New York starts enforcing $15 broadband law that ISPs tried to kill
New York is enforcing a law that compels large Internet providers to offer low‑income residents $15–$20 broadband plans with minimum speed requirements, after defeating industry legal challenges. Commenters debate whether such price mandates are an appropriate response to what many see as a natural monopoly and market failure, or a distortion that should instead be handled through direct subsidies or municipal broadband. Practical concerns surface around implementation details, potential cost shifting to other customers, and the broader need for infrastructure competition or public ownership.
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.