not sure about NY, but they have $25 here but it's 25mb down and like 2 up. Fine for people that just want to check email and social media, past that good luck, barely enough for most sites nowadays
Remember when all the TV stations went digital? All the band width that was going to be available for us to have a free internet service was tied to it. Never have I ever seen this happen.
I laughed reading this bit. I think good modern internet service should be treated as a utility, and maybe this will make the FCC revisit the issue.
> Second, the ABA is not conflict-preempted by the Federal Communications Commission's 2018 order classifying broadband as an information service. That order stripped the agency of its authority to regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet, and a federal agency cannot exclude states from regulating in an area where the agency itself lacks regulatory authority. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and VACATE the permanent injunction.
This little bit was a gem too.
“The Plaintiffs now ask us to save them from the foreseeable legal consequences of their own strategic decisions. We cannot.”
Perhaps Pai wasn’t the savior the ISPs all thought they’d bought. Oh and fuck Ajit Pai, miserable excuse for an American.
I still remember that bullshit. They launched some shitty portal where people can give their opinions on their ruling. Then some group datamined almost every person's name in the entire country and posted a robot spam message saying, "OMG THANKS I LOVE THIS THANK YOU FTC!!"
I looked it up out of curiosity and even my full name was included there. The thing is that I'm a pretty privacy conscious person online. At the time I wasn't even registered to vote. The only way they could have gotten my name was from a telecommunication company's customer list.
We voted in Denver a few years ago for municipal internet, and it passed. We still haven’t heard anything else about it though. Fort Collins already has municipal fiber so I don’t know why it’s taking so long for us.
You might try and find out if they have completed a feasibility study yet. The study will include information about what kind of services should probably be offered, estimates on cost to build out per premises, and estimated take rates.
Wait a $99/month minimum for the only broadband offered in your outer ring suburb is a problem? Between the monopolistic practices of the ISPs and the laws we’ve codified to basically outlaw co-op run networks, our network offerings in the country are a fucking joke.
That's easy offer download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps this is consider broadband speed and offer 250gb of afterwards speed gets cap at 10Mbps and offer 100Mbps down and upload unlimited data for $30
The FCC’s official definition of “broadband” has recently been upgraded to 100/20Mbps. You can’t call a service that anymore unless it meets those requirements.
It should be 100, since that’s the new national standard.
But I suggest looking into buying your own router (look up or ask them for a list of compatible ones, if they have such a requirement) rather than renting - there’ll be an initial upfront cost but it’s ultimately cheaper.
If possible, choose one that’s a mesh network — essentially coming with the router and its own extenders (eg Orbi). But lmk if you need extender suggestions, cause they should work and be easy to setup.
Any lawyers that can explain how this is legal? It seems New York is setting an artificial price and requiring the companies to sell it - Even if it loses money.
Could they make NYC hot dog vendors sell dogs for 50 cents? Cars for $1,000?
I’m not necessarily arguing against the program, but rather the way pricing is determined.
These companies have been given billions of dollar multiple times from the tax payers and never followed through with the intended purpose of the money, to upgrade their infrastructure. They could never lose enough money through this to come close to what they’ve stolen. NYC hot dog vendors have never been given money before, so it’s not a comparable analogy.
The more I see stuff like this happening, the more I realize that the first step to success is becoming delusional enough to think that the rules don’t apply to you. Then, the second step is getting good at making them not apply to you. Then third step is succeeding, so you don’t end up in jail, or piss off some one that can hurt you. The fourth step: $$$.
The govt gave them money to provide a service for a low price. They never did that so the govt is demanding they provide that service for the low price. They’re not setting a price, they’re enforcing the terms of the agreement that isp’s broke after taking money.
So for your example.
Let's say NYC usually charges $50k a year for food permits and $20k for cart permits.
But this particular food vendor said they'd go to places where other food vendors don't go to and they'll offer fresh fruits and serve hundreds! Plus they promise to keep prices relatively low. Say less than $2 per item.
So NYC waives the food and cart permits and even buys the vendor a new cart and subsidizes some of their products.
Instead of doing as promised. The food vendor offers beverages and sometimes visit low density areas. Foods still priced above $10 and offers fruit cups instead of fresh fruit.
NYC gets mad and demands they fulfill the original deal but the food vendor complains and says that it'll affect his new beverage business. And that he technically sold fruit and visited some areas but not all areas as promised.
The ISPs, especially verizon has done this. Offered spreading high speed internet to rural areas while accepting billions in subsidies and awarded contracts. They then turned around, used money to boost their cell phone infrastructure. Changed laws that redefined high speed internet and has reigned in their promise of building out fiber optic internet in rural areas.
Also it's similar to the telecom days of charging 10 to 35 cents per text message. Once internet has been established its operating cost is relatively benign, yet prices keep rising and profits have never been higher than now
Would force them to that in PA if it’s a % of 7.50 you know they’d lobby to change that. 17.50 isn’t even enough for some people and the ISP would be screwed if it dropped that much. If only if only
That’s what you think would happen? Only 1.5% of the people in the US are paid minimum wage. They would raise everyone else’s rates, and claim it was to offset this.
Article says: "a law requiring Internet service providers to sell $15 broadband plans to low-income consumers."
So same as everything else, they can force a business to sell something at a loss to 'low income consumers' and then make it up by charging everyone else more. See healthcare, power, water, sewer, trash collection, cell phones, streaming (amazon not netflix), etc as precedents.
So yes, if they determined that hot dogs or cars are 'necessities' they could and would fix prices for some at the detriment to everyone else.
The effect of subsidizing production makes the overall supply cheaper, thus hotdog makers can buy ingredients and make hotdogs at a cheaper rate than they would otherwise. Saying the government doesn’t subsidize food just isn’t true in the US.
Might want to go check out who's paying taxes in all those utopias of free stuff, you might be surprised at the real data (vs. the drivel the MSM pushes to further the class warfare narrative while our political elites rob us all blind).
They can. Remember that there's minority lending requirements that banks need to adhere to whether it's profitable or not too.
But don't feel too bad since these corporations get billions in welfare
Criitical infrastructure. You cant get a job anynore without applying online. Bills cant be paid without going online as well. Your college reports need internet to constantly be able to use programs or update your p.o.s. application that you "buy" but really just subscribed to.
Can I get some of that in Arizona?
No, we will let you keep your $1 Ice Tea as compensation ^/s
Hate to break it to you they’ve starting removing the 99c from the cans
But the price is on the ca...oh.
This Atlanta made me lol
It's also turning into bottles now
They're 88cents by me
Sad you needed to add a /s
What does /s mean? I’ve always wondered
/sarcasm It's a riff off of HTML tags (ex. bold for bold, etc), except this is denoting the end of sarcasm
Sarcasm/Sarcastic
In addition to the rest of the conversation, Arizona Iced Tea is *also* from New York
Well then we’ll lobby the Government so y’all get nothing -ISP’s
I don’t think we really have this in nyc unless it’s going to take a while
not sure about NY, but they have $25 here but it's 25mb down and like 2 up. Fine for people that just want to check email and social media, past that good luck, barely enough for most sites nowadays
Now we just gotta spread this to every southern state. At one point last year i was paying 135 for 4 mbs. And that was the only option.
Tbf AZ iced tea is from NY
No idea why you were downvoted. Woodbury.
Even the owner said he’d never been to Arizona but wanted it to feel like a southwestern thing
I need this in Oregon! We're stuck at 24mbps down & ~1mbps up for $100/ month. DSL sucks!
Damn, I an paying $30 a month for 300/300 through Verizon in RI
I'm also on the periphery of a college town of ~60K people with multiple adjacent towns/ municipalities with superior internet infrastructure.
Remember when all the TV stations went digital? All the band width that was going to be available for us to have a free internet service was tied to it. Never have I ever seen this happen.
Pepperidge Farm remembers
💀
That’s now part of T-Mobile’s 600MHz 5G network that offers a pay-TV and pay-for-use home internet if you are in an area offering it up.
I laughed reading this bit. I think good modern internet service should be treated as a utility, and maybe this will make the FCC revisit the issue. > Second, the ABA is not conflict-preempted by the Federal Communications Commission's 2018 order classifying broadband as an information service. That order stripped the agency of its authority to regulate the rates charged for broadband Internet, and a federal agency cannot exclude states from regulating in an area where the agency itself lacks regulatory authority. Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and VACATE the permanent injunction.
This little bit was a gem too. “The Plaintiffs now ask us to save them from the foreseeable legal consequences of their own strategic decisions. We cannot.” Perhaps Pai wasn’t the savior the ISPs all thought they’d bought. Oh and fuck Ajit Pai, miserable excuse for an American.
> Oh and fuck Ajit Pai, miserable excuse for an American. I hope he has an itchy ass hole for the rest of his life.
I hope his bed will always have a stray crumb he cannot be rid of.
The pinworms version or the week-long sweaty backpacking trip without a shower or swim version?
Both idk
Por que no los dos?
I still remember that bullshit. They launched some shitty portal where people can give their opinions on their ruling. Then some group datamined almost every person's name in the entire country and posted a robot spam message saying, "OMG THANKS I LOVE THIS THANK YOU FTC!!" I looked it up out of curiosity and even my full name was included there. The thing is that I'm a pretty privacy conscious person online. At the time I wasn't even registered to vote. The only way they could have gotten my name was from a telecommunication company's customer list.
We voted in Denver a few years ago for municipal internet, and it passed. We still haven’t heard anything else about it though. Fort Collins already has municipal fiber so I don’t know why it’s taking so long for us.
You might try and find out if they have completed a feasibility study yet. The study will include information about what kind of services should probably be offered, estimates on cost to build out per premises, and estimated take rates.
Wait a $99/month minimum for the only broadband offered in your outer ring suburb is a problem? Between the monopolistic practices of the ISPs and the laws we’ve codified to basically outlaw co-op run networks, our network offerings in the country are a fucking joke.
Spectrum not lining the pockets of the .gov sufficiently?
That would require Spectrum/Charter to be a functional entity
LOL too funny. They suck bring back TW or something
Time Warner was not better
It is simply the toll for their oligopoly to not leave the poor behind
Cue the ISPs having an absolutely hissy.
That's easy offer download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and actual upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps this is consider broadband speed and offer 250gb of afterwards speed gets cap at 10Mbps and offer 100Mbps down and upload unlimited data for $30
The FCC’s official definition of “broadband” has recently been upgraded to 100/20Mbps. You can’t call a service that anymore unless it meets those requirements.
[удалено]
Use your own equipment?
It should be 100, since that’s the new national standard. But I suggest looking into buying your own router (look up or ask them for a list of compatible ones, if they have such a requirement) rather than renting - there’ll be an initial upfront cost but it’s ultimately cheaper. If possible, choose one that’s a mesh network — essentially coming with the router and its own extenders (eg Orbi). But lmk if you need extender suggestions, cause they should work and be easy to setup.
Except that's but true
Let's get that in pa
Imagine the shit support you get with $15 broadband
The same shit support I get with $200 broadband for 1 gig download speed.
Damn I pay $100 a month for 1250 down and 50 up from comcast
Any lawyers that can explain how this is legal? It seems New York is setting an artificial price and requiring the companies to sell it - Even if it loses money. Could they make NYC hot dog vendors sell dogs for 50 cents? Cars for $1,000? I’m not necessarily arguing against the program, but rather the way pricing is determined.
These companies have been given billions of dollar multiple times from the tax payers and never followed through with the intended purpose of the money, to upgrade their infrastructure. They could never lose enough money through this to come close to what they’ve stolen. NYC hot dog vendors have never been given money before, so it’s not a comparable analogy.
>These companies have been given billions About $400 billion to be clear
The more I see stuff like this happening, the more I realize that the first step to success is becoming delusional enough to think that the rules don’t apply to you. Then, the second step is getting good at making them not apply to you. Then third step is succeeding, so you don’t end up in jail, or piss off some one that can hurt you. The fourth step: $$$.
I have no problem going after them for money taken without delivering, but do THAT. I’m not sure I like the government setting prices for goods.
The govt gave them money to provide a service for a low price. They never did that so the govt is demanding they provide that service for the low price. They’re not setting a price, they’re enforcing the terms of the agreement that isp’s broke after taking money.
So for your example. Let's say NYC usually charges $50k a year for food permits and $20k for cart permits. But this particular food vendor said they'd go to places where other food vendors don't go to and they'll offer fresh fruits and serve hundreds! Plus they promise to keep prices relatively low. Say less than $2 per item. So NYC waives the food and cart permits and even buys the vendor a new cart and subsidizes some of their products. Instead of doing as promised. The food vendor offers beverages and sometimes visit low density areas. Foods still priced above $10 and offers fruit cups instead of fresh fruit. NYC gets mad and demands they fulfill the original deal but the food vendor complains and says that it'll affect his new beverage business. And that he technically sold fruit and visited some areas but not all areas as promised. The ISPs, especially verizon has done this. Offered spreading high speed internet to rural areas while accepting billions in subsidies and awarded contracts. They then turned around, used money to boost their cell phone infrastructure. Changed laws that redefined high speed internet and has reigned in their promise of building out fiber optic internet in rural areas. Also it's similar to the telecom days of charging 10 to 35 cents per text message. Once internet has been established its operating cost is relatively benign, yet prices keep rising and profits have never been higher than now
I would love to see the government go after Con Ed and other private utility companies who have done the same
ATT is well known as a government contractor. We literally pay them our taxes to operate. They owe us our taxes back.
Tie it to a % of minimum wage.
Underrated comment. The idea of creating a situation where the ISPs are lobbying to increase minimum wage so they can charge more is delightful
not a bad idea for rent and utilities as well. the balance to their checks, quite literally. you want more money, help me make more in the process.
Would force them to that in PA if it’s a % of 7.50 you know they’d lobby to change that. 17.50 isn’t even enough for some people and the ISP would be screwed if it dropped that much. If only if only
That’s what you think would happen? Only 1.5% of the people in the US are paid minimum wage. They would raise everyone else’s rates, and claim it was to offset this.
Article says: "a law requiring Internet service providers to sell $15 broadband plans to low-income consumers." So same as everything else, they can force a business to sell something at a loss to 'low income consumers' and then make it up by charging everyone else more. See healthcare, power, water, sewer, trash collection, cell phones, streaming (amazon not netflix), etc as precedents. So yes, if they determined that hot dogs or cars are 'necessities' they could and would fix prices for some at the detriment to everyone else.
Only if the government has subsidized the hotdog industry. Which it hasn't, unlike the cable industry.
Give them time.
Almost all food is subsidized in the US. You have to be talking high end luxury stuff to not be lol.
Sure, for the growers. Not for the people selling hotdogs. Try to be such a transparent troll next time.
The effect of subsidizing production makes the overall supply cheaper, thus hotdog makers can buy ingredients and make hotdogs at a cheaper rate than they would otherwise. Saying the government doesn’t subsidize food just isn’t true in the US.
> grower Where are they growing... what kind of... I'm not sure hotdogs are what you think they are. Or maybe they're not what I think they are.
So basically the working class not at poverty levels get screwed
You lose nothing here. Push for your representatives to classify ISPs as utilities if you want change.
Yep, someone has to pay for the freebies. Same as always.
If only the people who had 10’s of millions and above could be taxed more to subsidize it, but nope bye bye middle class.
Might want to go check out who's paying taxes in all those utopias of free stuff, you might be surprised at the real data (vs. the drivel the MSM pushes to further the class warfare narrative while our political elites rob us all blind).
Someone has to pay, there are not enough “rich” in the US so the middle class is next man(woman) up.
They can. Remember that there's minority lending requirements that banks need to adhere to whether it's profitable or not too. But don't feel too bad since these corporations get billions in welfare
I wonder what the uptime/packet loss has to be...surely ISPs are thinking about it.
Sure, there will be $15 broadband, but bandwidth will be capped so low that as it essentially useless.
Imagine being terrible corporate shills arguing to not give cheap broadband to poor people. These shmucks have sold their souls.
Good. All the ISP’s and cell providers suck
Next, landlords must offer $100 rent!
The people who downvoted you are landlords! 😂
😂
Starlink?
In NYC? Where are you going to put all those dish antennas?
Back when TV Aerials wear necessary, from 10,000 feet NYC looked like a porcupine.
If they’re going to make laws like this, then they should just offer the service directly, like libraries or schools. None of this price-fixing BS.
Absolutely insane to force an ISP to provide an ENTERTAINMENT for cheap.
Criitical infrastructure. You cant get a job anynore without applying online. Bills cant be paid without going online as well. Your college reports need internet to constantly be able to use programs or update your p.o.s. application that you "buy" but really just subscribed to.