Los Angeles Passes Rule Banning Broadband Deployment Discrimination
from the admitting-you-have-a-problem-is-the-first-step dept
We’ve well documented how giant telecom companies have taken billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors in exchange for fiber networks they only half deploy. We’ve also noted that when those big ISPs do finally deploy service, they tend to prioritize white, affluent neighborhoods — which generally see faster, cheaper, service than more diverse, poorer neighborhoods.
Broadband discrimination hews fairly closely to historic infrastructure discrimination on other fronts, whether it was the use of highway deployments to demolish long-established Black neighborhoods, or the long-established discrimination seen in the deployment and maintenance of affordable electricity service.
Back in December I wrote a longer feature for Verge about this proven and widespread “digital discrimination” in broadband, and how the FCC, the nation’s top telecom regulatory, only just now, in 2024, decided that it might just be something they should take a closer look at.
Civil and consumer rights activists I’ve spoken to at length say that the FCC’s plan to crack down on the practice is a well intentioned, welcome, and overdue first step. But there’s a general uneasy uncertainty about whether the agency — which has a shaky track record of standing up to giant companies like Comcast and AT&T on any issue of note — will actually follow through with meaningful enforcement.
Some activists were also quick to point out that while the FCC says it will ban future discrimination in broadband deployment, it refuses to do anything about discrimination that has already occurred. Such as AT&T’s well documented refusal to upgrade poor and minority neighborhoods in Cleveland or Detroit, despite untold billions in taxpayer subsidies designed to do precisely that:
“Nothing in these rules would address historical, existing and the ongoing redlining and discrimination against BIPOC and low income communities by large corporate ISPs,” Brandon Forester, a media and telecom reform activist at MediaJustice, told The Verge. “The FCC expressly declined to look at or eliminate existing discrimination.”
Now it sounds like Los Angeles is following suit, with the Los Angeles City Council voting to create new rules banning digital discrimination in broadband deployment. The rules don’t technically exist yet, and there are, again, questions about meaningful enforcement at scale. But like the FCC’s efforts, just the act of formally acknowledging this discrimination exists is a step forward for local and federal governments:
“People need to know that if they’re experiencing digital discrimination that they can identify, they can call the city of Los Angeles and expect to get help with that now,” said Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson of the 8th District, who sponsored the digital discrimination ordinance.”
One issue with both the FCC and LA efforts to combat digital discrimination is that locals may not understand they were ever discriminated against. As we’ve long established, the U.S. is awash with giant regional monopolies that have spent decades undermining competition with the help of corrupt state and federal bureaucrats.
The result: high prices, slow speeds, and spotty access we’ve all grown used to, but isn’t well explained by the press because that kind of coverage just doesn’t get those clicks. So a user in Detroit, who can’t get affordable fiber due to years of proven discrimination by AT&T, may not understand the origins of the problem, that discrimination played a role, or that there’s any recourse.
Federal regulators not only refuse to consistently take aim at monopoly power, officials and lawmakers in both parties routinely can’t even acknowledge that the problem actually exists. That they’ll suddenly have the backbone to police a politically “sensitive” issue like digital discrimination at any meaningful scale is asking a lot of policymakers with a 30+ year track record of rank fecklessness.
Huge swaths of LA are dominated by a Comcast or Charter monopoly, and the simple act of at least acknowledging there’s a monopoly and digital discrimination problem at the heart of the lack of affordable broadband access is an important (but grotesquely overdue) first step.
Filed Under: affordable, broadband, digital discrimination, digital divide, discrimination, high speed internet, los angeles, low income, telecom
Comments on “Los Angeles Passes Rule Banning Broadband Deployment Discrimination”
I know it’s trite, but…
“He who has the gold makes the rules” and that isn’t going to change!
Re:
Essentially capitalism is entrenched in North America, and has ruthlessly exterminated all efforts to dismantle it.
Note: at least one broken link in the article.
…so somehow you expect the same local/state/federal government entities that gave “giant telecom companies billions of dollars in illicit tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors” AND continually enforces their monopoly power over consumers — to somehow now honestly police/regulate these same telecoms and earnestly protect consumer interests ??
that is a totally irrational position
Re:
It is employing a fox to guard a henhouse.
Re:
He literally writes this in the article:
So no, he doesn’t expect that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Communists are always unable to comprehend that the government that can give you anything, has to be able to take it away from someone else, and more often than not they’re taking it away from you.
Re: Re:
The number of actual communists in the US is so small that this comment is a non sequitur.
Re: Re: Re:
Depends on how you define it, when it comes to social media for example damn near the entire republican party seems to have jumped on board the ‘We must seize the means of (speech) production for the good of the people!’ train.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s more fascist than communist. They don’t mind private ownership of social media, they just want it to fall in line with their desire to oppress and otherize minorities and give privilege to the elites and their followers, and they’re willing to use state force to enforce that.
Re: Re: Re:3
Fair enough.
They aren’t always composed of the same people.
Political pressures and ideas change.
Here they have admitted a problem. Whether it is performative, or sincere and decently-constructed, legislation opens a door that a foot or an oak beam can be shoved in.
The position may be somewhat optimistic, but not irrational. Imagining that governments or football team are the same every year is irrational.
Re:
Except one team is intent on slamming that door shut
At&t is trying to pull out its aging landlines
At&t recently put a motion with the CPUC to no longer be forced to support landlines in certain neighborhoods. If they can’t do it one way they’ll try to weasel another.
We all know where all those broadband subsidies have gone...
They have gone exclusively to stock buybacks, executive bonuses, and dividends. This is a classic “Heads I win, tales you lose” scenario.
'Do the work and THEN get paid' is how near every other job works...
Such as AT&T’s well documented refusal to upgrade poor and minority neighborhoods in Cleveland or Detroit, despite untold billions in taxpayer subsidies designed to do precisely that:
The government(local or federal) could cut down on a lot of the corruption and theft of funds via one simple trick(tm): No more subsidies, no more tax breaks, only refunds.
If a company offers to hook up an area they foot the bill and only after it’s been confirmed to be in place and working will the costs be covered by the government, with perhaps a little extra as incentive. If it’s a particularly large area then it can be done piece by piece, but refunds will only be granted after a given area has been confirmed to have service, and only for the costs incurred for that area.
Make it so companies only get money when they’d done the work and you could drastically cut down on the rampant corruption of companies claiming subsidies and then refusing to hold up their end of the bargain.
Re:
But that would just play right into the hands of those same companies, which will point right back at the government and say “See? That is the problem.” Heads I win, tails you lose.
Re: Re:
How would that ‘play into their hands’, or at the very least how would it do so to a larger extent than the current situation where they get the money beforehand and just never do the work?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Karl Bode is a liar
I tried to click on the link to the “proven” discrimination at AT&T but its a broken link, and I assume its going to be some advocacy group with some bullshit claims
The fact that Karl has to lump together black and low income groups together, is indicative that there was no racial discrimination in the first place, rather business decisions about profitability, and racial disparities in income or interest in broadband.
Had there been discrimination, it would have (and should have) been litigated in court, and there been a court judgement. What is more likely is that Karl wants to be racist, and make other people pay to subsidize black people. His argument is akin to the claim that black people read less books, and are less able to afford books, so the book publishers should be giving books to black people who cant afford them.
The reason why the government cannot mandate this is because this itself is racial discrimination, in addition to a violation of the takings clause.
Re:
And this article is the only possible source of information for this topic? Admitting you’re too lazy to do any research while also insisting your admitted ignorance suffices for an informed perspective enough to criticize on the topic is some great narcissism.
I love this sentence. The end betrays the beginning so deliciously. You pointed out the evidence as if it proves the opposite. You see, it’s not lumping two different groups together. It’s an overlapping venn diagram. Black people are disproportionately poor compared to white people and Hispanics/Latinos. They live in the areas that are neglected for access.
Sure, because poor people have discretionary income to spend on lawsuits and the telecom companies don’t have expensive teams of lawyers to fight them.
Asserting there’s no discrimination simply because you’re ignorant of whether there has been one possible indicator of discrimination is an argument from ignorance.
Note that you’re pretending like wealthy white people aren’t currently the primary, disproportionate beneficiaries of subsidies.
Access is a human right and necessary for all sorts of government services for which these people are paying taxes.
No, it’s not. It’s akin to the claim that people who deserve access are being discriminated against because they’re less profitable to the corporations who use basic services as an opportunity to profit off of government subsidies that benefit those who need them least.
Re:
Context: Here’s every single post made by convicted sex criminal Ben that contains at least one true fact:
{ }
Re:
~Asserts claims not backed up by any kind of evidence~
Government needs to do, not react
Communities that are unlikely to pay for premium services that would utilise higher bandwidth.
Fixed that. Race has nothing to do with it
Nobody has yet been able to show an example of a community with only one choice.
If you want expensive fibre lines in areas unlikely to afford service that would use those lines, it’s the government that must put out those lines.
Forcing companies to spend on infrastructure in lost expense areas isn’t going to work. If you think a company wouldn’t walk away from a few thousand DSL or POC subscribers over a $500mil forced expenditure… you’re sorely mistaken
And when a company walks away from a service area… government must step in with community service.
In reality the only way you can serve people who won’t or can’t pay for service is to offer that service yourself.
It’s really that simple.
Re:
Black communities are disproportionately poor. It’s a correlational trait. It’s racial discrimination regardless of whether it’s intentionally targeted by race or not. If you said we’re banning hip hop from the radio but not country, you’re racially discriminating even though not all black people like hip hop and not all hip hop artists and fans are black. Racial discrimination isn’t just people using the n-word and telling people they can’t shop in their store. It can be an incidental result of greed or other motivations like it is here. The result is where the term is applied, not perceived intent.
I only had one choice until a few years ago, but even that second choice isn’t a practical option since they haven’t expanded service far enough down the street to get to the side of my house where my CAT6 comes through. Having to pay thousands of dollars to get fiber to the other side of my house isn’t a real option. There are plenty of scenarios like this all over the country. My in-laws got cable a few years ago after paying thousands for it with a few neighbors in the rural suburbs. They were on unreliable satellite before then. You don’t seem to have done much research on this topic.
The government has given billions to companies to do just at that. They’re not forcing companies to spend their own money on infrastructure. The companies have pocketed tax funds by claiming they would expand this access. Again, research is useful here.
And the government should claw back some of the funding that the company unethically pocketed while not delivering.
Hence the government funding that’s been going on for years.
Re: Re:
It’s a tertiary fact. Not an equivalence.
Large sections of the country live below what the federal government considers poverty, far from any city population sector, are overwhelmingly white majority, and have no fibre internet.
If it’s racial, then it’s against all races.
The argument isn’t “reliable” or “fibre”. Its choice. Name a zip code I’ll show you choices. Choices above what the federal government considers broadband speed.
That’s exactly the problem. The government needs to do it itself. A large percentage of the nation’s infrastructure is wholly federal property. Electric lines, water pipes, telephone cable.
Dedicate the funds, create a comity, hire the workers, lay the lines.
Etc.
I don’t disagree with you. At all.
But Karl is making this a racial thing when it’s not. Others make it about choice and options. It’s not.
The way to convince the masses, and this Congress, is to be completely factual.
I’ve pointed this out for years now. I’ve seen firsthand how government internet works elsewhere, and how private companies compete competently side by side.
The only way that works is to do it yourself (government).
We need federal internet, not federal funding.
Emphasis on fact. A racial demographic is disproportionately affected. That’s racism by result, the same as it would be if a hospital arbitrarily decided it didn’t want to treat sickle cell disease.
The fact that it’s a fact makes it a functional equivalent. The reason it’s a fact doesn’t change whether it’s a fact or not.
Notice that you’ve just changed the parameters of the scenario in order to argue against it. We’re talking about in places where broadband companies have been given funding for the purposes of expanding access. We’re not talking about a rural county with three houses within twenty miles of each other. And while there are greater raw numbers of white poor people in the US, that’s because they’re the majority of the population, whereas black people are disproportionately poor for their percentage of the population. And the bulk of the US population lives in urban and suburban areas that we’re focusing on and neighborhoods that are more diverse are getting neglected. You’re basically admitting, again, that you don’t understand what you’re talking about and didn’t read the article well or at all.
White people are about 71% of the US population and only about 9% are living below the poverty line. Black people are about 14% of the US population and about 17% are living below the poverty line.
Having one unreliable choice isn’t really a choice. That’s like saying a man isn’t technically starving because he has access to one can of cat food a day. Satellite internet that goes out several times a week and can’t stream uninterrupted video at 720p and has low bandwidth caps doesn’t meet the federal standard for broadband.
I’ll ask you once again: why do you make claims that it’s very clear you’ve not researched? Do you care that you look like a walking Dunning-Kruger screenshot from r/confidentlyincorrect?
https://www.google.com/search?q=us+places+with+only+one+internet+service+provider
There are several results on just the first page of that search talking about how many Americans only have access to one provider.
Maybe stop asking for a zip code from randos on the internet and start researching the topic.
You’re doing that thing where you pivot when corrected about a factual error you’ve stated and you pretend you weren’t spouting falsehoods. You could certainly argue that the government should do the infrastructure buildout itself, but you were arguing “Forcing companies to spend on infrastructure in lost expense areas isn’t going to work” as if the government were making companies spend their own money.
It functionally is racial, like many other poverty-related issues, because it disproportionately affects people who are disproportionately poor.
It’s not factual to say that broadband companies aren’t functionally discriminating against diverse neighborhoods. You’re making false claims (as usual) and demonstrating a lack of knowledge on the topic, so you’re not an authority on being “completely factual.”
Re:
“Racism is discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity”~Wikipedia and nearly identical to most modern dictionaries.
There is a racial aspect to the issue, but it is not racism.
Not at all. I’m a strong supporter of a government internet, for all. Every door. You may focus on a, or the cities. I always made my opinion clear, government internet for all. Fibre to the door, for all.
It absolutely is. It’s not a great choice, but it’s a choice. Don’t play like a few others here and change the terminology, “move the goalposts”, because I’m correct.
See below:
I have, and I’m absolutely correct. Because I can name all 12 locations in the continental US where there is one or no choice for broadband. And the only two locations in the entirety of US possessions where there is no internet option at all. Not even dialup.
It’s not where people claim.
Your google search doesn’t bring up what you say it does. But I’ll take the top hit from Vice (all sides declares them far left)
“I was shocked to learn that there was only one internet service provider serving my Manhattan neighborhood”~vice
Manhattan Zip Codes 10001-10282
At&T
Cox
Mercury
Brightspeed
HughesNet
ViaSat
T-mobile
Kansas Broadband
EIN
Rural Roam
EarthLink
Plus 4 more with under 30% area coverage.
Name a zip code, I’ll give you options.
It won’t. It never will. I’ve said that for years. Companies given grants to build out, and build out they do. As far as I can find, no grant or tax refund or tax deduction was ever specific enough to claim honestly that they didn’t do what they were told. Rather, they didn’t do what they were expected.
That’s the problem. Either make the grants etc specific or do it yourself.
The fact is actually facts.
companies are ignoring communities that are least likely to pay for the service.
Companies are ignoring areas where the cost of deployment exceeds any short term return. Often even long term.
It’s not racism! It has a racial aspect only that in cities many are “poor” in that the dollar value in cities is drastically lower than outside them. And. Cities have the large percentage of non-whites.
You’re literally using a children’s game to present false equivalence.
Matt likes Tommy. Matt hates Fred. Lisa likes Tommy
So Lisa must hate Fred.
I just read a story where the writer here said the member of congress cries wolf too often to be trusted. But that’s exactly what this is here. Crying about racism when race has zero effect on the action of the company. They’re underserved because they are poor, not because they are a certain skin tone.
Companies are not focused on race. They’re focused on dollars.
The solution is to put government lines in with government contractors and provide government internet.
Something a growing number of communities are now doing. Surprisingly, commercial prices aren’t moving much in areas that have community service. Many subscribers leave the old provider. Some also stay.
There’s true competition, rather than minimal price cutting and matching.
Government internet gives every residence a connection. It forces companies to drop price or add service. It pushes innovation and offerings. Things that don’t happen when companies are content with the status quo.
I’m on your side, I just don’t see a pretend about something that is not part of the decision process. Race has nothing to do with where a wire goes. Wires follow the money, regardless of race.
Re: Re:
So even when you do actually look something up, you just find the first thing that supports your assumptions and you stop looking further. That’s probably worse than just being ignorant.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism])https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism)
There’s discrimination that adversely affects a disproportionate number of a racial demographic. That’s racism.
And you didn’t read the linked article that Karl wrote for The Verge:
“In 2017, minority residents of Cleveland and Detroit filed formal complaints with the FCC, noting they were consistently paying AT&T premium prices for sluggish DSL, while neighbors in more affluent, less diverse communities received faster, cheaper service. The petitioners’ broadband was so slow, it hampered the ability of their children to access online homework.”
You didn’t read the linked NDIA articles about racial discrimination either.
Except that’s literally what you did. The article wasn’t talking about rural areas and you argued that the demographics of rural areas negated the article’s premise because there are more poor white people in rural areas, even though that had nothing to do with the article. You were just offering a bullshit “other people have it bad too, so go get over it” dismissal of the issues. Pretending you support solutions when you admit your ignorance of the problems makes your claims useless.
You’re not correct. One option is not a choice, because that “choice” is “pay whatever rates the one service is asking or don’t have internet access.” And if you were familiar with the NDIA (or just common sense), you’d know that adequate internet access is now necessary for numerous aspects of government services, social interactions, health care, education, etc. We’re talking about having choice between more than one acceptable, affordable option. We’re talking about having competition that brings down prices.
FTFY
Wait, you said before that no one could name one, but you are now saying you can name (at least) 12. You’re arguing with yourself now. You should explain to yourself why you’re wrong.
It would depend on what you consider a location. There are millions of acres of land in the US where you can’t get a cell signal or broadband or wifi or even dialup. Do you imagine people walking through the wilderness will just stumble on a random ethernet port sticking up out of the ground? And remember, we’re talking about broadband, not satellite or dialup or other insufficient options.
How odd. You intentionally excluded the phrase “When I moved to New York City from Toronto,” from the beginning of the sentence that indicated the anecdote was about sometime in the past. You attacked the weakest thing in the article. But you also didn’t even refute it. You listed services that are available to some people in Manhattan. It doesn’t mean every single resident has access to all of those services. There are plenty of multi-unit buildings where the resident have only one option.
But the article was about the ILSR report that you didn’t even touch:
“Based on the Federal Communications Commission’s own data, the ILSR found that 129 million Americans only have one option for broadband internet service in their area, which equals about 40 percent of the country.”
Where’s your refutation of that?
Not all residents of a given zip code all have the same options. You’re disingenuously presenting the idea that if a service has a presence somewhere in a zip code, it has a presence throughout the entire zip code and every residential building in that zip code can access it and everyone living in that building can afford it/access it/etc.
Except, as I pointed out, the government isn’t making them spend their own money, so the premise of your argument is wrong. You’re saying something that isn’t happening won’t work.
You’ve made this claim about other things you’ve said. You’re assertions of consistency aren’t relevant to whether you’re currently right or wrong. If you said something wrong in the past and still say it now, you’re still wrong.
And this here is you admitting that they’re discriminating. Congratulations!
That is racism.
No, you’re using an obsolete definition of racism where it’s only racism if someone is yelling the n-word. The most common and effective form of racism is systemic racism.
…and why are they poor? Why are they disproportionately poor? Why are they historically poor? Connect the dots!
That doesn’t mean they can’t functionally be racist. You keep looking at racism only through the lens of intent rather than through their actions and the results of those actions.
No, not really. Agreeing with one aspect of a scenario when you deny the others means you won’t perceive the other issues that also need to be addressed. Systemic racism affects more than just internet access and just supporting one possible solution to one aspect of it isn’t all that useful. Also, you likely don’t have the ear of a telecom CEO, so your nominal support isn’t all that useful anyway.
You have an obscene pattern of oversimplifying things. Society is complex. There are multiple factors that go into issues. Greed is a big factor, but it isn’t the only factor. But you can still functionally be racist even if you were only motivated by greed.
Re: Re: Re:
There’s one place in the country with no connection ability.
There are 11 zip codes with one option.
At the time I could name the location (it’s in Yellowstone) of the dead zone off the top of my head.
Which tend to be unpopulated areas and satellite is still an option.
I’m using the government listed speeds for broadband.
100% of manhattan property has at least three options.
Options for renters in rented space is a whole different debate. In this discussion, the building owner does have 3+ options. I have mixed feelings on what a renter should and should not have control over.
Is likely flawed. As any NP/NGO report often is. As often a governmental report often is.
Yet, with 12 exclusions, they all have 2 choices or more.
The government is backing funds to build infrastructure. They aren’t mandating exact placement of that infrastructure for those funds. A governmental failure.
On the other hand, exact placement funding may, I believe likely to be, refused unless overage can be retained. Companies don’t like to do business where nobody can pay for the product. We’re collection of payment is likely to be a problem.
Yet I’m apparently correct. Every attempt at passing off the process has failed. Companies are doing exactly what they are told to do. Either fix the process of grants (and hope the companies don’t reject them) or do it internally.
Yes. Based on income. I never denied discrimination. I only pointed out the true fact of what is being discriminated against.
Point to anything that says a company doesn’t upgrade or expand based on race, from the company. Race isn’t the concern. Income is.
No, I refuse to play the game of 10 degrees of separation where everything is about race. Racial walls and barriers are side effects of, not source. Your idea of institutional… is a matter of finding some way to link concerns. Regardless of how far away race is involved in it.
That’s a very different discussion. One I’ve had lengthy discussions about here and elsewhere. Why does a burger at McDonald’s cost $2 and a bottle of water $2.50 in the city and 89c and 75c 400 miles away. I’m passing on this discussion here. It’s huge, we won’t agree, and it’s off topic.
I’m not willing to declare secondary, tertiary, —> results to lack of intent.
Again, rural situation refutes your racial premise.
Is a look at me I’m so looked down up attempt to ignore the reality for some secondary rallying issue.
I guess all those small towns across much of the country with populations under 500 suffer systemic anti white racism?
That’s what it sounds like to anyone rational. If a community isn’t a served it’s because of race. Clearly big tel and big cable are systemically racist against white people. You’re drawing lines that don’t exist. That only connect by chance, not intent.
I am on your side for the cause. Fibre to the door of every citizen. The solution historically to make that happen is proper management in formatting direction and, often, direct government action.
I’ll also return to my common, generally factual, statement. Name a zip code, I’ll show you more than two + broadband choices.
Yes, some doors don’t have immediate access. But it is an option. You may need to pay to drop a new line for a second choice. But the choice is there. How you access the option is a major issue. But the option exists.
In reality close to 95% of the people have 3 choices:
A cable line, cellular, and satellite.
Most cities have two cable options if not three. They do very much overlap.
99% of the population has some form of internet access available.
Even if it isn’t reliable or fast (a different discussion).
We need a federal internet option. We’re going about this the wrong way. And we’re focusing on the wrong reasons and creating non-real concerns in frustration. The solution is simple. It’s less expensive than the current faux attempts. Congress just ignores it.
Re: Re: Re:2
You’re moving the goal posts. The contention is choice (meaning more than one option), specifically for affordable broadband.
You’re just talking about getting a signal on a device somewhere some of the time regardless of bandwidth or latency or cost or consistency of the signal. Your assertion is useless for the actual need that needs to be addressed. Just like with other issues, you’re repeating this pattern of speaking from a position of privilege insisting that there isn’t a problem simply because you don’t see one.
Satellite isn’t affordable broadband, but good on you to finally admit that rural areas aren’t well populated, so bringing them up as a counter to the argument that there are neighborhoods of cities with diverse underserved populations is confirmed to be useless.
First of all, the government speeds for broadband are too low as it is, but even many of the services you’re referring to as options don’t meet that standard, so they don’t qualify as choices. But speed also isn’t the only consideration. Technically with enough money, anyone could run a line from anywhere to anywhere, but we’re talking about affordability for poor people who can’t pay thousands of dollars to put a line in where there isn’t one. We’re talking about people who need the soon-to-be-gone ACP discount just to afford some basic service. You’re pretending everyone is in your tax bracket and neighborhood.
First of all, [citation needed], but we’re talking about people, not property. And again, we’re talking about affordable broadband, not just any IPoAC solution you want to pretend is good enough.
So this is again your admission that the people don’t have those choices. You just refuted your own argument.
That’s a convenient assertion. [citation needed]
Except they don’t actually.
A conclusion you’re only too willing to draw because you can’t conceive being wrong despite it being pointed out multiple times how wrong you often are. You probably shouldn’t trust your perception of your correctness.
Black people are being disproportionately discriminated against because they are poor. It’s not what, it’s who is being discriminated against. You’re pretending that it’s not racism just as long as the motive isn’t n-word spewing overt racism from some skinhead with a KKK membership card and a swastika prison tattoo.
Are you seriously suggesting that a corporation would actually put something like that on paper even if their executives expressly intended it? You won’t trust left leaning journalism, government reports, or NGO non-profit organization reports, but you’ll trust that a company doesn’t racially discriminate as long as they didn’t expressly admit they’re racist on paper? That’s an ocean of water you’re willing to carry for corporations there.
It’s not even one degree of separation. It’s part and parcel, all bundled together. You’re trying to separate out connected issues that are part of a positive feedback loop that exacerbate each other. Poor people of color not having affordable broadband will limit opportunities for them to get a better job, better education, better health care, and other better opportunities to improve their lives, which includes being able to afford more expensive services or move to neighborhoods where . That you think those are different issues is just a product of your privilege and arrogance.
It’s not an issue of cities vs rural areas. It’s about historic and ongoing systemic racism.
No, it doesn’t. You continue to tacitly admit that you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the linked articles.
Did you have a stroke here?
You wouldn’t ask this question if you actually understood what we’re talking about.
You’re definitely not an authority on rational people.
Again, you keep pretending that motive is all that matters or defines racism.
You are just admitting you don’t know what systemic racism is.
Read the goddam articles. And it’s not me. It’s a pattern that has been observed and referenced by a lot of people – none of whom you’ll trust because they disagree with your uninformed, unresearched half-blind gut takes.
https://www.digitalinclusion.org/digital-divide-and-systemic-racism/
How magnanimous of you! Except, again, your assertions are useless. How do you vote?
No, you would name two “choices” that aren’t actually available to everyone in those zip codes. You’ve watered down the criteria being used every time you’ve talked on the issue.
Except the option doesn’t exist for people who can’t afford to drop a new line. You keep offering these useless assertions that aren’t practical. You clearly don’t understand what other people experience. You dismiss issues as nothing because you’ve not experienced them yourself. You always speak from a position of privilege.
Those aren’t all affordable broadband. Cellular data is too expensive per GB even if you can get 25 Mbps and there are wide swaths of under-coverage in many cities. Satellite tends to have high latency, low data caps, and average speeds below federal broadband standards.
Up until about 2 years ago, my urban neighborhood literally only had one cable option and the 2nd option is still not available throughout the neighborhood. It’s only on some main streets. And I live in a fairly tech-rich city.
But that’s what we’re actually talking about! You’re admitting that you’re moving the goal posts to a much more watered down criteria. Read the goddam articles!
Re: Re: Re:3
What is affordable to one is not to another.
Company lines are not going to change the rate even if they did drop lines.
DSL vs satellite is hardly privilege. And I dealt with that for many years. But it’s still a choice. Another option, choice, I had was to pay a few thousand dollars to have a line dropped from my door to the post.
No? Just checking here, I see 3 companies with 25-50Mb service for under $60. Sounds like standard rate for internet access, and qualifies as broadband.
You have quite the idea of my position. With no evidence. I wish I for your idea.
https://www.highspeedinternet.com
Enter it yourself.
And if you want lower price you need to look at government options, local, state, or federal. Competition doesn’t lower prices for internet. Even in locations with the addition of “community” internet the corporate pricing remains the same.
You added the whole apartment discussion after the fact. Because it’s provable the property has three or more choices. This is an entirely separate discussion regarding owner vs renter rights.
Name a zip code…! The how and why are separate from available.
Stop pretending there isn’t access, because there is.
Fight back with truth. The problem is cost. It’s quite clear the internet providers aren’t going to lower cost. That’s where government internet comes in.
Poor people. Poor blacks and Hispanics in cities. Poor natives. Poor white people in rural localities. The poor.
From here you go on a rant about systemic racism. What little of it actually exists, if any, is entirely the creation of city Democrat policy in urban settings. An intentional series of actions that, rather than solve problems, simply create situations where they can point the finger and say their fault, not mine.
And that’s the real issue. We can discuss the issues inherent in capitalism and the lack of a social platform in this country.
But taxing items and raising company costs makes everything more expensive for the consumer.
You miss the point because your lost in partisanship.
There’s a reason $50k an is just about luxury in the majority of the country. But still poverty in action in most rural locales.
Dropping a line should be the government’s first action. That’s exactly the principle issue.
The method of funding is flawed. The government says drop a line and the company chooses where.
The government must either say where to drop a line, or send their own contractors to do so. First problem (immediate access) solved.
“Cellular data is too expensive per GB…25 Mbps and… satellite…”
I’ve had satellite service for many years before switching back to a land line. Back when my choice was DSL or satellite. Or expensive fibre drop.
25Mb is enough for two 1080p streams and internet browsing.
And: Now that we have reliable 5G we may kill the cable subscription.
Internet companies don’t drop their prices, even where community or governmental access is currently available. Eg Tennessee.
Government internet solves the price issue for the poor.
Oh:
Generally a mix of both main parties, third party, and independent. I vote by the policies of the person, not the party they belong to. Whoever has the stronger policy that is more beneficial to us.
Re: Re: Re:4
That’s what the ACP was for before the conservatives killed it.
It’s not a choice if you can’t afford it. It’s also not broadband, which, again, is what we’re talking about, which doesn’t include DSL or satellite.
That’s not the average speed, that’s the advertised range. The average is typically less than 25 Mbps. And again, satellite tends to have high latency and data caps, which means either you get cut off or you pay more for more service, which means what’s affordable at its least usage is unaffordable at greater usage.
It’s actually worse if you aren’t as privileged as you are arrogantly oblivious to the problems of others because that means you’re oblivious to your own problems while dismissing those of others.
The two broadband options in my zip code are xfinity and a fiber company that won’t give me service because they haven’t installed a line down to my part of the street. I can’t even pay to have a line installed from the fiber company because it’s on the public part of the street that they haven’t installed yet. The two satellite entries aren’t broadband and user ratings report significantly lower speeds than advertised. So only one broadband option for me.
My in-laws outside a moderate-sized city have the fiber they paid several thousands of dollars to drop. The only other option is a DSL company with only 27% coverage of their zip code. Their previous satellite service was not broadband and had data caps that stopped them from streaming shows.
So yeah, your assertion is, as I already said, wrong.
Is it impossible for you to not move the goalposts? We’re literally talking about what is currently available. If a government option isn’t available, it’s not relevant to your assertions about what is currently available. You attempt to squirm out from every instance in which you’re proven wrong because you just can’t accept you might not know what you’re talking about.
It’s always been a part of the issue. It’s referenced in articles that have been referenced (which again shows that you aren’t reading the articles, but are purporting to understand the topic they’re addressing).
You kept referencing this “name a zip code” idea and when you finally tried to back it up, you provided a website that doesn’t actually show that every zip code has affordable broadband. It’s just more of your generalization. I entered multiple zip codes and none of them said any of the services were 100% available for the entire zip code. So by your own claim, you’re wrong. But your claim was the wrong claim to make anyway because we’re not talking about hypothetical access. We’re talking about actual access for poor people to affordable broadband, which you would know if you read the goddam articles.
If it costs too much, it isn’t access! Why can you not understand that? A family living under the poverty line cannot afford to drop a line for a few thousand dollars. That is not a practical solution. They don’t even have the credit rating to be able to get a loan to drop the line, even if that were an economically feasible step to take.
The ACP lowered the cost. It should have paid for municipal broadband, but the big corporations successfully lobbied to provide their service at a discount to the customers with government subsidy. But the fact that you said that cost is the problem immediately after you said there is access just, again, shows you don’t understand what you’re talking about. If there’s too much cost, there isn’t access in a useful or practical sense. You’re contradicting your own assertions in immediately the next sentence.
And which demographics are disproportionately poor in the more populous underserved neighborhoods due to historic and systemic racism?
Except some people are poor because of historic and systemic racism, so to discriminate against the poor is to disadvantage a disproportionate number of people from that demographic as an ongoing trend that has been happening since Reconstruction.
I was waiting for you to finally come out and admit this. You specifically avoided it despite how many times I brought it up. This is why we’re not on the same side because you think symptoms can be addressed without solving the underlying problems that you fail to see or pretend don’t exist. I’m guessing this is all rooted in that messed up individualism you assert regarding moral responsibility. You’ve been mainlining a just world fallacy.
It’s not partisanship. I’m not a Democrat. That you think someone who rants against conservative or corporate greed or systemic racism must be a Democrat speaks about your falsely dichotomous perspective and says nothing about me.
What the hell do you think this article is about?
What the hell do you think this article is about?
Again, we’re talking about affordable broadband.
What position did the person you voted for take on the ACP?
Re: Re: Re:5
From my understanding there was a lot of issues with that. Especially in distribution.
ADSL is 24Mb which is what the federal rate is claimed on.
High enough for 4 simultaneous 1080p streams and browsing.
I thought the whole premise was there’s not gigabit service on your block for 9.99 so you want the government to break up corporations.
My response was there IS usable service in your area. If you want better service then the government needs to provide that itself.
It’s a widely proven fact that cable companies aren’t going to run lines to certain areas where the cost of the network exceeds the return from low income customers on their own. Be that a farm community in Dakota or a subsection of a LA.
The government needs to be more precise or do it themselves.
Nobody I voted for in the last 3 years is in federal office. From any party.
I also don’t think the ACP was even remotely a solution. I support a federal internet.
A connection to every property.
One that coexists side by side with other private options.
It works in many countries around the world.
The underlying problem? Companies are not charities? The federal government can’t write half-way decent legislation? The taxation—inflation circle? Large city government mismanagement?
Re: Re: Re:6
It’s 25 Mbps and that ADSL speed is the advertised “up to” 24 Mbps speed, not a guaranteed consistent speed. And, again, the 25 Mbps standard is old and obsolete, and FCC officials and elected officials have said so for years.
You’re still trying to argue that the advertised bare minimum should be enough for everyone while you ignore all the evidence that not everyone has that access or can afford it.
Holy straw man, Batman! First of all, none of this is about me. I am able to afford decent service despite limited options. Do you think people are all so egocentric that they only ever express concern for issues that affect them? That might say so much about you then. And I didn’t say anything about breaking up corporations, so that non sequitur came out of nowhere. So not only do you not read the articles you respond to, but you don’t even read the comments you respond to even when you “respond” to them line by line. That’s a lot of effort just to be so lazy at the same time.
And that’s not what the goddam article is about! I only mentioned my own scenario because it instantly disproves your absolute claims that virtually everyone in America has multiple options for affordable broadband. It’s not about usable. It’s about affordable broadband for poor people. Read the goddam article.
The article: “Poor people are starving from lack of affordable food.”
You: “There’s a restaurant in every town in America, therefore they can’t be starving!”
Except the government was specifically paying them to do so in order to subsidize those costs, which you would know if you did any research. The post of this article is to point out that LA is just trying to slightly more to get the companies to actually follow through on their promises.
You keep saying this as if it absolves you from completely misunderstanding everything else about the issue and dismissing real issues because you think your gut reaction ignorance is more knowledgeable than the advocates who deal with the issue daily.
It was a bad compromise, but it was actually helping many people, so it going away is bad in the absence of a better solution. You keep touting solutions that don’t have enough support as if wishful thinking is useful. It’s actually less than useful because you get to feel proud of yourself for thinking you know best while dismissing real issues that other people are experiencing. If the Titanic were sinking, you’d be standing on the stern commenting that you’re higher up in the air so it must not be sinking.
I was referring to your admission that you’re a “color blind” person who pretends that systemic racism isn’t a real thing that still affects people. “It was invented by Democrats!” Except it’s been an academic concept since before the parties switched.
Re: Re: Re:7
We’re going in circles now.
Let’s knock your premise on me out first. No, I don’t believe there is any sort of large scale systemic racism. Every time someone cry’s out about race there are other, more real, concerns. If it exists, it’s a symptom, not the cause. The article quickly inserted a racial side note into an income issue.
We clearly will never agree here so let’s bypass it for now.
My point at the start is this is wasted legislation that will change nothing. It’s entirely unenforceable. The state government is not going to be able to force a private company to put lines where it doesn’t want to.
Now let’s take a Quick Look at what is a right and need vs luxury.
No, it’s not. Not from a basic necessity standpoint. It’s more than enough to do everything advocates say is part of the need that makes it a right. You can access government services. You can access news content. You can access streaming broadcast. You can order items from web stores. It covers the needs aspect.
I agree that it’s very low, and too low to be the standard for new service. But I won’t pretend that it’s not good enough to plug into until someone does something about the patchwork of infrastructure in this country.
I know; you just make for a good example.
There are multiple issues in this category and most coverage cherry picks different problems to make a false picture.
First, again, I’m absolutely correct. There isn’t a city in the continental US that doesn’t have at least two options at every property. You may not like the options, but they exist.
Even if you have only one single cable line you still have satellite. Latency isn’t an issue unless you’re playing games or doing video conferencing. Yes, it’s a problem. But it’s not an access problem. It’s a quality of service issue.
The article is about performative legislation that can’t be enforced and changes nothing. Se top note.
That’s the problem. This legislation won’t change that what this will likely do is stop expansion all together.
It may see an occasional street crossed somewhere poor for a new rich cookie cutter village to also be added. But by and large there is no way this will change the current mess.
It’s pointless policy. The government hands out money with very little in the way of implementation set in the policy.
The support would be there with a different approach.
The problem with the right is not being against social services. It’s about being against taxing to get them.
Redirecting spending could quickly get agreement on many social concerns. Republicans (and many Americans) aren’t fond of ever rising taxes. Over 100 billion went to Ukraine. That could have rolled our fibre to every door in the country.
•paying them to do so in order to subsidize… is exactly the problem. It has not world in over 100 years!
ACP is just one example. The ACA is yet another, better example. Even before the republicans gutted it. It was bad legislation. It leaves companies in control of a social construct. You can’t put social service in corporate hands.
There is not one example in our country’s post civil war history where it worked.
Breaking up monopolies also never works. Whatever grand dreams there is in company breaking always results in a worse situation for the population. Just look at Bell as an example of how bad a breakup can go.
The only solution for social projects is to do it at the government level from the legislature to the hole in the ground.
Re: Re: Re:8
You didn’t knock it out. You confirmed it.
So not just denialism, but also minimization. It’s not a concern to you because you’re speaking from a position of privilege. The thing is that there is a lot of evidence that it exists (which I’m guessing you’ve never looked at). How do you attribute the evidence of systemic racism if that isn’t a valid explanation? You’ve previously expressed a just world fallacy perspective where people are resposible for their own lives. Would you suggest black people are disproprtionately poor because of some inherent trait in them that is not shared by other demographics?
You mean you consider other concerns to be more real because you don’t experience the negative effects yourself. This is just an egocentric lack of empathy. So, I guess, thanks for admitting that…?
You’re providing an argument from ignorance. You don’t see it, so it must not exist. I’ve never been to Japan, but there’s evidence it exists. My failure to look at a map or watch a video or examine other evidence doesn’t mean Japan doesn’t exist.
So here you’re claiming to have read the article despite evidence to the contrary. The article linked to other articles. Did you read them? The article established a pattern that you ignored.
No, it’s a central point that is necessary to understand the implications of the situation. And it’s a factor in a lot of different societal issues. Your blindness and denialism of that issue means you’ll never support a real solution because you only see symptoms to treat with bandaids or with your repeated suggestions that aren’t practical in the current political climate.
One more time with feeling: Reading the goddam article! The title says “Los Angeles.” Is Los Angeles the state government? No! It’s the Los Angeles City Council. You can’t even get the most basic facts of the topic correct and yet you go on these long responses pretending your gut reaction is good enough.
You’ve previously diminished the need down to someone being able to get a connection via any protocol at any cost. Your judgment of what’s necessary isn’t informed.
“…the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) already defines an underserved location as one that lacks access to reliable broadband service with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps.”
https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/fcc-hears-objections-100100-mbps-broadband-requirement
Considering you’ve demonstrated that you haven’t actually read any of the linked or referenced articles, I’m not going to give your degree from Dunning-Kruger University any benefit of the doubt.
25/3 might be okay for a single person, but human beings often live in groups called families that involve more than one person. And in the 21st century, technology has progressed such that multiple people will have multiple devices that connect to an internet connection, often via wifi and ethernet. When you mix in data caps and actual speeds being lower than advertised speeds and necessary websites containing more ads and more video heavy content (including content you can’t and don’t want to avoid like online classes containing video tutorials, interactive apps, video conferencing, et al.), “more than enough” becomes “not enough” pretty quickly. It’s literally why several organizations exist to deal with this problem. But I’ll email them and let them know that a rando on the internet has it on the good authority of his ignorance that these problems don’t exist.
This contradicts your position. You’re admitting your position doesn’t make sense.
No, I don’t. I’m not poor. I can afford decent broadband. I’m only a good example of how your irrelevant non claim that every zip code has at least two broadband options is demonstrably false.
Or they’re pointing out that there are many different issues and you’re dismissing all of these different factors that show that access isn’t adequate.
Nobody is absolutely correct, so this claim is laughable on its own without it coming from someone who is frequently demonstrated to be wrong.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE IS TALKING ABOUT!!! How many times do I have to say this? We are talking about affordable broadband for the poor. So we are not talking about satellite or DSL or dialup or IPoAC or semaphore or Morse code over telegraph wire. So at a minimum, 25 Mbps down (which is just the current, but outdated federal standard that should be considered the minimum possible amount of access). And by affordable, we mean affordable to the poor, not affordable to a retiree with a generous pension who can drop a few thousand for a fiber line from down the street. We’re talking about poor people who often don’t own their own residences and can’t make modifications. We’re talking about poor renters whose landlords don’t contract with a broadband service.
Satellite isn’t broadband.
And nobody, especially not poor people, needs to do video conferencing, like, say, attending classes in Zoom or Google Meet during a pandemic. It’s not like healthcare providers (such as mine) are shifting towards more video appointments with doctors in order to alleviate wait times for in person appointments. It’s not like advocacy and human rights organizations ever have video conferencing in order to meet with people who aren’t able to leave the house or aren’t able to travel to a meeting to find out about their options.
Stuff like that never happens.
“Disparities in broadband access were exposed during the pandemic. At the end of 2019, at least 14.5 million individuals in the US still lacked access to fixed broadband internet service of at least 25/3 Mbps. The lack of broadband access has a significant impact on educational attainment, healthcare outcomes, social connection, and economic mobility for those from historically marginalized communities. For instance, with schools closed or operating on a limited basis, millions of students in low-income households and rural communities did not have internet service. This prevented them from participating in virtual classes, completing assignments, and keeping up with their classmates. ”
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/cedc-digital-empowerment-inclusion-wg-broadband-access-report-06152023.pdf
Not only is it an access problem, because some people don’t have access at all, but having insufficient access for a particular modality is functionally the same as no access. Have you ever tried to attend a Zoom session with a bad connection? It’s useless. You can’t understand people and you can’t be understood and therefore can’t participate.
You don’t even know what the article is about. You think it’s the state government passing legislation.
The article literally says “the rules don’t technically exist yet” so you’re drawing a conclusion without even knowing anything about them, which, to be fair, seems to be your entire modus operandi.
This doesn’t make any sense. You’re proposing that rules you aren’t aware of because they don’t exist yet may do something you don’t know they might even attempt to do. You’re just making shit up here.
What’s the policy? What does it say? It doesn’t exist yet! You didn’t even know that because you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the article!
That doesn’t change the scenario. You’re claiming that the government can’t do X. I point out that the government did in fact do X. And then you say, “well, X isn’t useful anyway,” as if it doesn’t matter that you didn’t even understand that the government was in fact doing X!
Another useless pivot. “In my fantasy world, if people did everything I suggest, everything would be great!”
A lot of conservatives explicitly say that they would rather forgo social services if it meant “underserving” people won’t receive them also. They also suggest private charities do all the social work, which means religious organizations that will discriminate against LGBTQ people will be the ones deciding who gets fed or gets shelter based on their biases and prejudices rather than just a social program that can serve everyone. Private services aren’t social services. Also, I’ve talked to a number of poor conservatives who would benefit from social services who think they’d be poorer instead of receiving better benefits. I’ve talked to (and am related to) conservatives who accept the benefits of social services because they “deserve” them, but think other people are cheating the system by qualifying.
I’m fine with taxes. I disagree with how some of them are spent, such as unjust wars or corporate welfare, but taxes are necessary to keep society functioning and to act as a foil to corporate greed and privatization that leads to greater wealth and income disparity and quality of life disparity.
Conservatives regularly oppose municipal broadband and states dominated by conservative legislators have even sought to ban it when cities and counties have tried to implement it. You’re pretending if we just didn’t send money to X that conservatives would be fine with sending money to Y. Unless Y is making themselves and their campaign donors wealthier, they won’t be in favor of it. This goes for a lot of “centrist” and corporate Democrats.
Also, I oppose war, but I also oppose letting imperialist dictators commit genocide.
It was bad legislation (especially since it was conceived by a conservative think tank that wanted to make the corporations wealthier), but it still had good effects. It’s fine to get rid of it…if you replace it with something better. But just killing it off causes problems. The ACA did give some healthcare to people who previously didn’t have healthcare the same way the ACP got some people affordable internet access that they didn’t have before. You don’t drive the car off a cliff just because you got a flat tire. You fix what’s wrong instead.
You bring this up against as if it was relevant or I had suggested it.
Re: Re: Re:9 Intriguing
I’ll say this right off: thank you.
You’re clearly well read on the topic. And you force me to consider my stance. You stand firm and back up your ideas and thoughts rather than run and hide when confronted… as many others here do.
Again, ultimately, I don’t see any form of the current methods or past methods of recent attempt as working out. You can’t pay a company to do something you want, that they don’t, unless you’re extremely specific.
Ultimately the attempts have all failed.
The left lean reaction is bad company. But I point out poor legislative effort caused the giant holes the companies slid into.
And the idea of monopoly is absolutely relevant here. The whole story (in general, not this article) is big bad regional monopolies. And my response to that above is
There are no regional monopolies
No attempt at monopoly busting has EVER served the greater good.
Electric, pharma, insurance, banking, water, telephone, software, … … big cable here.
I’ve seen first had what happens when you attempt to force a company to put this line there and completely pay them off for it.
They stop expanding, completely.
The bell breakup raised phone prices. The long distance mess and exchange fee trading creates two mega companies and the MCI crime syndicate…?
Electric is still a disaster, and the government started out right before it got lazy and sold off its control.
Don’t even get me started on Bell Labs and Microsoft and, today, Apple. Bullshite. Bloody bull!
I also take some, some, stock in your general idea of SR but come to it a very different way. Where you see it as white vs black,
I see it as white stupidity in reaction to no-longer existing issues by creating poverty bubbles in tax loops.
I knocked it out of the discussion. You may not have been to Japan. But I have. And many other places. Whatever you think is going on in this country is nothing like elsewhere in the world.
What ever lingering ‘SR’ there is is a byproduct of localised mismanagement
I stand firm. We will forever disagree. The discrimination in internet reach is against income level, not race. Period.
Say you’re ignorant? I had 50/2 for almost a decade. Family has 75/25 and 50/10 today. And a Quick Look at LA shows the 3 services start at 24/3 and cap at 100/30
I took classes via TC when the max average bandwidth was around 100 nation wide. Using a 20Mb DSL line.
In higher study, on satellite.
Unless they were trying to do some sort of horror film 50 people on screen sort of thing, latency is not an issue.
“healthcare providers” isn’t required
“organizations” wouldn’t know.
Moving the goal posts? I like that term. Especially when the likely future of high speed is wireless. 5Gmw. Which, surprisingly, the government could fund to every door for half the cost of fibre?
Nice to see you finally acknowledge the income (as opposed to race) gap.
San Andreas IS California, as those outside the west coast cities have no power in a vote.
•you’re drawing a conclusion
Based on history.
California, LA, isn’t the first to try stuff like this. They’re just the first to get coverage here.
When Dupage county in Illinois passed legislation of the like a decade ago WOW simply stopped their eastward expansion.
I state the fact that the government has not funded a national broadband. That they have not contracted their own service roll out. They have not built infrastructure.
“Another useless pivot” not at all. It’s again a historical fact. Legislation paid for by taxes fails republican support. When paid for by spending cuts the same legislation passes bipartisan.
The problem with taxes is that they are rarely spent where they are intended. And they are raised where spending cuts elsewhere could more than offset the tax.
As do I, and despite the lack of coverage in the US of the us propped up Ukraine, they have been well documented internationally for a long time.
There is no innocent party in either government. There are only millions of victims.
And finally, I saved this to point it out specifically.
Rented properties.
This goes back to my ‘read what you sign’ premise (I read TOS, click licensing, etc).
It’s more than monetary. Maybe it’s speech.
Maybe a property owner refuses to do business with Comcast because of MSNBC, or with AT$T because of OAN?
When you sign a lease, rental, community, housing… agreement…two things happen. First, your choices of services and utility is, in most (sadly not all) states in plain text. In contract or in appendix.
Second, I have neither seen nor heard of any case where a contract did not hold the ability of owner to change services.
Apartments and rental properties are RENTED. Not owned. And there’s two different levels of concern here. Houses, Condos, town homes, multi-units… are. (I’ll skip the outright legalised fraud that is timeshares) Rentals (leases) owned by the owner, not the occupant. Thus you have no rights not enshrined in your contract. Most states, even deep blue states, tend to side by that.
Association bylaws tend to have less overall standing.
As I said, I have mixed feelings here. My libertarian side says private ownership, privet laws and rules.
My socialist side goes people first
But, the fact remains the property is owned by a party other than the renter.
But the idea of one choice by ownership does not negate choice options, as the renter agreed to lack of choice based on the owner’s selection of multiple I know, but reread the first subsection here. The is an argument in the owner’s right of choice as much as in the renter’s.
Re: Re: Re:8
The FCC disagrees.
“The Commission’s Report, issued pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, raises the Commission’s benchmark for high-speed fixed broadband to download speeds of 100 megabits per second and upload speeds of 20 megabits per second”