SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Internet service providers are eager to get money from a $42.45 billion government fund, but are trying to convince the [US] administration to drop demands that Internet service providers offer broadband service for as little as $30 a month to people with low incomes.
The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program was created by a US law that requires Internet providers receiving federal funds to offer at least one "low-cost broadband service option for eligible subscribers." The [US] administration says it is merely enforcing that legal requirement, but a July 23 letter sent by over 30 broadband industry trade groups claims that the administration is illegally regulating broadband prices.
The fund is administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The NTIA is distributing money to states, which will then distribute it to ISPs. Before obtaining money from the NTIA, each state must get approval for a plan that includes a low-cost option. Nearly half of US states have already gotten approvals.
Although the law requires ISPs receiving grants to offer a low-cost plan, it also says the US may not "regulate the rates charged for broadband service." In the letter sent to US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, ISPs claim that the NTIA's demands for specific prices violate the ban on rate regulation:
We have also heard from stakeholders of specific instances in which certain State broadband offices have faced the prospect of political pressure unless they acceded to a $30 rate for the low-cost service option. This contravenes the clear language of the Infrastructure Act, which states that "[n]othing in this title may be construed to authorize [NTIA] to regulate the rates charged for broadband service."
Funds like BEAD are intended to help ISPs build broadband networks in areas where it would otherwise not be economically feasible. In other words, the government giving money to ISPs directly lets the telcos make a decent profit on network-construction projects in areas where subscriber fees alone wouldn't be enough.
ISPs receiving funds don't have to offer the low-cost broadband plan to everyone. They only have to offer it to eligible subscribers who meet low-income requirements, as detailed in the NTIA's Notice of Funding Opportunity.
Despite that, ISPs claim that prices for the low-cost option should be calculated based on "the economic realities of deploying and operating networks in the highest cost, hardest-to-reach areas." The letter said:
While NTIA purports to give States the flexibility to choose a low-cost program that meets their particular needs, the reality is much different. According to NTIA's own program guidance, it has "strongly encouraged" States to set a fixed rate of $30 per month for the low-cost service option. For a broad cross-section of America's rural broadband providers, the $30 rate is completely unmoored from the economic realities of deploying and operating networks in the highest cost, hardest-to-reach areas that BEAD funding is precisely designed to reach.
Groups signing the letter include USTelecom, which represents AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink/Lumen, and many other telcos. It was also signed by lobby groups for small cable firms and rural telcos, and numerous lobby groups for ISPs in specific states. The state-specific lobby groups signing the letter are from Alaska, Alabama, North Dakota, Montana, North Carolina, Kansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Many states have already received approval for their grant plans, including plans for requiring low-cost options. The NTIA today announced approval of New Mexico and Virginia's initial proposals, bringing the total count to 22 states plus the Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. Another 30 states and territories are waiting for approval after having submitted initial proposals by December 2023.
The lobby groups want the NTIA to reverse approvals for existing states' plans. Their letter said the agency should "require each State to revise the low-cost service option rate proposed or approved in its Initial Proposal so that the rate is more reasonably tied to providers' realistic costs, such as by using the FCC's Urban Rate Survey benchmark."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 30, @03:04AM (1 child)
The federal government can't set the drinking age at 21, either.
But states that want access to that money tap, well, they're happy to oblige when such requirements are introduced...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aafcac on Tuesday July 30, @03:15AM
We'll see if that happens this time with SCOTUS being so hostile to the currently used methods of regulating it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday July 30, @05:00AM (4 children)
Stop subsiding large scale ISP.
Instead, reorient the fund to Community Broadband Networks [communitynets.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by EEMac on Tuesday July 30, @05:50AM (1 child)
But that would *solve* the problem. The government wants to *spend money* on the problem. Different goals here.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday July 30, @07:31AM
I doubt it would actually solve it (not unless the govt goes Norway all the way [wikipedia.org], but that's more than what US brains can handle).
Otherwise, yes, that's a proposal from an engineering perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Touché) by evilcam on Wednesday July 31, @03:22AM (1 child)
Why limit to large-scale ISPs?
All essential infrastructure should be owned by the state.
Let the private sector buy from a government wholesaler and focus on customer service and value-add. Let the Government worry about building things that the private sector has shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted to do (like self-regulation).
Or is that too much like SoCiAlIsM for the Yanks??
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday July 31, @06:38AM
Thus my
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by zzarko on Tuesday July 30, @06:30AM (1 child)
... but I do not like the rules that come with it! Bwaaaaa!!! Waaaa!!! Boohoo!!!
C64 BASIC: 1 a=rnd(-52028):fori=1to8:a=rnd(1):next:fori=1to5:?chr$(rnd(1)*26+65);:next
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 30, @07:33AM
Yeah, news at eleven.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Username on Tuesday July 30, @01:40PM (2 children)
>broadband service for as little as $30 a month to people with low incomes
Already are internet services for less than $30. If you cannot afford unlimited 1tb/s, then get a lesser amount. If there isn't cheap plans in the area, have the local government provide it.
(Score: 2) by Ox0000 on Tuesday July 30, @05:07PM
Because broadband is pretty much a necessity in order to be a functioning member of society. It's not even a luxury anymore. Now 1TiB/s is beyond broadband, but at a minimum, everyone should have access to 100MiB/s up/down.
But let me expand on your statement of "If there isn't cheap plans in the area, have the local government provide it."...
I see no problem whatsoever with just providing broadband internet as a common good, just like sewage, or water, or trash collection. If someone else wants to compete with the governmental offering on quality, by all means... you are not prohibited from doing so, but at least compete on quality!
Back in the day, companies would actually compete with one another on quality and customer service; they would take pride in what they made and sold. These days, every single company I encounter (save a handful) all feel like highway robbery: see with how much we can get away because fuck the schmucks from whom we take money. After every encounter, you have to touch yourself to make sure you still have your wallet and haven't inadvertently signed on to something that was buried in the 700-odd pages of legalese they put in front of you before they'd sell you a pencil.
Ain't no such thing an MBA cannot fuck up!
(Score: 3, Informative) by aafcac on Tuesday July 30, @07:05PM
In a lot of areas the local government isn't allowed to. Which is a problem as there are plenty of small communities that are still large enough to justify wiring themselves for Internet and paying for their own connection, but they can't because a larger Telecom might eventually want to do the job.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pTamok on Tuesday July 30, @05:14PM
Given how important Internet connectivity is in modern society, I believe that an telecommunications infrastructure provider that operates in a county (yes county, not country) should have a Universal Service Obligation to roll out diverse single-mode fibre to all residential and business addresses in that county, and charge the same price to all customers (that is, average out between the easiest and most difficult). If an provider operates in more than one county, the price to be averaged across all counties.
Any counties not served are then available by reverse auction for anyone to bid for the lowest subsidy to provide the above service. Where there are no bidders, residents of the country in question can set up co-operatives or other organisations to build out the fibre network to a standard demarcation point, and service across that demarc is to be at a national standard price.
In addition, anyone with fibre should be able to choose which ISP serves that fibre. It's pretty simple.
Decouple physical infrastructure from logical Internet service. Just like paying one provider for supplying and maintaining electrical cables to an address, and a (quite possibly) different one for supplying electrical power across those cables. Physical infrastructure being tied to an ISP is just a way of being tied to someone who will milk you for rent. Fibres are a 'natural monopoly'. Internet service over the fibres isn't.
Businesses that need more than a pair of diverse single-mode fibres into their premises can negotiate for better service.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 30, @06:22PM (1 child)
I've mentioned a time or two that I've joined the ranks of those with access to fiber to the home. Newly built out by the electric coop, partially subsidized by the federal government. My month bill for 100 mb service is only $40. With tax and a couple "hidden" fees, I'm only paying $45. I'm pretty damned sure that the coop could provide internet to a poor family for $30, and not lose money. The infrastructure is already there, with a little black box installed at each address that was already served with electricity. True, they may not MAKE money at $30/month, but I really don't think they would lose money. Run a fiber cable alongside existing electric cable, to the house, hook up a modem, and DONE!
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Wednesday July 31, @04:08PM
My parents somewhat recently got access to Fiber in pretty much the exact same way. Which leaves me with a stupidly large bill from T-Mobile for 5G internet, because that's literally the best thing I've found. Unless I want to foot a $10k+ bill whomever has Fiber about 2 blocks away won't send it down my way.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"