[HN Gopher] New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISP...
___________________________________________________________________
New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill
Author : athousandsteps
Score : 76 points
Date : 2025-01-13 19:39 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| nashashmi wrote:
| > New York Public Service Commission Chair Rory Christian last
| week issued an order stating that the law will take effect on
| January 15.
|
| > $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or
| $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds.
|
| This looks like it will be applied statewide. Not sure if remote
| parts of the state can handle such heavy connections.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| the $15 plan is about what I expected.
|
| the $20 plan is kinda absurd. I'm in CA, but I'm paying
| 100/month for a 400 Mbps plan.
| eikenberry wrote:
| I'm in Oregon and paying $65/mo for symmetrical 1Gb plan
| which seems more in line with those prices if you scale them
| linearly. But I have my choice of multiple providers here, so
| they compete.
| esafak wrote:
| The prices in CA are what's absurd. $100 for 400Mbps in 2025
| is gouging.
| bityard wrote:
| Nah, try living in the midwest suburbs. Comcast charges me
| $70 for 75 Mbps.
|
| I would gladly pay a lower price for less speed by they
| don't offer anything lower.
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| Really depends where in CA. I'm in SF and pay ~$50 for
| 300Mbps (Comcast), but my parents across the Bay get 10Gbps
| (Sonic) for the same price!
| timthelion wrote:
| Here in Prague I pay $300 a year for 1000/1000 symetric.
| websap wrote:
| That is absurd. In Seattle, I pay $70 for 1 Gbps.
| LeafItAlone wrote:
| >the $20 plan is kinda absurd. I'm in CA, but I'm paying
| 100/month for a 400 Mbps plan.
|
| Consider that you are pointing your finger the wrong way,
| friend.
| nodesocket wrote:
| Didn't see in the article what they define as "low income". As a
| general rule of thumb I don't like government and bureaucracy
| interfering with free market, however I see the potential
| benefits here. Glad they excluded smaller ISPs with less than 20k
| customers.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Didn't see in the article what they define as "low income"_
|
| Believe it's these standards:
| https://www.lifelinesupport.org/do-i-qualify/
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Given the "free market" as of late, I would love if the
| government "interfered" more so people can get basic services
| that is standard in every other country. It's more a question
| why some of these were privatized to begin with.
| airstrike wrote:
| ISPs aren't really a free market, they are more like natural
| monopolies because it's virtually impossible to compete given
| large capex costs, long dated infrastructure projects, etc
|
| Given the lack of competition, this is precisely the kind of
| non-free market in which government regulation is not only fine
| but advisable.
| bko wrote:
| > 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 court battle in which the state
| defeated broadband industry lobby groups.
|
| I don't like these types of mandates because it distorts the
| market. 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!
|
| If politicians feel that low income New Yorkers deserve reduced
| cost or free internet, give them a voucher for internet. Better
| yet, figure out how much of a voucher they would need and give
| them a check. Let them decide whether they want to buy internet,
| or better food or housing or whatever else. Or if you go the
| voucher router, giving them options lets ISPs compete for this.
| Don't think taxpayers should pay? Make a special ISP tax and give
| it to these people to make it budget neutral.
|
| Not to mention the red tape and abuse this will create. I really
| don't want me ISP to track my income.
|
| What they decided on is the worst possible option as it results
| in hidden costs and bad incentives. The only people its good for
| (compared to the alternatives), is politicians who can by dictate
| just seemingly create free things for people for no cost.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Right but that infrastructure is getting created either
| way, especially when you have power companies starting
| regional ISPs!
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| > Broadband providers can compete.
|
| They can, but they don't unless forced to.
| pksebben wrote:
| 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.
| bko wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > "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.
| adolph wrote:
| > Trash removal in NYC is free
|
| Trash pickup costs the city $109 billion.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-16/nyc-
| mayor...
| daedrdev wrote:
| 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 loose
| 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.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > If every bill came with a line item adding $0.50 charge
| for "underprivileged broadband access program," nobody
| would complain.
|
| Sure they would.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| It's been happening with both landline and cell phones
| since the mid 80s on a national level
| the_clarence wrote:
| Subsidising doesn't make the market more efficient. As a
| capitalist American you should have said "we need more
| competition!"
|
| In France Free dropped the price from something like 45$ 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 wrote:
| Right, and mandates like this make the market that much less
| appealing for anyone considering the massive capital costs
| needed to compete.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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
| snakeyjake wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They just did.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| 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.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| but the Internet is free once the infrastructures base costs
| have been paid.
| locallost wrote:
| 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.
| jmclnx wrote:
| 200Mbps is barely enough for TV streaming if you are on Comcast
| (Xfinity). You need 500.
|
| I have tried 300 and had issues once in a while, 500 works fine.
| That is because with Comcast, you will never get 200Mbps, no
| matter what the plan, at least were I live.
| jbombadil wrote:
| While I agree that people getting internet in this day and age is
| _basically_ a necessity (and thus the govt should interfere when
| needed to make that happen), doing it in this way is the worse
| possible implementation. Was it necessary in this case? I don't
| know.
|
| First, foster competition. I don't know the NY landscape, but in
| the West Coast, it's not uncommon for a residency to have
| effectively a single option for ISP. Ensure consumers have
| options (incentivize creation of new ISPs? Stop allowing big
| corporations to buy small ones? break up big corporations and
| force them to compete?)
|
| Second could the government offer public internet? (ie, be a
| player in the market).
|
| Only as a last resort should these types of heavy hand price
| enforcements should be taken.
| donohoe wrote:
| There is not much competition in most neighborhoods in NYC,
| only in the nicer (more wealthier) neighborhoods. This is badly
| needed for this city.
|
| >> First, foster competition.
|
| The ISPs don't really compete. They lock in certain areas and
| then harvest it over the years.
|
| >> it's not uncommon for a residency to have effectively a
| single option for ISP.
|
| Same here. My building has options for Verizon FIOS and
| Charter/Spectrum and I count myself lucky. Thats usually not
| the case. In many places I've rented you're stuck with one
| provider.
|
| >> Second could the government offer public internet?
|
| A municipal ISPs proposal would be challenged in the courts by
| these ISPs. This scheme is less invasive to the marketplace
| than that, no?
|
| >> Only as a last resort...
|
| Yes - thats why its happening imho.
| Habgdnv wrote:
| This article brings way more questions than it answers like:
|
| 1. Starlink has more than 20K customers, can I get Starlink at
| home?
|
| 2. A) What if I live somewhere remote and the nearest cable is 20
| miles from home? B) If Verizon has cable but I
| want Xfinity, should they be forced to dig 20 miles to my home?
| C) I am waiting more than 14 days for this 20-mile cable to come
| to my home and I am running out of patience. How long can they
| stall this?
|
| 3. Will there be a cap on how many customers can access the $15
| plan per ISP? What if we all hate Verizon and make a hidden
| Facebook group where we all choose to go to Verizon for this
| cheap internet (for example)?
|
| 4. If someone is already locked into a long-term contract with a
| higher price, can they switch immediately to the $15 plan without
| penalty?
|
| 5. Will the $15 plan include unlimited data, or can ISPs impose
| data caps? So far in the article I saw only bandwidth
| requirements--no mention of data caps or latency.
|
| 6. What happens to customers if their ISP gets an exemption after
| initially offering the $15/$20 plan?
|
| I am sure the lawmakers had good (PR) intentions here, and
| probably my questions are already answered, but this article is
| in pure Ars style.
|
| I'm not even from the USA, I'm just curious how these things
| work.
|
| Edit: Formatting and swapped ISP names in the examples
| bobthepanda wrote:
| > Price increases are to be capped at 2 percent per year, and
| state officials will periodically review whether minimum required
| speeds should be raised.
|
| 2% is below current inflation rates, so this could potentially go
| haywire super easily.
|
| New York has been here before; the subway was fixed to a nickel
| for four decades, which ended up bankrupting the private subway
| companies and set the stage for the underfunded, deferred
| maintenance of future decades, which New York is _still_ working
| through the backlog for nearly a hundred years later.
| coro_1 wrote:
| >"any recurring taxes and fees such as recurring rental fees for
| service provider equipment required to obtain broadband service
| and usage fees.
|
| Where I am (outside NY) low income broadband is a thing, and the
| taxes and fees are included in the $15/~$25 a major telecom
| provider offers. The alternative provider to them advertises a
| $20 month special, but when you check into it the taxes and fees
| for that provider add on about 100% to the bill. Advertised mbps
| in the US, is sort of another sorely needed conversation.
| jmyeet wrote:
| Internet access is so important it should be available for low or
| no cost to basically everyone. Price caps like this are a half-
| assed fix because the providers are incentivized to make finding,
| ordering and having that service as painful as possible.
|
| It's a bit like rental price controls. Look at all the vacant
| rent stabilized units in NYC. The real solution to housing is for
| the government to provide housing, not force discounts onto the
| private sector.
|
| The real solution to this is for municipal broadband for the last
| mile. There is absolutely no reason why Internet access is as
| expensive as it is in the US. The only reason is rent-seeking
| national ISPs.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-13 23:00 UTC)