Slashdot Mirror
AT&T's Slow 1.5Mbps Internet In Poor Neighborhoods Sparks Complaint To FCC (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T is facing a complaint alleging that it discriminates against poor people by providing fast service in wealthier communities and speeds as low as 1.5Mbps in low-income neighborhoods. The formal complaint filed today with the Federal Communications Commission says that AT&T is violating the Communications Act's prohibition against unjust and unreasonable discrimination. That ban is part of Title II, which is best known as the authority used by the FCC to impose net neutrality rules. But as we've explained before, Title II also contains important consumer protections that go beyond net neutrality, such as a ban on discrimination in rates, practices, and offerings of services.
"This complaint, brought by Joanne Elkins, Hattie Lanfair, and Rachelle Lee, three African-American, low-income residents of Cleveland, Ohio alleges that AT&T's offerings of high-speed broadband service violate the Communications Act's prohibition against unjust and unreasonable discrimination," the complaint says. AT&T is not immune to the ban on discrimination "merely because its discrimination is based on investment decisions," the complaint also says.
"This complaint, brought by Joanne Elkins, Hattie Lanfair, and Rachelle Lee, three African-American, low-income residents of Cleveland, Ohio alleges that AT&T's offerings of high-speed broadband service violate the Communications Act's prohibition against unjust and unreasonable discrimination," the complaint says. AT&T is not immune to the ban on discrimination "merely because its discrimination is based on investment decisions," the complaint also says.
You are not rich.
A household income of $115K will put you in the top 20%.
One can be rich without being filthy rich.
Perhaps you're new here. Otherwise, I can't think how you'd have missed countless articles about telecoms providers lobbying heavily to prevent and prohibit municipalities - i.e. groups of local property owners - from competing by offering internet services to their community.
Except you're assuming that AT&T is arbitrarily discriminating rather than choosing to not invest in infrastructure where the risk of attempting to make their investment back is too great.
We paid them to do it. They took our money, they failed to build out high-speed broadband to the entire country like they promised, and in the same year we gave them the money, they paid out extra-large bonuses to their executives. They simply stole our money and split it up between them. They're not arbitrarily discriminating, they're discriminating against the customers they think are least likely to fight back against their theft.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I find this all curious simply for the reason that I live in what could be described as a non-fancy neighborhood in a post-second world country with median income of $10k-$15k per year, a neighborhood that actually gets neglected by telcos for the very simple reason of being a ("commercially uninteresting") several kilometers long "noodle" between two larger agglomerations, and even *I* get access to a line with a ~10 Mb/s capability. I have no idea what you Americans are doing. I can understand that rural settings can be different but even the US, despite the low population density, is already highly urbanized. Most people simply shouldn't have these kinds of problems.
Ezekiel 23:20