Broadband Usage Caps Now Drive MORE Broadband Usage, Study Finds

Broadband

from the nickel-and-dime-you-to-death dept

We’ve noted for years how broadband usage caps are a pointless, unnecessary cash grab by telecom monopolies looking to nickel-and-dime consumers who already pay too much for broadband.

The telecom industry’s original claim that the caps were necessary to “manage network congestion” were never true. Companies like Comcast used that claim for years to sell a gullible press on the need for the confusing, unpopular restrictions, but eventually even telecom giants stopped making the claim, after data and internal company leaks repeatedly showed it to be complete bullshit.

Interestingly, a recent study by OpenVault brought the subject to the forefront again, after it showed that capped customers now pretty routinely use more data than uncapped users:

Home internet customers who pay extra for exceeding certain data thresholds consumed, on average, 562.7 gigabytes of data from January – March vs. 555.5 for subscribers who pay one flat rate for unlimited data. 

In short, knowing they’re paying more for access has these users using their connection more, resulting in more network load than if you’d just left these users on unlimited data plans. Oh ironies of ironies.

Again, usage caps were never about “managing network congestion.” There was never any evidence that was true. But if you look at coverage about this new study from two different trade magazines, you’ll notice that the idea that caps meaningfully helped reduce network congestion is still held as established truth, even if its primary function was always just to make more money off of captive customers.

Here, for example, the idea is floated that arbitrary restrictions were somehow a boon for consumers:

Of the two approaches, the more profitable for operators is “absolutely” the UBB billing pricing model, [CEO Mark] Trudeau told Fierce Telecom. And despite misconceptions about UBB, he said it’s actually beneficial for consumers, too.

No, completely pointless, confusing, and arbitrary restrictions designed exclusively to boost revenues are not “beneficial for consumers.” Trade magazines and companies that work closely with telecoms can’t really be honest about this fact, so they’re still spinning the age old yarn.

The real story is that after years of pushing the idea that caps were necessary to manage network congestion, the idea is now coming back to bite telecoms on the ass:

Operators who have incentivized UBB (usage based billing) as a tool to reduce strain on the broadband plant and differentiate from their competitors now have to face the consequences of their successful campaign and figure out how to keep up with snowballing network traffic.

Increasingly, the kind of telecom giants that cap usage are facing increased competition from companies who don’t, whether it’s Google Fiber, Sonic (whose CEO also noted caps are bullshit), fixed 5G connections with no caps, or community broadband networks (cooperatives, city-owned utilities, or municipalities) which also almost always steer clear of the confusing, punitive penalties.

You’ll note that all of those companies somehow had no problem making a living while offering truly unlimited data plans. If users were excessive consumers, ISPs can either deprioritize their traffic or force them to business-class tiers. Usage caps were always a bullshit construct designed to flimsily justify greed, and big telecom companies (and their various allies) still can’t candidly admit it, decades later.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, data caps, high speed internet, network management