ISPs Ask Justice Department To Sue States Over Low-Income Broadband Mandates After Court Losses (arstechnica.com) 52
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.
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.
I hope.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
One "Executive Order" coming right up! No need to bother with courts and laws... King Trump rules by decree.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: and if they do so much for (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: and if they do so much for (Score:2)
Then sue them
Re: (Score:1)
Around here... Astound laid all the fiber backbones and interconnects, then good ol' Charter bought them out for a steal and became the only cable show in town
Alternative strategy (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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".
El Salvador (Score:1)
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.
Re: El Salvador (Score:2)
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)
You already know more about the government than the entire administration
Hangar (Score:2)
Re: Hangar (Score:2)
Tds
Re: (Score:2)
It would be one thing if... (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:1)
Once again... (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
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)
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.
Competition (Score:2)
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
You can do that? (Score:1)
What a C@nt move.. (Score:1)
wow - what D!cks.
Nope (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So much for the poors (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the free market won't cooperate... (Score:2)
...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 t
Socialism (Score:1)
US needs to audit (Score:3)
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.
\o/ (Score:1)
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...