this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
81 points (98.8% liked)

Politics

462 readers
289 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

Rule 7. No conjecture type posts (this could, might, may, etc.). Only factual. If the headline is wrong, clarify within the body.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

When New York's law requiring $15 or $20 broadband plans for people with low incomes took effect last week, Optimum customer William O'Brien tried to sign up for the cheap Internet service. Since O'Brien is in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), he qualifies for one of the affordable plans that Internet service providers must offer New Yorkers who meet income eligibility requirements.

O'Brien has been paying Optimum $111.20 a month for broadband—$89.99 for the broadband service, $14 in equipment rental fees, a $6 "Network Enhancement Fee," and $1.21 in tax. He was due for a big discount under the New York Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), which says that any ISP with over 20,000 customers must offer either a $15 plan with download speeds of at least 25Mbps or a $20 plan with at least 200Mbps speeds, and that the price must include "any recurring taxes and fees such as recurring rental fees for service provider equipment required to obtain broadband service and usage fees."

Despite qualifying for a low-income plan under the law's criteria, O'Brien's request was denied by Optimum. He reached out to Ars, just like many other people who have read our articles about bad telecom customer service. Usually, these problems are fixed quickly after we reach out to an Internet provider's public relations department on the customer's behalf.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Every state should have this, it's a utility these days.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

During the Pandemic that was a Federal low cost Internet subsidy for those who quality, for ~~$40 a month all in~~, $30 off, it was renewed a couple times until this past summer when Republicans killed it

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

We've sort of given a lot of the internet subsidies by giving them tons of money to upgrade and they never did. Now they're avoiding laws. They 99% suck.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

O'Brien has been paying Optimum $111.20 a month for broadband

WHAT

I pay 50 euros for my internet, and that's already in one of the most expensive countries for internet in Europe.

Edit to add: this is for 400Mbps symmetrical fibre. Gigabit connections here are usually around 65-70 euros I think.

[–] themeatbridge 15 points 5 days ago

But wait, what if I told you it was also really shitty service?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I'm paying $120/mo CAD (~83USD) for a '1.5 gigabit' fiber connection that actually tests at ~160mbps.

That's been pretty consistent in speed+price for 5ish years.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Up until recently, I was paying $100 for a 150mbps connection. They finally got fiber to our area though with a different ISP, so we ditched the old one and got a new 1000mbps connection for $90. Of course, it actually only gives us about 940mbps in tests, but I'll take it. Especially since this is the US and choice in ISPs isn't really a thing for most people.

[–] theit8514 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

1000 mbps is the theoretical limit of the line. You will typically lose a little bit for things like TCP overhead.

Link bandwidth (Mbit/s): 1000
Max achievable TCP throughput limited by TCP overhead (Mbit/s): 949.2848
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

Damn, so I get pretty much the max of what it’s capable of. So far, it’s been pretty reliable too, with the router only reporting downtime for three minutes during the night one time.

Now of course, most things don’t let you download from their servers with that kind of speed, but torrents are super speedy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

85 for 400/10 here. It's pretty awful. Guess down for several hours a week as well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I was paying $140/mo for 300 down, 8 up that was plagued with packetloss and never came close to the advertised speed, until someone bought their own cherry pickers and started stripping the poles for copper in my area. 🤣

I learned this from the tech who installed my $65/month symmetrical gigabit fiber, after waiting for more than 7 years for any better ISP to be available where I live.