISP manages to claim, whether true or false (the ISP lying is a different problem unrelated to how to pay for it).
In your scenario the government will give the ISP $35. The government will hav
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good on the surface... (Score:2)
1. Bill the person $15 and the gov pays the remaining $30 or so direct to the ISPs. - This is proper first world poverty management that works in a free market
2. Demand they only charge $15 and oh well, just deal with - This is socialist commie bullshit that doesn
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sounds good on the surface... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That $30 is paid for by taxes. It is far more efficient to directly collect it by the ISP charging some other customers more, rather than pass it through the government. You are proposing far more expensive solutions, for reasons I can't figure out.
ISP Abuse (Score:2)