Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

#81

Post by ToDougie »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #6
bko wrote: post #5

> 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…

electricity rates in California are out of control in the summer because there is no competition.

Re: New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

#82

Post by johnnyanmac »

LeafItAlone wrote: post #39
johnnyanmac wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

I meant absurd in a good way. Given my internet is also powering my professional line of work, I'd still probably pay $80/month for double the speeds. But it's great others can get some actually decent internet for a small fraction of the cost.

Re: New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

#83

Post by johnnyanmac »

esafak wrote: post #25
johnnyanmac wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The prices in CA are what's absurd. $100 for 400Mbps in 2025 is gouging.

They are, yes. But my choices here are basically Comcast or AT&T (yes, I'm in a suburb). I'm just choosing my poison. I was using the comparison as a good thing for NYC rather than trying to criticize them when my internet prices are comparatively bad.

Some good news is that they seemed to have upgraded the speeds to 600Mbps at some point in the last 2 years. Not out of gouging land, but better.

Re: New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

#84

Post by johnnyanmac »

jmclnx wrote: post #11

200Mbps is barely enough for TV streaming if you are on Comcast (Xfinity). You need 500. I have tried 300 and had issues once in a while, 500 works fine. That is because with Comcast, you will never get 200Mbps, no matter what the plan, at least were I live.

you are often throttled. But you shouldn't be a a point where 200Mbps (advertised) is only giving you 100 Mbps or less in practice.

You probably need to check out the devices on your network and the quality/locations of any wireless setup you have. It was part of the reason I upgraded from trying to manage with an extender that gave me maybe 80 Mbps at best in the worst points, to a mesh network that has me utilize around 170 Mbps.

I use Comcast and I still have 100 criticisms about the company. But it hasn't been the worst network I've had to deal with.

Re: New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

#85

Post by bko »

snakeyjake wrote: post #59
bko wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't a crucial point of my argument. I disagree but everything I said still applied if you replace increase costs to decrease profits. And there is a response to these things, like increased costs. This is pretty uncontroversial basic economics. Even that doesnt matter. Just do it directly so you know exactly how much the subsidy is worth. Tax their profits and transfer it to the people. It's simpler, more vis…

> Just do it directly It is impossible to do it more directly than at the point of sale. Literally every other method is less direct. A tax is ten thousand times less direct.

Forcing someone to provide a service at below market price is not direct.

It would be more direct by taking the market price for these goods and purchasing them directly. Then you have a line item that perfectly encapsulates the subsidy and the transfer and you can reason about it.

That's what I mean by direct

Re: New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

#86

Post by vel0city »

toast0 wrote: post #71
vel0city wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, foster competition. What are you imagining, a dozen companies constantly tearing up the streets to lay down yet another run of fiber to everyone's homes? Once you get to a certain density, things like 5G or Starlink or whatever aren't going to scale. It doesn't make capital sense to have a bunch of companies run practically identical lines to every home.

Line sharing / unbundling / open access, whatever you want to call it is the way for this to work. Ideally, separate companies for last mile access and IP transit. Drop the customer traffic off somewhere in the region, and let 3rd party ISPs pick it up from there.

Its almost like modern ISPs are telecommunications providers instead of information services.

Nah, that can't be right.

Re: New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

#87

Post by from-nibly »

snakeyjake wrote: post #26
bko wrote: post #5

> 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…

> This does not increase the cost to ISPs.

> It does marginally decrease their profits.

Right because they wont claw that back when all ISPs are also suffering the same fate.

Re: New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

#88

Post by from-nibly »

mindslight wrote: post #60
bko wrote: post #5

> 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…

Right on! You're not even covering the half of it. Incumbent dinosaur ISPs will fight this kicking and screaming, but after they have their tantrums they will embrace it because it keeps new competition out of the market. This general pattern of "unfunded mandates" creates time bombs that become entrenched and impossible to fix (look at the catastrophe of the healthcare industry) If you want to actually screw big cab…

As a beneficiary of sequestered municipal internet. We need this or co-ops. I have the best internet for a LONG way in any direction.

Re: New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

#89

Post by two_handfuls »

chatmasta wrote: post #12
johnnyanmac wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hidden costs? Taxes? Probably the top 5 thing I'd love my taxes to go to. I think the downsides will be obvious: their internet is super cheap but not really fast. In other words, not too dissimilar to 3/4/5g plans with phones almost everyone has. No one's gonna be streaming Netflix and any Youtube over 360p on this plan. If we're arguing that the Internet is a public need, then I don't see the downsides here. u…

The hidden costs are the price increases that ISPs add to customer bills to “make up for it.” Now, I’m not saying that’s right - I actually agree with your premise - nor am I saying that any ISP truly has a marginal cost of each customer (especially given their engrained habit of oversubscribing their infrastructure) that they need to “make up for.” I’m just clarifying the “hidden costs” that GP seems to be mentionin…

You seem to assume some connection between costs to ISPs and how much they charge.

But ISP already try to charge as much as the market can bear.

Re: New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

#90

Post by tzs »

jmclnx wrote: post #11

200Mbps is barely enough for TV streaming if you are on Comcast (Xfinity). You need 500. I have tried 300 and had issues once in a while, 500 works fine. That is because with Comcast, you will never get 200Mbps, no matter what the plan, at least were I live.

Definitely depends on where you are. Where I live (Washington west of Seattle) Comcast has always been 10-15% above the claimed speed for me.
Post reply on HN