[HN Gopher] Cable ISP fined $10k for lying to FCC about where it...
___________________________________________________________________
Cable ISP fined $10k for lying to FCC about where it offers
broadband
Author : kelthuzad
Score : 51 points
Date : 2024-03-22 19:25 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Is this a joke? Why would you ever expect behavior to change if
| they can get such a slap on the wrist penalty?
| paulddraper wrote:
| Maybe the FCC doesn't see the legal costs/hassle as justifying
| going for more.
| inetknght wrote:
| Or... maybe... the FCC isn't stably funded for long enough to
| hire investigative and enforcement officers.
| viraptor wrote:
| Because it's not just one fine. It's a fine + change to avoid
| more fines. Which sounds like they're likely to be monitored
| for some time.
| runeofdoom wrote:
| For their next infraction, the FCC will confiscate the petty cash
| drawer.
| randall wrote:
| It's a small ISP, so even though 10k is probably negligible, it's
| still non trivial probably. I can't imagine ISPs in Toronto,
| Ohio, a city of 5000, (2000 households paying $60 = $120k)
| teeray wrote:
| Well, I guess everyone's "Regulatory Compliance Fee" is going up
| by a couple of pennies this month
| jeremyjh wrote:
| At this rate its far cheaper to pay the fines than to pay a
| compliance officer.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| is this seriously suggesting that enforcement of known
| agreements with corporations providing regulated services is
| not useful because it might cost the consumer?
| teeray wrote:
| Certainly not the intention. The intent is that opaque junk
| fees are prone to abuse this way and we have no way of really
| knowing that they aren't.
| ajford wrote:
| I took it that this fine isn't enough to change anything, and
| will likely just be added to the overhead that gets snuck
| into these opaque service charges.
|
| 10k isn't even a slap on the wrist. More like picking a piece
| of lint off the wrist.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| It would be interesting to see if this sort of fine would also
| apply to ISPs that advertise connection speeds that are only seen
| when connecting to a speed test site.
| RKearney wrote:
| For comparison, this is roughly the cost of a pair of coherent
| 400G optics used in DWDM.
| matt-p wrote:
| You're buying at 5K US per end??
|
| Lowest I've seen is 9,500 per optic
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Internet providers have left rural Americans behind. One county
| is fighting back_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39735300
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Also it's going to be written down in their permanent record!
| fencepost wrote:
| Seems like a simple fix - require them to provide service at a
| normal installation fee at any location they've claimed within 10
| days or be on the hook for the cost to that end user of getting
| equivalent or better service installed. Throw enough zeros at a
| different provider and they'll build out to you, and if that
| buildout is being paid for by a nominally-incumbent local
| provider? Even better.
|
| "You don't actually have to provide fiber service within 10 days
| at the location you said you were already servicing - but if you
| don't you're going to be paying $100k+ to AT&T for their
| expedited buildout to that area."
| rhyme-boss wrote:
| Less than 100x my last parking ticket.
| mkhpalm wrote:
| Devastating... at least they let the ISP keep their red stapler.
| bastard_op wrote:
| "Oh, that's it? Here's your $10k, and here's another $50k for the
| next 5 violations too."
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Spectrum claims that they offer service at my address, but I've
| had their people out twice and they do not. They offer it to the
| rest of the neighborhood (which is a standard residential suburb)
| but never bothered to bring it to my side of the road and have no
| plans to do so.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-22 23:02 UTC)