RSS
Comcast Admits Broadband Usage Caps Are A Cash Grab, Not An Engineering Necessity
from the whoops-a-daisy dept
For years the broadband industry tried to claim that they were imposing usage caps because of network congestion. In reality they've long lusted after usage caps for two simple reasons: they allow ISPs to charge more money for the same product, and they help cushion traditional TV revenues from the ongoing assault from Internet video. Instead of admitting that, big ISPs have tried to argue that caps are about "fairness," or that they're essential lest the Internet collapse from uncontrolled congestion (remember the debunked Exaflood?).
Over the years, data has shown that caps aren't really an effective way to target network congestion anyway, can hinder innovation, hurt competitors, and usually only wind up confusing consumers, many of whom aren't even sure what a gigabyte is. Eventually, even cable lobbyists had to admit broadband caps weren't really about congestion, even though they still cling to the false narrative that layering steep rate hikes and overage fees on top of already-expensive flat-rate pricing is somehow about "fairness."
Comcast is of course slowly but surely expanding usage caps into its least competitive markets. More recently the company has tried to deny it even has caps, instead insisting these limits are "data thresholds" or "flexible data consumption plans." But when asked last week why Comcast's caps in these markets remain so low in proportion to rising Comcast speeds (and prices), Comcast engineer and vice president of Internet services Jason Livingood candidly admitted on Twitter that the decision to impose caps was a business one, not one dictated by network engineering:
Repeatedly we've been told by ISP lobbyists and lawyers that if ISPs don't get "X" (no net neutrality rules, deregulation, more subsidies, the right to impose arbitrary new tolls, whatever), the Internet will choke on itself and grind to a halt. In contrast, the actual people building and maintaining these networks have stated time and time again that nearly all congestion issues can be resolved with modest upgrades and intelligent engineering. The congestion bogeyman is a useful idiot, but he's constructed largely of bullshit and brainless ballast.
Livingood will likely receive a scolding for wandering off script. Comcast, unsurprisingly, doesn't much want to talk about the comment further:
There are some indications that the FCC is watching usage caps carefully, and says it will tackle complaints about them on a "case by case basis." But what that means from an agency that has traditionally treated caps as "creative" pricing isn't clear. It's another example of how our net neutrality rules were good, but serious competition in the U.S. broadband sector would have been better.
Over the years, data has shown that caps aren't really an effective way to target network congestion anyway, can hinder innovation, hurt competitors, and usually only wind up confusing consumers, many of whom aren't even sure what a gigabyte is. Eventually, even cable lobbyists had to admit broadband caps weren't really about congestion, even though they still cling to the false narrative that layering steep rate hikes and overage fees on top of already-expensive flat-rate pricing is somehow about "fairness."
Comcast is of course slowly but surely expanding usage caps into its least competitive markets. More recently the company has tried to deny it even has caps, instead insisting these limits are "data thresholds" or "flexible data consumption plans." But when asked last week why Comcast's caps in these markets remain so low in proportion to rising Comcast speeds (and prices), Comcast engineer and vice president of Internet services Jason Livingood candidly admitted on Twitter that the decision to impose caps was a business one, not one dictated by network engineering:
Repeatedly we've been told by ISP lobbyists and lawyers that if ISPs don't get "X" (no net neutrality rules, deregulation, more subsidies, the right to impose arbitrary new tolls, whatever), the Internet will choke on itself and grind to a halt. In contrast, the actual people building and maintaining these networks have stated time and time again that nearly all congestion issues can be resolved with modest upgrades and intelligent engineering. The congestion bogeyman is a useful idiot, but he's constructed largely of bullshit and brainless ballast.
Livingood will likely receive a scolding for wandering off script. Comcast, unsurprisingly, doesn't much want to talk about the comment further:
"We've asked Comcast officials if there are any technology benefits from imposing the caps or technology reasons for the specific limits chosen but haven't heard back yet. Livingood's statement probably won't come as any surprise to critics of data caps who argue that the limits raise prices and prevent people from making full use of the Internet without actually preventing congestion."That's worth remembering the next time Comcast tries to insist that its attempt to charge more for the same service is based on engineering necessity. The problem? Our shiny new net neutrality rules don't really cover or restrict usage caps, even in instances when they're clearly being used to simply take advantage of less competitive markets. While Tom Wheeler did give Verizon a wrist slap last year for using the congestion bogeyman and throttling to simply make an extra buck, the FCC has generally been quiet on the implementation (and abuse) of usage caps specifically and high broadband prices in general.
There are some indications that the FCC is watching usage caps carefully, and says it will tackle complaints about them on a "case by case basis." But what that means from an agency that has traditionally treated caps as "creative" pricing isn't clear. It's another example of how our net neutrality rules were good, but serious competition in the U.S. broadband sector would have been better.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is true, though.
Let me rewrite this so it makes it clear:
"Repeatedly, we've been threatened by ISP lobbyists and lawyers that if ISPs don't get 'X' (no net neutrality rules, deregulation, more subsidies, the right to impose arbitrary new tolls, whatever), the ISP will choke the Internet by itself and grind it to a halt."
Amazing how a few simple changes to wording can make a claim a reality.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two Words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two Words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two Words
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"Repeatedly, we've been threatened by ISP lobbyists and lawyers that if ISPs don't get 'X' (no net neutrality rules, deregulation, more subsidies, the right to impose arbitrary new tolls, whatever), the ISP will choke the Internet in collusion with other incumbents and grind it to a halt."
Amazing how a few simple changes to wording can make a claim a reality. ;D
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then, it would have to hurt their bottom line. But, considering they are a virtual monopoly, that won't happen either.
So they only reason left to punt him is if Comcast is the most slimy, evil, twisted and sadistic entity in human history.
Oh damn, he maybe in trouble.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Campaign Idea
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Campaign Idea
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Campaign Idea
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Objection your honor
That's not to say Comcast is not gouging its subscribers. I just wouldn't call Jason as a witness.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of a Verizon VP at college
My immediate thoughts after sitting through that crap was "short Version, they are going to attempt suicide".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't drive your car 167 miles per hour, why are you capping my internet?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yet more proof that car analogies make no sense when talking about the internet.
I believe what they are trying to ask is if your car is capped at 300 miles/month, why give customers a car that can go greater than 50 mph.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
examples
Last year I was spending 66$ for 30 Mbps..
today I spend 35$ a month for 50 Mbps
I love suddenlink (formerly Cox)
SO yes it can get better......
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: examples
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Caps and Speeds
If you fall below minimum then the customers does not pay for that day since you failed to deliver.
I think wee would see an end to caps pretty quickly.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caps and Speeds
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Cox is rolling out data caps
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Business vs. Technical
Selling burst speed that is limited in duration is perfectly reasonable. If I want a file, I want it right now.
I don't like caps, and I would love cap free internet but saying that caps are a business decision isn't nefarious it's reflecting the fact that bandwidth is able to be sold at a discount to consumers because consumer usage patterns are different from say a popular FTP server. In an ideal world speed would be infinite and bandwidth would be what you paid for.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business vs. Technical
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Based on a 300GB cap in a 30-day month, the max advertised performance would be something like .000014GB per second.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
digitalbritainmyass
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment