# FCC Asked to Look Into Data/BW Caps



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> *56% of Americans have Internet data caps; FCC asked to investigate*
> 
> Two prominent Washington DC tech policy groups have asked the Federal Communications Commission to investigate Internet data caps in the US-with a special focus on AT&T.
> 
> New America Foundation and Public Knowledge say in a letter (PDF) that data caps aren't necessarily a problem, but that they do "carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive monopolistic ways."





> Noting that moves to artificially limit Internet use would move against the FCC's own policy of encouraging broadband deployment and use, the two groups asked the agency to investigate data caps in the US. Specifically, they want to know if any ISP-offered services are excluded from the cap, how often the cap is enforced, how customers are warned about usage levels, and whether enforcement is related to network congestion.


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ternet-data-caps-fcc-asked-to-investigate.ars


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

> ...whether enforcement is related to network congestion


This is the one that I'd like to hear the answer to. I'm thinking that the caps are in place for nefarious reasons (though I couldn't tell you what those reasons are -- I'm just suspicious) & not because the ISP's are having problems with large numbers of customers downloading large amounts of data. Have any of the ISP's started offering higher-priced data plans that allow for higher download limits? That's kind of what I expected to see.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Let me say up front that I much prefer unlimited internet to caps on the bandwidth...

BUT

I completely get why ISPs would want caps.. and whether or not they "have to" in order to curb usage and manage it... it seems to me like it should be their right to do so, and the free market should speak.

Again... I don't want/like caps... but it is hard to argue that they don't have the right to do it.

There are, however, lots of other things the ISPs try to do that I think the FCC should step in to stop... like when they offer their own streaming video but want to block a 2rd party... OR if they would offer their own streaming for free but would count 3rd party access towards your bandwidth cap.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> Let me say up front that I much prefer unlimited internet to caps on the bandwidth...
> 
> BUT
> 
> ...


My parents ISP did this. Carbonate backup didn't count, other did. I think they did the same with Netflix. And since there was a 5gb acceptable use clause on their DSL, that would go fast. Fortunately they realized it was a bad idea.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I don't know where the issues are - which ISPs?

Comcast's ceiling is 250GB. We're on our computers, iPads, etc. a lot. We stream some video. We use about 5% of that limit.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

phrelin said:


> I don't know where the issues are - which ISPs?
> 
> Comcast's ceiling is 250GB. We're on our computers, iPads, etc. a lot. We stream some video. We use about 5% of that limit.


The ones that will scream the loudest are the ones that are downloading torrents(most of which illegal of course), especially all the crap their spoiled silver-spooned kids download. All the people I know that have teenage kids, have problems with their kids spending all their time illegally downloading stuff they dont want to pay for or rent, music, movies, etc...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"phrelin" said:


> I don't know where the issues are - which ISPs?
> 
> Comcast's ceiling is 250GB. We're on our computers, iPads, etc. a lot. We stream some video. We use about 5% of that limit.


That is pretty reasonable. But what about an ISP that sets acceptable use at 5? Fortunately they ended up backing off, but my parents had no other option except satellite. The cable company doesn't offer cable Internet there.

Or say they never bump it up. Would a cap that is reasonable in 2011 be so in 2020?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I think AT&T went to 150GB for DSL and 250GB for U-verse internet...

but on the mobile side, they have 200MB and 2GB (I think it is 2) caps.

You could easily blow through the mobile if you watch Netflix regularly on an iPhone or iPad (or other device).... but I'm not sure if AT&T counts their own streaming U-verse against your bandwidth. I don't have U-verse TV so I can't check to see.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Based on my experience with AT&T on the iPhone, not sure how successful Netflix would be. Most would generally use it on wifi for that. I don't have as much of a problem with their mobile tiers as I do home connections. One, all your data doesn't have to use that quota, and there are at least 2 options.

If you use 5% of your cap, why don't they offer a lower priced connection with the same speed but a lower cap? If you do think you need more than 250gb, why can't you pay extra for it and not have to try to get a business account?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> ...If you use 5% of your cap, why don't they offer a lower priced connection with the same speed but a lower cap? If you do think you need more than 250gb, why can't you pay extra for it and not have to try to get a business account?


Sounds like you're talking _metered_ usage, the idea of which makes tech heads spin.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

If you don't mean "unlimited" bandwidth THEN DON'T SAY IT!

What we tend to forget in our American parochialism is what the rest of the world does.

For example, we don't have the fastest internet. COuntries like SOuth Korea, FInland and (soon) England make us look pathetic. Somehow, THEIR telecom companies can provide MORE bandwith for LESS money per month while being taxed at crazy European rates.

Americans are beginning to be like SHEEP believing everything they're told. I mean, when a company says "net neutrality will eliminate innovation", I have no idea why people believe it - giver the past history of those companies. What they mean is "net neutrality means you won't be forced to buy new sevices from US".

I use a lot of bandwidth. I do remote connections to my machines here at home. Heck, I've read my mail on my desktop in New England while on my laptop in France. I pay just shy of $50/mo for my fiber line (15/2).

Now I'm watching an increasing amount of HD via Netflix. On top of that, some of my bandwidth seems to be taken by Dish downloading stuff to my DVRs that I never watch (though I don't have numbers for that).

There are some ISPs out there that want to extract the most possible money for the barest minimum of service. As long as true competition is stifled, they can get away with it. I mean, look at what happened in Massachusetts when Verizon started eating Comcast's lunch.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't know if we can compare ourselves to some of the other countries. One, those are much smaller geographically. I believe South Korea is very dense. Also, at least in Europe, the tax rate is pretty high. Does any of that fund telecommunications upgrades?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't think I need more than 250GB, for example, right now...

But the price I am paying now is the same price I was paying last year for unlimited... i.e. no cap...

Why didn't my bill go down since my cap has dropped from unlimited to 250GB? Logic says that IF (using AT&T as an example) they were enabling the caps because of users that go past that costing them too much... it seems like the thing to do would be to lower the prices when they institute the caps.

I wasn't using unlimited bandwidth before... so I wasn't the one causing them to need to put the caps in place.

All the caps really accomplish... is allowing them to charge you more (potentially) without calling it a raise in prices. Now if you stay under the new cap, you pay the same as before... but if you go over you pay a lot more... which means they effectively raise prices on everyone because monthly charge divided by 250GB is a larger # than monthly charge divided by infinity 

Of course prices will still go up anyway... whether you stay under the cap or not... so in the long run, it really never means anything positive to the consumer when you pay the same price this year for potentially less service than that same money got you last year.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> All the caps really accomplish... is allowing them to charge you more (potentially) without calling it a raise in prices.


Which is exactly what the groups want the FCC to address.


----------



## Glen_D (Oct 21, 2006)

AT&T raised the monthly non-promotional price for DSL service $5/month in my area last year. It applied to all speeds (not absolutely certain about their fastest 6 Mbps, but I can't get that speed at my house, anyway). They had a similar monthly hike for U-verse internet earlier in 2010.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

I thought the courts have said the FCC has no authority to regulate broadband?


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> I don't know if we can compare ourselves to some of the other countries. One, those are much smaller geographically. I believe South Korea is very dense. Also, at least in Europe, the tax rate is pretty high. Does any of that fund telecommunications upgrades?


Oh we most certainly CAN.

South Korea is more dense than the US - no argument there. But we have plenty of "dense" right here in the US - especially in the east.

Finland is FAR less dense than the US.

France has PLENTY of rural areas (as my trip on the Eurostar showed me).

All of these countries tax their companies more than we do (and their people).

Mind you, these are just the ones I know off the top of my head. Google can wire a town with Gigabit access jsut to see what would happen. Why can't Comcast do that? I'll tell you why.. They looked at what happened to Verizon.

Fios is a classic example of "looking ahead". Superior, but more expensive technology with a HUGE amount of headroom for future bandwidth expansion. When Verizon wanted to put Fios everywhere, everyon hailed the idea. But when the bills came in, the shareholders went NUTS. They said "too expensive!". So Verizon scaled back their plans, even though, long term, this was a FANTASTIC investment.

Verizon went so far as to sell off their landline assets in ME, VT and NH (where I live) to help their balance sheet. I have legacy Fios equipment in my house because I was the first to sign up, before the announcement said it was available. We were SUPPOSED to have Fios TV available, but the sale to Fairpoint killed that.

So Comcast has their cable monopoly locally. Across the border, in MA where Verizon still lives, it's cheaper than here in NH (and I'm in a town of 27K next to a city of 85K, 15 miles south of a 100K city so we're not exactly "in the sticks")

The difference is our absolute worship of "Dollar Now" versus "Long Term Thinking". Once they (the ISPs) have you as a customer, the idea is to make sure you can't go anywhere else and to milk you for every penny their shareholders can get. Not *all* are like that, but that's the way it's headed.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

klang said:


> I thought the courts have said the FCC has no authority to regulate broadband?


That would be a first to me... The FCC regulates telephone and cable and OTA TV/radio transmissions... so why wouldn't it regulate internet as well?

It is, after all, the Federal Communications Commission...


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> That would be a first to me... The FCC regulates telephone and cable and OTA TV/radio transmissions... so why wouldn't it regulate internet as well?
> 
> It is, after all, the Federal Communications Commission...


If I understand correctly, Congress has not given the FCC the powers to do so. It hasn't stopped the FCC from trying anyway.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

klang said:


> If I understand correctly, Congress has not given the FCC the powers to do so. It hasn't stopped the FCC from trying anyway.


From the FCC Web site:

"_The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions._"

If the internet isn't "interstate and international communications" then I don't know what would be.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

True, but didn't the Supreme Court just slap them down over Net Neutrality?


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> True, but didn't the Supreme Court just slap them down over Net Neutrality?


District court of DC. Said the FCC didn't have authority.

Supreme sided with Comcast a few years ago on another broadband case for similar reasons.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

klang said:


> District court of DC. Said the FCC didn't have authority.
> 
> Supreme sided with Comcast a few years ago on another broadband case for similar reasons.


To some degree it is apples and oranges.

To say that the FCC can't regulate the internet because they have been prevented from regulating some parts of it... would be to say that nudity is legal because you can run around inside your house nude...

Basically, the FCC has been limited in how it regulates, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't regulate.

As for "net neutrality"... I find it really odd how many people have been against the FCC on that issue, considering that it would actually prevent a lot of the ISPs from abusing their relative monopolies on certain kinds of internet access. We really should be with the FCC on this, rather than against them.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Stewart Vernon said:


> To say that the FCC can't regulate the internet because they have been prevented from regulating some parts of it... would be to say that nudity is legal because you can run around inside your house nude...
> 
> Basically, the FCC has been limited in how it regulates, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't regulate.
> 
> As for "net neutrality"... I find it really odd how many people have been against the FCC on that issue, considering that it would actually prevent a lot of the ISPs from abusing their relative monopolies on certain kinds of internet access. We really should be with the FCC on this, rather than against them.


There was a time when I'd enthusiastically agree with you about the FCC. But this isn't a simple situation. The problem is defining "abuse."

I realize that in our society it is "smart" to get a better deal than the guy next door, to get full value. This has been extended to the point that within some circles it is acceptable to make billions right before you bankrupt thousands of people. I realize wanting to avoid paying for cable TV is hardly an Enron attitude, but somewhere a line has to be drawn. Then again, the Comcasts of the world deserve to be scrutinized.

Having no caps ignores the reality that there is limited infrastructure that individual customers essentially "appropriate" selfishly in order to avoid costs for such things as TV and movies delivered within the bandwidth allocated to cable/satellite/telcom TV service. Simply there are customers who steal from the rest of us.

Comcast set a cap at 250 GB per month for the home user, a number they apparently felt could be serviced. That seems like a fair number given their size which permits them to finance significant infrastructure improvements. Within their cable TV offerings, they offer TV and a huge number of movies on demand, so I think it's reasonable for them to resist allowing some home users to insist on being able to use 500 GB.

On the other hand, the FCC seems to undergo philosophical changes after each Presidential transition which these days appears to result in shifts in regulatory policy that seem irrational. So I'm not so eager to see them start setting complex rules particularly because I don't know what's fair for a small ISP company. And I can't decide what I think about AT&T and Verizon systems - but I think competition will reign in some abuse issues.

With that said, I do think it is imperative we have a system that essentially compels businesses to pay for their impact on the infrastructure and build that cost into their cost-of-doing-business. I simply do not want to subsidize a business with my monthly ISP fee whether that business is Amazon or Mildred down the street establishing a startup quilting supplies web site.

While in principle I've supported FCC regulation of communications utilities in the past, I've become very uneasy as I watch it fail the consumer in the TV industry partly because of the ongoing meddling of a lobby-controlled Congress.

So yes, "we really should be with the FCC on this, rather than against them." But, I'm at the "should be, but..." stage.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

phrelin said:


> Having no caps ignores the reality that there is limited infrastructure that individual customers essentially "appropriate" selfishly in order to avoid costs for such things as TV and movies delivered within the bandwidth allocated to cable/satellite/telcom TV service. Simply there are customers who steal from the rest of us.
> 
> Comcast set a cap at 250 GB per month for the home user, a number they apparently felt could be serviced. That seems like a fair number given their size which permits them to finance significant infrastructure improvements. Within their cable TV offerings, they offer TV and a huge number of movies on demand, so I think it's reasonable for them to resist allowing some home users to insist on being able to use 500 GB.


Here's the problem with that. Comcast and other cable companies are in the habit of promising what they can't deliver - like the movie "The Producers" - when people ask for the extent of what they were sold, the cards collapse.

I've had DSL and now Fios. This means I have a line, all my own, straight back to the central office. The Comcast subscribers here are SHARING a line with who knows how manyothers in the neighborhood. One person on another system said that he had it in his contract that said the cable company would "divide the neighborhood" when "the neighborhood" got to either 100 or 150 subscribers.

The upshot is that if the data gets to the central office, it then comes to me at 15Mbps. Improvements to their network can be done easier since they would 'only' have to add bandwidth from their offices to the backbones.

Comcast has to 'improve' things with a whole backbone-to-end-user upgrade from the looks of it.

But with the bandwidth cap.. Let's say I want to watch one 25GB HD movie per night, for argument's sake. That's 750GB over the course of a month.

Comcast doesn't want me paying $50/mo to get that. They want me paying $100+/mo to get it on their CABLE box. They don't like the idea of me going to Netflix or Hulu or someone else that can eat their lunch and give me what I want on MY terms.

This is why I haven't had cable since I moved out of my condo in 1990.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> To some degree it is apples and oranges.
> 
> To say that the FCC can't regulate the internet because they have been prevented from regulating some parts of it... would be to say that nudity is legal because you can run around inside your house nude...
> 
> Basically, the FCC has been limited in how it regulates, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't regulate.


I'm no legal expert here but this article states plainly:



> But the court unanimously agreed with Comcast that the FCC doesn't have an explicit right to regulate broadband service, and can't infer it from its power to set rules for cable TV and phone services.


Congress needs to give them the authority if they chose to.

Edit:

I believe it is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that is in still in play. Here is a law wiki that discusses it.



> However, because of the distinct regulatory regimes in the Act, services that are provided by different network technologies, but compete with one another, often receive different regulatory treatment. Also, the Act created a classification, "information services," that was not subject to either telephone or cable regulation. Today, voice and video services that are provided using Internet protocol technology may be classified as information services and therefore not subject to traditional voice or video regulation.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Courts do get it wrong sometimes...

Innocent people get convicted... guilty people are released... lawsuits are overturned and reinstated and overturned all over again routinely upon appeal.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the FCC can and does regulate the internet. However, clearly as well is that there are some limits to their current ability to enforce regulations on some areas. But those limits actually somewhat prove that the FCC is involved, otherwise the suit would be a moot point.

I've already said that I don't like or want caps... but I get why ISPs might want or need to have them... and I think they should have the right to do so... as long as they enforce them consistently and fairly.

As an example I gave... IF I have AT&T and they count Netflix streaming against my cap BUT don't count U-verse... then they are giving themselves an unfair advantage, and I believe that should be regulated! IF they have a cap then it should apply to all things equally so as to preserve free market competition... otherwise Netflix could not compete unless they became an ISP...

And we don't want an internet where you have to pay 10 different ISPs a monthly fee in order to use all the services available via internet.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

djlong said:


> Here's the problem with that. Comcast and other cable companies are in the habit of promising what they can't deliver - like the movie "The Producers" - when people ask for the extent of what they were sold, the cards collapse.
> 
> I've had DSL and now Fios. This means I have a line, all my own, straight back to the central office. The Comcast subscribers here are SHARING a line with who knows how manyothers in the neighborhood. One person on another system said that he had it in his contract that said the cable company would "divide the neighborhood" when "the neighborhood" got to either 100 or 150 subscribers.
> 
> ...


I'm happy you're happy with FIOS. That cannot be said everywhere FIOS has been, such as the Portland Oregon metropolitan area.

The problem is Verizon doesn't have clean hands when it comes to FIOS. In order to afford to provide service in profitable areas they sold off some other areas they had begun to serve, for instance to Frontier Communications in the Portland Oregon area.

Frontier figured out how to make it profitable - screw the customers FIOS chose to dump in order to maintain stockholder happiness. See this article.

On the other hand, Comcast got stuck with my area as part of Adelphia bankruptcy deal. I'm sure they could have sold us to someone else. But instead they upgraded our very rural system at considerable expense particularly when calculated on a per customer basis. I now have satisfactory high speed internet - not the highest Comcast offers elsewhere to urban area customers. But satisfactory.

To quote myself:


> I realize that in our society it is "smart" to get a better deal than the guy next door, to get full value. This has been extended to the point that within some circles it is acceptable to make billions right before you bankrupt thousands of people. I realize wanting to avoid paying for cable TV is hardly an Enron attitude, but....


I have some serious questions about both Verizon and AT&T starting with their choice to go into an area and make service available to some but not to everyone. AT&T, my land line company, does not even offer DSL in our area nor in many other "outlying" areas in California.

Yes, at my son's home in a more urban area, despite the fact that he's supposed to be getting super high speeds from Comcast, at certain times of the day he's seeing numbers near my speeds - faster than AT&T DSL, but hardly record setting. That doesn't make Comcast evil, it just makes their marketing seem like everyone else's - full of BS.

IMHO if we had a rule that said Google and Amazon could only have service that matched the fastest speed and bandwidth available to the least served home on an intertied power grid, we'd _all_ have blazing speeds. And Google's shares would be selling for $54.27 instead of $542.66. Instead you have better speeds than me and Google shares are selling at $542.66.

I suspect it will all even itself out at some point. But so far I'm not impressed by the results of competition in what is becoming an essential utility. I don't fault Comcast, or FIOS or AT&T or TWC or.... In fact, I kinda blame Jimmy Carter.


----------



## DarkSkies (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm not sure you can really trust the regulators ...

Regulator joins Comcast after she OK'd NBC deal
Former FCC member Baker will become senior VP of government affairs for NBCUniversal



> A top telecommunications regulator who voted to approve Comcast Corp.'s takeover of NBCUniversal in January is leaving to join the company as a lobbyist.
> 
> Meredith Attwell Baker, one of two Republicans on the five-member Federal Communications Commission, will become senior vice president of government affairs for NBCUniversal.
> 
> [...]


----------

