The article states they must give this $15 internet service to all families with kids who qualify for free and reduced price lunch.

So in NYC, according to a google search, that is 72% of children. That's a LOT of households.

In the rest of New York state, 41% of children qualify for FRPL. That's also a LOT of households.

I think this is legislation that has good intentions, but is not well thought out. If the state government wants to bring better internet access to families, perhaps they need to fund it, or work with internet providers to offer subsidies to bring the cost down to what they're proposing. Just expecting internet providers to eat the cost for what would amount to 50% of their customers is IMHO not reasonable.

What a sad commentary about the "greatest country on Earth."

OTOH, also from google, AT&T gross profit for the quarter ending September 30, 2024 was $18.583B.

how much tax money would be saved by not having to fund for some of our current "welfare" programs because people will have a UBI that disqualifies them for "welfare" and some of these costs they can now afford on their own?

Depending on the amount of UBI, it could very well put recipients above the income level needed to qualify for a lot of programs like SNAP, Section 8 housing, Medicaid and many other programs for low income people.

what if a UBI provided people with a $30,000/year income. Why couldn't the money funding SNAP, Sec. 8, etc., be transferred to provide the money for the UBI instead? Think of all the govt red tape, etc., that would no longer be required for funding these existing programs because there would be no qualifying or monitoring of UBI?

A form of UBI already exists in some cities and the data shows the recipients spend it responsibly, not on drugs, etc.

How can they be forced to provide a product against their wishes?

their bottom line, are you saying that these products should only be available to those who can afford it?

Should Apple be forced to provide a $250 I-Phone?

Bentley forced to make a $30,000 car?

The Dallas Cowboys forced to have $100 season tickets?

5 star restaurants forced to offer $4 meals?

NYC forced to offer downtown office space and/or high end condos at $5 sq/ft?

I could go on forever …

If they have a monopoly of services, sure … but they do not.

Season tickets for the Cowboys probably are around $100 right now 😂😂

I kid, I kid.

That is overpriced 😂

and I'm limited to 350 gb.

250 down and up. Unlimited bandwidth.

away. That's the problem when you live out in the countryside.

make any sense. I think what NYS was thinking is AT&T would either 'eat' the loss or raise prices for non discounted plans to make up for the state imposed subsidy to those who qualify. With AT&T being a 'johnny come lately' to the cellular broadband market they made a business decision.

Just as a data point my cellular broadband carrier is T-Mobile and it is $50 per month.

But can't do it for the poor.

That wouldn't have met the requirements of the NY law anyway

things

It's a nonprofit in Minneapolis that offers low cost internet and computers to low income people.

Internet is based off of a hotspot - initial cost around $60. Then it's $15/mo unlimited. I have used them for years and they are very good.

https://www.pcsforpeople.org/internet/internet/

Xfinity offers $10 a month unlimited wifi with decent speeds and there is no hardware to buy. The only catch is there has to be a hotspot nearby. I have never had an issue with it in my residence but when I am out and about there dead zones where it might not be available for a block or so. I use it to supplement my prepaid T-Mobile, which is $50 unlimited high-speed data plus unlimited 3G hotspot. The hotspot seemed to be slowing down (or I got spoiled by higher speeds) and so I bought Xfinity as a supplement.

they be 'greedy rat bastards' to refuse to provide service at a loss?

Or are you referring to the NYS lawmakers as the 'greedy rat bastards'.

They're apparently willing to walk away from lucrative services that the majority of their customers pay for rather than extend some low cost basic services, which are increasingly important for full participation in American social life, to the less fortunate.

They had to opt to stop providing any services in the biggest market in the country because the lowered rates were going to crush them.

You can't expect to offer than many underpriced plans and maintain bandwidth for your other users without massive costs.

It's a dumb law that was apparently put together either by people who had no idea what they were doing or were operating off the idea that because they are NY they can do whatever they want and companies will have to bend the knee.

If NY wants to provide cheap internet to the poor, then why don't they subsidize it instead of mandating that companies operate at a loss to provide it?

So they should provide internet at a loss?

Making a profit is not illegal and is infact the point of a business.

Also, per post 20, some years they not only pay no income tax on billions of profits, but actually get monies back.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219909297#post20

Maybe they aren’t incurring a loss. But they do have a right to a profit, no? And they have the right to decide what profit they want (up to the point people won’t pay that much, of course), no?

Someone ran the numbers and decided that it wasn’t financially worth it, either because they would lose money, would minimize profits, or would have to raise prices for other customers to point they would lost a portion of those customers.

Dumb law, IMO.

We’re all entitled to our opinions.

Seems that the other internet providers in New York are willing to pick up AT & T’s slack, so shouldn’t be a problem.

EBITA??

30% - no
20% - no
10% - no

Apple?

30% - yea

Why does Apple not have to provide a $200 I-Phone?

If we are just talking about revenue?

that it’s wrong that they paid no income tax and in fact got money back. I don’t agree that means they should have to provide cheap internet to a subset of customers.

Two separate issues, IMO.

If they can report a loss, they get what they get.

I have no idea why they reported a loss, maybe a billion in infrastructure costs? No idea.

Has nothing to do with forcing a company to provide any service at a government set price. Government wants to set the price, provide the service.

I am not sure of the code/law/whatever you cite.

Urban area expanding in certain directions sure.

Multi-billion dollar development in Aspen or Montana … absolutely not.

Government can, and should, manage property rights, usually at the state/county level.

Bet those beaches burnt to the ground in Cali will not have any of those parameters set upon them.

Depends on the location and setting. I do notice the example you cite puts forth no number … just, “low” something. Why not put that number down, developers must build and sell a certain percentage of their new homes for $40k?

They would say … no.

Yet ….

You assume the rate set by NY is, reasonable.

So, ok, new developments must build and sell a certain percent of houses at $75k.

Pick a number, issue is the same.

If not, they are merely using the tax code that was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the president

than make some amount of profit? Making $0 is not a good business plan. These customers should count their blessings anyway, as AT&T is a horrible company.

During covid, we saw how poor students weren't able to keep up with online learning. Giving everyone access to high speed internet removes a huge barrier to many low income Americans.

And then they couldn't convince repubs to renew funding for it even though it allowed their constituents to have free or very low cost internet access.

The creep Ted Cruz even wanted to renew it...but only for rural areas! The most cynical, repulsive move I've seen in a while.

... that they won't ever have to deal with AT&T.

( Providing they have other internet options, of course. )

when I saw the ad. Instead I waited until Verizon offered 5G internet at my address in NY. Starts at $25 a month for first cell phone account member and $35 or $45 for others on the account depending on what they choose. You don’t have to have a Verizon cell phone account to get 5G.

This law created a whole new layer of administrative overhead, not to mention legal issues dealing with people who are denied.