FCC Can Now Punish Telecom Providers For Charging Customers More For Less (theverge.com) 75
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.
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.
Better get started with Spectrum (Score:2)
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.
Re:Better get started with Spectrum (Score:4, Informative)
That would work only if the minimum wage actually increased, which it hasn't since 2009....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better get started with Spectrum (Score:5, Informative)
The US federal minimum wage [usa.gov] is still $7.25.
Re: (Score:2)
"In accordance with A.R.S. 23-363(B), Arizona's minimum wage will increase from $12.80 to $13.85 effective January 1, 2023."
From Minimum Wage 2023.pdf [azica.gov]
You point is superfluous in Arizona. And, of course, in some other states.
Re: (Score:2)
True, states have their own minimum wage. In January 1, 2024, California will have doubled minimum wage since 2008. But that does not explain the rise in ISP costs in states where they only use federal minimum wage. The reason ISP prices increase is because they can raise them with impunity. Turn the dial to the point just before the screaming becomes unbearable, the American Way!
Re: (Score:2)
I should also mention, as I hit send too fast. Most ISP workers are well above minimum wage. These aren't burger flippers. Minimum wage is pretty much irrelevant for these costs.
Re: Better get started with Spectrum (Score:2)
Darn, I thought this thread was about internet service costs vs. Wages and inflation. Silly me, it's just about pay for the ISP employees? Like their wages are wildly different than the general population?
Wait, it's a big whatever, huh...
Re: (Score:2)
No, just saying that minimum wage doesn't apply to many workers, especially in an industry that relies on tech, service personnel, and customer service. Now wages for union workers may be a thing, if the unions negotiate a better wage then prices at an ISP might go up.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. So my point, not being well stated, was that internet service costs have been increasing since, well, probably around 1995 or so, when I first got RoadRunner Internet service through Time-Warner cable in Portland, Maine. it was half the price of the NRI ISDN line I had at the time, and much faster with much lower latency.
And Internet service has, generally, likely kept up with the increase in the federal minimum wage. Well, actually, maybe not, since that early service in Portland ME was rated at aroun
Re: (Score:3)
Also, don't forget that the real minimum wage is $0, which is what happens when your labor isn't as valuable as the price floor mandated by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
And there is no tipping culture, everyone is entitled to 4 weeks paid annual leave, we have maternity leave, socialised healthcare, etc etc etc and the world has not ended.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure...if you live in an area that hasn't increased the minimum wage.
I do, and there are many. And howls of outrage when the suggestion is made that it be raised.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Neighbors across the street with access to AT&T Fiber get a sweet 3 year price lock no contract deal, no caps, free professional install, free equipment. Folks on this side of the street get a mandated contract, no price lock, higher rate, caps, rental fees, and install fee even if they self-install.
Since DEFCON has proven that WiFi shots can be extended for miles, I know what I'd be doing if a "sweet" deal was literally across the street from the corner of BendOver and TakeIt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's too broad of an assertion. There are smaller ISPs that are offering excellent service in the $50 / month range. In the SF Bay Area Sonic is offering 10 GB fiber for $45 / month.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation doesn't explain it, and it's not "going down every year". Rising costs for the utilities to operate over those years could explain a 10% increase over those years, not a 50% increase.
Re: (Score:3)
Inflation doesn't explain it, and it's not "going down every year". Rising costs for the utilities to operate over those years could explain a 10% increase over those years, not a 50% increase.
Oh, don't forget the icing on the shit-flavored cake with this. How many fucking times have these same providers insisted and demanded that taxpayer dollars are needed to roll out service or upgrades, only to get that funding and pocket it instead?
As sickening as having to eat shit-flavored cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Better get started with Spectrum (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, there's only ONE reason Greed would be that "generous".
The competition is providing it cheaper and better.
Worthless rules, are worthless. (Score:2)
"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.
Re: Better get started with Spectrum (Score:1)
Well-intended but bad policy (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re: Well-intended but bad policy (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
(I assume you actually have an easemeent/encumberance on your deed, which is probably not incompatible with whatever "true free market" might mean)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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)
att fiber has an lower price then old DSL / VDSL but lots of places only have have old DSL and can't get fiber.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Be careful with comments like these, we don't want to summon Goatse.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Nationalize or GTFO (Score:2)
Mostly For the Optics (Score:3)
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.
you will pay (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, basic laws of economics still apply - the uptake rate in the poor neighborhood will be much more than
Re: (Score:2)
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)
The more things change (Score:2)
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.
A Republican president will instantly delete this half-arsed attempt to push accountability onto a government-funded cartel.
Maybe Congress should build a service providing equal access and sell it to an interested party, instead of pretending that a fr