Los Angeles Becomes First US City to Outlaw Digital Discrimination(themarkup.org)
themarkup.org
Los Angeles Becomes First US City to Outlaw Digital Discrimination
https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2024/02/01/los-angeles-becomes-first-us-city-to-outlaw-digital-discrimination
102 comments
This is a kludge because we don't have the actual solution to keeping prices low, which is market competition. No one wants the government to tell big companies what to do, but when you let a monopolist take over you're stuck with either consumers getting screwed or burdensome regulation, which are both bad.
Same deal with net neutrality. In a healthy market we'd have it naturally, without laws prescribing it. We don't have a healthy market, so here we are. And there's no greater gift to the monopolists than the position you're taking.
Same deal with net neutrality. In a healthy market we'd have it naturally, without laws prescribing it. We don't have a healthy market, so here we are. And there's no greater gift to the monopolists than the position you're taking.
So the "real" solution is market competition right to make a healthy market- how do we get that? History has repeatedly shown that large corporations hate competition because it means they have to do something to make money. Anyone who comes up with a new idea is just copied or consumed. Sounds to me like the idea that a "free market" is a healthy market is only healthy for the owners of large corporations.
It's a complex topic but a popular answer is requiring the owner of the last-mile infrastructure to make it available to competitors at cost. I think that is (roughly) what places with good/cheap broadband do, e.g. South Korea.
One of the things that causes disparate impact is the fact that as little as 50 years ago, my white parents bought a house in a white neighborhood that my black coworker's parents were prohibited from buying by racist redlining policies.
Today, in 2023, my mother can do WFH consulting in her retirement in part because she can reliably run an HD low-latency video stream, because their neighborhood has fiber and cheap, high-bandwidth service. But my coworker's parents have hugely oversubscribed cable and no fiber options and can't make a video call out because they have negligible upload.
Removing the policy, even all these years later, doesn't change the fact that the policy still has a hugely disparate impact.
The red lines are still there in the exact same places, it's just not on an FHA insurance map denoted by "white" or "not white", it's on a fiber coverage map and says "fiber" or "no fiber".
Today, in 2023, my mother can do WFH consulting in her retirement in part because she can reliably run an HD low-latency video stream, because their neighborhood has fiber and cheap, high-bandwidth service. But my coworker's parents have hugely oversubscribed cable and no fiber options and can't make a video call out because they have negligible upload.
Removing the policy, even all these years later, doesn't change the fact that the policy still has a hugely disparate impact.
The red lines are still there in the exact same places, it's just not on an FHA insurance map denoted by "white" or "not white", it's on a fiber coverage map and says "fiber" or "no fiber".
I do not dispute the past existence of actual race-based discrimination on the part of the government, but it doesn't change my argument. My broader point re: "disparate impact" is that it's virtually impossible, in this country or elsewhere (even in places that have been historically monoethnic), to not have any action, whether public or private, that impacts different subgroups within that population differently.
The FCC's ruling (mentioned in the article) piggybacks off of the disparate impact clauses of the various civil rights legislation[0], which says that even when there is no intent to discriminate, any action taken by any entity that results in a difference of outcome along protected lines (whether it be race, sex, etc.) is considered to be a discriminatory action. Which, upon examination of available evidence, ends up meaning that every action taken by every entity can be considered discriminatory, since nothing in life affects every subgroup of a population in equal proportion to their composition of the population.
But back to the point of internet access: I submit that it's a better solution to remove the impediments (of which there are many, in this highly-regulated sector of the economy) to some enterprising person coming along and rolling out fiber service in your coworker's neighborhood, than to order private businesses to essentially ignore economic realities on the ground. Heck, I would consider a publicly-funded ISP in LA to be a vastly lesser evil, because to routinely ignore economic realities eventually leads to famine and ruin.
As I noted in another thread, you can have the USPS mail a letter for you for the price of one stamp, whether it goes from your house to your neighbor's house or from Florida all the way to Alaska. That's an example of something that explicitly ignores the underlying economic reality (that it costs way, way more to do the latter than the former) because A) the USPS is a government agency that B) has a government-granted monopoly on letters and C) serves the public good. UPS or FedEx, on the other hand, will charge you vastly different sums depending on (among other things) how far your package is going. I find ISPs to be more like UPS and FedEx than USPS. They're for the most part not government agencies and are generally not monopolies[1].
[0]: https://ballotpedia.org/Disparate_impact
[1]: Of course, a duopoly can be as bad as a monopoly in terms of internet access. I'd be in favor of something like a public utility that owns the lines, and have competing providers serve access over those lines.
The FCC's ruling (mentioned in the article) piggybacks off of the disparate impact clauses of the various civil rights legislation[0], which says that even when there is no intent to discriminate, any action taken by any entity that results in a difference of outcome along protected lines (whether it be race, sex, etc.) is considered to be a discriminatory action. Which, upon examination of available evidence, ends up meaning that every action taken by every entity can be considered discriminatory, since nothing in life affects every subgroup of a population in equal proportion to their composition of the population.
But back to the point of internet access: I submit that it's a better solution to remove the impediments (of which there are many, in this highly-regulated sector of the economy) to some enterprising person coming along and rolling out fiber service in your coworker's neighborhood, than to order private businesses to essentially ignore economic realities on the ground. Heck, I would consider a publicly-funded ISP in LA to be a vastly lesser evil, because to routinely ignore economic realities eventually leads to famine and ruin.
As I noted in another thread, you can have the USPS mail a letter for you for the price of one stamp, whether it goes from your house to your neighbor's house or from Florida all the way to Alaska. That's an example of something that explicitly ignores the underlying economic reality (that it costs way, way more to do the latter than the former) because A) the USPS is a government agency that B) has a government-granted monopoly on letters and C) serves the public good. UPS or FedEx, on the other hand, will charge you vastly different sums depending on (among other things) how far your package is going. I find ISPs to be more like UPS and FedEx than USPS. They're for the most part not government agencies and are generally not monopolies[1].
[0]: https://ballotpedia.org/Disparate_impact
[1]: Of course, a duopoly can be as bad as a monopoly in terms of internet access. I'd be in favor of something like a public utility that owns the lines, and have competing providers serve access over those lines.
Yes, the deployment cost will vary if you draw enough lines. But higher charges in poor neighborhoods doesn’t mean that’s where the highest costs are. Wealthy neighborhoods with large property and low density could have a higher per-home infrastructure cost. All that trenching adds up.
LA is drawing one line at the city limit so there’s only one cost. All customers will pay an equal share of the total cost.
This allocation is a matter of perspective but neighborhood boundaries are a classic tool of oppression. Similar to toll roads and bus fares. It costs a lot to be poor.
Famously AT&T was required to offer local service at a loss to maintain their monopoly. This seems consistent.
Society benefits when everyone has access to basic services.
LA is drawing one line at the city limit so there’s only one cost. All customers will pay an equal share of the total cost.
This allocation is a matter of perspective but neighborhood boundaries are a classic tool of oppression. Similar to toll roads and bus fares. It costs a lot to be poor.
Famously AT&T was required to offer local service at a loss to maintain their monopoly. This seems consistent.
Society benefits when everyone has access to basic services.
Municipal broadband is what needs to happen. Water, electricity, and garbage are considered basic services and are provided by the government, so should Internet access be.
That's what we have here.
Fiber is owned by the city, which rents out access to a number of ISPs and communication providers.
They compete on price and product offerings.
Works like a charm.
Fiber is owned by the city, which rents out access to a number of ISPs and communication providers.
They compete on price and product offerings.
Works like a charm.
Why would a company choose to charge less to wealthy people, and more to poor people?
You’d have to ask AT&T. The markup says AT&T is offering slower service for the same price. So if I had to guess they are moving older equipment to neighborhoods with people less likely to have the time or energy to complain.
https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-me...
https://themarkup.org/still-loading/2022/10/19/dollars-to-me...
Because they can.
Wealthy customers are more likely* to balk at a price and demand breaking the ISP monopoly in their area.
* They have the time and means to hire lawyers
Wealthy customers are more likely* to balk at a price and demand breaking the ISP monopoly in their area.
* They have the time and means to hire lawyers
What wealthy customer is going to sue the local ISP over pricing? It's far more likely that garden-variety economic factors are the cause. Imagine: poorer neighborhoods are less profitable (if nothing else, because more people sign up for the lower-priced plans), which means competitors don't want to get in, which means the incumbent has no incentive to lower prices that they might elsewhere.
The plans are the same price. Speeds are slower in poor neighborhoods.
As a presumably technical poster, I have a hard time understanding your comparison between
- the internet, through which most of all civil life and beyond flows
- grocery stores and gas stations.
The internet is a public utility at this point. You’re arguing that poor neighborhoods should pricier or worse water and sewage hah.
- the internet, through which most of all civil life and beyond flows
- grocery stores and gas stations.
The internet is a public utility at this point. You’re arguing that poor neighborhoods should pricier or worse water and sewage hah.
> You’re arguing that poor neighborhoods should pricier or worse water and sewage
Nowhere did I make that claim. I'm simply saying that if a service costs differently to provide in different areas, then it's reasonable to expect different prices paid by the consumer. Of course, you can also make a valid argument that certain kinds of services should cost the same everywhere in the overwhelming interest of public benefit; kind of like how it costs one stamp to send a letter whether it goes from your house to the next house over, or from Florida to Alaska. But it doesn't mean that the former position is automatically unreasonable or discriminatory.
I'm also having a hard time understanding the proposition that internet access is more vital than food and transportation.
Nowhere did I make that claim. I'm simply saying that if a service costs differently to provide in different areas, then it's reasonable to expect different prices paid by the consumer. Of course, you can also make a valid argument that certain kinds of services should cost the same everywhere in the overwhelming interest of public benefit; kind of like how it costs one stamp to send a letter whether it goes from your house to the next house over, or from Florida to Alaska. But it doesn't mean that the former position is automatically unreasonable or discriminatory.
I'm also having a hard time understanding the proposition that internet access is more vital than food and transportation.
If you can’t understand that a public utility can’t be compared to market-based examples like gas stations or grocery stores, then we’re probably at a stalemate.
It doesn’t cost differently to provide water and sewage to poor neighborhoods, at least as far as the consumer is aware and in theory for how it’s supposed to work. On top of that there are ample heating/water/sewage subsidies for those neighborhoods, which further invalidates the internet market cost argument. That is assuming the internet is viewed as a public utility at this point. Which, for anyone using it since 2010 or so, is hard to argue with.
It doesn’t cost differently to provide water and sewage to poor neighborhoods, at least as far as the consumer is aware and in theory for how it’s supposed to work. On top of that there are ample heating/water/sewage subsidies for those neighborhoods, which further invalidates the internet market cost argument. That is assuming the internet is viewed as a public utility at this point. Which, for anyone using it since 2010 or so, is hard to argue with.
> It doesn’t cost differently to provide water and sewage to poor neighborhoods
It costs more to connect neighborhoods which are further away from the town core, or up/down hills (requiring pumping). These may in some circumstances correlate incidentally with poverty, causing a "disparate impact" which nobody set out to deliberately create.
For instance, consider a trailer park that is several miles out of town because that's where land was cheap and where zoning permitted it; running water and sewage service there from the town will very likely be cost prohibitive. Instead, water will probably come from one or more private wells and sewage will be sent to a septic system dug specifically for that neighborhood. This will be done because it is more affordable than hooking up to the town's utilities.
It costs more to connect neighborhoods which are further away from the town core, or up/down hills (requiring pumping). These may in some circumstances correlate incidentally with poverty, causing a "disparate impact" which nobody set out to deliberately create.
For instance, consider a trailer park that is several miles out of town because that's where land was cheap and where zoning permitted it; running water and sewage service there from the town will very likely be cost prohibitive. Instead, water will probably come from one or more private wells and sewage will be sent to a septic system dug specifically for that neighborhood. This will be done because it is more affordable than hooking up to the town's utilities.
You left out the other part of the quote
> at least as far as the consumer is aware and in theory for how it’s supposed to work.
Costs to deliver are one thing, what the consumer ends up paying if they are low income is another. Across the board, controlling for state-by-state variations, poor folks aren’t (supposed to) be paying premiums in cost or quality on their water/heating/sewage. Often, they are subsidized. This law proposes pulling the internet into that basket of approaches. Seems good to me.
> at least as far as the consumer is aware and in theory for how it’s supposed to work.
Costs to deliver are one thing, what the consumer ends up paying if they are low income is another. Across the board, controlling for state-by-state variations, poor folks aren’t (supposed to) be paying premiums in cost or quality on their water/heating/sewage. Often, they are subsidized. This law proposes pulling the internet into that basket of approaches. Seems good to me.
> If you can’t understand that a public utility can’t be compared to market-based examples
Well, you're presupposing that ISPs are public utilities. I've lived in exactly zero places where I had a choice of providers in power, water, or sewer (what I consider to be actual utilities), and I've lived in exactly zero places where I had no choice of "broadband"[0] providers. I understand that there exist places where this is not the case, but exceptions don't unmake the rule.
I just looked up a random house in one of the poorest neighborhoods of LA (South Central), and found that it has access to both Spectrum coaxial service as well as gigabit symmetric fiber provided by AT&T. I promise you I didn't cherry-pick this example.
[0]: Such as it may be.
Well, you're presupposing that ISPs are public utilities. I've lived in exactly zero places where I had a choice of providers in power, water, or sewer (what I consider to be actual utilities), and I've lived in exactly zero places where I had no choice of "broadband"[0] providers. I understand that there exist places where this is not the case, but exceptions don't unmake the rule.
I just looked up a random house in one of the poorest neighborhoods of LA (South Central), and found that it has access to both Spectrum coaxial service as well as gigabit symmetric fiber provided by AT&T. I promise you I didn't cherry-pick this example.
[0]: Such as it may be.
Do you really think the government should be obliged to offer water and sewage service to all neighborhoods, let alone for the same price? The price to hook up will obviously depend on local circumstance and in a sizable minority of cases the price would be so prohibitive that it isn't done at all! 15% of American homes get their water from private wells instead of a utility. Even more use septic systems instead of having a connection to a sewage utility.
> Do you really think the government should be obliged to offer water and sewage service to all neighborhoods, let alone for the same price?
In developed areas, I certainly do.
In developed areas, I certainly do.
I’m unclear how you’re linking private well houses (rural, have the money to drop a well, live off public utilities by choice) to lower income urban-ish neighborhoods. Have you ran into a lot of septic tanks and well houses in urban LA?
Edit - just going to expand this to we’re talking about the consumer costs, not the price to deliver. So, low income consumers within utility systems (ie live in a city like LA) usually have subsidies for every other utility they get - water, heating, gas. It is viewed as inhumane to shut off heating in the winter, for instance. Tech industry and their enablers forced life to run through the internet, but no, that development didn’t turn the internet into a public utility… for sure. That same internet that the US govt by and and large developed and handed over to private sector later. Libertarian market-based technology politics love to forget where the industry came from in the first place, and the role it plays now in people’s lives.
Edit - just going to expand this to we’re talking about the consumer costs, not the price to deliver. So, low income consumers within utility systems (ie live in a city like LA) usually have subsidies for every other utility they get - water, heating, gas. It is viewed as inhumane to shut off heating in the winter, for instance. Tech industry and their enablers forced life to run through the internet, but no, that development didn’t turn the internet into a public utility… for sure. That same internet that the US govt by and and large developed and handed over to private sector later. Libertarian market-based technology politics love to forget where the industry came from in the first place, and the role it plays now in people’s lives.
There are poor neighborhoods in rural areas; these cannot receive utilities at the same price a offered to neighborhoods in more ideal locations. The price of a utility hookup doesn't depend on how wealthy you are, but can nevertheless vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and in some cases poor neighborhoods will be more expensive to serve than some wealthy neighborhoods. This isn't normally considered some sort of great injustice, it's just practical reality.
Yup, I live rural, used to live urban. And regardless of cost to deliver, low income rural utilities gets subsidized in some form when it hits the consumer. Which is what this law in LA seems to be proposing.
> You’re arguing that poor neighborhoods should pricier or worse water and sewage hah.
I'm certain there's plenty of people here would agree with that.
I'm certain there's plenty of people here would agree with that.
I think that’s the root issue, yes.
To assume that those who disagree with you is doing so on the basis of wanting to inflict pain on lower-income people is both intellectually lazy as well as in violation of the HN guidelines, which ask you[0] to follow the principle of charity.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Nowhere did anyone say wanting to inflict pain. Justifying higher prices was what you were doing, what OP noted, and what I agree with as a trend.
I'm not justifying higher prices; I'm justifying different prices. There seemed to be an implication that some people wanted higher prices in poorer neighborhoods just to stick it to the poor in wording like this:
> You’re arguing that poor neighborhoods should pricier or worse water and sewage hah.
I apologize if I read into something that wasn't there. To clarify, I won't be upset if some poor neighborhoods happen to pay less for internet service than wealthy neighborhoods, either. And I fully understand your argument made elsewhere that you consider internet access to be a public utility that should be equally priced within the area, much like power or water.
> You’re arguing that poor neighborhoods should pricier or worse water and sewage hah.
I apologize if I read into something that wasn't there. To clarify, I won't be upset if some poor neighborhoods happen to pay less for internet service than wealthy neighborhoods, either. And I fully understand your argument made elsewhere that you consider internet access to be a public utility that should be equally priced within the area, much like power or water.
[deleted]
It doesn’t matter what it costs. The internet is so fundamental to daily life that it should be considered a basic right. Access should be provided for free to everyone.
> It doesn’t matter what it costs
Everything has diminishing returns. Of course it matters what it costs, no matter what "it" is.
> it should be considered a basic right
Many people disagree that positive rights (that require something to be provided to the right-bearer by the state at the expense of others) are on the same level as negative rights (that forbid the state from imposing some restriction or penalty on the right-bearer), or should indeed even be considered "rights".
Everything has diminishing returns. Of course it matters what it costs, no matter what "it" is.
> it should be considered a basic right
Many people disagree that positive rights (that require something to be provided to the right-bearer by the state at the expense of others) are on the same level as negative rights (that forbid the state from imposing some restriction or penalty on the right-bearer), or should indeed even be considered "rights".
Not sure on the free part but yes, it’s a public utility no matter how tech hems and haws- good luck navigating civil life without a smart phone, for instance.
And on top of that originally developed by the govt, then handed over private sector, and then 20 yrs of effort forced everyone to run their lives through it. But definitely not like a utility, at all.
The audacity to treat it like a market good vs as a public utility astounds me.
And on top of that originally developed by the govt, then handed over private sector, and then 20 yrs of effort forced everyone to run their lives through it. But definitely not like a utility, at all.
The audacity to treat it like a market good vs as a public utility astounds me.
It is cheaper to make laws like this than to actually help poor people by giving them cash or services, which would cause an increase in taxes.
You can lay more of the burden on the upper middle and middle income deciles (since the costs are spread implicitly via costs to comply with regulation and liability avoidance), and avoid taxing the top percentiles, which really would require a broad wealth (or property) tax. Or alternatively, much higher land value taxes which hit the top percentiles too.
You can lay more of the burden on the upper middle and middle income deciles (since the costs are spread implicitly via costs to comply with regulation and liability avoidance), and avoid taxing the top percentiles, which really would require a broad wealth (or property) tax. Or alternatively, much higher land value taxes which hit the top percentiles too.
> You can lay more of the burden on the upper middle and middle income deciles
This seems like it just means everyone will pay whatever the highest cost for anyone is. Doesn't seem like it burden's the middle more than anyone else.
This seems like it just means everyone will pay whatever the highest cost for anyone is. Doesn't seem like it burden's the middle more than anyone else.
The argument is that the cost of dealing with this legislation will result in the cost of internet service going up slightly, e.g. $10/month. This is irrelevant to the wealthy but impacts the lower classes more.
It can’t go up an equal amount for everyone because it has to end up equal and it currently isn’t. Since poor neighborhoods already pay more for less they will either get better service for the current price or pay less for existing service.
The subsidy is a tax, in the form of higher prices. A flat tax is a regressive tax. Lower income/wealth deciles pay proportionately more towards the subsidy than upper income/wealth deciles.
This is always the intent when government does not explicitly provide a taxpayer subsidy, because the cash cannot come from the government, otherwise the government’s finances will reflect the higher cash outlay, necessitating higher tax revenue, which could end up with higher tax rates for richer people.
This is always the intent when government does not explicitly provide a taxpayer subsidy, because the cash cannot come from the government, otherwise the government’s finances will reflect the higher cash outlay, necessitating higher tax revenue, which could end up with higher tax rates for richer people.
Cash and services just helps the symptoms though. Addressing the root cause involves educating the poor somehow so that they have the skills to be more financially self reliant and the ability to avoid traps (lottery, debt, etc).
Being poor (long term, i.e. across generations) actually has little to do with how much money is currently in your bank account and everything to do with how much knowledge is in your mind. That's why you could take a highly paid [insert profession], take every penny and possession of theirs and dump them on the street penniless and homeless, and they wouldn't stay poor for very long if they didn't want to.
Being poor (long term, i.e. across generations) actually has little to do with how much money is currently in your bank account and everything to do with how much knowledge is in your mind. That's why you could take a highly paid [insert profession], take every penny and possession of theirs and dump them on the street penniless and homeless, and they wouldn't stay poor for very long if they didn't want to.
What?! Being poor has nothing to do with not having skills. Plenty of people have skills they can't even use either because they get outcompeted or there just aren't any opportunities they can access. Not everyone can just magically skill themselves out of poverty.
I disagree. When I look at chronic poverty, a very common, almost guaranteed symptom is lack of skills/education (dropped out of high school, etc). I'm not saying there aren't highly skilled poor people (i.e. starving artists) just that it's more the exception than the rule.
> almost guaranteed symptom is lack of skills/education (dropped out of high school, etc)
This was addressed in my comment by “services”.
> help poor people by giving them cash or services,
Also, it takes generations for broken families to learn the habits and build relationships of successful families. And it only takes 1 generation to break a successful family.
This was addressed in my comment by “services”.
> help poor people by giving them cash or services,
Also, it takes generations for broken families to learn the habits and build relationships of successful families. And it only takes 1 generation to break a successful family.
We actually have (some) evidence, in that lottery winners are usually "poorish" and apparently go bankrupt pretty frequently.
However that doesn't mean we can't help even them, by normalizing certain levels of various things no matter what the wealth. The main issue is tragedy of the commons style issues, like free bathrooms in SF being destroyed or otherwise used improperly, driving costs too high to continue.
However that doesn't mean we can't help even them, by normalizing certain levels of various things no matter what the wealth. The main issue is tragedy of the commons style issues, like free bathrooms in SF being destroyed or otherwise used improperly, driving costs too high to continue.
> tragedy of the commons style issues, like free bathrooms in SF being destroyed or otherwise used improperly
This is only incidentally tragedy of the commons, which refers to publicly-accessible things that if individual actors rationally maximized their own utility would become depleted. Smearing excrement over a public bathroom is not rational utility; it's a crime whose perpetrators should be disincentivized from doing so.
This is only incidentally tragedy of the commons, which refers to publicly-accessible things that if individual actors rationally maximized their own utility would become depleted. Smearing excrement over a public bathroom is not rational utility; it's a crime whose perpetrators should be disincentivized from doing so.
True, but even without "violent vandalism" you still can have a "not taking care" of common areas that leads them to be run-down and unclean, without direct crimes (unless you start making things like littering strongly punished)
Look, my family's in a situation where the living prices are sucking us dry and nearly putting us in debt, all the jobs around here have so many candidates to pick from that we can't get any roles, and because we have no savings we can't afford to move. Maybe what you say can be true for some, but it's hard to survive here if you weren't already born into a privileged position.
I finally happen to be in interviews for a potential remote position now, but it took years to get here, it was not easy, and staying in high school for longer would not have helped.
Now, I'm still lucky to have access to computers. Try telling someone without that kind of access to just find a remote job if there are no local jobs in their area. All the education and skill in the world still might not help them if they don't have access to employment opportunities at all.
I finally happen to be in interviews for a potential remote position now, but it took years to get here, it was not easy, and staying in high school for longer would not have helped.
Now, I'm still lucky to have access to computers. Try telling someone without that kind of access to just find a remote job if there are no local jobs in their area. All the education and skill in the world still might not help them if they don't have access to employment opportunities at all.
In your case then perhaps a cash infusion is what is needed to help. Based on my observations of poverty in the Washington DC/Baltimore regions though, in my opinion cash infusions alone would not be the most effective option for combating poverty in the majority of cases.
I think I agree. While I'm still not sure if a majority of poverty is a result of lack of skill/education, I do at least very much agree that if you take a random impoverished household and give them a bunch of cash, there's a decent enough chance that they won't know how to make good use of it. In other words, they'll blow it all without managing to significantly improve their situation.
I also, however, wonder if maybe government assistance should be available to people who can lay out a clear financial plan, so that at least the households that could make use of that money can have it available to them.
That probably could have saved us much earlier - we can afford to do the research on where we can go in order to stretch our money further (to have an acceptable standard of living, but at a less extortionary price), but we'd need a cash injection in order to make it there. Once there, though, our existing rate of income might finally have been able to break even, even if we don't manage to immediately find new jobs.
Of course, if I manage to get my upcoming job, that'll save us too. It'll multiply the family income by, what, almost 6 times?
I also, however, wonder if maybe government assistance should be available to people who can lay out a clear financial plan, so that at least the households that could make use of that money can have it available to them.
That probably could have saved us much earlier - we can afford to do the research on where we can go in order to stretch our money further (to have an acceptable standard of living, but at a less extortionary price), but we'd need a cash injection in order to make it there. Once there, though, our existing rate of income might finally have been able to break even, even if we don't manage to immediately find new jobs.
Of course, if I manage to get my upcoming job, that'll save us too. It'll multiply the family income by, what, almost 6 times?
I'm guessing the reasoning for offering worse service is not because the ISP's are actually mustache twirling racists, but because there are economic factors that make it more profitable to do so. Anyone know what those might be?
It gets lost in the culture wars, but as I understand it, the whole point of the concept of “structural racism” was that mustache-twirling racists aren’t required for modern laws and policies to have a targeted, negative effect on specific minorities. A legacy of historical racism can set the stage for the intended effects to metastasize and remain as generational problems.
Okay - but why do ISPs need to fix racism and not everyone else like grocery stores and gas stations?
Should Erewhon be forced to operate equally in neighborhoods of different diversity - even if they clearly appeal to a certain type of customer?
Why should ISPs invest evenly / charge evenly if it doesn't make sense for them?
The funny thing about good business people is - they're usually more interested in making money than being racist (obviously there are exceptions).
Should Erewhon be forced to operate equally in neighborhoods of different diversity - even if they clearly appeal to a certain type of customer?
Why should ISPs invest evenly / charge evenly if it doesn't make sense for them?
The funny thing about good business people is - they're usually more interested in making money than being racist (obviously there are exceptions).
ISPs are some of the biggest monopolists in the US market and bribe and lean on politicians to keep out competitors. Relative to other industries, they thus lean on the infrastructural status quo (and all the inequity baked into that) to make the most money at the lowest cost to themselves, so your argument doesn’t really track.
LA is one of the very few non-monopolistic ISP markets in the US.
That’s laughable. I can get one bad broadband provider, one incredibly low-speed DSL provider, or bad coverage, data capped 5G service in my neighborhood in LA. Fiber isn’t available at all and when I asked if they had any intent to expand coverage to where I live they straight-up said “no.”
That's better options than 90% of the US.
Most places you have one option, and that is it.
Most places you have one option, and that is it.
I only have one option (shitty broadband) that allows me to do my job as a developer in America’s second largest city, so no, not really.
Having a reliable, fast internet connection is (almost) as critical for modern life as electrical service.
IMO, it falls into the same bucket as other utilities - water, power, etc an should be heavily regulated to ensure adequate and reasonably priced access.
IMO, it falls into the same bucket as other utilities - water, power, etc an should be heavily regulated to ensure adequate and reasonably priced access.
Honestly it should just be something run by local governments or non-profit utilities.
This isn't a typical consumer product you buy at the store where I'm worried that the government will be bad at responding to consumer tastes, what consumers what out of their internet access is extremely simple: fast and reliable internet, that's basically it. It's not something where's a lot of questions of exactly how and where to advance things and give different offerings, like a smartphone or brand of yogurt or whatever.
This isn't a typical consumer product you buy at the store where I'm worried that the government will be bad at responding to consumer tastes, what consumers what out of their internet access is extremely simple: fast and reliable internet, that's basically it. It's not something where's a lot of questions of exactly how and where to advance things and give different offerings, like a smartphone or brand of yogurt or whatever.
You say that it's simple, but it's not like electricity where you can just measure it and see if it's the right voltage and frequency throughout the day.
How many and which upstreams to connect to makes a big difference. What technology is used for the last mile access network makes a big difference. Who to peer with and who to let run CDN appliances in the network makes a big difference. Oversubscription ratios in various parts of the network make a big difference. Address policies make a big difference.
Now, if the municipality wants to run last mile and hand it off to whatever ISPs want to take it in some central locations? That makes the municipal job simpler: they just need to measure quality on their network, and anything that happens after the handoff to the ISP is not their problem. But that's a more complex product for users than a single provider to blame for everything.
How many and which upstreams to connect to makes a big difference. What technology is used for the last mile access network makes a big difference. Who to peer with and who to let run CDN appliances in the network makes a big difference. Oversubscription ratios in various parts of the network make a big difference. Address policies make a big difference.
Now, if the municipality wants to run last mile and hand it off to whatever ISPs want to take it in some central locations? That makes the municipal job simpler: they just need to measure quality on their network, and anything that happens after the handoff to the ISP is not their problem. But that's a more complex product for users than a single provider to blame for everything.
> the whole point of the concept of “structural racism” was that mustache-twirling racists aren’t required for modern laws and policies to have a targeted, negative effect on specific minorities
You cannot have a targeted negative effect without mustache-twirling racists; what you have instead is an incidental negative effect. I discussed this elsewhere in the thread, but the "disparate impact" clauses of various civil rights legislation attempt to deal with precisely this -- cases when in the absence of any intent to discriminate along protected lines, nevertheless an outcome arises that impact those protected groups differently.
I posit that this part of civil rights legislation is fundamentally flawed, because it is basically not impossible that any policy or action, public or private, impacts all subgroups of a population in equal measure. Make a law regulating taxis? There's a disparate impact on men, who are 85% of all cab drivers. NFL negotiates player pay? There's a disparate impact on black people, who comprise over half of the players. Covid policies close ski resorts in Colorado? There's a disparate impact on white people, who are the overwhelming majority of both people who work at ski resorts as well as those who visit. In none of those cases is there an intent to cause protected groups to be affected differently, but they are.
You cannot have a targeted negative effect without mustache-twirling racists; what you have instead is an incidental negative effect. I discussed this elsewhere in the thread, but the "disparate impact" clauses of various civil rights legislation attempt to deal with precisely this -- cases when in the absence of any intent to discriminate along protected lines, nevertheless an outcome arises that impact those protected groups differently.
I posit that this part of civil rights legislation is fundamentally flawed, because it is basically not impossible that any policy or action, public or private, impacts all subgroups of a population in equal measure. Make a law regulating taxis? There's a disparate impact on men, who are 85% of all cab drivers. NFL negotiates player pay? There's a disparate impact on black people, who comprise over half of the players. Covid policies close ski resorts in Colorado? There's a disparate impact on white people, who are the overwhelming majority of both people who work at ski resorts as well as those who visit. In none of those cases is there an intent to cause protected groups to be affected differently, but they are.
I was thinking about this too. Could it be these neighborhoods have older infrarstructure with slower speeds and when companies price products its standardized on pricing across a region based on tiering and not the actual throughput? Like Tier 1 in new infrarstructure is faster than Tier 1 on old infrarstructure. Along those lines, maybe it just costs the same amount to support an old DSL connection as it does to support a modern fiber/cable hookup?
I don't have an answer to the problem but I am not sure forcing pricing standards is the answer. Seems like it would be better to just handle it locally and build city owned internet as well.
I don't have an answer to the problem but I am not sure forcing pricing standards is the answer. Seems like it would be better to just handle it locally and build city owned internet as well.
Basically, the providers don’t want to build new infrastructure where they may not recoup their costs.
From the original report:
“They’ve made a decision that those neighborhoods are going to be treated differently,” said Callahan. “The core reason for that is they think they don’t have enough money in those neighborhoods to sustain the kind of market they want.”
From the original report:
“They’ve made a decision that those neighborhoods are going to be treated differently,” said Callahan. “The core reason for that is they think they don’t have enough money in those neighborhoods to sustain the kind of market they want.”
Why is why the correct solution here is wired fiber internet being a taxpayer funded utility.
But as I mentioned in another comment, this might manifest in higher taxes for the top percentiles, whereas a policy of requiring the business to help the poor allows the burden of the subsidy to be paid by the middle income deciles via higher prices for the business’s services.
But as I mentioned in another comment, this might manifest in higher taxes for the top percentiles, whereas a policy of requiring the business to help the poor allows the burden of the subsidy to be paid by the middle income deciles via higher prices for the business’s services.
The city of Los Angeles has a perhaps surprising, non-compact boundary [1], and the local conditions vary significantly.
Some areas are served by underground utilities which means change is much more expensive. For AT&T which is called out specifically, there's a lot of different access technologies, and wireline distance and quality and quantity of lines is a major factor in service quality. There's a lot of older neighborhoods in the area, which have had increased density over time and may not have enough good wiring in the street / on the poles to offer dual pair services. Running new wires or fiber is expensive, and is only economical if the take-up rate will meet some minimum. Servicing multifamily buildings is more expensive/difficult because the utility needs to coordinate with the building owner and wiring from the units to the utility area may not be sufficient for newer technology.
AT&T's access technology needs more outside equipment, and it's harder to find locations to install it in denser areas where buildings are often built closer to lot lines, especially in older areas with small sidewalks and no grass frontage strips.
[1] https://data.lacity.org/widgets/ppge-zfr4?mobile_redirect=tr...
Some areas are served by underground utilities which means change is much more expensive. For AT&T which is called out specifically, there's a lot of different access technologies, and wireline distance and quality and quantity of lines is a major factor in service quality. There's a lot of older neighborhoods in the area, which have had increased density over time and may not have enough good wiring in the street / on the poles to offer dual pair services. Running new wires or fiber is expensive, and is only economical if the take-up rate will meet some minimum. Servicing multifamily buildings is more expensive/difficult because the utility needs to coordinate with the building owner and wiring from the units to the utility area may not be sufficient for newer technology.
AT&T's access technology needs more outside equipment, and it's harder to find locations to install it in denser areas where buildings are often built closer to lot lines, especially in older areas with small sidewalks and no grass frontage strips.
[1] https://data.lacity.org/widgets/ppge-zfr4?mobile_redirect=tr...
Might have to do with demand in those neighborhoods. An financially-constrained person living in a major city in 2024 will have two main choices for an Internet-connected device: laptop or smartphone. These days, the smartphone is the obvious choice. Paying for cell service lets you use the phone around town and at home, whereas paying for home internet is quite restricted.
An ISP usually has a neighborhood hub where local lines connect and feed into the broader infrastructure. I'm betting that ISPs have a pricing model using a "neighborhood utilization ratio" factor, calculated as houses-served-in-neighborhood over total-number-of-houses-in-neighborhood. To cover known network infrastructure expenses (equipment replacement, technician labor costs, etc.), the pricing needs to work out, but low service demand in a given service area for the same infrastructure requires those fixed costs be borne by the few people using the service.
Many infrastructure services typically are more expensive in a rural area, presumably due to this effect but spread over a larger geographic area because population density is lower.
An ISP usually has a neighborhood hub where local lines connect and feed into the broader infrastructure. I'm betting that ISPs have a pricing model using a "neighborhood utilization ratio" factor, calculated as houses-served-in-neighborhood over total-number-of-houses-in-neighborhood. To cover known network infrastructure expenses (equipment replacement, technician labor costs, etc.), the pricing needs to work out, but low service demand in a given service area for the same infrastructure requires those fixed costs be borne by the few people using the service.
Many infrastructure services typically are more expensive in a rural area, presumably due to this effect but spread over a larger geographic area because population density is lower.
I feel like it could be as simple as people poorer neighborhoods trying to buy the cheapest data/tv plan. In some countries this would be considered a necessity like electricity/sewer/water so from that perspective LA perhaps should force the ISPs to provide the same service all over the city.
I'd imagine that people living in lower-income neighborhoods generally pay for lower-tier services, which lowers profitability for any given provider, and also lowers the incentive for other providers to come in and compete, which would lower prices for everyone.
One I'm willing to guess is the monopoly / duopoly of ISP providers in nearly all US neighborhoods means its less profitable to provide better service when there aren't alternatives to begin with
>>Anyone know what those might be?
A simple resolution would be that the physical infrastructure in some area does not support the same speed as in other areas, and it more economically feesable to upgrade in area where the average bill is higher than in area's where the overage bill is lower. The ROI is clear
A simple resolution would be that the physical infrastructure in some area does not support the same speed as in other areas, and it more economically feesable to upgrade in area where the average bill is higher than in area's where the overage bill is lower. The ROI is clear
This is feel good legislation that will be hard to implement. If LA wanted to actually solve this they should start an LA public service internet. I think it’s ok to say it’s a right to have internet access but if you are, you need to back it up and not put it on the burden of a commercial entity to follow that plan.
In Finland, Internet access is considered a basic human right. When
working there a few years ago I found that any homeless person in
Helsinki has better connectivity than I have in the UK for £40/mo
Anyway according to TFA:
We can do much better than talk about the "affordable internet".
That's why I wrote this:
https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/03/06/Microsoft_is_Not_a...
Digital Discrimination is multi-faceted, and it applies to all kinds of groups who for reasons of mobility, neuro-diversity, ethics and more, are excluded or marginalised.
Anyway according to TFA:
Its so important for everyone to have broadband access for full
participation in modern society and no one should be charged more
based on their neighborhood
We can do much better than talk about the "affordable internet".
That's why I wrote this:
https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/03/06/Microsoft_is_Not_a...
Digital Discrimination is multi-faceted, and it applies to all kinds of groups who for reasons of mobility, neuro-diversity, ethics and more, are excluded or marginalised.
Since Los Angeles has never codified exactly what digital
discrimination means, the legislation asked city officials to
strongly consider using the Federal Communication Commission's
definition of the term.
Depending on where you live in the US, you can get free cell phone/internet if you're poor enough. E.g. https://www.assurancewireless.com/lifeline-services/states/d...
the lesser known Obama phone program provided cellphones to the poor because Internet access is requisite for access to government services in this day and age.
Yeah, I think that was the same logic in Finland, and Estonia who are
both hot on digital governance.
>and no one should be charged more based on their neighborhood
Then the city should be obligated to lock up vandals and refined materials thieves. It's bullshit to tell a network provider they have to provide the same service at the same cost to an area where they have to re-lay hundreds of meters of copper every week.
>Plenty of room there to include people who choose to protect their security and morals but are discriminated against for those choices.
Society should not be obligated to adapt to a crazy person who is only willing to communicate by passing notes via dumbwaiter and only using pseudonyms.
Then the city should be obligated to lock up vandals and refined materials thieves. It's bullshit to tell a network provider they have to provide the same service at the same cost to an area where they have to re-lay hundreds of meters of copper every week.
>Plenty of room there to include people who choose to protect their security and morals but are discriminated against for those choices.
Society should not be obligated to adapt to a crazy person who is only willing to communicate by passing notes via dumbwaiter and only using pseudonyms.
> should not be obligated to adapt to a crazy person who is only willing to
Actually yes it should and that's why we have non-discriminatory laws (the subject of the article) in the first place. In civilised countries we do that in order to avoid what John Stuart-Mill called the tyranny of the majority. But since you already see these minorities as "crazy" I hold out scant hope for your love of other people. I even think the US even has some constitutional basis for the Protection of Minority Rights.
Actually yes it should and that's why we have non-discriminatory laws (the subject of the article) in the first place. In civilised countries we do that in order to avoid what John Stuart-Mill called the tyranny of the majority. But since you already see these minorities as "crazy" I hold out scant hope for your love of other people. I even think the US even has some constitutional basis for the Protection of Minority Rights.
We're not talking about people with disabilities, we're talking about people who are choosing to not join the rest of society and using modern technologies to sustain modern life. Someone doesn't want to do banking online? Only wants to pay cash for everything? Doesn't want to carry a cellphone? That's their choice, it doesn't mean everyone else has to act like that too or even streamline their ability to behave that way. Shops can only accept cards, banks can have a reduced number of physical locations and hours, telephone companies can stop offering payphones.
> We're not talking about
I am talking about democracies where we grant people the right to freedom of opinion and lifestyle choices so long as that doesn't infringe on others. It's a precious thing we fought many wars for, and will no doubt fight many more to preserve.against a mentality that puts the convenience of bureaucratic machinery ahead of human needs and human diversity.
I am talking about democracies where we grant people the right to freedom of opinion and lifestyle choices so long as that doesn't infringe on others. It's a precious thing we fought many wars for, and will no doubt fight many more to preserve.against a mentality that puts the convenience of bureaucratic machinery ahead of human needs and human diversity.
California has tried these kinds of equality laws before. The net effect in the insurance industry is that many homes just have no insurance rather than receiving higher prices. This is going to be interesting to see. We have wireless internet now so maybe they're competing with a cheap to deliver fully-trackable internet service and the outcomes will be different.
Thats my concern. Why not just pull out of a neighborhood/region then?
That's exactly what happens, once the cost of providing service becomes higher than the expected revenue.
Now there is some pressure the state/city can provide (you can't serve ANYONE in LA until you serve EVERYONE at the same price points) but at some point the whole thing is unprofitable and the companies disappear.
Literally just happened with home insurance.
Now there is some pressure the state/city can provide (you can't serve ANYONE in LA until you serve EVERYONE at the same price points) but at some point the whole thing is unprofitable and the companies disappear.
Literally just happened with home insurance.
I can't speak specifically but a lot of times, part of their charter is that they need to provide service across all areas in order to get the permission to provide any service.
Yes definitely and while I don't think it would cause enough drag for them to pull out of a whole metro, we are seeing similar things at the state level with insurance companies due to the increase limitations imposed.
So in the short term the higher-end areas will pay disproportionately more to fund new infrastructure in the lower-end areas. But in the long term, the value of the lower-end will rise as a result of the improvements and we'll be back here talking about gentrification, skyrocketing rents, and how people can no longer afford them.
The source of the problem is the near-monopoly most ISPs have and the high barrier to entry for a new ISP wanting to enter the market. It makes it difficult for the market to self-regulate here.
I dated a girl more then 20 years ago who was on food stamps, and had a supposedly state-subsidized Internet account. She was paying more than I was for a slower DSL connection while we lived walking distance from each other. We both lived in apartment complexes.
Having said that, it is reasonable to charge more base rate when someone is likely to not pay their bills on time. Companies hate late payers and non-payers.
Having said that, it is reasonable to charge more base rate when someone is likely to not pay their bills on time. Companies hate late payers and non-payers.
This is the wrong approach. This lets politicians decide. The right approach is to make Internet access universal human right.
Isn't it a fact that it will be more or less costly to roll out service in different neighborhoods? Everything will differ, including the local labor pool, the distance from the central station, etc. It makes about as much sense as decreeing that all grocery store items in LA should be priced exactly the same, or that all gas stations in LA must have the same priced gasoline.
The article refers to a recent FCC ruling on "disparate impact" (without intent). To me, that's the greatest flaw of all civil rights laws, one that causes government encroachment upon every facet of American life. Literally everything causes disparate impact.