7 ms·

> The New York law requiring Internet providers to offer cheap plans to people with low incomes will take effect on Wednesday this week following a multi-year c

• doctorpangloss 2y ago
  This is a lot of words. Do you think Internet should be a utility, or not? Obviously: yes. You enjoy water, schools, roads and power. Trash removal in NYC is free, and it's better for that community than being private. But also, you work in tech or something. More customers, less money being paid on meaningless rents. And fuck Comcast, right? Think critically. We don't need ISPs, and little about that ecosystem resulted in innovation that mattered historically.
  • missedthecue 2y ago
    I don't see why it's obviously yes. Broadband providers can compete with each other in a way that the water utility or roads cannot.
    • scarface_74 2y ago
      How? A broadband provider either has to create infrastructure costing billions hidden like water utilities or use over the air internet which has it own limitations based on spectrum and not all spectrum being usable for data transmission.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • aaomidi 2y ago
        Right but that infrastructure is getting created either way, especially when you have power companies starting regional ISPs!
    • doctorpangloss 2y ago
      > Broadband providers can compete. They can, but they don't unless forced to.
      • pksebben 2y ago
        For real. In my area, you can choose between xfinity or comcast and if you don't like those hope you enjoy satellite for way too much money and awful latency. Spoiler for the uninformed: Xfinity and Comcast are the same entity.
    • vel0city 2y ago
      Not really, not unless we enforce last mile unbundling. There's not going to be multiple fiber lines run to every house in my neighborhood for the same reasons why there aren't multiple power lines or multiple water lines or multiple sewer lines.
  • bko 2y ago
    Trash removal is free in NY, sure. The city says people should have trash removal provided and it should be centralized. The equivalent would be that the city pays ISPs to provide service to certain people. Instead they say "you have to provide them service even though you'll lose money on these customers". Do you see why this is different?
    • doctorpangloss 2y ago
      > "you have to provide them service even though you'll lose money on these customers". So if you're not yet convinced, fuck Comcast right? Yes! I want Comcast to lose money! I fucking hate Comcast more than anything, almost everyone who isn't working there does. There are things I can imagine never doing, like working for a tobacco company (fuck them too), and working for Comcast. It's okay to sometimes have limits. You can step on some toes without worrying about the ass they're connected to that you might have to kiss later. I will never kiss Comcast's ass. Laissez-faire absolutists do not arrive at economically or socially optimal outcomes all the time.
    • Dylan16807 2y ago
      > Do you see why this is different? Not particularly, as long as they have a monopoly/duopoly, because that acts as a giant pile of free money which can pay for these things. If we had some kind of mechanism in place that resulted in aggressive competition, then maybe "you have to provide service for $15-20" would be a problem. I think it would be quite a bad idea for the city to pay the asking price to this kind of monopoly/duopoly, because that rent will get jacked up extra high.
  • adolph 2y ago
    > Trash removal in NYC is free Trash pickup costs the city $109 billion. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-16/nyc-mayor-reverses-cuts-to-police-hiring-trash-pickup-in-budget https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-16/nyc-mayor...
    • saalweachter 2y ago
      ... the total NYC budget is $109 billion. They are not spending $13k/resident on trash collection. Edit: according to https://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/understandingthebudget.pdf https://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/understandingthebudget.... residential garbage collection is $10 million per week.
      • jerlam 2y ago
        Assuming this covers all of NYC's population (8.2 million), that's pretty cheap - $1.22/week. I'm paying $160/quarter, so that's $13.33/week or over ten times the cost to a private company. I assume that my prices are regulated locally in some kind of private/public partnership deal.
  • daedrdev 2y ago
    Compare this to California regulating how much insurance companies can charge. IN that case, its lead to horrendous side effects where insurance companies are leaving the state, dropping customers, etc because they will literally lose money on the policies, which has lead to bad outcomes. Id rather that the state actually pay for the things it wants and not put in a bunch of hidden taxes that have strong distortions on principle.
    • fn-mote 2y ago
      Call me when you have a free market economy delivering broadband. You don’t. The situations are not comparable.
      • mindslight 2y ago
        Call me when these type of indirect unfunded mandates ever succeed at squeezing blood out of the corpo stone, or when they don't end up entrenching the existing corpos. Broadband is indeed a market failure in many places. The answer is to create direct competition in the form of municipal fiber, not to cheer on weasely half-baked approaches that just solidify the positions of the monopolist dinosaurs.
    • braiamp 2y ago
      Private companies looking for profit and leaving when they notice that is not profitable is not a undesired thing. If your margins depend on you screwing your customers, your business model shouldn't exist. California will figure something out, maybe making high density residences easier to build, would make a difference. Also, that's not exactly why they are leaving, they are leaving because the state forces them to pay the insurance if an "act of god" (systemic risk, like a wildfire) happens.
      • daedrdev 2y ago
        The risk of fire has clearly massively increased thanks to climate change. California's rules literally dont allow them to charge prices that account for this. California has an insurance plan of last resort that is now billions underwater, which is a clear sign of the issues at play. Its not that these insurance companies are screwing their customers; rather at the rates that California requires they charge, these houses should not exist because they are a net negative to society unless their insurance costs more. I agree on the dense housing. So many of these burns are in areas that we shouldn't have built.
  • plagiarist 2y ago
    It should be a utility. I'd like the government to eminent domain all internet infrastructure and resell bandwidth to ISPs at fair prices. I would in fact enjoy a great deal of schadenfreude. The carriers pocketed giant government handouts but did not make the commensurate improvements in infrastructure those were intended to fund.
  • ToDougie 2y ago
    electricity rates in California are out of control in the summer because there is no competition.
• johnnyanmac 2y ago
  What hidden costs? Taxes? Probably the top 5 thing I'd love my taxes to go to. I think the downsides will be obvious: their internet is super cheap but not really fast. In other words, not too dissimilar to 3/4/5g plans with phones almost everyone has. No one's gonna be streaming Netflix and any Youtube over 360p on this plan. If we're arguing that the Internet is a public need, then I don't see the downsides here. use slow internet to get lower income people on their feet. They hopefully rise up and then grab jobs that can allow better internet in the long term.
  • chatmasta 2y ago
    The hidden costs are the price increases that ISPs add to customer bills to “make up for it.” Now, I’m not saying that’s right - I actually agree with your premise - nor am I saying that any ISP truly has a marginal cost of each customer (especially given their engrained habit of oversubscribing their infrastructure) that they need to “make up for.” I’m just clarifying the “hidden costs” that GP seems to be mentioning. IMO, this would be better handled as an explicit tax that’s passed onto customers of the ISP. If every bill came with a line item adding $0.50 charge for “underprivileged broadband access program,” nobody would complain. Phone bills already include these kinds of line items. And at least this way it would be clearly delineated rather than masked in a future price increase.
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      > If every bill came with a line item adding $0.50 charge for “underprivileged broadband access program,” nobody would complain. Sure they would.
      • scarface_74 2y ago
        It’s been happening with both landline and cell phones since the mid 80s on a national level
    • johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >price increases that ISPs add to customer bills to “make up for it.” This implies that ISPs won't do price hikes to begin with. My bill went up $5 over 2024 alone. Not even an announcement or anything. They'll make up whatever excuse they want, similar to CA's increase in wages to fast food workers: "we'll have to fire staff or shut down if we pay workers $4/hr". All the major chains are still around a year later. Some tried the AI drive thru thing, but they all reverted back. > this would be better handled as an explicit tax that’s passed onto customers of the ISP. I agree. Itemized lists should definitely be a default, and not something inaccessible at worse, and needing to poke a company for at best.
• the_clarence 2y ago
  Subsidising doesn't make the market more efficient. As a capitalist American you should have said "we need more competition!" In France Free dropped the price from something like 45$ to 15$/month, and then they did the same with mobile plans and a 2$/month plan that still exist today. Recently the senate invited the CEO and asked them why they don't increase their prices. The CEO got mad at them for even asking the question, being proud of proposing low prices while still making a lot of money gave back a lot of consumption power to the people according to them
  • twoodfin 2y ago
    Right, and mandates like this make the market that much less appealing for anyone considering the massive capital costs needed to compete.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• scarface_74 2y ago
  > I don't like these types of mandates because it distorts the market. Internet access is more or less a “natural monopoly” because of right of way issues and cost to build just like electricity and gas and water. Those things have always been regulated and had price controls. > Politicians get to say "we provided X people with internet service and we didn't use a dollar of tax payers' money". Which sounds nice, but you can't really get something for nothing. This will increase costs for ISPs and likely increase prices for others. How much? Who knows! And what happens when ISPs can charge whatever they want - again a natural monopoly - should the subsidies increase,
  • pksebben 2y ago
    > And what happens when ISPs can charge whatever they want - again a natural monopoly - should the subsidies increase, You're making an assumption here. It worked fine when we did it for healthcare. /s
  • Terr_ 2y ago
    > because of right of way issues Also, before someone says "that's only for cables", I'd point out that useful electromagnetic-spectrum bands and orbital-paths are finite collective resources as well.
  • braiamp 2y ago
    > Internet access is more or less a “natural monopoly” Finally someone with some economic sense. Natural monopolies don't get to dictate prices or conditions of services. That's something that monopolies, have to be content with. If you put yourself in a position where no one can realistically compete with you, you can't complain that the state makes sure that the consumers aren't harmed by the lack of options.
• snakeyjake 2y ago
  This does not increase the cost to ISPs. It does marginally decrease their profits. A profit is not a cost, and despite what finance bros think lower profits are also not a cost. It is perfectly possible to supply 1000Mbps symmetrical fiber service to end users for $20/mo because numerous self-sufficient non-profit municipal broadband organizations in the United States are doing just that. This is 2.5% the capacity for 75% the money. If ISPs can't figure out how to do that profitably, they deserve to fail. After several decades of taking public money to build out their networks, ISPs can give back a little by very slightly lowering their margins when serving low income residents.
  • bko 2y ago
    What does that have to do with what I wrote? If you want to transfer some ISP profits to low income New Yorkers, do that directly
    • websap 2y ago
      They just did.
    • snakeyjake 2y ago
      Did you read what you wrote or was it a stream-of-consciousness thing? Because you wrote: > This will increase costs for ISPs and likely increase prices for others. It will not increase costs. Which is what I wrote.
      • bko 2y ago
        That wasn't a crucial point of my argument. I disagree but everything I said still applied if you replace increase costs to decrease profits. And there is a response to these things, like increased costs. This is pretty uncontroversial basic economics. Even that doesnt matter. Just do it directly so you know exactly how much the subsidy is worth. Tax their profits and transfer it to the people. It's simpler, more visible, less unintended consequences
        • 2y ago
• ashoeafoot 2y ago
  but the Internet is free once the infrastructures base costs have been paid.
  • ftth_finland 2y ago
    This is pretty delusional. Somebody has to run the network. Employees need salaries. Things break and wear out. Customers need service. Billing isn’t free.
    • ashoeafoot 2y ago
      have you read about the hunger riots of rome and byzanz? the panopticon has to watch. bread and games are free or else... if you ventured into farming or gamedev to get rich.. bad decisions all the way .
      • ftth_finland 2y ago
        I fail to see how the above comment is in any way relevant to the discussion of this thread.
• locallost 2y ago
  Is there a real market? I'm not int the US, but from reading things like these when they come up, people usually complain about the lack of choice. No competition, no market. No market, there is nothing to distort.
• orra 2y ago
  > Which sounds nice, but you can't really get something for nothing. This is hyperbole. First, nobody's getting something for nothing. Second, the eligibility is limited. Besides, this is hardly the first time a price regulation has been applied to a failing market. > I really don't want me ISP to track my income. Then don't apply for the discount.
• bickfordb 2y ago
  The market is already distorted by the telephone and cable companies being granted local monopolies.
• mindslight 2y ago
  Right on! You're not even covering the half of it. Incumbent dinosaur ISPs will fight this kicking and screaming, but after they have their tantrums they will embrace it because it keeps new competition out of the market. This general pattern of "unfunded mandates" creates time bombs that become entrenched and impossible to fix (look at the catastrophe of the healthcare industry) If you want to actually screw big cable (and you should), support the direct action of municipal fiber. The funds for the build out don't even need to come from the general tax fund - with the popularity of such services in 2025, municipal bonds are more than sufficient.
  • from-nibly 2y ago
    As a beneficiary of sequestered municipal internet. We need this or co-ops. I have the best internet for a LONG way in any direction.
• thowawatp302 2y ago
  What will actually increase costs for others is the ISPs deciding to raising prices.
• EarthMephit 2y ago
  Internet is a utility, like water. We can't have true competition with utilities, because we'd need six sets of pipes into every apartment just to have six competing providers, so the government needs to step in and regulate utilities, because they are a natural monopoly.
• timewizard 2y ago
  Commercial ISPs are a 1980s idea when few people wanted the service. Municipal networks, even if last mile only, are the only sensible modern approach where everyone deserves to have access to the service. Then you can layer different national providers on the framework for individual and commercial contract service and then you can realistically talk about a municipally operated "best effort" /free/ service for everyone else and for those who cannot afford anything.
• kalleboo 2y ago
  Vouchers don't work since the ISPs will just raise the price to take into account the increased purchasing power. Just adding the burden to the ISPs of offering service at a fixed price will let ISPs compete for who can do it the most efficiently and raise the prices for other customers the least. But in general I agree with the concept of "just give people enough money so they can afford a base standard cost of living", but in the US specifically that seems very anathema to the culture, they're always trying to control how poor people spend their money (see "food stamps" something I've never seen anywhere else) so unless you do the same thing across the board, just giving one single targeted handout will not have the desired effect.
• jpk2f2 2y ago
  Problem solved - AT&T just announced that they're no longer supplying home internet in NY.