California Won't Force ISPs To Offer $15 Broadband (arstechnica.com) 65
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A California lawmaker halted an effort to pass a law that would force Internet service providers to offer $15 monthly plans to people with low incomes. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner proposed the state law a few months ago, modeling the bill on a law enforced by New York. It seemed that other states were free to impose cheap-broadband mandates because the Supreme Court rejected broadband industry challenges to the New York law twice.
Boerner, a Democrat who is chair of the Communications and Conveyance Committee, faced pressure from Internet service providers to change or drop the bill. She made some changes, for example lowering the $15 plan's required download speeds from 100Mbps to 50Mbps and the required upload speeds from 20Mbps to 10Mbps. But the bill was still working its way through the legislature when, according to Boerner, Trump administration officials told her office that California could lose access to $1.86 billion in Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funds if it forces ISPs to offer low-cost service to people with low incomes.
That amount is California's share of a $42.45 billion fund created by Congress to expand access to broadband service. The Trump administration has overhauled program rules, delaying the grants. One change is that states can't tell ISPs what to charge for a low-cost plan. The US law that created BEAD requires Internet providers receiving federal funds to offer at least one "low-cost broadband service option for eligible subscribers." But in new guidance from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the agency said it prohibits states "from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO [low-cost service option] rate a subgrantee must offer." "All they would have to do to get exempted from AB 353 [the $15 broadband bill] would be to apply to the BEAD program," said Boerner. "Doesn't matter if their application was valid, appropriate, granted, or they got public money at the end of the day and built the projects -- the mere application for the BEAD program would exempt them from 353, if it didn't jeopardize from $1.86 billion to begin with. And that was a tradeoff I was unwilling to make."
Another California bill in the Senate would encourage, not require, ISPs to offer cheap broadband by making them eligible for Lifeline subsidies if they sell 100/20Mbps service for $30 or less.
Boerner, a Democrat who is chair of the Communications and Conveyance Committee, faced pressure from Internet service providers to change or drop the bill. She made some changes, for example lowering the $15 plan's required download speeds from 100Mbps to 50Mbps and the required upload speeds from 20Mbps to 10Mbps. But the bill was still working its way through the legislature when, according to Boerner, Trump administration officials told her office that California could lose access to $1.86 billion in Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funds if it forces ISPs to offer low-cost service to people with low incomes.
That amount is California's share of a $42.45 billion fund created by Congress to expand access to broadband service. The Trump administration has overhauled program rules, delaying the grants. One change is that states can't tell ISPs what to charge for a low-cost plan. The US law that created BEAD requires Internet providers receiving federal funds to offer at least one "low-cost broadband service option for eligible subscribers." But in new guidance from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the agency said it prohibits states "from explicitly or implicitly setting the LCSO [low-cost service option] rate a subgrantee must offer." "All they would have to do to get exempted from AB 353 [the $15 broadband bill] would be to apply to the BEAD program," said Boerner. "Doesn't matter if their application was valid, appropriate, granted, or they got public money at the end of the day and built the projects -- the mere application for the BEAD program would exempt them from 353, if it didn't jeopardize from $1.86 billion to begin with. And that was a tradeoff I was unwilling to make."
Another California bill in the Senate would encourage, not require, ISPs to offer cheap broadband by making them eligible for Lifeline subsidies if they sell 100/20Mbps service for $30 or less.
But, but!! (Score:1)
Re:But, but!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Muhh states rights!! Derp!
I get what you're saying, but these are basically bribes. The federal government takes your tax money and refuses to give your state highway, utility, or education funds unless you accomplish x. The federal government is the least efficient method for dispersing the funds. If you get the federal government to lower taxes (because they no longer provide the services) (kind of a joke since I doubt any administration would agree to stop collecting taxes in any significant way), your state is welcome to charge you that tax money and create incentives for businesses.
Re:But, but!! (Score:5, Funny)
"The federal government is the least efficient method for dispersing the funds."
California is far more inefficient in dispersing funds.
Re: But, but!! (Score:3)
Citation needed
Re: (Score:1)
https://abc7.com/post/raising-... [abc7.com]
https://www.circlingthenews.co... [circlingthenews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Your other article is literally stating where the money went from a charity concert called FireAid. Again, not the government.
Roughly 120 organizations split $50 million when the first round of FireAid funds was released in February.
Nice try, liar! Citations still needed
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A citation is a formal way to acknowledge a source that you used in creating a piece of content
I think the definition of citation is it is the evidence for your written statement.
If you just post semi-random articles from the state of CA, they're not citations. They are just some lunatic loser lying and misrepresenting the bullshit that spews from his orifices.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's your citation:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
I'm an authority.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an authority.
On what exactly? Clowning? Tell us more, mister Laffy Pants.
Give California some credit! (Score:2)
But we're fabulous at earmarking funds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's been going on for ages. Used to be able to hit some of the sketchy parks and buy $100 worth of food stamps for $40. Buyer gets a huge savings on this weeks groceries and the addict gets another 2ish weeks of feeding their addiction.
EBT ATM cards kind of killed that market. Now they get full value on wasting their benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the only areas our elected officials do excel.
Re: (Score:2)
"The federal government is the least efficient method for dispersing the funds."
California is far more inefficient in dispersing funds.
Yep, so much Californian money goes to supporting the inefficient red states. It's little wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yep, so much Californian money goes to supporting the inefficient red states. It's little wonder."
Seriously? That's your "go to"?
Just... wow.
CA is exhausted as being the 5th largest economy in the world if it were it's own country, yet we have the highest taxes in virtually every single catagory, among the highest unemployment, poverty, homelessness, lowest ranked student performance (most high schools in CA are opting out of the federal standard tests now) -- virtually every category such a "wealthy" st
Re:But, but!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I'm tired of US state governments declaring I don't get health insurance until I accomplish a 60 hour work-week. That bribery needs to stop.
I'm not sure what alternative you're offering but money for services rendered tends to be very successful: There's even a word for incentivizing people/entities using money: Capitalism.
I suspect it's least efficient because there isn't a "you accomplish x" rule in that federal department. That happens plenty: broadband, health insurance, agriculture, food handling. For other departments, the money is given to the states who then have the responsibility of issuing "bribes": There, we see rampant cronyism or infrastructure money used as literal bribes, I mean, pay bonuses.
Rent control such as this, skews the market: If US government fixated on regulating the market, not corporate welfare, there wouldn't be an incentive to skew the market a second time.
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody should be forced to sell their product or service for $15.
Re: Good (Score:3)
Not even in my reservation?
Disclaimer: I am not a native American ; so Sioux me
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere in the galaxy.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
And ISPs should be defined as a utility. And they shouldn't be allowed to be private, for-profit companies. But we are where we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:5, Informative)
Municipal ISPs have the highest average customer satisfaction ratings.
Re: (Score:2)
The pot growers are not satisfied, but are the other customers? No complaints from the crypto miners?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because I want a profit seeking entity with no observable competition to control my access to news, entertainment, information, telecommunications, and financial utility. Extra points if that profit seeking entity uses revenue gathered from subscribers to lobby congress critters and political appointee bureaucrats to lessen their regulatory burden so they can charge subscribers more, sell my information, and deliver less value to me.
That always works out so much better than a socialized service.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not specify the government. Nor did my statements rule them as the only option left. Could be a non-profit organization of some sort. With that said, as someone else pointed out, municipal ISPs do have way better customer satisfaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because I want my ISP operated by the government. :(
Some year, we'll replace our acoustic-coupled modems and upgrade our StateISP internet speed to 56K
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do... I have municipal fiber where I live, and it is way better than any of the other offerings. Lower price, higher speed, no downtime, no BS. There is pretty much zero reason to choose any of the commercial providers with the municipal option available.
Re: Good (Score:2)
And they shouldn't be allowed to be private
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Private, for-profit companies are inherently designed to offer the lowest possible quality for the highest possible price.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's correct a few misconceptions you have:
- Private is not synonymous with for-profit. Private just means not government owned. That can include not-for-profit, co-ops, etc, which are private corporations in the same sense as any other.
- For profit isn't synonymous with either "the lowest quality" or "the highest possible price"
- Government can (and does) offer shit quality and, in many cases, terrible pricing. (Medicare is the first thing that comes to mind -- contrary to popular belief, it's far f
Re: (Score:2)
Private is not synonymous with for-profit.
I know this. I just didn't pay close attention to the fact that you cut it off at just private. Brain kept going.
Government can (and does) offer shit quality and, in many cases, terrible pricing.
In many other sectors, yes. There are numerous reasons to this and not applicable to this topic.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that my house in Phoenix (which my mom lives in, by the way) I pay $65/month for symmetric gig fiber with no data cap, which is about $20/month lower than most municipal broadband rates.
Because you already have decent competition and no local municipal broadband to compare to (yet). In my area, Comcast or CenturyLink were legitimately the only options, and CenturyLink is absolute trash. Comcast was charging $150+ for gigabit down and garbage up. My city said let's do it ourselves, Com
Re: (Score:2)
And they shouldn't be allowed to be private, for-profit companies.
Sure, if you're in a communist country, or some third world shit hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Or if you prefer your money to be spent on the service your paying for instead of a bunch of bullshit like useless (and misleading) advertising and (up)sales people. Municipal internet is faster, cheaper, more reliable, and without datacaps. Their profits get reinvested into the network instead of pocketed by some CEO who doesn't do any work.
Private, for-profit companies are inherently designed to offer the lowest possible quality for the highest possible price, which ultimately means the consumer gets fuck
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care how a someone else's spends their money. None of my business.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead we have an infrastructure that was mostly paid by the government (when you take property rights into account, plus subsidies) but none of the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody should be forced to sell their product or service for $15.
I'd say it depends.
If I form a landscaping company that has no competition in most areas, and I demand $1,000 per mow but people are desperate... okay, arguably nobody should be forcing me to charge something reasonable.
But what about when I ask for municipal support (money) to upgrade my trucks? When I ask for special permits for my crews to drive through public parks because it's a shorter route for them?
Is it wrong for the municipality to place conditions on those perks and that support? If your
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody should be forced to sell their product or service for $15.
Counter-point: Nobody should be forced to pay $100 for internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is. You're welcome to go without.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should be forced to sell their product or service for $15.
And there is no inalienable right to operate a corporation or LLC. Being able to operate your own unregulated business is simply not possible in most of the civilized world.
Imagine if business were forced to hire accounts just to keep track of their tax liability? And those accounts have to be certified by state or federal government? Wow, sounds like a brutal totalitarian government ... in the mind of a libertarian crank maybe.
Local, state, and federal governments can regulate business and do so to quite
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$15 sounds reasonable for the limited bandwidth they are being asked to provide.
Then YOU provide it.
Remember (Score:5, Informative)
Lower cost electricity through renewables [newsweek.com]? Gone.
Lower cost for health care? Gone. In fact, if Republicans get their way, everyone will be forced into Medicare Advantage [morningstar.com], the most expensive Medicare available, for three years. And you can't get out of it.
Lower cost for broadband service [cnet.com]? Gone.
Whatever it takes, you will pay.
Eventually they will extract your house (Score:3)
Eventually you will mortgage your house to pay for food and medicine.
Before long you'll get behind on that mortgage and the sheriff will come to throw you out of your house. I mean I guess technically the bank's house.
Then they will snap up your property for cheap at auction. Armed thugs will make sure that you do not get your house back.
If you get too uppity it'll be of
Eventual impact on New York? (Score:3)
The problem isn't cost (Score:3)
it's availability
There are no options for fiber in my area
Our local ISP wasted years in a futile attempt to install fiber
ATT explicitly stated that they will never provide fiber
Re: (Score:2)
Almost everywhere that new competitors have entered the market in competition with the last-century dinosaur legacy carriers, outcomes for consumers have been better.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The only high speed internet available in my area is Starlink at $120/month. It's not cost efficient to bring in cable or fibre. Rural area but real internet is 5 miles away.
And yet. (Score:4, Insightful)
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD)
It has the word "Equity" in it and this administration hasn't canceled it? /s
Re: And yet. (Score:2)
Click bait headline, unlikely to be factual, from a biased source.