Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Communications United States

FCC Can Now Punish Telecom Providers For Charging Customers More For Less (theverge.com) 75

Posted by BeauHD from the digital-discrimination dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Federal Communications Commission has approved (PDF) a new set of rules aiming to prevent "digital discrimination." It means the agency can hold telecom companies accountable for digitally discriminating against customers -- or giving certain communities poorer service (or none at all) based on income level, race, or religion. The new rules come as part of the Biden Administration's 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which requires the FCC to develop and adopt anti-digital discrimination rules. "Many of the communities that lack adequate access to broadband today are the same areas that suffer from longstanding patterns of residential segregation and economic disadvantage," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said following today's vote. "It shows that minority status and income correlate with broadband access."

Under the new rules, the FCC can fine telecom companies for not providing equal connectivity to different communities "without adequate justification," such as financial or technical challenges of building out service in a particular area. The rules are specifically designed to address correlations between household income, race, and internet speed. Last year, a joint report from The Markup and the Associated Press found that AT&T, Verizon, and other internet service providers offer different speeds depending on the neighborhood in cities throughout the US. The report revealed neighborhoods with lower incomes and fewer white people get stuck with slower internet while still having to pay the same price as those with faster speeds. At the time, USTelecom, an organization that represents major telecom providers, blamed the higher price on having to maintain older equipment in certain communities.

The FCC was nearly divided on the new set of rules, as it passed with a 3-2 vote. Critics of the new policy argue the rules are an overextension of the FCC's power. Jonathan Spalter, the CEO of USTelecom, says the FCC is "taking overly intrusive, unworkably vague, and ultimately harmful steps in the wrong direction." Spalter adds the framework "is counter" to Congress' goal of giving customers equal access to the internet. Still, supporters of the new rules believe they can go a long way toward improving fractured broadband coverage throughout the US. The FCC will also establish an "improved" customer portal, where the agency will field and review complaints about digital discrimination. It will take things like broadband deployment, network upgrades, and maintenance across communities into account when evaluating providers for potential rule violations, giving it the authority to hopefully finally address the disparities in internet access throughout the US.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Can Now Punish Telecom Providers For Charging Customers More For Less More

FCC Can Now Punish Telecom Providers For Charging Customers More For Less

Comments Filter:

  • My bill goes up $5 every single year and my service is internet only and performance is essentially unchanged for the last 8 years. But it now costs me $40 a month more than it used to.

    • How much of that is taxes that have increased?

    • My provider recently doubled my connection speed to a symmetric 300 Mb/sec up/down without increasing my monthly charge.

      I have a business plan (wanted some static IPs at my house), and the service has been great.

      I mention this to counter-balance your complaint about $5/yr monthly price increase...

      • Ironically, there's only ONE reason Greed would be that "generous".

        The competition is providing it cheaper and better.

    • "It means the agency can hold telecom companies accountable..."

      "It means the agency will hold telecom companies accountable..."

      I think we already know which one of these two statements would actually mean real change.

      New rule reads like a fucking politician making a campaign "promise". Worthless and hollow, and consumers shouldn't accept blatant bullshit-flavored window dressing.

    • Exactly came here to say this.

  • Well-intended but bad policy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Improv ( 2467 ) <pgunn01@gmail.com> on Thursday November 16, 2023 @09:50AM (#64009495) Homepage Journal

    It's usually next to impossible to find a principled distinction between

    "your acts are discriminating based on case"
    vs
    "your acts are discriminating based on factors that are highly correlated with race"

    The latter is not morally blameworthy; if there's a chain of
    A) "poor people are often a certain ethnicity"
    B) "poor people often live in areas with worse infrastructure"
    C) "areas with worse infrastructure often have higher prices to cost-recover operations costs there"

    then there's going to be a lot of fruitless investigation to go looking for racist intent. That will make a lot of noise, probably give lawyers a lot to do, and maybe raise some fuss for communities that will make them think their pols are doing something for them, but it's not fixable on that basis.

    • Re: Well-intended but bad policy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by KermodeBear ( 738243 ) on Thursday November 16, 2023 @10:29AM (#64009587) Homepage

      This will probably lead to companies dropping service entirely in some areas, or not expanding, for fear of expensive lawsuits and investigations. This will lead to even fewer available services. These regulations are harmful.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Shakrai ( 717556 )

        These regulations are harmful.

        No they're not. That's nonsense. There is an ugly history of redlining in the United States, for both racial and economic reasons. I'm not convinced (yet) it is happening with broadband but denying that it has and continues to happen is absurd. The broadband industry literally would not be possible without Government regulation. They get to benefit from a Governmentally imposed right-of-way scheme that means they can cross private property without having to pay for access from a zillion different lan

        • As profit-seeking private corporations, they have historically built up infrastructure in wealthier communities because of the higher adoption rate and the higher average monthly bills.

          Poor communities (I suspect) tend to have much lower adoption rates, and those that sign-up tend to subscribe to lower-cost, maybe even federally mandated 'bargain' programs, barely covering the cost of providing the service.

          I have never heard or seen anyone prove that an ISP was discriminating on racial or religious grounds

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shakrai ( 717556 )

            You're not wrong about how profit seeking corporations work. The part you're glossing over is the collective "we" (i.e., society) do not have to allow them to do this. We can and I would argue should mandate universal service as we did with rural electrification back in the day. There is no reason whatsoever why a First World County should have large numbers of citizens who lack access to broadband

            On the discrimination, under legal precedent, the motive does matter, but so does the outcome. If the outc

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Improv ( 2467 )

              FWIW, as one of the earlier posters in this chain, I am open to imposing a universal service obligation of some sort, if we know what we want from it and think it could work.

              I'm wary of having that extend to bizarrely remote areas - the US is gigantic and expecting fast internet in some small town in north dakota is unreasonable. Plus there may be a good reason to either let defaults encourage or to have an explicit policy aiming to pull people from sufficiently remote cities inwards towards at least a reas

              • I responded to you in another part of this conversation - there are already universal service requirements, and government subsidies to provide them. The companies are also authorized to collect other fees related to it. They also utilize government easements and rights of way, and frequently government owned conduit for cable plant and property for distribution nodes. Those subsidies and fees often represent 20% or more of their entire network investment budget. Some companies reach as high as 40%, though

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Improv ( 2467 )

                  I am aware that it's a highly regulated space. I said that I'm open to it to lay out some principles (and make it clear I'm not coming at it from some kind of market fundamentalist angle), not because I'm unaware.

          • The divide that separated rich from middle class from poor in neighborhoods, which also creating distinct differences in infrastructure, very often DID occur due to ethnic and racial boundaries. By law in some locations. Redlining was a thing, and "separate" was never "equal". Also for religious reasons, if you count Jews as religious rather than ethnic. Sure, this happened in the dark days of distant past, but were still alive in many places even up to the 1980s. But those racial and religious reasons

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Improv ( 2467 )

          (I assume you actually have an easemeent/encumberance on your deed, which is probably not incompatible with whatever "true free market" might mean)

        • No they're not. That's nonsense. There is an ugly history of redlining in the United States, for both racial and economic reasons. I'm not convinced (yet) it is happening with broadband but denying that it has and continues to happen is absurd. The broadband industry literally would not be possible without Government regulation. They get to benefit from a Governmentally imposed right-of-way scheme that means they can cross private property without having to pay for access from a zillion different landowners. It is entirely appropriate for society to regulate such services to ensure they're available to all. Can you imagine if electricity was only available to monied neighborhoods?

          This whole paragraph is a tragedy of non-sequiturs. The issue of whether or not the regulations are harmful is not "denying that it has and continues to happen is absurd. "

          No such denial was never asserted or implied, this was something you invented out of thin air. Second of all you yourself don't even claim such a linkage exists yet it is used to defend the premise regulations are not harmful by invoking it.

          Then you go on wild tangents related to easements. Some people don't have gas, others don't have

      • This will probably lead to companies dropping service entirely in some areas

        Versus what? Customers leaving because they've been priced out of Internet?

        or not expanding

        Oh no worries, they weren't doing that to begin with.

        for fear of expensive lawsuits and investigations

        I mean if that's what it takes to have them actually act like they are providing a utility to a community, I'm pretty much for it. I don't know if you've ever been inside an ISP monopoly zone. It's interesting having a for-profit driven company that is providing a utility that literally has ever legal right to maximize profitability in a sector over every other obligation to the

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        This will probably lead to companies dropping service entirely in some areas, or not expanding

        If they create regulations according to their claimed intent, then dropping service to an area causing a reduction or deciding Not to expand are each violations.

        Good luck to the FCC enforcing this.. but it implies they specifically are forbidden from considering those factors in choosing where to continue or expand service as well

      • And it's a primary reason the Ma Bell only got a sanctioned monopoly if it provided universal coverage. Which took it many years to achieve. It was well known at the time that business on its own would never achieve anything remotely achieving broad coverage for the new telephone technology. With mobile phones we still have poor coverage in many locations, and in the 2000s if you were not in a big city or near a major freeway that you got substandard service, primarily because it cut into profits to try

  • att needs to up all VDSL subs to max line rate at the same price or lower then lowest level of fiber

  • att fiber has an lower price then old DSL / VDSL (Score:3)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Thursday November 16, 2023 @10:15AM (#64009539)

    att fiber has an lower price then old DSL / VDSL but lots of places only have have old DSL and can't get fiber.

    • I've been on at&t fiber for several years. It rocks. Way better than comcast or anything else I've had over the years, but yeah, good luck getting it everywhere. When I last moved I checked my internet options before I put my deposit down. Bad net can ruin your whole day.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shakrai ( 717556 )

        The problem with AT&T is they compel you to use their crappy CPE due to their 802.1x implementation. It would be tolerable if it offered a true bridge mode that allowed you to use your own router but it does not. It's a faux-bridge mode where their CPE is still doing stateful inspection and connection tracking. Some people have jury rigged bypasses (for fiber; not possible with DSL) to get around this but they're all kludgy and not something I would be willing to do. I need reliable remote access in

        • Yes that's true. I spent hours reading up on how to replace or properly bridge and there's no way around it. Nothing I consider sane, anyway.

          I plugged my ASUS WiFi AP to a port on their device, turned off their WiFi and just treat it like an external device. Everything I own is either WiFi or wired to the ASUS by one path or another (I have a mesh, too). So the ASUS is my firewall, WiFi ap, etc, etc, but yes you're right I'm only pretending I have a true bridge.

          The asus does allow remote connections as

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quetwo ( 1203948 )

      AT&T is getting out of the copper game -- and is currently in the process of shutting down wire centers across the nation. If you don't have fiber or aren't on fiber yet, you might get the 30 day notice that it's being disconnected and you have to switch to something else.... In many cases, all they are offering is LTE/Fixed Wireless that has a crazy low bandwidth cap.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shakrai ( 717556 )

        That's happening for ADSL. It is not, to my knowledge, happening to VDSL customers. The VDSL areas were first in line for fiber upgrades anyway, at least from what I saw when I lived in AT&T's territory. They leverage a lot of the existing backhaul and last mile infrastructure for VDSL for the fiber builds. Once fiber goes live they tend to stop accepting new VDSL orders but I've not (yet) heard of anyone being forcibly upgraded to GPON. I have seen them offer very aggressive pricing deals and prom

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by quetwo ( 1203948 )

          VDSL (U-Verse) has an end date in my state of Jan 9th. If you have fiber deployed, that becomes an option. If not, LTE becomes the only option (from AT&T). All the CLEC copper deployments, even if they are under contract, go away on Jan 9th as well. They haven't accepted new orders for copper services since 2020, with all new orders being completely LTE based in my part of the city (fiber for other parts of the city).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        If you don't have fiber or aren't on fiber yet, you might get the 30 day notice that it's being disconnected and you have to switch to something else

        This is the nonsense that the FCC needs to stop. It's a great idea for ATT to get out of the Fiber game, but they should Not be allowed to do so until they are prepared to guarantee availability of Fiber service to 100% of their copper customers.

        Sounds like just the discrimination that should be prevented: Choosing to Not provide service or discontinue servi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by irving47 ( 73147 )

        Now THIS is where the FCC maybe should stop in and do the subsidies if necessary. If DSL was the only option and they're shutting it down and not putting in fiber to replace it, the wireless bandwidth caps should be regulated to where they have similar prices and limitations as their previous plans.

  • I'd be more sympathetic to telco except... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Thursday November 16, 2023 @10:25AM (#64009573)

    They've been given billions of tax dollars repeatedly over the years to expand their networks into less profitable areas and just pocketed the cash.

    If they'd done what they agreed to do in the first place then there'd be no need to hit them in the head with a regulatory hammer today.

    • I believe it's called an audit.

      Maybe the IRS will actually DO something with thousands of new auditors other than targeting $601 worth of Cashapp transactions between citizens struggling to make ends meet while blatantly ignoring mass abuse by mega-corps.

      • Maybe the IRS will actually DO something with thousands of new auditors other than targeting $601 worth of Cashapp transactions between citizens struggling to make ends meet while blatantly ignoring mass abuse by mega-corps.

        The IRS rule is taxes are paid on all income from whatever source derived [cornell.edu]. It is literally what the law says. You may disagree that someone making $601 from whatever source should have to pay taxes on that amount, but that is what the law requires.

        As for ignoring mega-corps, s

        • Maybe the IRS will actually DO something with thousands of new auditors other than targeting $601 worth of Cashapp transactions between citizens struggling to make ends meet while blatantly ignoring mass abuse by mega-corps.

          The IRS rule is taxes are paid on all income from whatever source derived [cornell.edu]. It is literally what the law says. You may disagree that someone making $601 from whatever source should have to pay taxes on that amount, but that is what the law requires.

          Fair enough, and you are technically correct. It's more an irritation of prioritizing resources to collect from those barely making ends meet. An IRS letting threatening fines and/or jail time isn't exactly something that is easily digested by the average struggling taxpayer who can't even afford an unplanned $400 expense. Millionaires choosing to buy another mansion or not vs. taxpayers choosing to feed their own children or not.

          As for ignoring mega-corps, so far the IRS has collected over $160 million from millionaires [cnn.com] using those new auditors. Give them time. It's not an easy thing to review tax returns from corporations trying to use every loophole real or imagined.

          To put that into perspective, 100 out of 1,600 cases have been "closed", wh

        • It isn't that a low income earner shouldn't have to pay some taxes. It is that if the IRS has limited resources then why waste them on a hair stylist taking her tips off line? Is that really the best use of government resources? Is she really hurting anyone by not paying an extra $60 or whatever each year? Was it even worth the paperwork it took to go after her? I've worked for the government. I'm certain it cost far more than $600 to go after her much less the $60 she would've owed. Nothing the gove

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Holi ( 250190 )

            Why? because it is cheaper and easier, and they don't have the resources to go after the large cheats who have accountants and lawyers.

            • Why? because it is cheaper and easier, and they don't have the resources to go after the large cheats who have accountants and lawyers.

              Why? Because the IRS resources and costs are worth it to claw back a whopping $60 from the low-income earner? As opposed to clawing back six figures or more from other mega-cheats? IRS has accountants and lawyers too. Also known as you have ONE fucking job.

              Don't have the resources? Even if the new hires in the IRS are a fraction of the 87,000 being tossed around at one point, it still means resources are available to target who they should be prioritizing. Politics gets in the way. As usual.

              • This a thousand times over. I do not care about off book hair stylist tipping. At all. It just isn't worth the effort and she's going to immediately cycle that money straight back into the economy anyway.

                As bitter as I am about my own taxes, I'm totally ok with her keeping an extra $60. 100% ok with that.

                I find it funny how many people honestly believe, "Well rich people have lawyers and other experts so they can get away with anything!!!!!!"

                Counter case, currently a well known billionaire is in deep sh

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Holi ( 250190 )

        I don't want to get into this deeply, but stop getting your news from Fox. There are not " thousands of new auditors". This has been thoroughly debunked and really needs to stop being brought up as it makes you point come across as ridiculous.

        • I don't want to get into this deeply, but stop getting your news from Fox. There are not " thousands of new auditors". This has been thoroughly debunked and really needs to stop being brought up as it makes you point come across as ridiculous.

          The initial number of 87,000 new IRS hires was due to an $80 billion dollar budget proposal via the Inflation Reduction Act. $80 billion was an annual budget increase of 6x. That budget was ultimately reduced by less than $2 billion via the (ironically named) Fiscal Responsibility Act.

          None of this is "Fox News" fake at this point, so now the burden is upon you to prove in fact that "thousands" of new auditors have not or will not be hired. Even if a fraction of them are hired, it still amounts to thousan

  • If the corporate death penalty of nationalizing it isn't on the table, this is legislation without teeth.

  • Mostly For the Optics (Score:3)

    by organgtool ( 966989 ) on Thursday November 16, 2023 @01:24PM (#64009991)
    From what I've heard other people say they pay for internet service, the biggest factor in discrimination seems to be contingent upon whether or not the customers have a choice of another ISP. I've heard of people paying twice as much as I do for similar internet service from the same ISP just because they live in an area where that is their only option for internet service. There may be a correlation of people of different "income level, race, or religion" living in regions that only offer one ISP, and so they may be more likely to be subjected to predatory pricing, but that's not necessarily the ISP charging more money directly because of those criteria. With that in mind, is this even really enforceable? Does the FCC have to prove that "income level, race, or religion" are the direct factor in the pricing or does this apply even if those are indirect factors?

    This seems like a missed opportunity to diminish predatory pricing for ISPs in general and instead was reduced to a measure that panders to certain groups and may be difficult to actually enforce. With all of that said, I just can't help but think that this was done more for the optics than to actually fix predatory pricing.

  • So, let's see. Fraction of people in zipcode A who are likely to pay for gigabit fiber service: 38%. Fraction of people in zipcode B who are likely to pay for gigabit fiber service: 0.2%. Under this rule, the telecom must install fiber in zipcode B if it installs it in zipcode A. This essentially means that the price that zipcode A will pay to defray capital costs will be DOUBLE the actual cost to install for their zipcode. But, at least that 0.2% get a benefit that otherwise would not be economical.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Holi ( 250190 )

      And in 10 years, when gentrification happens in zipcode B they will have internet options. If we don't build out internet options you are dooming an area to remain poor and blighted.

    • When you charge the same, or less for fiber than for copper line (as ATT, and most other non-specialty providers do), then you are correct. You either have to charge less for the slower, copper line service, or plant the fscking fiber in poor neighborhoods, too.

      Also, basic laws of economics still apply - the uptake rate in the poor neighborhood will be much more than .2% when the price is equal or less, and the service level is higher.

    • Some people *do* factor in the availability of Internet options when deciding whether or not to purchase a home.

      Building out high speed internet is akin to building LRT and other infrastructure in an area that you want to make more attractive to buyers.

  • Can they reign in T-Mobile? (Score:3)

    by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Thursday November 16, 2023 @04:14PM (#64010439)
    Can they tell T-Mobile to stop the requirement for direct access to my bank account to qualify for a $10 savings for auto-pay? Starting on the Nov. 28, they'll no longer offer the auto-pay discount if using a credit card, requiring either direct bank transfer or debit card. I'm about to turn paper billing on, and either mail in a check or drop by my local T-Mobile store and pay via check. They take away my $10 discount, I'll make it cost them as much as I can to process my payment.

  • ... having to maintain older equipment ...

    Why do they have to use older equipment? If this a case of: It's too expensive to rip-out copper and install the fibre to the node that the government bought, then a " financial or technical challenges" exemption will ensure that once again, nothing changes.

    ... "taking overly intrusive, unworkably vague, ... "

    A Republican president will instantly delete this half-arsed attempt to push accountability onto a government-funded cartel.

    ... Congress' goal of giving customers equal access ...

    Maybe Congress should build a service providing equal access and sell it to an interested party, instead of pretending that a fr

Slashdot Top Deals

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Close