New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill

Affordability and price comparisons

• Many see $15 for 25 Mbps and especially $20 for 200 Mbps as extremely cheap relative to US market rates.
• Users report paying $65–$160/month for 75–400 Mbps in various US regions, contrasted with much cheaper, faster service in places like Prague and Japan.
• Consensus that many US prices—especially where there’s only one or two ISPs—are “gouging” relative to what’s technically and economically possible.

Is broadband a utility / natural monopoly?

• Strong argument that broadband behaves like a natural monopoly (high capex, right-of-way constraints, finite spectrum), similar to water or power.
• Others push back, claiming providers “can compete,” but critics respond that without last‑mile unbundling they usually don’t.
• Several comments say internet access is now essential infrastructure and should be regulated like a utility.

Mandated low‑income plans vs subsidies and vouchers

• Supporters: ISPs have taken public money for decades and operate de facto monopolies; forcing low‑income plans simply trims their margins and is appropriate.
• Skeptics: see this as market distortion and an unfunded mandate that will be passed on via higher prices to other customers and deter new entrants.
• Alternative proposals: direct vouchers or checks to households; explicit line‑item taxes to fund discounts; or taxing profits and subsidizing access transparently.

Municipal broadband and open access

• Multiple comments argue the real fix is municipal fiber or last‑mile networks with open access for competing ISPs.
• View that unfunded mandates risk entrenching incumbents, while city‑owned networks and co‑ops have shown they can offer gigabit for low prices.

Technical adequacy and quality

• Debate on whether 25 Mbps/200 Mbps is sufficient; some say 100 Mbps is plenty for streaming, others claim 200 Mbps is barely enough with certain providers.
• Reliability differences may stem from local network quality and home Wi‑Fi setups rather than raw plan speed.

Implementation details and risks

• Questions raised: definition of “low income,” treatment of Starlink and small ISPs, data caps, contract escape rights, service quality/latency, and build‑out obligations.
• Concern that capping price increases at 2% could cause underinvestment if inflation stays higher.
• Some worry providers will make these plans hard to find or unpleasant to use; others note the law includes taxes/fees in the capped price, which is seen as important.