Home » Broadband "Shortage" »Competition »Consumer News »Data Caps »Online Video »Public Policy & Gov't » Currently Reading:

Consumer Groups Question FCC Chairman’s Endorsement of Internet Overcharging Schemes

Genachowski

On Tuesday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said that he generally supports data caps and tiered broadband pricing plans. The chairman’s comments came during an interview at the Cable Show with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, now the top lobbyist with the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

Genachowski has remained consistent in his cautious support for “industry innovation” that includes usage-based pricing, with a caveat providers should not exploit that at the expense of consumers.  But consumer groups like Free Press already believe usage caps, particularly on wired broadband services, are already bad for consumers, exploit a marketplace duopoly, and are worthy of investigation by the agency.

“All the evidence shows that caps on wired broadband platforms like cable make no sense. They don’t affect network congestion, even in the rare instances where congestion actually exists on these systems,” says Free Press policy director Matt Wood. “Cable companies use them to penalize their subscribers and discourage them from using innovative services that compete with cable TV.”

Free Press reminded Genachowski of Comcast’s recent actions which exempted its own video content from usage caps, while leaving them in place for competitors.

“Comcast’s recent actions show both the harms of these caps and the lack of any legitimate reason for them,” noted Wood. “[Now] Comcast changed course and suspended caps temporarily in all but a few markets — but promised to start overcharging any users there who exceeded these arbitrary limits.”

“The FCC has turned a blind eye to this competition problem. If it wants to see experimentation in pricing that actually benefits consumers, we need a competition policy that creates more experimenters.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
txpatriot
txpatriot
11 years ago

Internet “overcharging” schemes? No, that’s not a loaded headline at all . . .

Scott
Scott
11 years ago
Reply to  txpatriot

What else would you call charging extra fee’s on top of a monthly subscription for usage that’s already built-in to the cost of service? Landline broadband only costs a couple cents per Gig, nothing for transit within their own network, or free peering between major providers other than normal costs of doing business. There is no justification for these fee’s, hence the term “overcharging” as it’s just an attempt to monetize and extra extra profit off consumers at a rate of about 20-30%+ in increased income for operators able to get away with it in areas with no competition. Loaded?… Read more »

txpatriot
txpatriot
11 years ago
Reply to  Scott

Scott, whether such charges amount to “overcharging” is subject to debate, but to say the Chairman “endorsed overcharging” is misleading at best, and an outright falsehood at worst. Look, I get that this site is devoted to trashing big telcos. You have every right to your opinion. But when I call out bullsh*t like this, don’t accuse me of trolling. By the way, if it costs so little to offer broadband, I invite you to start your own broadband access provider to see just how cheap it really is. If the margins are so huge, you should be able to… Read more »

Scott
Scott
11 years ago
Reply to  txpatriot

I was a system administrator for a ISP and know how lucrative they are from running one before all the deregulation that made for a hostile working relationship with the local telco and eventually was going to force us out of the business, luckily we won on customer support and had the bulk of the market and we’re offered a significant premium of several million dollars by the telco to sell the company, which we did before the market got any worse. I’d be more than happy to do it again if it were possible in this environment, but the… Read more »

txpatriot
txpatriot
11 years ago
Reply to  Scott

Scott thanx for your thoughtful reply. I was being snarky before, but I still maintain that what’s “excessive” is in the eye of the beholder. OTOH what is absolutely beyond doubt is that the Chairman NEVER said he agreed with “excessive” “overcharges”. He said he was OK with different business models and pricing schemes. I think that’s the right point of view, but I understand that not everyone agrees with me.

txpatriot
txpatriot
11 years ago
Reply to  Scott

Scott, I didn’t respond to your comments on barriers to entry.

I agree that incumbents have significant advantages as “first-movers”. But incumbency didn’t stop google from deploying broadband in Kansas City (or was it Overland Park?), and I just saw an article on The Hill that is relevant:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/229089-partnership-plans-ultrahigh-speed-internet-networks

Incumbency is a problem for new entrants to be sure, but the problem is not insurmountable.

Scott
Scott
11 years ago
Reply to  txpatriot

I’m afraid I don’t share your optimism when you’re have to point out a company with a market cap of nearly 200 billion dollars paying a 3rd party to build out and manager a trial fiber network for Kansas City. Sadly that’s about what it takes as an incumbent not so beholden to shareholders, but that would certainly change if they suddenly announced a nationwide built-out.

The biggest success stories are the community owned networks, but those are just fraught with a lot of risk due to political maneuvering and predatory pricing by the big Cable and Telco companies.

txpatriot
txpatriot
11 years ago
Reply to  Scott

Scott, it takes only one counterexample to disprove a general claim.

And surely you’re not suggesting that only a company as big as google could repeat what they’ve done in KC? The point is, the “monopoly” telcos and cable cos could not keep google out of KC.

I see no reason why a smaller company could not do the same thing in a different market.

txpatriot
txpatriot
11 years ago
Reply to  Scott

Scott here’s another example, this time by a start-up which by definition is somewhat smaller than google:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/technology/partnership-plans-to-bring-ultrahigh-speed-internet-to-six-communities.html

“SAN FRANCISCO — A start-up company plans to announce Wednesday that it has raised $200 million to deliver ultrahigh-speed Internet service in six communities surrounding research universities around the country.

The company, Gigabit Squared, will work with Gig.U, an alliance of public and private universities that want to build islands of superfast networks to foster economic development and to promote services like education, health care and scientific research in the communities. ”

[excerpted]

Andrew
Andrew
11 years ago

There should be a law against this. This just reeks of corruption! How do they get away with this!?

“The chairman’s comments came during an interview at the Cable Show with former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, now the top lobbyist with the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.”

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!