9 ms·
Los Angeles Becomes First US City to Outlaw Digital Discrimination
- atlgator 3y agoSo in the short term the higher-end areas will pay disproportionately more to fund new infrastructure in the lower-end areas. But in the long term, the value of the lower-end will rise as a result of the improvements and we'll be back here talking about gentrification, skyrocketing rents, and how people can no longer afford them.
- TulliusCicero 3y agoI'm guessing the reasoning for offering worse service is not because the ISP's are actually mustache twirling racists, but because there are economic factors that make it more profitable to do so. Anyone know what those might be?
- soulofmischief 3y ago[flagged]
- pipes 3y agoSo you believe someone is a racist unless they can prove otherwise?
- UncleEntity 3y ago[flagged]
- phpisthebest 3y ago[flagged]
- soulofmischief 3y ago[flagged]
- gottorf 3y agoI'd imagine that people living in lower-income neighborhoods generally pay for lower-tier services, which lowers profitability for any given provider, and also lowers the incentive for other providers to come in and compete, which would lower prices for everyone.
- infecto 3y agoI was thinking about this too. Could it be these neighborhoods have older infrarstructure with slower speeds and when companies price products its standardized on pricing across a region based on tiering and not the actual throughput? Like Tier 1 in new infrarstructure is faster than Tier 1 on old infrarstructure. Along those lines, maybe it just costs the same amount to support an old DSL connection as it does to support a modern fiber/cable hookup? I don't have an answer to the problem but I am not sure forcing pricing standards is the answer. Seems like it would be better to just handle it locally and build city owned internet as well.
- galago 3y agoI feel like it could be as simple as people poorer neighborhoods trying to buy the cheapest data/tv plan. In some countries this would be considered a necessity like electricity/sewer/water so from that perspective LA perhaps should force the ISPs to provide the same service all over the city.
- no_wizard 3y agoOne I'm willing to guess is the monopoly / duopoly of ISP providers in nearly all US neighborhoods means its less profitable to provide better service when there aren't alternatives to begin with
- jtr1 3y agoIt gets lost in the culture wars, but as I understand it, the whole point of the concept of “structural racism” was that mustache-twirling racists aren’t required for modern laws and policies to have a targeted, negative effect on specific minorities. A legacy of historical racism can set the stage for the intended effects to metastasize and remain as generational problems.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoOkay - but why do ISPs need to fix racism and not everyone else like grocery stores and gas stations? Should Erewhon be forced to operate equally in neighborhoods of different diversity - even if they clearly appeal to a certain type of customer? Why should ISPs invest evenly / charge evenly if it doesn't make sense for them? The funny thing about good business people is - they're usually more interested in making money than being racist (obviously there are exceptions).
- bugglebeetle 3y agoISPs are some of the biggest monopolists in the US market and bribe and lean on politicians to keep out competitors. Relative to other industries, they thus lean on the infrastructural status quo (and all the inequity baked into that) to make the most money at the lowest cost to themselves, so your argument doesn’t really track.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoLA is one of the very few non-monopolistic ISP markets in the US.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoThat’s laughable. I can get one bad broadband provider, one incredibly low-speed DSL provider, or bad coverage, data capped 5G service in my neighborhood in LA. Fiber isn’t available at all and when I asked if they had any intent to expand coverage to where I live they straight-up said “no.”
- phpisthebest 3y ago>>Anyone know what those might be? A simple resolution would be that the physical infrastructure in some area does not support the same speed as in other areas, and it more economically feesable to upgrade in area where the average bill is higher than in area's where the overage bill is lower. The ROI is clear
- waterheater 3y agoMight have to do with demand in those neighborhoods. An financially-constrained person living in a major city in 2024 will have two main choices for an Internet-connected device: laptop or smartphone. These days, the smartphone is the obvious choice. Paying for cell service lets you use the phone around town and at home, whereas paying for home internet is quite restricted. An ISP usually has a neighborhood hub where local lines connect and feed into the broader infrastructure. I'm betting that ISPs have a pricing model using a "neighborhood utilization ratio" factor, calculated as houses-served-in-neighborhood over total-number-of-houses-in-neighborhood. To cover known network infrastructure expenses (equipment replacement, technician labor costs, etc.), the pricing needs to work out, but low service demand in a given service area for the same infrastructure requires those fixed costs be borne by the few people using the service. Many infrastructure services typically are more expensive in a rural area, presumably due to this effect but spread over a larger geographic area because population density is lower.
- intalentive 3y agoBasically, the providers don’t want to build new infrastructure where they may not recoup their costs. From the original report: “They’ve made a decision that those neighborhoods are going to be treated differently,” said Callahan. “The core reason for that is they think they don’t have enough money in those neighborhoods to sustain the kind of market they want.”
- lotsofpulp 3y agoWhy is why the correct solution here is wired fiber internet being a taxpayer funded utility. But as I mentioned in another comment, this might manifest in higher taxes for the top percentiles, whereas a policy of requiring the business to help the poor allows the burden of the subsidy to be paid by the middle income deciles via higher prices for the business’s services.
- toast0 3y agoThe city of Los Angeles has a perhaps surprising, non-compact boundary [1], and the local conditions vary significantly. Some areas are served by underground utilities which means change is much more expensive. For AT&T which is called out specifically, there's a lot of different access technologies, and wireline distance and quality and quantity of lines is a major factor in service quality. There's a lot of older neighborhoods in the area, which have had increased density over time and may not have enough good wiring in the street / on the poles to offer dual pair services. Running new wires or fiber is expensive, and is only economical if the take-up rate will meet some minimum. Servicing multifamily buildings is more expensive/difficult because the utility needs to coordinate with the building owner and wiring from the units to the utility area may not be sufficient for newer technology. AT&T's access technology needs more outside equipment, and it's harder to find locations to install it in denser areas where buildings are often built closer to lot lines, especially in older areas with small sidewalks and no grass frontage strips. [1] https://data.lacity.org/widgets/ppge-zfr4?mobile_redirect=true https://data.lacity.org/widgets/ppge-zfr4?mobile_redirect=tr...
- gottorf 3y ago> no one should be charged more based on their neighborhood Isn't it a fact that it will be more or less costly to roll out service in different neighborhoods? Everything will differ, including the local labor pool, the distance from the central station, etc. It makes about as much sense as decreeing that all grocery store items in LA should be priced exactly the same, or that all gas stations in LA must have the same priced gasoline. The article refers to a recent FCC ruling on "disparate impact" (without intent). To me, that's the greatest flaw of all civil rights laws, one that causes government encroachment upon every facet of American life. Literally everything causes disparate impact.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoIt is cheaper to make laws like this than to actually help poor people by giving them cash or services, which would cause an increase in taxes. You can lay more of the burden on the upper middle and middle income deciles (since the costs are spread implicitly via costs to comply with regulation and liability avoidance), and avoid taxing the top percentiles, which really would require a broad wealth (or property) tax. Or alternatively, much higher land value taxes which hit the top percentiles too.
- RHSeeger 3y ago> You can lay more of the burden on the upper middle and middle income deciles This seems like it just means everyone will pay whatever the highest cost for anyone is. Doesn't seem like it burden's the middle more than anyone else.
- renewiltord 3y agoCalifornia has tried these kinds of equality laws before. The net effect in the insurance industry is that many homes just have no insurance rather than receiving higher prices. This is going to be interesting to see. We have wireless internet now so maybe they're competing with a cheap to deliver fully-trackable internet service and the outcomes will be different.
- infecto 3y agoThats my concern. Why not just pull out of a neighborhood/region then?
- bombcar 3y agoThat's exactly what happens, once the cost of providing service becomes higher than the expected revenue. Now there is some pressure the state/city can provide (you can't serve ANYONE in LA until you serve EVERYONE at the same price points) but at some point the whole thing is unprofitable and the companies disappear. Literally just happened with home insurance.
- oh_sigh 3y agoI can't speak specifically but a lot of times, part of their charter is that they need to provide service across all areas in order to get the permission to provide any service.
- infecto 3y agoYes definitely and while I don't think it would cause enough drag for them to pull out of a whole metro, we are seeing similar things at the state level with insurance companies due to the increase limitations imposed.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoIn Finland, Internet access is considered a basic human right. When working there a few years ago I found that any homeless person in Helsinki has better connectivity than I have in the UK for £40/mo Anyway according to TFA: Its so important for everyone to have broadband access for full participation in modern society and no one should be charged more based on their neighborhood How very US American to interpret it only through the lens of cost. We can do much better than talk about the "affordable internet". That's why I wrote this: https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/03/06/Microsoft_is_Not_a_Religious_Choice.shtml https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/03/06/Microsoft_is_Not_a... Digital Discrimination is multi-faceted, and it applies to all kinds of groups who for reasons of mobility, neuro-diversity, ethics and more, are excluded or marginalised. Since Los Angeles has never codified exactly what digital discrimination means, the legislation asked city officials to strongly consider using the Federal Communication Commission's definition of the term. Plenty of room there to include people who choose to protect their security and morals but are discriminated against for those choices.
- slibhb 3y agoDepending on where you live in the US, you can get free cell phone/internet if you're poor enough. E.g. https://www.assurancewireless.com/lifeline-services/states/district-of-columbia-lifeline-free-government-phone-service https://www.assurancewireless.com/lifeline-services/states/d...
- fragmede 3y agothe lesser known Obama phone program provided cellphones to the poor because Internet access is requisite for access to government services in this day and age.
- nonrandomstring 3y agoYeah, I think that was the same logic in Finland, and Estonia who are both hot on digital governance.
- 3y ago
- Solvency 3y agoGood luck enforcing this. California's laundry list of poorly executed "good intent" acts continues.
- maxcan 3y agoExactly. The mostly likely outcome is providers just pulling out of poorer neighborhoods or even the whole city (if forced).
- happytiger 3y agoThis is the wrong approach. This lets politicians decide. The right approach is to make Internet access universal human right.
- infecto 3y agoThis is feel good legislation that will be hard to implement. If LA wanted to actually solve this they should start an LA public service internet. I think it’s ok to say it’s a right to have internet access but if you are, you need to back it up and not put it on the burden of a commercial entity to follow that plan.
- rappatic 3y agoThe source of the problem is the near-monopoly most ISPs have and the high barrier to entry for a new ISP wanting to enter the market. It makes it difficult for the market to self-regulate here.
- RecycledEle 3y agoI dated a girl more then 20 years ago who was on food stamps, and had a supposedly state-subsidized Internet account. She was paying more than I was for a slower DSL connection while we lived walking distance from each other. We both lived in apartment complexes. Having said that, it is reasonable to charge more base rate when someone is likely to not pay their bills on time. Companies hate late payers and non-payers.