New York implements $15 broadband law for low-income households

Shawn Knight

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,558   +196
Staff member
Bottom line: New Yorkers will soon be able to take advantage of legislation requiring Internet service providers to provide cheap broadband connectivity to low-income earners. A multi-year court battle between the state of New York and broadband industry lobby groups was recently resolved after the Supreme Court elected not to hear the case. As such, an earlier appeals court ruling stands.

Effective January 15, 2025, the Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) will once again take effect in New York. The law requires that ISPs with at least 20,000 subscribers offer 25 Mbps broadband service to low-income customers for $15 per month, inclusive of taxes and fees. ISPs can also comply by offering a 200 Mbps service for $20 a month. Failure to comply can result in a fine of up to $1,000 per violation.

Certain exemptions for ISPs are in play, such as for those that serve fewer than 20,000 customers – so long as the commission determines that compliance would result in "unreasonable or unsustainable financial impact on the broadband service provider."

Roughly 1.7 million New York households – and some 23 million homes nationwide – used to receive a monthly discount on broadband costs thanks to an FCC program. That program ended in mid-2024, however, after Congress failed to provide additional funding.

As Ars Technica highlights, several ISPs already offer solutions for low-income households. Charter Spectrum, for example, has a $25 per month plan that affords a 50 Mbps connection. Both Comcast and Optimum have plans under $15 a month. Verizon's Forward program can bring the price of Internet connectivity down to $20 per month.

According to Speedtest.net, anything below 5 Mbps is considered slow by today's standards. A connection in the 5 – 20 Mbps range is better (but still Meh), while a 20 - 40 Mbps connection is said to be solid enough for 4K video streaming and general online gaming. A 40 – 100 Mbps connection is labeled as good, anything over 100 Mbps is considered fast, and 1 Gbps should allow you to do anything you want on multiple devices.

Permalink to story:

New York implements $15 broadband law for low-income households

 
In my area, the lowest offer is from comcast and is something like 30+ bucks for home internet. But it is a lie. It is a lie because its real price is something like 60-70. I am speaking about data cap of course and the following charging per 50 gigabyte if you go over limit. F**** charge +30 bucks to remove the cap. Zipplyfiber does not do this disgusting trickery but its lowest plan costs more after 1 year than Comcast's lowest*.
I only mentioned these 2 because throughout the years, I have not seen wide availability in other areas. The new offers are created for very densely populated areas most likely.
40 forty bucks for internet is probably a lot for some people.
This is a good initiative. I think it is perfectly fine if these low income plans are not very fast or are provided through 5g which imposes additional restrictions. It should be affordable for these housholds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya, Revolution 11 and PanGrns
Not a fan of price-fixing, as in the long run it almost always makes things worse (in this case ISPs will likely do the bare minimum to maintain lines in areas with lots of poorer people who qualify for these plans, and it will kill any incentive for ISPs to expand their service to any poorer areas, or areas they believe may become poorer in the near future), but it is a sort of power State governments have; if the NY legislature wants to make a mess of things that is their right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: godrilla
Dreadcthulhu said:
Not a fan of price-fixing, as in the long run it almost always makes things worse
Click to expand...
That's generally my way of thinking as well, meaning I'd rather the market figure things out than the government, because the market is always smarter and faster. BUT... you can't go half way. If as in this industry the government has already involved itself by issuing monopolies or duopolies on the rights to put up cabling, or use spectrum, and therefore limited the power of market competition; it must step in to do the job the market no longer can. When the public issues you exclusive rights to offer a service to the public, that opportunity is going to come with some strings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YetAnotherDev, Revolution 11, nnguy2 and 1 other person
brucek said:
That's generally my way of thinking as well, meaning I'd rather the market figure things out than the government, because the market is always smarter and faster. BUT... you can't go half way. If as in this industry the government has already involved itself by issuing monopolies or duopolies on the rights to put up cabling, or use spectrum, and therefore limited the power of market competition; it must step in to do the job the market no longer can. When the public issues you exclusive rights to offer a service to the public, that opportunity is going to come with some strings.
Click to expand...
Very true; which of course is why the State government should not be issuing monopolies or duopolies to private companies in the first place; but then the local politicians wouldn't get their payouts and we can't have that now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: godrilla and p51d007
As stated USA doesn't have free competition huge ISPs have taken the money and lied for rural programs etc and don't care.

With regards to subsidising the low income, again really not easy to give a simple answer

Eg One of the biggest corporate welfares is allowing really low minimum pay and companies get the wage subsidy and Govt picks up the tab in tax reductions and allowances for poor with kids etc , accommodation supplements whatever depending on country.

Even if companies paid a living wage ( not supplemented by effectively corporate subsidies to lower income ) , you still need to help those who really want to work , but say can only do 30 hours as their health can't sustain more .

Again I'm sure much of the reason is "think about the children" - you would have to lack common sense to think an unstable impoverished childhood is conducive to later life success and motivation

Ie professionals children quantitatively do better in life than poorer parents.
That doesn't mean those from poorer families can't do well , see immigrants 2nd and 3rd generations and many striving parents - but regular nutrition , access to resources, heath care and stimulation/books help

A system even anti welfare people can agreed on ( fun fact USA welfare is self funding , no debt allowed over 3 trillion in reserves , those on investment income pay nothing towards it )

is micro loans, has genuinely been very successful in developing countries
 
  • Like
Reactions: PanGrns and Godel
Price controls for some does nothing except make the product more expensive for everyone else. On top of that it allows the ISP to cherry pick where they'll expand and serve. Can go even further and say price controls penalizes success and keeps people poor.
 
ISPs are having their cake, eating it, and then ghosting. Great time to be selling internet, bad time to be buying it. Anyone who says it isn't a utility should try going without for a few months in the modern world, then restate their opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR01, Underdog, YetAnotherDev and 6 others
This is imperative for the next generation. The homework gap exist for kids who do not have internet connection. F the cable companies comcast makes something like 40 billion a year and is just about a monopoly . Anyone interested in the homework gap can start here. You can see the defeat in those kids eyes its harsh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR01, PanGrns and hahahanoobs
Inclusive of tax and fees meaning additional fees or increases for those on the the regular plan. I don't mind helping those who really need it, but there will be those who will cheat the system.
 
Dreadcthulhu said:
Very true; which of course is why the State government should not be issuing monopolies or duopolies to private companies in the first place; but then the local politicians wouldn't get their payouts and we can't have that now.
Click to expand...
So you are for local loop unbundling then? Because that is the monopoly that needs breaking at question here.

The state governments are not issuing monopoly or duopoly licenses, the monopoly is in who owns the physical cables and fiber in the ground, and only local loop unbundling can break this geographic-based monopoly.

Either implement local loop unbundling and let the free market actually compete on all levels of infrastructure access or let the government step in and mandate fixed standards.

What we have is the worst of both worlds, no competition on actual physical access to the network, and no fixed standards or regulations on the monopoly/duopoly created from that lack of competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya
GABulldog said:
Price controls for some does nothing except make the product more expensive for everyone else. On top of that it allows the ISP to cherry pick where they'll expand and serve. Can go even further and say price controls penalizes success and keeps people poor.
Click to expand...
So you are for local loop unbundling then right???

Let all operators compete on price and speed on the same physical networks.
 
"ISPs can also comply by offering a 200 Mbps service for $20 a month." <-------- This is a great deal, IF it gives you unlimited data. I use Xfinity in Northern California, I pay $14.95 per month (Xfinity just upped the price from $9.95) including taxes and fees. I get 85Mbps, (Megabits per second, not to be confused with MBps which is Megabytes per second) down, and 10Mbps up, and "unlimited" data every month. I use right around 600 to 900 gigs per month. It's plenty of bandwidth for me, I don't game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR01
wiyosaya said:
That's an interesting conclusion given the program has not yet been implemented.

Your 8-Ball must be an amazing predictor of the future.
Click to expand...
I guess he will never need insulin which is now capped at, I believe 35 dollars. America was the only developed country where people needed to choose between medication and food.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR01 and Underdog
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
The future of AI and journalism at stake: OpenAI battles news giants in copyright lawsuit
Replies
5
Views
73
StupidPeopleSuk
StupidPeopleSuk
Daniel Sims
Microsoft Paint AI eraser is now available for all Windows 11 users, not just Copilot PCs
Replies
10
Views
130
Steveb8189
Steveb8189
zohaibahd
Michigan new law mandates Computer Science classes in high schools
Replies
20
Views
137
AFT99
AFT99

Latest posts

Back