SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
After countless years pondering the idea, the FCC in 2022 announced that it would start politely asking the nation’s lumbering telecom monopolies to affix a sort of “nutrition label” on to broadband connections. The labels will clearly disclose the speed and latency (ping) of your connection, any hidden fees users will encounter, and whether the connection comes with usage caps or “overage fees.”
Initially just a voluntary measure, bigger ISPs had to start using the labels back in April. Smaller ISPs had to start using them as of October 10. In most instances they’re supposed to look something like this [image].
As far as regulatory efforts go, it’s not the worst idea. Transparency is lacking in broadband land, and U.S. broadband and cable companies have a 30+ year history of ripping off consumers with an absolute cavalcade of weird restrictions, fees, surcharges, and connection limitations.
Here’s the thing though: transparently knowing you’re being ripped off doesn’t necessarily stop you from being ripped off. A huge number of Americans live under a broadband monopoly or duopoly, meaning they have no other choice in broadband access. As such, Comcast or AT&T or Verizon can rip you off, and you have absolutely no alternative options that allow you to vote with your wallet.
That wouldn’t be as much of a problem if U.S. federal regulators had any interest in reining in regional telecom monopoly power, but they don’t. In fact, members of both parties are historically incapable of even admitting monopoly harm exists. Democrats are notably better at at least trying to do something, even if that something often winds up being decorative regulatory theater.
The other problem: with the help of a corrupt Supreme Court, telecoms and their Republican and libertarian besties are currently engaged in an effort to dismantle what’s left of the FCC’s consumer protection authority under the pretense this unleashes “free market innovation.” It, of course, doesn’t; regional monopolies like Comcast just double down on all of their worst impulses, unchecked.
If successful, even fairly basic efforts like this one won’t be spared, as the FCC won’t have the authority to enforce much of anything.
It’s all very demonstrative of a U.S. telecom industry that’s been broken by monopoly power, a lack of competition, and regulatory capture. As a result, even the most basic attempts at consumer protection are constantly undermined by folks who’ve dressed up greed as some elaborate and intellectual ethos.
![this [image]](https://i0.wp.com/www.techdirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2030/01/1.webp?w=619&ssl=1){kind=link}
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday October 31 2024, @02:28PM (1 child)
Who, what is "huge" and when was that claim no longer true, like decades ago or just a decade ago or more recently...
It's interesting to think about the criteria required to pull that off for even one human being.
Have to be outside of cellphone coverage so no hotspots. Have to live in a VERY weirdly shaped valley such that none of the multiple competing satellite services will work. Have to live far enough away from civilization that the remaining wireless ISPs won't serve you. No fiber to the home or cable modems or DSL, obviously. Now that I've defined at least one human who lives where there's no possibility of any internet access, it's even harder to figure out the conditions where there's precisely one ISP (or two for the duopoly claim).
Hmm I wonder if they can find even one person this would apply to, there's probably a human interest story in it.
I wonder if its possible. Live at the bottom of a former open pit mine so there's minimal sky access so you usually can't see any of the multiple competing satellite services, and its gotta be living illegally on land zoned for industrial use only so rural service agreements will not apply, and its gotta be in the middle of nowhere so there's no wireless options.
It would be cheating to include intentional footguns like intentionally living in a steel building's basement to prevent all wireless access. But that would be illegal by building code and zoning codes where I live, so it would have to be in a rural area where there's not much codes or code enforement, however that is where there are no enormous concrete and steel skyscrapers with basement residential apartments. Hmm... even "cheating" might be hard.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Friday November 01 2024, @03:48AM
Well, a practical monopoly.
Here in the Northern Wastes, my cost options start with shit DSL, go up a bit for fixed wireless, and triple for data-limited satellite (Hughes, cuz Starlink isn't available here). Or I can pay $5/GB for cell data (on a two-bar connection), or whatever it is now.
That's about half the rural areas of the state. Some of which don't have cell access. (Used to live in such a place. If you wanted cell service you either drove 3 miles to the top of the next hill, or walked a mile up the road and hoped you could piggyback on the volunteer fire chief's booster. ISP was choice of exactly one fixed wireless, at 5Mbps.)
The scope of such places keeps shrinking, but in the western US, they're still significant.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.