The FCC can now punish telecom providers for charging customers more for less::The Federal Communications Commission has passed new digital discrimination rules that hold telecom providers accountable for not providing equal internet access.

  • methodicalaspect@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    8 months ago

    I currently pay $45/mo for 75/20 DSL over 1960s copper. 3 streets over, they’re paying $45/mo for 300/300 fiber from the same ISP. You tellin’ me the FCC can punish them for that?

    • Destraight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      8 months ago

      That bothers you so much then contact the FCC and tell them how unfairly you’re being treated with your internet service provider

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m probably also paying 2x what a new customer is paying because I’m too lazy to switch or threaten cancellation. It’s a bait and switch as far as I’m concerned. Introductory pricing needs to go. Sign-up bonuses (that don’t lead to increased costs down the road) are fine, but none of this 12-month rate lock bullshit. You shouldn’t have to call up anyone (and literally, you can’t do a lot of this stuff except on the phone) to say please don’t charge me more.

    • Duranie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m paying $115mo for whatever the cable crossing a nearby interstate can offer my small neighborhood. I’ve been told by a frustrated service worker that until Xfinity is willing to replace the lines our service will continue to fluctuate. Most of the time it’s just ok, but we have spikes of great connection or barely connected. This effects the whole neighborhood, but many are older residents who I might guess rely on the Internet less.

    • BossDj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because the bigger problem is ownership of the infrastructure. Monopoly or not, one of the companies owns the line

      • blackbarn@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        8 months ago

        So make it a public utility perhaps considering it’s so critical these days

        • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          8 months ago

          Because the bigger problem is ownership of the infrastructure. Monopoly or not, one of the companies owns the line

            • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Even better, those cables were supposed to be replaced by the companies that own it using money from the government. Since they didn’t do that, might as well take the cables and money back and make it a public utility.

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                8 months ago

                We paid for them to upgrade that infrastructure to the tune of several billion, and those companies just lined their pockets instead. Fuck ‘em. We practically bought it at this point. That shit is basically ours.

      • Something_Complex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well there is precedent to that. When the us government allowed At&t to dominate the internet markt and then followed it by a huge court case against them until eventually the CEO of AT&T eventually agreed to the division of the company in smaller regional ares of operations.

        So they centralised it and then forced them to divide. If we are basically there already then just let them merge so you can prosecute them

    • hesusingthespiritbomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

      The FCC under Biden has a long term plan to reclassify the internet under Title II, which would allow much stricter and wider ranging regulations.

      They are probably trying to get that pushed through first.

  • kreynen@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    @L4s so does this mean I can no longer threaten to cancel my service and get an offer to pay 50% for 2x the speed? There might be an element of agism or elder abuse happening here too. When I check on what my parents pay for internet, they will just keep paying the marked up cost for slow service. They end up paying 2-3x more than someone who calls for new service and for a plan so slow the provider no longer offers it.

    • TrumpetX@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      You can only threaten to cancel if there’s an alternative. I tried this and they were like: okay man, just be forewarned that there’s a connection fee when you come back.

      They were right, it was more $ to follow through with my threat and they knew it.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    This Democrat Majority FCC is INFRINGING on my Freedoms to pay whatever the Telecom Provider wants to charge me!

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    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.

    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.

    “There is mounting evidence that low-income families and people of color are more likely to live in monopoly service areas that have just one high-speed internet provider,” Joshua Stager, the policy director of the nonpartisan organization Free Press, says in a statement.

    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.


    The original article contains 480 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!