Social [Affordable High-Speed Internet] Biden announces Affordable Connectivity Program

Cool, do rural america next.
 
New York can’t force ISPs to offer $15 low-income broadband plans, judge rules
By Jon Brodkin | 06/11/2021
​
On Friday, the broadband industry won a court order that prohibits New York from enforcing a state law that would require ISPs to sell $15-per-month broadband plans to low-income households.

Lobby groups for ISPs sued New York to block the law that was scheduled to take effect on June 15 and received a preliminary injunction today from US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The state law is preempted by federal law, US District Judge Denis Hurley wrote in the order. While the case will continue, Hurley found that the industry is likely to succeed in its lawsuit.

The Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) would require ISPs to offer "all qualifying low-income households at least two Internet access plans: (i) download speeds of at least 25 megabits-per-second at no more than $15-per-month, or (ii) download speeds of at least 200 megabits-per-second at no more than $20-per-month," the ruling noted. The low-income qualifications specified by the law cover about 7 million New Yorkers in 2.7 million households, over one-third of all households in the state. The law allows exceptions to the minimum-speed requirement "where such download speed is not reasonably practicable."

The New York law "is rate regulation, and rate regulation is a form of common carrier treatment," Hurley wrote, rejecting arguments made by New York Attorney General Letitia James. he continued:

In Defendant's words, the ABA concerns "Plaintiffs' pricing practices" by creating a "price regime" that "set a price ceiling," which flatly contradicts her simultaneous assertion that "the ABA does not 'rate regulate' broadband services." "Price ceilings" regulate rates.​


The judge rejected New York's argument that the Federal Communications Commission abandoned "its authority to regulate broadband at all" when Chairman Ajit Pai led a vote to undo the common-carrier classification that was imposed on ISPs during the Obama era.

"In reclassifying broadband Internet as a Title I information service, the FCC made the affirmative decision not to treat it as a common carrier," the judge wrote. "The FCC's affirmative decision is different from an abdication of jurisdiction writ large, even though Title I may not confer as expansive of powers as, say, Title II and its grant to impose common-carrier obligations."

Hurley quoted from the Supreme Court's Brand X ruling from 2005, which said that information-service providers "are not subject to mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II, though the Commission has jurisdiction to impose additional regulatory obligations under its Title I ancillary jurisdiction to regulate interstate and foreign communications."

Ultimately, the New York law "conflicts with the implied preemptive effect of both the FCC's 2018 Order and the Communications Act," Hurley wrote.

The FCC's preemption power is limited. Pai tried to preempt all state net neutrality laws, even ones that didn't exist at the time of his order, and was rebuffed in court. But Hurley decided that the ruling in that separate case "does not preclude or revoke the 2018 Order's implicit preemptive effect."

Interstate service

The judge also found that the state law is preempted because it covers an "interstate communication service." The fact that the law only covers Internet users based in New York does not offset the fact that broadband access itself is an interstate service with transmissions that routinely cross state lines, the judge wrote:

The sole basis on which Defendant relies to call the ABA "intrastate" is its applicability only to "[c]ompanies that have chosen to provide service in New York." But any state law can be construed as applicable only to those subject to that state's jurisdiction, which, accordingly, does not make it "intrastate." "The key to [the FCC's] jurisdiction," the line between inter- vs. intrastate, "is the nature of the communication itself rather than the physical location of the technology" or the consumers served.
Because the ABA regulates within the field of interstate communications, it triggers field preemption. Binding Second Circuit decisions are clear: the Communications Act's "broad scheme for the regulation of interstate service by communications carriers indicates an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field to the exclusion of state law."​
Hurley found that a preliminary injunction is needed to prevent ISPs from suffering "unrecoverable losses."

"Beginning June 15, 2021, Plaintiffs will suffer unrecoverable losses increasing with time, and the enormity of the matter—six plaintiffs with multiple member organizations attacking a statute affecting one-third of all New York households—portends a lengthy litigation," Hurley wrote. The lawsuit against New York was filed by the New York State Telecommunications Association, USTelecom, CTIA–The Wireless Association, NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association, the Satellite Broadcasting & Communications Association, and America's Communications Association.​
Hurley also cited statements from ISPs that suggest the law may "reduce Internet access statewide" by discouraging expansion. "Empire Telephone Corporation's declarant avers that Empire will have to cancel expansion projects which, if completed, would result in Empire 'serv[ing] more than 20,000 households,' thereby disqualifying Empire from an exemption," Hurley wrote. Providers with fewer than 20,000 residential customers are eligible for exemptions from the law. Hurley quoted two other small ISPs making similar claims.
Click to expand...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...er-15-low-income-broadband-plans-judge-rules/
 
AT&T CEO seems confident industry can kill Biden’s municipal broadband plan
By Jon Brodkin | 06/11/2021​

AT&T CEO John Stankey yesterday called President Biden's plan to fund municipal broadband networks "misguided" and said the US shouldn't pay for any broadband deployment in areas that already have networks. But as AT&T and other ISPs lobby against public networks and government-funded competition, Stankey said he is confident that Congress will steer legislation in the more "pragmatic" direction that AT&T favors.

In an interview with The Economic Club of Washington, DC, (video), Stankey was asked, "Do you support the president's proposal to have municipalities own broadband facilities?" Stankey responded, "I think actually the president's proposal is probably a bit misguided in that regard."

"It would be a shame that we take taxpayer money or ask local governments to go into a business that they don't run today," Stankey said. "You know, their job is to deliver water, patch streets, things like that, not be in a capital-intensive technology business that requires constant refresh and constant management."

AT&T and other private ISPs have taken billions from the government to deploy incremental upgrades in rural areas over the years, and they don't want public networks getting any of the cash they're accustomed to receiving. Stankey claimed there isn't much of a broadband problem to be solved, as networks "functioned incredibly well for the vast majority of citizens in the United States" during the pandemic. "Why would we want to go overbuild in areas where there's already great infrastructure?" Stankey said, saying that would be a "waste" of subsidy dollars.

AT&T thinks 10Mbps uploads are enough
Of course, Stankey's definition of "great infrastructure" would disappoint many Internet users. AT&T has fought proposals to subsidize fiber-to-the-home deployment across the US, arguing that rural people don't need fiber and should be satisfied with Internet service that provides only 10Mbps upload speeds. Meanwhile, tens of millions of Americans lack modern broadband access, and a new study pushes back against industry claims that networks performed smoothly during the pandemic.

"Despite reports that the Internet handled the surge in traffic well, we find that complaints about Internet speed nearly tripled, and performance was degraded," the study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers said. "Downstream data rates changed little, but median upstream data rates at midday dropped by about a third."

Stankey yesterday said that government money for broadband should be used only for "getting somebody on the Internet who doesn't have facilities and access" and for subsidies that pay the monthly bills of people who can't afford service. Such an approach would help AT&T avoid competition and get more money by selling its existing services to customers who qualify for subsidies like the ongoing Emergency Broadband Benefit, which AT&T doesn't even accept on all of its service plans. Although AT&T is expanding fiber access in metro areas this year, the company is not extending fiber to homes in most of its 21-state copper territory, and it intends to replace many of those copper lines with wireless service instead of fiber.

AT&T lobbyists always exert influence over telecom policymaking, and Stankey did not seem worried about Congress approving the portions of Biden's plan that AT&T dislikes. "I don't believe that policy is really practical and I actually believe that most policymakers that are in the sausage-making right now are seeing that and are probably steering this in a more pragmatic direction, in my view," he said.

“Less pressure to turn profits” for public networks

In March, Biden proposed spending $100 billion over eight years to bring high-speed broadband to all Americans who lack access, with the plan "prioritiz[ing] support for broadband networks owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non-profits, and co-operatives—providers with less pressure to turn profits and with a commitment to serving entire communities."

That "commitment to serving entire communities" is important because private providers focus on building in the most profitable areas while municipal providers strive for universal service. City and town governments that build their own networks often take that action because private providers failed to give everyone affordable high-speed service.

The USTelecom lobby group claimed last month that "government broadband networks aren't built for the long haul," but provided only two of what it called "cautionary examples" in the US. By contrast, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance provides information on municipal broadband successes and a map of existing municipal networks across the US that "includes more than 900 communities, of which more than 560 are served by some form of municipal network and more than 300 are served by a cooperative." The municipal fiber provider in Chattanooga, Tennessee, led PCMag to name the city the "number-one remote-working town in the US."

Laws in nearly 20 states prevent the growth of these municipal services, however. While Congressional Republicans recently proposed a nationwide ban on municipal broadband, Democrats have proposed overturning the state laws that inhibit public networks.

Biden already cut $35 billion from broadband plan

Biden's plan for municipal networks and his pledge to lower broadband prices set off a flurry of lobbying from cable and telco lobbies that prefer the status quo. Biden's call for "future-proof" networks also set off alarm bells within the industry, as incumbent ISPs want to avoid competition from fiber-to-the-home technology in areas where their download and/or upload speeds lag behind fiber.

Biden already reduced his broadband ambitions. Even though Democrats control both chambers of Congress, Biden last month cut his spending plan from $100 billion to $65 billion to match a Republican proposal. The cut could ensure that no money goes toward funding networks in areas where there's already broadband at basic speeds. Stankey yesterday said, "I will compliment the [Biden] administration on the bipartisan approach they're using to try to define how we go forward from here."

The amount of funding isn't the only thing to be determined by Congress, as Stankey also pointed out in his criticism of municipal broadband. If Democrats try to devote funding to municipal networks, broadband-industry lobby groups and Republicans will do their best to redirect the money to private companies instead.
Click to expand...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...try-can-kill-bidens-municipal-broadband-plan/
 
Last edited:
bobgeese said:
Why even work at this point? Being poor pays better.
Click to expand...
Sadly that is true. Get you some section 8 rent and an ebt card and then work a cash job like. Bartending and you’re doing better than most who work and earn a salary. America catering to its poor and not the working middle class is what’s destroying this once great country.
 
Free wifi so all these guys can look up history and literature for their research papers and steam videos about calculus problems! Haha!!! More like free wifi so they can surf the gram and bullshit
 
Thanks daddy government....you keep me so well fed and clothed and now entertained...how could this possibly end badly?
 
Anyone else laughing at the lack of liberals in this thread that support internet censorship? It’s funny on one hand the government thinks the internet should be available for all, almost as if it’s a source of information and speech.
 
It's well past the time that this step was taken. The government doesn't have to run it directly but internet access should be considered a public utility at this point and a basic level of service should be provided.
 
my internet is 3mbps down, 500kbps up. we pay 100 bucks per month. help me , president biden!
 
kahiljabroni said:
Thanks daddy government....you keep me so well fed and clothed and now entertained...how could this possibly end badly?
Click to expand...

Today it's Internet access. Tomorrow it's voting access! Where will the madness end!?
 
This should be bipartisan .. Us pays near the most for internet on old infrastructure equipment. Give ISP’s subsidizes
 
Senate Passes Infrastructure Bill That Makes Broadband More Affordable
By Dena Bunis, August 10, 2021

90


Connecting to the internet would become easier and more affordable for millions of older Americans and streets and transit system accessibility would increase as part of the sweeping $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill the U.S. Senate passed on Aug. 10.

The bipartisan measure passed by a 69-30 vote. Supported by the Biden administration, the legislation will have to pass the House of Representatives before becoming law. The House is scheduled to be in recess until September.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act touches virtually every aspect of the nation's infrastructure — including roads, bridges, transit systems, broadband, electric grids and water systems.

"Millions more Americans will have access to high-speed internet, including those with limited means, who have faced barriers due to language or ability, or who live in unserved and underserved areas,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer. “Internet accessibility is essential for older adults to connect with their families, communities, commerce and services. And provisions to strengthen electric grids and provide clean drinking water will benefit all Americans."

Broadband investments

According to AARP's annual technology survey, 15 percent of adults age 50 and older do not have access to any internet service and 60 percent say the cost of high-speed internet is a problem. The legislation provides for:

  • $42 billion for grants to build and expand the infrastructure needed to deliver and maintain internet service.
  • $14.2 billion to help people afford the internet, including extending the Emergency Broadband Benefit program that provides subsidies for internet service for targeted households.
  • $2.75 billion for digital equity, which ensures that people of all ages and abilities will have access to the training they need to make full use of high-speed internet connectivity.
https://feeds.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-2021/infrastructure.html?_amp=true
 
Arkain2K said:
Senate Passes Infrastructure Bill That Makes Broadband More Affordable
By Dena Bunis, August 10, 2021

90


Connecting to the internet would become easier and more affordable for millions of older Americans and streets and transit system accessibility would increase as part of the sweeping $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill the U.S. Senate passed on Aug. 10.

The bipartisan measure passed by a 69-30 vote. Supported by the Biden administration, the legislation will have to pass the House of Representatives before becoming law. The House is scheduled to be in recess until September.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act touches virtually every aspect of the nation's infrastructure — including roads, bridges, transit systems, broadband, electric grids and water systems.

"Millions more Americans will have access to high-speed internet, including those with limited means, who have faced barriers due to language or ability, or who live in unserved and underserved areas,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer. “Internet accessibility is essential for older adults to connect with their families, communities, commerce and services. And provisions to strengthen electric grids and provide clean drinking water will benefit all Americans."

Broadband investments

According to AARP's annual technology survey, 15 percent of adults age 50 and older do not have access to any internet service and 60 percent say the cost of high-speed internet is a problem. The legislation provides for:

  • $42 billion for grants to build and expand the infrastructure needed to deliver and maintain internet service.
  • $14.2 billion to help people afford the internet, including extending the Emergency Broadband Benefit program that provides subsidies for internet service for targeted households.
  • $2.75 billion for digital equity, which ensures that people of all ages and abilities will have access to the training they need to make full use of high-speed internet connectivity.
https://feeds.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-2021/infrastructure.html?_amp=true
Click to expand...


Pigs will fly before any of that money actually gets spent on infrastructure. ISP's going back to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have taken billions that was supposed to be used to build infrastructure but they pocketed it instead.
 
Last edited:
NYC to Connect 1.6M Web Users by 2024
November 04, 2021 • Julia Edinger, Zack Quaintance​
New York City has laid out a plan to connect 1.6 million of the city’s residents to high-speed Internet.

The timeline for this plan spans the next 36 months, and the general idea of it is to use $157 million to build a public-owned, open-access broadband infrastructure in the city. This plan will also range across sectors, seeing the city team with a variety of companies of different sizes. As the city notes in its announcement, the goal is “to provide fast, reliable, and affordable connectivity options.”

This all ties into New York City’s ongoing digital equity efforts, as laid out in the NYC Internet Master Plan. In-process work includes bringing free or low-cost Internet connections to the residents of 18 New York City Housing Authority developments by the end of this calendar year. Once completed, the city reports that this will mean a majority of public housing residents in the jurisdiction will have affordable connectivity choices, with additional options existing to scale affordable broadband to more neighborhoods.

These plans represent some of the most thorough digital equity actions in the country, with digital equity and inclusion meaning work to reverse long-time digital redlining that has happened in many U.S. communities. This sort of work has existed for many years, rising in prominence as life and society have migrated increasingly to online, digital realms.

The past 18 months or so since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic have supercharged governmental digital equity work. Following many years of community groups and nonprofits working on the front lines of digital equity, government had started to wade into the same waters. The pandemic, however, forced an acceleration, as school children in particular became a group that state and local governments worked hard to connect, doing so by teaming with philanthropic organizations as well as private companies.

New York City’s Internet Master Plan was first announced in January of 2020. The plan — which remains one of the most comprehensive digital equity efforts published by a local government — noted that roughly 29 percent of New York City households lacked broadband Internet at home, while other households didn’t even have a means for mobile connectivity.
Click to expand...

https://www.govtech.com/civic/whats...c-to-connect-1-6m-web-users-by-2024?_amp=true
 
Arkain2K said:
NYC to Connect 1.6M Web Users by 2024
November 04, 2021 • Julia Edinger, Zack Quaintance​


https://www.govtech.com/civic/whats...c-to-connect-1-6m-web-users-by-2024?_amp=true
Click to expand...
You just know that the majority of the 30% are people who choose not to pay for high speed internet because what they have is sufficient and don't need extra bills, while "other households" which don't have a means for mobile connectivity just means people without WiFi, who presumably use their phone data or are octogenarians and higher who live in rent controlled apartments and don't see the value or have the know-how in buying a router.

I mean I guess if that means every little kid in public housing can truly aspire to be a Fortnite streamer, then it is all worth it.
 
Yehudim said:
You just know that the majority of the 30% are people who choose not to pay for high speed internet because what they have is sufficient and don't need extra bills, while "other households" which don't have a means for mobile connectivity just means people without WiFi, who presumably use their phone data or are octogenarians and higher who live in rent controlled apartments and don't see the value or have the know-how in buying a router.

I mean I guess if that means every little kid in public housing can truly aspire to be a Fortnite streamer, then it is all worth it.
Click to expand...
I don't think the issue is that some people choose not to pay for it or just a "we won't buy wi-fi routers" issue. As I noted earlier in this thread, hi speed internet connectivity is essentially a utility at this point. Like water or heat. When those things first became utilities, I'm sure there were people who said "indoor plumbing - why? I've got a well out back that works just fine." Or "why am I paying for heat when I can just buy firewood?"

The point is that if you want a society to continue to prosper, the lowest standard of living has to continuously increase. Otherwise, the society wastes human resources. A society where people are still going to the well to get fresh water is a society where those people aren't maximizing their contribution to society, instead they are wasting time performing a task that is more easily done with modern advancements. And that means that some of those people who might make society changing contributions never get around to it.

The pandemic and the post-pandemic year has really underscored where/how this matters in the academic space. Digital learning isn't the future, it's the present. Streaming live classes for multiple children in a single household. Accessing whatever online curriculum is currently being implemented for individualized instruction. All while parents/adults are using that same internet for whatever tasks they need to do. Having internet access just isn't a sufficient baseline anymore.

Anecdotally, I live in a building with a decent chunk of old people. Many of them don't see the point in hi speed broadband...until they start having issues and they're told to go online to solve them then they start complaining about how long it takes for things to download. Many times people don't see the value in something because they don't really know what advantages it brings. And in those cases, it might make more sense to provide access to those benefits rather than waiting for them to figure it out.
 
And yet the low income parents always have newest iPhones and Jordan’s.
 
panamaican said:
I don't think the issue is that some people choose not to pay for it or just a "we won't buy wi-fi routers" issue. As I noted earlier in this thread, hi speed internet connectivity is essentially a utility at this point. Like water or heat. When those things first became utilities, I'm sure there were people who said "indoor plumbing - why? I've got a well out back that works just fine." Or "why am I paying for heat when I can just buy firewood?"

The point is that if you want a society to continue to prosper, the lowest standard of living has to continuously increase. Otherwise, the society wastes human resources. A society where people are still going to the well to get fresh water is a society where those people aren't maximizing their contribution to society, instead they are wasting time performing a task that is more easily done with modern advancements. And that means that some of those people who might make society changing contributions never get around to it.

The pandemic and the post-pandemic year has really underscored where/how this matters in the academic space. Digital learning isn't the future, it's the present. Streaming live classes for multiple children in a single household. Accessing whatever online curriculum is currently being implemented for individualized instruction. All while parents/adults are using that same internet for whatever tasks they need to do. Having internet access just isn't a sufficient baseline anymore.

Anecdotally, I live in a building with a decent chunk of old people. Many of them don't see the point in hi speed broadband...until they start having issues and they're told to go online to solve them then they start complaining about how long it takes for things to download. Many times people don't see the value in something because they don't really know what advantages it brings. And in those cases, it might make more sense to provide access to those benefits rather than waiting for them to figure it out.
Click to expand...
Yes that’s wonderful.

10 Down, 5 Up is more than enough for the average internet usage and video game playing. I sincerely doubt that is considered high speed and I sincerely doubt you can even get less than that in NYC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,239,022
Messages
55,600,157
Members
174,845
Latest member
sosadus

Share this page

Back
Top