12 ms·
The FCC Is Taking Steps to Wind Down the Affordable Connectivity Program
- superkuh 3y ago[flagged]
- gurchik 3y agoWhat does a bare HTTP connection have to do with this link? The site uses HTTPS.
- 8organicbits 3y agoOther sites use HTTP, which their ISP MITMs, so the parent uses a VPN for all their connections. The VPN IP address is blocked for this link.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoNo, they use a proxy to a virtual private server. Depending on the nature of the proxy and exit node, it may have a uniquely bad reputation, or is collateral damage from other bad actors in that cloud service. Here is the FCC Complaint Center: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us
- hannob 3y agoIt's hard to see a case to be made to block IPs with a "bad reputation" from accessing sites that are essentially text documents. I can see that blocking IP ranges is part of a strategy to protect service signups, logins, or contact forms. But a gov agency publishing a piece of text? What's the risk that is mitigated by blocking IPs here?
- Kwpolska 3y agoThey are hosting a lot of applications on various subdomains on fcc.gov. If they have tons of subdomains with login forms and services, and one without, why would they bother making special rules that should not affect typical usage for that one site?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gcr 3y agobeing pedantic: all VPNs work that way
- andersa 3y agoWhy are you using http (non-s) in 2024?
- whstl 3y agoThis decision ultimately belongs website owners. OP can unilaterally block connections to those sites, but this breaks/blocks those websites in a manner that is as bad as Comcast injecting ads.
- crotchfire 3y agoNo certificate expiration to deal with. Also a good reason to use .onion.
- swayvil 3y agoBecause concerning myself with security in this case is absurd. The ubiquitous concern with security is absurd.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- andersa 3y agoBut the OP was concerned with security, namely that someone was intercepting his http connection and messing with it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- superkuh 3y agoI was/am more concerned with functionality and the fact that what they're doing should be illegal. The Comcast MITM attack I experienced literally broke the functionality of the steam browser (~2015).
- fredgrott 3y agocomcast and other cable providers do not block as I just verified this with using xfinity comcast to access the site this morning with no VPS whatsoever.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoThey didn't say it did. They said they use a - blocked - VPN because of man in the middle antics by Xfinity.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gurchik 3y agoThe wind down period is a bit complicated so it's worth pointing it out. If you're already on the ACP, you will continue to receive the benefit until the funds run out, which is probably April unless Congress adds more funds which may not happen. If you're not already on the ACP, you still have a chance to enroll. You can send in an application until Feb 7, 11:59 pm ET, and if approved, you will have the opportunity to sign up with your local ISP. After completing both steps, you will then receive the benefit until April as said before.
- frugalmail 3y ago[flagged]
- knowaveragejoe 3y agoFalse equivalencies like this are a sure sign you've been swallowing a given narrative whole.
- silisili 3y agoI'm not going to opine on the program itself or who it serves, but they are -way- too loose with the money IMO. I make plenty, and still had my child's school, my ISP, cell phone carrier, and others browbeating me into applying. I even told them I didn't know much about it, but think I probably don't qualify, and they kinda imply 'oh theres other ways.' I did qualify, because my daughter's school is a CEP school. Out of curiosity I did as they were instructing, and sure enough it was approved without issue. Why? What's in it for my ISP and cell provider to give me a discount? Were they receiving more back in kickbacks? I didn't renew because ultimately I felt guilty, but have to wonder how many people who didn't need it took advantage. On the plus side, it did allow me to keep Comcast's "secret" $30/mo plan, that they let me keep after it expired.
- chii 3y ago> What's in it for my ISP and cell provider to give me a discount? Were they receiving more back in kickbacks? the person you're talking to probably earned a commission or bonus based on how many they can convince to sign up. This is what happens to gov't incentive programs - the cash and value generation is distorted. Look at how homelessness problems in california is not solved, despite paying more than some $200k per homeless person in subsidies and grants. This is more than most (or any) job would've paid to that person. And yet, it fails to achieve anything of note, because the value generation (taxation) is _not_ aligned with the value recipient (which is not the homeless person, but the various orgs that spring up to eat the value while attempting to prolong the gov't subsidy/grant). Have a watch of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNxQ8JWxWMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNxQ8JWxWMA
- WesternWind 3y agoActually helping people who have become homeless is like two steps away from what it should be, of course. One step in the right directly would be more homelessness prevention (there's some, but not nearly enough). Two steps would be systemic changes so housing was more easily affordable. That said, I had dinner tonight with a formerly unhoused person here in SF, who is now living her life successfully because of that help, has an apartment, is paying bills, etc. So while you think it fails to achieve anything of note, I think the problem would be a heck of a lot worse without it.
- KingLancelot 3y ago[dead]
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- Operyl 3y ago[flagged]
- sam345 3y ago[flagged]
- eli 3y agoWhat a clever strategy of spending the money they were allocated in the ways they were directed to use it.
- kiba 3y ago[flagged]
- EasyMark 3y ago[flagged]
- postmodest 3y ago[flagged]
- gumby 3y ago[flagged]
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoI looked into this for a relative and the ACP provider space is full of scammy looking companies that don't appear to offer much above what is already offered by the Lifeline program. The big providers also participate in the program and unless you absolutely have no money for a monthly fee, seem to be the way to go instead of with the questionable resellers that fit their fee into the ACP subsidy completely. And don't get me started on the "low cost" trash devices they're selling for a "co-pay of $10". The program is good in theory but the implementation feels like it is coated in a thick layer of pond scum.
- qingcharles 3y agoI'm confused by this. As someone who has set up dozens of released prisoners with ACP, I think you are wrong. With Lifeline, in my neighborhood, you have a dozen scammy people on every street corner giving you a free phone or tablet, sometimes with no fees, other times they charge you (whether this is legal I don't know). These devices all come with only 15GB/mo of data which the ex-cons use up on YouTube or PornHub within the first three days of each month and then have no data to do anything essential with. With ACP I can go into any cellphone store, Cricket, Metro, etc, get them a real 5G unlimited plan and decent phone for $40/mo, take off the $30/mo for ACP and off they go. All they have to do is make sure they find the $10 to keep their plan every month and, believe me, they want that porn to keep coming...
- cowpig 3y agoI'd be interested to see some kind of economic analysis of this program. On its face, the government subsidizing a for-profit company that has a monopoly seems like a terrible idea. Comcast already extracts monopolistic profits and thus captures as much of the economic surplus as possible. Given that, price caps make a lot more sense to me. That's what has worked for utilities in general. If there's only one producer, they should be negotiating with one consumer. But maybe I don't see the whole picture. Did the subsidy agreements work as a carrot to entire Comcast to lower its prices for enough residents that it was a net benefit? Are the positive externalities of a connected population worth the cost? Did this program work in some other way than subsidy? Would love to learn more about this if anyone has good sources
- zbrozek 3y agoIn California we have the CPUC which regulates utilities. Our three biggest utilities charge around 3x the national average for electricity. The largest--PG&E--has also been setting the state on fire and blowing up neighborhoods. It doesn't seem like this model works either.
- Retric 3y agoThe actual implementation matters, when a bridge fails the issue isn’t bridges it’s the design of that specific bridge. As the model works fine in other locations, fixing California’s issues with mismanagement/poor incentives should be the priority not simply giving up.
- hedora 3y agoFor example, for PG&E, the root cause of them blowing up that neighborhood was that the money that was supposed to go to upgrading the gas lines was embezzled and they faked the repair logs for the repairs. Now, we have no idea which lines were repaired and not. Since this started decades ago, they have to dig up and inspect a huge number of lines. Anyway, "mismanagement/poor incentives" is leaving out a lot of details involving graft and corruption, and malicious local governments. For an example of corrupt/malicious local regulators: the Golden Gate Bridge maintenance road they recently built in Marin cost more than the bridge (inflation adjusted) and took longer to plan + build as well.
- gnicholas 3y agoWhenever Comcast raised my rates, I would call and ask for a lower price or lower tier. In recent years, they always tried to get me to sign up for this. One rep claimed that I qualified because a student (my elementary aged child) lives in the home. Another claimed that I qualified because my child receives free lunch at school (as do all students at California public schools). He said that it was common in his experience for people to sign up under such pretenses. I don’t know to what extent this program is being abused, but it’s surely happening. The government is basically enabling the cable companies to keep upping their base price, knowing that any customer who is desperate enough for a discount will just find a way to qualify themselves for this program. I think being able to have internet at home is important. But there should have been limits put in place to ensure that this program was only being used for its intended purpose. Some lobbyist got rich off this thing, for sure.
- nilamo 3y agoIt's interesting that we're talking about helping people reduce costs, instead of penalizing companies that raise rates for something that should be a utility and has close to fixed costs to operate.
- gnicholas 3y agoThey are increasing speeds and increasing rates alongside. This would be less objectionable in my mind if they maintained the lower tier offerings. Instead they are selling us up our indifference curves, as an economist would say.
- Sabinus 3y agoWhen rolling out the fiber network in Australia, NBN Co (government owned) kept the ownership of the fiber optic but on-sells capacity to retailers. It would take a lot of money to buy out the American incumbents, but perhaps this would be an option.
- CharlesW 3y ago> I don’t know to what extent this program is being abused, but it’s surely happening. It's non-zero, sure. And although the GAO identified fraud risks, no fraud assessment has been done. A humane response to this would've been to perform a fraud assessment and allow the FCC to take action against identified risks. This will hurt poor families by widening the digital divide, impact family education and employment, and reduce access to services.
- jimmydoe 3y agoThe poor always get punished. So America.
- foobarbazbanana 3y agoKeep thinking of what it takes to run other utilities and road networks. The size, the effort and how cheap they manage to accomplish it.