7 ms·

Direct link to the (scathing!) press release: http://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/ArticlesByCategory/1F6E451203ADF727852582D7005F8520/%24File/pr18060.

Direct link to the (scathing!) press release: http://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/ArticlesByCategory/1F6E451203ADF727852582D7005F8520/%24File/pr18060.pdf?OpenElement http://www3.dps.ny.gov/pscweb/WebFileRoom.nsf/ArticlesByCate... As a consumer, this transition will be annoying to deal with, but as a resident, I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed. Not sure how the transition will work though, as Spectrum/TWC own the cable infrastructure. Spectrum has sent a veritable tree's worth of junk mail to my house in the past year, goading me to sign up for their television and landline phone bundle. Spectrum, please die quickly.

danharaj 8y ago
Spectrum will have to spin off their NYC operations.
bradleyjg 8y ago
> I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed. Not me. I live in a small apartment that I pay tens of thousands of dollars a year for. In Franklin County people can get a lot more space for a lot less money. Why should I subsidize their broadband rather than them subsidizing my living space? Life is all about tradeoffs. Wanting to get all the benefits of your choices and have other people pay to ameliorate the downsides is understandable but unreasonable. If we are going to subsidize broadband at all, we should do it statewide and means test it.
- lovich 8y ago
  Communication is integral to society. Haveing a different class of communication technology that is not accessible by a large portion of the population pushes the haves and have nots apart
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Communication is integral to society. And housing isn't‽
    - vkou 8y ago
      Housing is too. Land reform (Or, to sound less scary, property taxes and capital gains) is a subject that seriously needs to be revisited.
  - mmirate 8y ago
    As long as you "have" rather than "have not", what else matters?
- ghaff 8y ago
  Long ago we decided as a country there were significant collective benefits to near-universal electrification and phone service. Internet is a bit more complicated for various reasons such as wireless options but there’s at least an argument for government rural broadband initiatives.
  - madengr 8y ago
    It’s not more complicated; it’s simpler. If heavy gauge electrical wiring was run, and copper twisted pair was run, then fiber can also be run.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      Of course it's more complicated. The relative cost of doing those things is much higher today (it's labor intensive and labor is a lot more expensive today), and the alternatives (wireless) are much cheaper than running wire.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
        Which is why I laugh when the FiOS salesman tries to offer me a (temporary) "deal" for $50 when I get exemplary cable internet for $30 with no bullshit rate hikes. Nope, your modem gets to sit idle in the closet until some new sucker comes along.
      - madengr 8y ago
        The wireless alternatives suck. Even mmWave will suck due to line of sight requirements and weather restrictions. Fiber is the only viable media for Gbps symmetric bandwidth.
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    > there were significant collective benefits to near-universal electrification and phone service If we keep having to subsidise these areas because it is uneconomical to build infrastructure there, and most new technologies require infrastructure development, does it really make sense for people to keep living there? The Rural Electrification Act was also a work program in the middle of the Great Depression, so there were some pretty good reasons to do it back then besides just altruism. Though I honestly think we don't actually even need real subsidies here, supporting municipal broadband providers and One Touch Make Ready regulation (which NY could have passed as a State without the FCC) would probably do more good than holding Spectrum's feet to the fire.
- chrismartin 8y ago
  This isn't a subsidy. It's an effort to redirect some of Charter's ~$10B yearly profit[0] toward public benefit, in exchange for allowing further consolidation of local monopolies (which would otherwise amplify potential for abuse of market power). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    That's a tax (passed on to consumers) and a subsidy by another name though. GP's point is they don't want to pay it. Please debate the finer points of whether or not to have such a policy, but don't say that it's not a subsidy when it clearly is.
    - ethbro 8y ago
      By this logic, any company subject to government regulation is taxing its customers. An observation that doesn't particularly enrich the conversation, unless the point you're making is that we should do away with all government regulation of private companies?
      - rayiner 8y ago
        Except that some regulations are more like subsidies than other regulations. Coverage mandates are, in economic terms, almost always a cross subsidy. The regulated company builds uneconomic infrastructure to comply with the mandate, and pays for it by raising prices on everyone else. Regulation is appropriate where there is some market failure or externality you're trying to address. E.g. regulating pollution is economically efficient, because it prevents companies from being able to externalize their costs onto the public. It's not appropriate to use regulation to simply achieve an end result you hope to achieve just because you're unhappy with the market equilibrium. If the end goal really is important, than rather than distort the market for everyone else the government should simply provide the desired service or pay for it directly.
        8y ago
- mcny 8y ago
  > If we are going to subsidize broadband at all, we should do it statewide and means test it. This makes me sad. We need less means testing, not more. I fully support a more progressive tax scheme but we should eliminate means testing from government services.
madengr 8y ago
I really wish they’d specify the upload BW. I have 100/5 service, and it sucks due to the 5.
- pnutjam 8y ago
  I would have whined about that as well, but then I tried rural "broadband"...
brightball 8y ago
It’s so strange to read this. Where I live, Charter Spectrum is virtually celebrated as awesome. My bill for internet has barely increased at all over the past 10 years but on multiple occasions they have contacted me to upgrade my service for free. Even replaced my cable modem at one point. I’ve gone from 15 to 30 to 60 to 100 and I’m currently at 200. There’s probably been two outages during that entire time period. I see so many people in other parts of the country complaining about their providers and it makes me realize how good we have it here. ATT is still terrible though.
- leetbulb 8y ago
  Charter, Spectrum, Charter Spectrum, whatever the hell it is now, stopped offering 300Mbps in my area about a year ago (from what I've been told: due to low demand). However, they allowed my account to remain at 300Mbps, likely because I've never had a contract with them. Ever since then, they've hiked my bill up about $50 in $10 increments. I can only assume they want me to ditch it for their "Supreme Ultimate God-Tier Just-Enough-Of-A-Contract-To-Fuck-You-Shall-You-Cancel Phone, Internet, and Hulu Streaming Bundle Bonanza" package that they keep sending me extremely-official-looking snail-mail for. Whenever I call to ask why I'm being charged more, they give me the runaround and have even told me to downgrade my internet package. I'm not playing their little game... I'll hopefully be ditching them all together soon. I wish the FTC, BBB, etc gave a shit about these practices...it's sad. /rant
  - brightball 8y ago
    I think a big part of the issue is that there is this Spectrum umbrella that has appeared around multiple companies. In my area before it was just "Charter" and then they became Charter Spectrum and now they try to go by just Spectrum. Which is all well and good except in other areas nearby TWC went under that same umbrella...and TWC was always terrible and totally guilty of exactly the behavior you're describing. Under the Spectrum name, they continue to be terrible.
    - leetbulb 8y ago
      Yep, it was TWC prior to Spectrum -- other reply to my comment states the same thing. Crazy.
cjf4 8y ago
>As a consumer, this transition will be annoying to deal with, but as a resident, I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed. Not sure how the transition will work though, as Spectrum/TWC own the cable infrastructure. There isn't going to be a transition, at least not in the short term, as this will likely be tied up in the courts for some time, and probably settled.

danharaj 8y ago

Spectrum will have to spin off their NYC operations.

bradleyjg 8y ago

> I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed. Not me. I live in a small apartment that I pay tens of thousands of dollars a year for. In Franklin County people can get a lot more space for a lot less money. Why should I subsidize their broadband rather than them subsidizing my living space? Life is all about tradeoffs. Wanting to get all the benefits of your choices and have other people pay to ameliorate the downsides is understandable but unreasonable. If we are going to subsidize broadband at all, we should do it statewide and means test it.

lovich 8y ago
Communication is integral to society. Haveing a different class of communication technology that is not accessible by a large portion of the population pushes the haves and have nots apart
- icebraining 8y ago
  Communication is integral to society. And housing isn't‽
  - vkou 8y ago
    Housing is too. Land reform (Or, to sound less scary, property taxes and capital gains) is a subject that seriously needs to be revisited.
- mmirate 8y ago
  As long as you "have" rather than "have not", what else matters?
ghaff 8y ago
Long ago we decided as a country there were significant collective benefits to near-universal electrification and phone service. Internet is a bit more complicated for various reasons such as wireless options but there’s at least an argument for government rural broadband initiatives.
- madengr 8y ago
  It’s not more complicated; it’s simpler. If heavy gauge electrical wiring was run, and copper twisted pair was run, then fiber can also be run.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Of course it's more complicated. The relative cost of doing those things is much higher today (it's labor intensive and labor is a lot more expensive today), and the alternatives (wireless) are much cheaper than running wire.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
      Which is why I laugh when the FiOS salesman tries to offer me a (temporary) "deal" for $50 when I get exemplary cable internet for $30 with no bullshit rate hikes. Nope, your modem gets to sit idle in the closet until some new sucker comes along.
    - madengr 8y ago
      The wireless alternatives suck. Even mmWave will suck due to line of sight requirements and weather restrictions. Fiber is the only viable media for Gbps symmetric bandwidth.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  > there were significant collective benefits to near-universal electrification and phone service If we keep having to subsidise these areas because it is uneconomical to build infrastructure there, and most new technologies require infrastructure development, does it really make sense for people to keep living there? The Rural Electrification Act was also a work program in the middle of the Great Depression, so there were some pretty good reasons to do it back then besides just altruism. Though I honestly think we don't actually even need real subsidies here, supporting municipal broadband providers and One Touch Make Ready regulation (which NY could have passed as a State without the FCC) would probably do more good than holding Spectrum's feet to the fire.
chrismartin 8y ago
This isn't a subsidy. It's an effort to redirect some of Charter's ~$10B yearly profit[0] toward public benefit, in exchange for allowing further consolidation of local monopolies (which would otherwise amplify potential for abuse of market power). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications
- cryptonector 8y ago
  That's a tax (passed on to consumers) and a subsidy by another name though. GP's point is they don't want to pay it. Please debate the finer points of whether or not to have such a policy, but don't say that it's not a subsidy when it clearly is.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    By this logic, any company subject to government regulation is taxing its customers. An observation that doesn't particularly enrich the conversation, unless the point you're making is that we should do away with all government regulation of private companies?
    - rayiner 8y ago
      Except that some regulations are more like subsidies than other regulations. Coverage mandates are, in economic terms, almost always a cross subsidy. The regulated company builds uneconomic infrastructure to comply with the mandate, and pays for it by raising prices on everyone else. Regulation is appropriate where there is some market failure or externality you're trying to address. E.g. regulating pollution is economically efficient, because it prevents companies from being able to externalize their costs onto the public. It's not appropriate to use regulation to simply achieve an end result you hope to achieve just because you're unhappy with the market equilibrium. If the end goal really is important, than rather than distort the market for everyone else the government should simply provide the desired service or pay for it directly.
      - 8y ago
mcny 8y ago
> If we are going to subsidize broadband at all, we should do it statewide and means test it. This makes me sad. We need less means testing, not more. I fully support a more progressive tax scheme but we should eliminate means testing from government services.

madengr 8y ago

I really wish they’d specify the upload BW. I have 100/5 service, and it sucks due to the 5.

pnutjam 8y ago
I would have whined about that as well, but then I tried rural "broadband"...

brightball 8y ago

It’s so strange to read this. Where I live, Charter Spectrum is virtually celebrated as awesome. My bill for internet has barely increased at all over the past 10 years but on multiple occasions they have contacted me to upgrade my service for free. Even replaced my cable modem at one point. I’ve gone from 15 to 30 to 60 to 100 and I’m currently at 200. There’s probably been two outages during that entire time period. I see so many people in other parts of the country complaining about their providers and it makes me realize how good we have it here. ATT is still terrible though.

leetbulb 8y ago
Charter, Spectrum, Charter Spectrum, whatever the hell it is now, stopped offering 300Mbps in my area about a year ago (from what I've been told: due to low demand). However, they allowed my account to remain at 300Mbps, likely because I've never had a contract with them. Ever since then, they've hiked my bill up about $50 in $10 increments. I can only assume they want me to ditch it for their "Supreme Ultimate God-Tier Just-Enough-Of-A-Contract-To-Fuck-You-Shall-You-Cancel Phone, Internet, and Hulu Streaming Bundle Bonanza" package that they keep sending me extremely-official-looking snail-mail for. Whenever I call to ask why I'm being charged more, they give me the runaround and have even told me to downgrade my internet package. I'm not playing their little game... I'll hopefully be ditching them all together soon. I wish the FTC, BBB, etc gave a shit about these practices...it's sad. /rant
- brightball 8y ago
  I think a big part of the issue is that there is this Spectrum umbrella that has appeared around multiple companies. In my area before it was just "Charter" and then they became Charter Spectrum and now they try to go by just Spectrum. Which is all well and good except in other areas nearby TWC went under that same umbrella...and TWC was always terrible and totally guilty of exactly the behavior you're describing. Under the Spectrum name, they continue to be terrible.
  - leetbulb 8y ago
    Yep, it was TWC prior to Spectrum -- other reply to my comment states the same thing. Crazy.

cjf4 8y ago

>As a consumer, this transition will be annoying to deal with, but as a resident, I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed. Not sure how the transition will work though, as Spectrum/TWC own the cable infrastructure. There isn't going to be a transition, at least not in the short term, as this will likely be tied up in the courts for some time, and probably settled.