During
peak
COVID
in
2021,
when
everybody
was
freaking
out
about
how
shitty
and
expensive
U.S.
broadband
was
for
telecommuting
and
home
education,
NY
state
officials
had
an
idea:
what
if
we
pass
a
law
demanding
that
ISPs
try
to
provide
cheap
broadband
(a
piddly
25
Mbps
for
$15)
to
low
income
families.
Some
particulars
of
NY’s Affordable
Broadband
Act:
ISPs
with
less
than
20,000
subscribers
are
exempt.
Only
Americans
on
existing
low-income
programs
could
qualify.
And
the
price
increases
had
to
be
capped
at
two
percent
per
year,
though
this
was
to
be
renegotiated
on
an
ongoing
basis.
This
was
a
limited
form
of
rate
regulation,
and
not
particularly
radical.
But
NY
State’s
Affordable
Broadband
Act
didn’t
last
long.
In
2021
a
US
District
Court
judge blocked
the
law,
claiming
that
the
first
Trump
administration’s
2017
net
neutrality
repeal
banned
states
from
trying
to
regulate
broadband.
But
courts repeatedly
have
shot
down
that
claim,
stating
that
the
feds
can’t
abdicate
their
authority
over
broadband
consumer
protection and pre-empt
state
authority.
So
in
April
of
2024,
that
judge’s
ruling
was reversed by
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
2nd
Circuit.
Last
week
the
Supreme
Court
refused
to
hear
the
case, leaving
the
2nd
Circuit’s
ruling,
and
the
law,
intact.
It’s
not
clear
when
or
if
New
York
State
will
actually
start
enforcing
it.
As Ars
Technica notes,
this
case
has
particular
importance
given
all
the
planned
looming
dismantling
of
the
federal
regulatory
state
during
Trump
2.0:
“The
appeals
court
ruling
is
an
important
one
for
the
broader
question
of
how
states
can
regulate
broadband
providers
when
the
Federal
Communications
Commission
isn’t
doing
so.
Trade
groups
claimed
the
state
law
is
preempted
by
former
FCC
Chairman
Ajit
Pai’s
repeal
of
net
neutrality
rules,
which
ended
Title
II
common-carrier
regulation
of
ISPs.
In
a
2-1
opinion,
a
panel
of
2nd
Circuit
appeals
court
judges
said
the
Pai-era
FCC
“order
stripped
the
agency
of
its
authority
to
regulate
the
rates
charged
for
broadband
Internet,
and
a
federal
agency
cannot
exclude
states
from
regulating
in
an
area
where
the
agency
itself
lacks
regulatory
authority.”
As
Trump
2.0
regulators
like
the
FCC
and
FTC
give
up
on
consumer
protection,
it’s
going
to
punt
many
of
these
fights
to
the
state
level.
Given
corporations spent
so
much
money
gutting
Chevron
deference
in
a
bid
to
turn
federal
regulators
into
decorative
gourds,
they’re
not
going
to
like
it
much
if
consumer
protection
remains
healthy
and
strong
on
the
state
level.
The
idea
of
“rate
regulation”
is
just
about
the
most
terrible
phrase
imaginable
if
you’re
a
telecom
executive
or
“free
market”
Libertarian
think
tanker
type.
Limiting
price
gouging
in
this
fashion
is
repeatedly
brought
up
as
a
terrifying
bogeyman
in
telecom
policy
conversations,
though
it
very
rarely
manifests.
NY’s
effort
to
help
people
during
COVID
was
a
pretty
far
outlier
in
terms
of
policy
proposals.
But
Big
Telecom
is
clearly
worried
that
if
NY’s
law
is
allowed
to
stand,
the
years
of
rate
regulation
being
off
the
table
to
address
telecom
monopolization
will
come
to
an
end:
“ISPs
are
worried
that
their
success
in
blocking
federal
rules
will
allow
New
York
and
other
states
to
regulate. Telco
groups
told
the
Supreme
Court that
the
New
York
law
being
upheld
while
federal
rules
are
struck
down
“will
likely
lead
to
more
rate
regulation
absent
the
Court’s
intervention.
Other
States
are
likely
to
copy
New
York
once
the
Attorney
General
begins
enforcing
the
ABA
[Affordable
Broadband
Act]
and
New
York
consumers
can
buy
broadband
at
below-market
rates.”
Telecoms
want
to
have
their
cake
(no
federal
regulation)
and
eat
it
too
(no
state
laws
filling
the
obvious
void
they
created).
To
be
clear,
there
are
several
cases
currently
ongoing
where
telecoms,
freshly
emboldened
by
a
corrupt
Supreme
Court,
are
arguing
that
the
FCC
has
no
federal
authority
to
do
much
of anything that
helps
real
people
(net
neutrality, wireless
privacy
issues,
and low-income
affordability
programs).
So
we’re
kind
of
looking
at
a
dog
caught
the
car
situation.
Telecom
giants
spent
thirty
years
arguing
for
the
complete
dismantling
of
coherent
federal
consumer
protections.
Falsely
claiming
that
gutting
federal
corporate
oversight
would
bring
vast
untold
benefits
to
markets
and
consumers
(spoiler:
that
didn’t
happen
and
will
never
happen).
They
created
this
“problem”
of
states
passing
a
discordant
number
of
fractured
state-level
laws,
the
resulting
complications
on
pre-emption,
and
all
the
legal
headaches
that
will
now
result.
And
they’re crying
about
the
problem
they
created.
Corporate
power
(telecom
or
otherwise)
is
at
the
ledge
of
a
generational
quest
to
kill
coherent
federal
governance.
And
they’re
not
much
going
to
like
the
new
world
they
built,
where
states
like
Washington,
California,
Oregon,
and
Maine
all
craft
different
and
inconsistent
laws
filling
the
new
federal
void
on
consumer
protection,
labor
rights,
environmental
law,
public
safety
restrictions,
and
everything
else.
There
will
be
chaos.
And
in
many
markets
where
we’re
not
talking
about
net
neutrality,
but
life
and
death
situations.
Especially
in
states
where
leaders
don’t
believe
in
consumer
protection,
environmental
protections,
or
corporate
accountability
either.
Again,
U.S.
broadband
is
a
failed
market
thanks
to
regulatory
capture.
Regional
telecom
monopolies
dominate
a
region,
then
lobby
to
ensure
market
competition
can’t
take
root,
resulting
in
high
prices,
slow
speeds,
spotty
access,
and
terrible
customer
protection.
Absolutely
any
time
anyone
proposed ANY
FIX
WHATSOEVER in
the
last
30
years,
telecoms
and
their
allies
had
embolisms.
Ideally,
you’d
want
to
fix
this
problem
via
antitrust
reform,
stricter
merger
review,
and
policies
that
encourage
free
market
competition.
But
the
“free
market!”
telecom
policy
type
guys
don’t actually want
that.
They’ve
advocated
for
the
total
dismantling
of
federal
oversight.
Now
that
they’ve
got
it,
state
rights,
once
such
a
precious
thing
in
center-right
ideology,
will
be
the
next
target.
Because
the
goal
here
for
corporate
power has
never
been
“free
markets.” It’s
market
domination.
They
want
to
be
able
to
behave
anti-competitively
and
price
gouge
captive
customers
free
from any sort
of
state
or
federal
intervention.
After
decades
of
lobbying
Trump
2.0
is
poised
to
deliver
that
goal
on
the
federal
level.
State
autonomy
will
be
next.
People
will
die.
But
the
legal
billable
hours
will
be
epic.
Supreme
Court
Won’t
Help
Big
Telecom
Kill
NY
Law
Requiring
Affordable
Broadband
For
Poor
People
More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:
NYC
Gov’t
Sends
Legal
Threat
To
Artist
For
Telling
People
How
To
Use
Traffic
Cams
To
Take
Selfies
Lane
Kiffin
Defeats
Keith
Bell
In
‘Winning
Isn’t
Normal’
Copyright
Case
Federal
Judge
Says
NSO
Group
Violated
CFAA,
Holds
It
Liable
For
Malware
Delivered
Via
WhatsApp’s
Servers