• Jentu@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I’m surprised they’re saying anything about this since it immediately made me remember that garbage they pulled.

      • RoverStoker@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Retired telecom worker here:

        Every single time your telecommunications provider goes to DC to lobby against their taxes they promise “Please oh please please if you’ll just lower our taxes we pinky swear to expand broadband. We’re going to expand the reach of DSL, we’re gonna lay cable for Uverse internet, we’re invented this thing where high speed internet goes over your electrical grid. We promise you we can do the thing if only you’ll cut our taxes.”

        So DC does and guess what happens? Job cuts. Cut back on techs needed to actually do the work. The money is used for stock buy backs, to buy a company or two (bought at a high price then sold at a loss of course) and the CEO bails with a golden parachute:

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/05/12/atts-ceo-steps-down-with-a-64-million-gold-plated-retirement-plan/?sh=3ede18b759bd

    • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Omfg this

      Where is the bill to take all infrastructure made using this public money and give the infrastructure to the public?

    • sadreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      They surely do love that corporate socialism when daddy sam is paying but “free markets” where they are a monopoly when they are raising my bill every year.

    • seang96@spgrn.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wish. I also wish I could be connected to the fiber that is literally 1 mile away from my house.

      • Spitfire@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wish I had fiber as an option at all in our area.

        Only options are comcast or DSL. Both suck.

        • seang96@spgrn.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I got cable (spectrum) with terrible latency, T-Mobile 5g, this one was new this year, and DSL… I do wish i was closer to that fiber line lol

        • SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Have you checked lately? There’s WISPs popping up all the time and there are more cellular based options than ever. I’m using T-Mobile for $50/month I’m getting 250Mbps download.

      • smstnitc@lemmy2.addictmud.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just moved, but my previous house has fiber 100 feet away, but the ISP wouldn’t hook me up because they insisted that they needed at least 10 houses to commit in a neighborhood before they’d put service in it. I tried to get my neighbors on board for 3 years before I sold my house to move an hour away. Still no fiber, but there’s no fiber to tease me with now, heh

        • Weaselmaster@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have fiber running LITERALLY through my back yard, because they couldn’t be bothered to string it from pole to pole for my neighbor, but yet they ‘Can’t’ run service to my building with 7 households/customers.

        • seang96@spgrn.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Such a shame. It would even be more helpful to other neighbors by bringing competition in.

      • SoManyChoices@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have fiber but my town is building muni fiber that will be $25/mo cheaper for the same speeds. They just finished another segment. It stops 200 ft south of my property. They’ll be back to finish the area in about 18 months after they do most of the north side of town first.

  • Grizzzlay@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, ISP’s were given a considerable amount of money to improve internet infrastructure 30 years ago and they did not. Classify them as a utility. Heck, we should nationalize the utilities anyway.

  • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Funny, when Google started building fiber, ISPs threw a fit and tried to make it illegal in a lot of places for big tech to build broadband networks.

    So uh, which is it guys?

    • sadreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We sure do but the ISP lobby does not permit it and instead they are able to funnel taxpayer money into executive and shareholder pockets. See comment above.

    • Realtrain@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Can confirm, we have it and it’s fantastic. Super reliable symmetrical gigabit for $60/month

  • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They were paid to do this thirty years ago! Instead, they stuffed the money in their pockets and did next to nothing to earn it.

    Wait wait. AT&T and Verizon want money from other companies? THEY were the ones given tax breaks to do it themselves!

  • artisanrox@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    ISPs already got money for this.

    They can all go provide more dumpster fire kindling with Elno, spez and Zuck.

  • Vinegar@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I expect to see further erosion of Net Neutrality if big tech firms are required to pay for internet infrastructure. I have no love for big tech, but if they are required to pay for infrastructure, then how long until smaller companies and hosts are required to pay? The Biden administration seems to agree: “[it] is difficult to understand how a system of mandatory payments imposed on only a subset of content providers could be enforced without undermining net neutrality.” I have no love for ISPs either - ISPs should be run as public utilities, not as for-profit private corporate conglomerates.

    As others have already pointed out the US government (and Comcast, Verizon, & Century Link customers) have been defrauded by the major telecom companies for nearly 30 years worth at least $400 billion dollars (data from 2014, the current total is likely over $700 billion). They’ve been pocketing obscene amounts of money instead of investing in infrastructure for decades, at this point additional infrastructure should be publicly funded, owned & operated and the telecommunications companies should be forced to sell the internet infrastructure to local public utilities.

    The Irregulators are a group of experts who have been fighting this fraud since 1999, and they have a couple books about this:

    • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      how long until smaller companies and hosts are required to pay?

      Oh they never will. They’ll be locked out immediately, enshrining our corporate overlords as a permanent position

      at this point additional infrastructure should be publicly funded, owned & operated and the telecommunications companies should be forced to sell the internet infrastructure to local public utilities.

      Now you’re talking. Go run for office somewhere i can vote for you.

  • magnetosphere @beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is like Godzilla and Mothra arguing about who should pay to rebuild downtown Tokyo after one of their brawls. Meanwhile, the citizens don’t care who pick up the tab. They just want it done.

  • falsem@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is like building a toll road then not only charging the people driving on it but also charging their destinations too. Hilarious.

  • Wander@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Please no. I don’t like big ISPs, but neither do I want big tech to feel entitled to control the network infrastructure somehow more than they already do.

  • KrombopulosMikl @lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand. It’s not like Big Tech or anyone using their services is just hopping on the internet for free, right? Just like any other business, you use your profits to expand. Or is there something I’m missing?

    • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      wait… you expected them to “provide” something to the people who give them money?

      These are ISP’s, they don’t do that here. (Re: the $400 billion they already got to build the infrastructure, that they didn’t build and took anyway)

  • RadioRat (he/they)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Hmmmm…wonder whose fault it is that many municipalities won’t approve new line construction by upstart ISPs 🤔

    It couldn’t have anything to do with lobbying by monopolistic ISPs.

  • magnetosphere @beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Biden administration last month urged the EU to reject the forced payments proposed by European ISPs, saying the plan “could give operators a new bottleneck over customers, raise costs for end users, and alter incentives for CAPs/LTGs [content and application providers and large traffic generators] to make efficient decisions regarding network investment and interconnection.”

    The Biden administration also said payments from tech firms may violate net neutrality principles, saying that it “is difficult to understand how a system of mandatory payments imposed on only a subset of content providers could be enforced without undermining net neutrality.”

    So… did someone from the administration even bother writing this themselves, or did they just copy/paste what Meta sent them?