They never take action on broadband pricing or false advertising. Which is why you'll see ISPs consistently crow about how this sort of thing should be left to the FCC. But as the FCC has noted they do have some rate regulation authority under Title II.
Correct. On a per household level (streaming, patches, steam game downloads) we're not talking a huge allotment.
And one also needs to ask if ISPs will grow those caps alongside usage, or if they'll squeeze to make more profit from more people. As companies that need improved quarterly earnings bumps, I think the answer to that should be pretty obvious.
Brain fart, sorry. Was thinking "former Verizon regulatory lawyer" and wrote former commissioner instead. Or maybe it's wishful thinking, since I think the guy's an absolute revolving door regulation embarrassment.
With a few exceptions where their hand has been forced by muni or other operations (parts of North Carolina), they're primarily offering gigabit speeds to places where fiber was already in the ground and no real cost or work is involved. Read: housing developments, campus condos.
I think they'll probably hang on to these customers for a while, but by and large they're just cherry picking the places where there's minimal effort and expense involved.
They want the public to believe they're engaging in full city builds, they're just not.
Re: Re: 'Competition' means more than one viable choice
"Is that a truly honest play?"
Raising the definition of broadband from a pathetic 4 Mbps is dishonesty? I think it makes perfect sense, and it's not the FCC's fault that AT&T refuses to upgrade technology operating on roughly half of the company's network after receiving billions in subsidies to build and maintain it.
The biggest problem to me (aside from the fact this is an obvious and aggressive cash grab) remains how nobody in government gives two shits that companies like AT&T and Comcast, with an indisputable history of fraud, are metering usage with no objective third party confirming whether the meters are accurate.
Yeah we're still waiting to see how that shakes out.
The irony is ESPN's contracts with cable operators say that if ESPN creates a streaming option, that very provision in the contract restricting cable operators from taking ESPN out of the core tier evaporates.
So ESPN's stuck between a rock and a hard place: launch a streaming video option and invite more cord cutting but adapt, or fight adaptation to protect your legacy cash cow.
I think the former option is the only real path forward, but it will probably take ESPN another year to realize it.
I tend to agree. I tend toward balanced regulation and find the auto-anti-regulation position kind of a nnoying, but I agree that the government doing nothing here would probably result in the best possible outcome.
The course is set, and Internet video will have a profound and painful impact on the legacy TV cash cow. Makes more sense to keep an eye on the broadband front, where usage caps are going to be the real pain point as streaming truly starts to take off...