cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/8326497
The FCC can now punish telecom providers for charging customers more for less::The Federal Communications Commission has passed new digital discrimination rules that hold telecom providers accountable for not providing equal internet access.
About damn time.
For the last decade I’ve paid for high speed
fibercable from Comcast, and that monthly 1tb limit was a killer with a family. So I paid the extra $50 (for a few years, then $30 these last 2) for unlimited. All for a total low package price of $250. My buddy in a nearby town with better speeds and multiple options has never paid for this add on, because he has competition in the area. I had zero choice, there were zero network improvements in my area until this year when a new local fiber company started burying fiber in my area. Today I pay $100 for 2gb symmetrical unlimited internet, way cheaper than the $250 I’ve paid for years for a forced tv/phone/internet package.I hope there’s a class action for this. Fuck Comcast.
there’s enough ways around charges of ‘discriminating’ based on the disallowed criteria of household income or race, that it will still be ‘business as usual’ for providers. they’ll use other excuses, such as differences in local market (competition) and population/customer density, or the ‘extreme’ costs of upgrading aging infrastructure in previously-“avoided” areas, which would be ‘allowed’.
Punish them for their complete inability to block spam calls. Million bucks per successfully connected call would fix it overnight and then our phone would be worthwhile as phones once again.
frequency of ‘spam’ calls should have significant gone down with the implementation of cid verification (stir/shaken). it has on all our lines; home and office–cellular and pots.
Dont be unrealistic, until the entire system is rebuilt from the ground up on all telcos thats literally impossible.
Corporate America can move mountains when fines cut into profit margins. I am not kidding when I say this would be fixed immediately.
You realize the telcos themselves know exactly where the spam calls are coming from, right? You can be damn sure that functionality was a top priority from day 1 because (just like for all subscribers) they need to know the spammers’ usage in order to bill them for it.
They just don’t bother passing that information along to end users or law enforcement because nobody’s forcing them to.
They dont actually thanks to VoIP and other countries telcos being shit and pushing through whatever is sent with the call, which is exactly where that disconnect happens. Ive been in Telecom a long time, and the push to fix that problem was very real long before Indian scammers were spoofing calls for IT scams. Once you go to IP, the “real” link isnt there, and CID becomes no more than a data string which is no longer tied to anything physical as far as telecom infrastructure, which they have to accept in the current set up, which is why said the whole thing has to start from scratch.
The other issue is the way non ILECs send the CID is exactly how the scammers spoof, to cut that off, all CLECs would loose the ability to send CID data, businesses wouldn’t be able to send a main phone from their 3000+ extensions etc. Its far from a simple soulution which is why its still an issue.
You can be damn sure that functionality was a top priority from day 1 because (just like for all subscribers) they need to know the spammers’ usage in order to bill them for it.
CID data being injected has absolutely nothing to do with a line being used regardless of what the outbound DID actually is.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Under the new rules, the FCC can fine telecom companies for not providing equal connectivity to different communities “without adequate justification,” such as financial or technical challenges of building out service in a particular area.
Last year, a joint report from The Markup and the Associated Press found that AT&T, Verizon, and other internet service providers offer different speeds depending on the neighborhood in cities throughout the US.
The report revealed neighborhoods with lower incomes and fewer white people get stuck with slower internet while still having to pay the same price as those with faster speeds.
At the time, USTelecom, an organization that represents major telecom providers, blamed the higher price on having to maintain older equipment in certain communities.
“There is mounting evidence that low-income families and people of color are more likely to live in monopoly service areas that have just one high-speed internet provider,” Joshua Stager, the policy director of the nonpartisan organization Free Press, says in a statement.
It will take things like broadband deployment, network upgrades, and maintenance across communities into account when evaluating providers for potential rule violations, giving it the authority to hopefully finally address the disparities in internet access throughout the US.
The original article contains 480 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The report revealed neighborhoods with lower incomes and fewer white people get stuck with slower internet while still having to pay the same price as those with faster speeds.
We need flexible system that monitor every customer’s income from database for this since it’s more easy to implement right now thanks to AI.
Even though from privacy perspective is not good to know, but since data can manipulate into another form, we can still find another solution on how to deliver this perfectly well balance in society we live in.
Or, hear me out, we regulate them like the utility they are and don’t give them more friggin’ information on our lives? It’s unfortunate but you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. It’s time to treat them as vital as access to water or electricity. If they want still be in the game and make some money, they need to fall in line. I am tired of my life being screwed around by companies that have become cornerstones of 21st century life rent-seeking me into oblivion.
@kanzalibrary Can you share the report ?
Can vs will
That is the wrong answer entirely. You should try to dictate prices to ISPs. The better approach is to work to increase competition. That will drive down prices and increase speeds.
Its worked in my city as prices for fiber are cheap and there is like 6-7 companies who will do it.
Telecom is a natural monopoly: even if you’ve got 6-7 companies marketing to the public, chances are only one of them is actually running the lines (maybe two, if we’re talking about both fiber and coaxial) and the others are just resellers. In other words, the competition is kinda artificial since the one with the infrastructure should (in theory – barring regulations disallowing it) always be able to undercut the others, who are just middlemen taking out an extra chunk of profit.
Although I guess you could argue that deregulation is better than the regulatory-captured status quo, fully regulating the telecom provider as the monopoly it is (if not nationalizing it entirely) would be inherently more efficient.
This is why I think that the lines should be owned by the municipalities (or a multi-community partnership) and access to them resold. Not even just for fiber, do all of them. The town already handles the water and the sewer, why can’t they lay the pipe for the gas?
They don’t need to be the ISP, or the cable company, or electric company, or whatever (though they can be). Just own and maintain the infra. Obtain right of way. Lease access.
I just know that government contracts with telecom industries always make monopolies worst, not better.
In my city the competition seems to have driven down prices and given everyone access to fiber
