4 ms·

I'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 th

I'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 ago
  So 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 ago
I'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 ago
I 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 ago
I 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 ago
One 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 ago
It 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 ago
  Okay - 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 ago
    ISPs 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 ago
      LA is one of the very few non-monopolistic ISP markets in the US.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        That’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 ago
Might 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 ago
Basically, 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
The 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...

soulofmischief 3y ago

[flagged]

pipes 3y ago
So 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 ago

I'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 ago

I 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 ago

I 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 ago

One 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 ago

It 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 ago
Okay - 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 ago
  ISPs 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 ago
    LA is one of the very few non-monopolistic ISP markets in the US.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      That’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 ago

Might 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 ago

Basically, 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 ago
Why 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 ago

The 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...