3 ms·

>`$5k per false data point should be enough. 10 addresses inside the service area = $50k. And 10% of that fine should go to the whistleblower. Or make ISP's co

>`$5k per false data point should be enough. 10 addresses inside the service area = $50k. And 10% of that fine should go to the whistleblower. Or make ISP's connectivity report binding. If the ISP claims that they provide connectivity and they do not, make them liable for the user's costs to get equivalent service from an alternative provider (e.g. Starlink), until the ISP can provide connectivity to the subscriber or the subscriber is out of the minimum contract period with the alternative provider, whichever is later. An ongoing rather than one-off cost would give the ISP an incentive to build the necessary infrastructure that they have misreported already exists.

mjevans 4y ago
Binding offer (of minimum UL, DL, and maximum latency) AND service must be available within 5 business days at the listed price with no surprise fees. Failure to fulfill the offer should have a maximum penalty of compulsory purchase of the claimed property at 2x the greater of current market or last purchase price if offered. A penalty structure for late service (E.G. 1 month wait) should also be an option. Maybe 1/100th the value of the instant buy requirement per month (rounded up) of non-service.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  woah, let's not go crazy here. Just making the offer binding with, say, a 6 month window is eminently doable and still still be incredibly expensive to the ISP in some cases. making the timeframe ultra short is not going to do anything other than make it an impossible bar. There is a lot of planning an approvals from municipalities, landowners, utilities, etc that goes into that sort of thing.
  - Already__Taken 4y ago
    plus actually solving the problem
  - mjevans 4y ago
    This is effectively lying under oath to the US Government as well as prospective consumers. How would you feel if a city advertised that Water and Sewer service were available at a given property, only to find that there weren't even mains anywhere nearby or that even if there were they were already 'at capacity' and you wouldn't be authorized to hook up? That's the sort of data that drives rejection of sale.
  - genocidicbunny 4y ago
    > than make it an impossible bar. Absolutely not. They could just not lie in the first place, then there's no 'bar' to meet.
quantified 4y ago
This sounds like it would get consumer traction, and be fought tooth and nail by the ISPs. But their arguments would be illuminating.

mjevans 4y ago

Binding offer (of minimum UL, DL, and maximum latency) AND service must be available within 5 business days at the listed price with no surprise fees. Failure to fulfill the offer should have a maximum penalty of compulsory purchase of the claimed property at 2x the greater of current market or last purchase price if offered. A penalty structure for late service (E.G. 1 month wait) should also be an option. Maybe 1/100th the value of the instant buy requirement per month (rounded up) of non-service.

idiotsecant 4y ago
woah, let's not go crazy here. Just making the offer binding with, say, a 6 month window is eminently doable and still still be incredibly expensive to the ISP in some cases. making the timeframe ultra short is not going to do anything other than make it an impossible bar. There is a lot of planning an approvals from municipalities, landowners, utilities, etc that goes into that sort of thing.
- Already__Taken 4y ago
  plus actually solving the problem
- mjevans 4y ago
  This is effectively lying under oath to the US Government as well as prospective consumers. How would you feel if a city advertised that Water and Sewer service were available at a given property, only to find that there weren't even mains anywhere nearby or that even if there were they were already 'at capacity' and you wouldn't be authorized to hook up? That's the sort of data that drives rejection of sale.
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  > than make it an impossible bar. Absolutely not. They could just not lie in the first place, then there's no 'bar' to meet.

quantified 4y ago

This sounds like it would get consumer traction, and be fought tooth and nail by the ISPs. But their arguments would be illuminating.