31–40 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why it's obviously yes. Broadband providers can compete with each other in a way that the water utility or roads cannot.
How? A broadband provider either has to create infrastructure costing billions hidden like water utilities or use over the air internet which has it own limitations based on spectrum and not all spectrum being usable for data transmission.
> The New York law requiring Internet providers to offer cheap plans to people with low incomes will take effect on Wednesday this week following a multi-year court battle in which the state defeated broadband industry lobby groups. I don't like these types of mandates because it distorts the market. Politicians get to say "we provided X people with internet service and we didn't use a dollar of tax payers' money". W…
This does not increase the cost to ISPs. It does marginally decrease their profits. A profit is not a cost, and despite what finance bros think lower profits are also not a cost. It is perfectly possible to supply 1000Mbps symmetrical fiber service to end users for $20/mo because numerous self-sufficient non-profit municipal broadband organizations in the United States are doing just that. This is 2.5% the capacity f…
> The New York law requiring Internet providers to offer cheap plans to people with low incomes will take effect on Wednesday this week following a multi-year court battle in which the state defeated broadband industry lobby groups. I don't like these types of mandates because it distorts the market. Politicians get to say "we provided X people with internet service and we didn't use a dollar of tax payers' money". W…
This is a lot of words. Do you think Internet should be a utility, or not? Obviously: yes. You enjoy water, schools, roads and power. Trash removal in NYC is free, and it's better for that community than being private. But also, you work in tech or something. More customers, less money being paid on meaningless rents. And fuck Comcast, right? Think critically. We don't need ISPs, and little about that ecosystem resul…
Trash pickup costs the city $109 billion.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-16/nyc-mayor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This does not increase the cost to ISPs. It does marginally decrease their profits. A profit is not a cost, and despite what finance bros think lower profits are also not a cost. It is perfectly possible to supply 1000Mbps symmetrical fiber service to end users for $20/mo because numerous self-sufficient non-profit municipal broadband organizations in the United States are doing just that. This is 2.5% the capacity f…
What does that have to do with what I wrote? If you want to transfer some ISP profits to low income New Yorkers, do that directly
> New York Public Service Commission Chair Rory Christian last week issued an order stating that the law will take effect on January 15. > $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds. This looks like it will be applied statewide. Not sure if remote parts of the state can handle such heavy connections.
the $15 plan is about what I expected. the $20 plan is kinda absurd. I'm in CA, but I'm paying 100/month for a 400 Mbps plan.
> New York Public Service Commission Chair Rory Christian last week issued an order stating that the law will take effect on January 15. > $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds. This looks like it will be applied statewide. Not sure if remote parts of the state can handle such heavy connections.
the $15 plan is about what I expected. the $20 plan is kinda absurd. I'm in CA, but I'm paying 100/month for a 400 Mbps plan.
While I agree that people getting internet in this day and age is _basically_ a necessity (and thus the govt should interfere when needed to make that happen), doing it in this way is the worse possible implementation. Was it necessary in this case? I don't know. First, foster competition. I don't know the NY landscape, but in the West Coast, it's not uncommon for a residency to have effectively a single option for I…
>> First, foster competition.
The ISPs don't really compete. They lock in certain areas and then harvest it over the years.
>> it's not uncommon for a residency to have effectively a single option for ISP.
Same here. My building has options for Verizon FIOS and Charter/Spectrum and I count myself lucky. Thats usually not the case. In many places I've rented you're stuck with one provider.
>> Second could the government offer public internet?
A municipal ISPs proposal would be challenged in the courts by these ISPs. This scheme is less invasive to the marketplace than that, no?
>> Only as a last resort...
Yes - thats why its happening imho.
> The New York law requiring Internet providers to offer cheap plans to people with low incomes will take effect on Wednesday this week following a multi-year court battle in which the state defeated broadband industry lobby groups. I don't like these types of mandates because it distorts the market. Politicians get to say "we provided X people with internet service and we didn't use a dollar of tax payers' money". W…
This is a lot of words. Do you think Internet should be a utility, or not? Obviously: yes. You enjoy water, schools, roads and power. Trash removal in NYC is free, and it's better for that community than being private. But also, you work in tech or something. More customers, less money being paid on meaningless rents. And fuck Comcast, right? Think critically. We don't need ISPs, and little about that ecosystem resul…
> New York Public Service Commission Chair Rory Christian last week issued an order stating that the law will take effect on January 15. > $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds. This looks like it will be applied statewide. Not sure if remote parts of the state can handle such heavy connections.
the $15 plan is about what I expected. the $20 plan is kinda absurd. I'm in CA, but I'm paying 100/month for a 400 Mbps plan.
Consider that you are pointing your finger the wrong way, friend.
Where I am (outside NY) low income broadband is a thing, and the taxes and fees are included in the $15/~$25 a major telecom provider offers. The alternative provider to them advertises a $20 month special, but when you check into it the taxes and fees for that provider add on about 100% to the bill. Advertised mbps in the US, is sort of another sorely needed conversation.