Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Internet Communications

ISPs Ask Justice Department To Sue States Over Low-Income Broadband Mandates After Court Losses (arstechnica.com) 56

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Major broadband lobby groups have asked the Trump administration to sue states that require internet service providers to offer low-cost plans to low-income residents, following their unsuccessful court challenges against such laws. The cable, telecom, and mobile industry associations filed the request this week with the Justice Department's new Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force, specifically targeting New York's law that mandates $15 and $20 monthly broadband options for eligible customers.

The industry groups suffered a significant legal defeat when the Supreme Court refused to hear their challenge to New York's affordability mandate in December 2024, after losing in federal appeals court. Now they face a potential wave of similar legislation, with California proposing $15 plans offering 100 Mbps speeds and ten other states considering comparable requirements.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISPs Ask Justice Department To Sue States Over Low-Income Broadband Mandates After Court Losses More

ISPs Ask Justice Department To Sue States Over Low-Income Broadband Mandates After Court Losses

Comments Filter:

  • I hope.... (Score:3)

    by Kelxin ( 3417093 ) on Friday May 30, 2025 @03:04PM (#65417181)
    That the justice department sues the ISPs over this and tacks on an extra fee for wasting their time.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 )

      That the justice department sues the ISPs over this and tacks on an extra fee for wasting their time.

      Only if the states get together and suitably 'compensate' the guy behind the resolute desk.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Local ID10T ( 790134 )

        One "Executive Order" coming right up! No need to bother with courts and laws... King Trump rules by decree.

    • Personally I don't think the ISP's would even bother asking any other administration to do such a thing after losing in court so much but I imagine they know this admin is able to be coerced quite easily.

      It's all the scapegoats the admin loves; Regulations in blue states, "overreach" by the Judicial branch and since it's about low income families that means one thing baby, DEI and there's no such thing as poor white people. Let's go and sue the states!

    • justice department is a play toy/enforcement wing for populist trump agenda these days... if this hits fox news, then they'll sue the states...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      I suggest the states update the law so that broadband providers are required to offer a basic $20 broadband plan providing 24x7 usage and no data cap less than 80GB per day to ALL customers - not just people meeting eligibility criteria. Of course most people would not enthusiastically pick the $20 tier the providers have already setup to comply with those laws, since the datarate is so low.

      • This would be ideal. For me, I pay $54 for 100mb down/??? up. I was getting by on my phone's 5mb hotspot, barely, but really missed wired service. I would be perfectly happy with 25 or 50mb down for say, $25-$30 a month. No such plan exist of course.

        They just want everyone on the top tier, regardless of your actual needs. I'm super happy they have these gigabit offers but it's way more then I need. Let me pay a tenth of the price for a tenth of the speed. Please!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mysidia ( 191772 )

          I would be perfectly happy with 25 or 50mb down for say, $25-$30 a month. No such plan exist of course.

          Yeah.. These exist amongst some providers but are eligibility restricted based on income, for example Spectrum nationally has this

          "Discounted Spectrum Internet Assist (50 Mbps x 10 Mbps) $15 / Month"

          "Internet Assist (50 Mbps x 10 Mbps) $25 / Month"

          "Internet Advantage (100 Mbps x 20 Mbps) $50.00 / Month"

          All 3 of those are restricted based on Income, and the "Discounted" one is if you are awarded some

  • and if they do so much for (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Growlley ( 6732614 ) on Friday May 30, 2025 @03:08PM (#65417191)
    the party of states rights!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      They haven't been the party of state's rights since at least the 1950's. That was just a PR tag, and they'll continue to use it as a dog whistle.

      • The Fugitive Slave Act also commandeered free state law enforcement. States' Rights was never more than a fig leaf for people who liked strange fruit.

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by sarren1901 ( 5415506 )

        I'm a big state's rights fan. For instance, I support California setting it's standards for any industry in their borders. That's their right as a state. I also support Texas and it's choices. State's rights should matter to everyone.

        There are many different states you may move to and you don't even need a visa or anything. Just find a job (or don't, people show up to California homeless all the time) and move there. You may surprise yourself with how things run in different states and how the general feel

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          Yes, but the feds, no matter which party, always try to reduce the power of the states. Possibly the direct election of Senators was a mistake.

    • The gop has been fascist for a while. Republican strongholds, Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado for having legal marijuana. They wanted to make it illegal. If you cant understand how far gone those states are, it is a great example.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quall ( 1441799 )

      I'm not sure that I agree with a state's right to force a private company to offer their services at a specific cost.

      If they get state funding, then sure, as a part of their contact. But even then, tax payers would be subsidizing someone else's bill in this case.

      • can always move to another state - no one is forcing them to rely on ammenities provided by that state

  • Alternative strategy (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just have the administration declare everyone to be above average, and no one would qualify for assistance?

    • You joke but someday in the next 6 months some ghoul like Stephen Miller is going to pop into the Oval, gasping form running, catch his breath and say "let's set the Federal poverty level to $1"

      • You joke but someday in the next 6 months some ghoul like Stephen Miller is going to pop into the Oval, gasping form running, catch his breath and say "let's set the Federal poverty level to $1"

        As I recall, HHS sets the poverty level threshold, so it is technically within the control of this administration. But as it would hurt "his people" more than most, that probably won't happen. Maybe.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          You joke but someday in the next 6 months some ghoul like Stephen Miller is going to pop into the Oval, gasping form running, catch his breath and say "let's set the Federal poverty level to $1"

          As I recall, HHS sets the poverty level threshold, so it is technically within the control of this administration. But as it would hurt "his people" more than most, that probably won't happen. Maybe.

          Trump has done many things that hurt "his people". He doesn't care and, apparently, they don't either as long as he is "owning the libs".

  • If Trump wants to kidnap people to El Salvador then the broadband lobbyists should be next. The highest court of the land said no and now they're crying to daddy Trump to make it better.

    • They didn't say anything, they simply declined to hear it. Typically they only choose to do so when lower courts in different sovereignties have made different interpretations of the same laws. Besides, they're not the ultimate decider of laws, they only interpret their meaning. It's still up to the executive to enforce them if they choose, and still up to the legislature whether they write new ones or revise old ones.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You already know more about the government than the entire administration

  • How many fucking jets does one man need?

  • It would be one thing if the ISPs were taking what they made, investing in infrastructure, expanding coverage, improving capacity and speeds...

    But these assholes are only upset because they can't make as much year end bonus bucks...

  • These ISPs are continuing with their extremely jealous and bitter attempt to protect their profits.

  • As long as any money from state and fed stops flowing to them in various initiatives. They don't do these programs out of their own pockets.... they get massive subsidies and handouts & are still making money, just not as much off of these customers.

    Cheap and fast internet is the 2nd biggest driver of economic growth... after cheap and plentiful electricity.

    I wish North America was more like Europe and Asia in the ability to focus on what is actually important and not get derailed by petty greed from a few asshats that undermine the entire fucken nations interests to make a few bucks.

    I mean, a few execs or investors make a few million.. collectively, we lose billions in fucken growth AND pay more than most in the developed world for less.

  • Makes sense (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dskoll ( 99328 )

    The Trump regime has hijacked the DOJ and we all know the Trump regime hates poor people. In fact, its Big Beautiful Bill is nothing less than a massive redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.

  • I have access to three wired ISP's at the curb of my house and the competition is fierce. They will offer an 'introductory' price for a year and then quietly jack it up about 50% hoping I don't notice. If I call up and complain they may reduce it. But last year my current provider foolishly refused.

    The level of service is about the same amongst them and there is no contract. I can just rotate around if I want, so I switched. This resulted in a flurry of offers by email and eventually a call from a salespers

  • I mean is there like a menu with prices? I know there is for the presidential pardons but I didn't know about the lawsuits you could order.

  • wow - what D!cks.

  • I would side with the ISPs if all the federal tax payer money they have received through promises of building out the infrastructure over the last 20+ years were actually done. That money was pocketed while rates skyrocketed. I hope ALL states enact this sort of legislature so tax payers can recoup at least some of the money that was stolen.

    • I would side with the ISPs if all the federal tax payer money they have received through promises of building out the infrastructure over the last 20+ years were actually done.

      It's this fact that will undermine the ISP efforts.

  • Cut off the weather service cut of FEMA cut of the Internet. Ah well.
    • They turned the clocks back to the 1950s where the only news & local weather you can get is from the AM/FM radio or over the air TV

  • ...sue to make sure it does. Ahhhh, apex capitalism at its finest.

    We’ve come full circle: a deregulated industry is now begging the feds to block states from stepping into the regulatory void—by suing to stop them. States like New York and California passed laws requiring ISPs to offer low-cost broadband ($15/month for basic service), and that, apparently, is intolerable. AT&T has already pulled its 5G fixed wireless from New York in protest. Viasat may follow. Smaller ISPs are threatening to halt rural expansion.

    I say let them. Take your toys and go home. Please.

    Their argument? That these state mandates violate the 1996 Telecom Act’s commitment to a “free market.” But that logic only works if broadband is classified under Title II of the Communications Act—which the FCC explicitly abandoned during Trump’s first term, when his FCC, under the ever-obliging former Verizon counsel Ajit Pai, torched Title II classification in a now-legendary deregulatory crusade. And the courts have been clear: you can’t preempt state law in a space you’ve vacated.

    But for the MAGA-aligned broadband lobby and their Project 2025 friends at DOJ’s “Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force,” logic is optional. Their latest legal theory? Deregulation itself preempts regulation. This is a legislative oversight version of Schrödinger’s Cat: broadband must be both unregulated and regulated at the same time, and the industry decides who gets to open the box and collapse the regulatory wave function. And here’s the kicker: the guy who wrote the FCC chapter in Project 2025—the blueprint for gutting broadband oversight, among other things—is sitting FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. If that’s not a conflict of interest, it’s a masterclass in regulatory cosplay. The same people dismantling oversight are now claiming states can’t fill the gap—because oversight might exist again someday, and they want to make sure the wavefunction can only collapse one way: their way. The statute they keep waving around—47 U.S.C. 230(b)(2)—was meant to preserve a “vibrant and competitive free market” for internet content and services, not grant eternal regulatory impunity to last-mile monopolies.

    Meanwhile, broadband prices are falling, speeds are rising, and most consumers have multiple providers. The writing is on the wall. This isn’t about competition. It’s about defending a dying business model with legal arcana and political muscle—freezing the system in a regulatory superposition until only one outcome remains possible: theirs.

  • We have to call this crap out and stop socialism like this before it's too late... requiring companies to offer their product or service to consumers at below cost and then sock it to other consumers to subsidize that is INSANE. The youth don't understand the totalitarian hellscape that will happen if they keep getting their way implementing these socialist programs. Eventually actors in the economy will start giving up and the whole thing will tilt into a death spiral and we'll end up in a Venezuela or so

  • US needs to audit (Score:3)

    by NotEmmanuelGoldstein ( 6423622 ) on Friday May 30, 2025 @08:13PM (#65417867)

    The US government needs to stop handing-out corporate welfare, then demanding it back in the form of subsidized services. Firstly, because it separates the money from the stated goal. Secondly, because it allows this 'socialism is theft' propaganda.

    The US government needs to spend money auditing the states: There won't be consistent and accurate outcomes in education, healthcare, infrastructure, policing until it happens.

    Standards are great but policies such as No Child Left Behind punishes poor districts more than it guarantees a standardized outcome.

  • It doesn't seem unreasonable to consider internet access a basic need in today's world.

    Can't you just subsidise the cheaper deals by screwing those who are paying for the more expensive packages? What's that - you want to screw everyone? Ah ok, then by all means continue...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quall ( 1441799 )

      Forcing everyone to subsides another person's bill IS screwing everyone IMO. It's screwing everyone except the people who are getting handouts.

      Seems backwards to punish those who work hard while rewarding those who don't. It's nice to think that these programs are used mostly by people who are down on their luck, but that's not the case. They're mostly helping people who are a drain on society and don't want any responsibility for themselves.

Slashdot Top Deals

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!

Close