Law To Ban Broadband Caps Moves Forward
from the not-the-best-solution... dept
We've already noted that NY Congressman Eric Massa believes broadband caps raise First Amendment issues, though we have trouble understanding exactly what those issues are. We're not fans of the caps by any stretch of the imagination -- and, in fact, think that they're bad for innovation and bad for everyone (including the broadband providers implementing them). However, that doesn't make them First Amendment issues. Still, Massa seems committed to introducing new regulations against caps, which may be as misguided as the caps themselves. The real issue shouldn't be whether or not the caps exist; it should be how we can enable more competition in the broadband space, such that caps are no longer an issue. Massa claims his bill will "seek to increase competition among broadband providers," but didn't provide any explanation of what that actually meant. It would be great to see more competition, but it seems unlikely that what's being cooked up here will do the trick.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, competition, eric massa, regulations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Makes no sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes no sense...
As for the First Amendment issues, I don't understand exactly how it comes into play. Seems like he just needed a reason to ban caps, and who is going to vote *against* the first amendment? I'd think there would be a better way to accomplish the goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Makes no sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Makes no sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question: why did compuserve die?
Answer: Because they wanted to charge for connection time.
It's why AOL got to be the giant they were.
No law was ever needed.
All this would do - if cable companies start limiting bandwidth is give the Telecom companies a HUGE selling point.
Perhaps legislation to make it easier for small business to get into broadband would work far, far better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If we go back to Dial Up rules it wouldn't be a problem.
Simply saying that we should increase competition isn't going to make it so. Laying fiber, cable, whatever to people's homes is a natural monopoly. The incumbent phone/cable operator build the network usually with large government subsidies. It isn't really fair to expect a competitor to absorb the cost of laying out a complete network on their own. Besides how many wires do you need going into your house, two, ten, a hundred?
What we need to do, is what telco's and cable companies successfully fought against, line sharing. Back in the POTS days ISP's were very competitive. Any ISP could use the same copper pair into anyone's home. They had to compete on price, or service offerings. If AOL sucked, then Earthlink was there, if they changed their terms, some no name local ISP could fill the bill. Prices went down, options went up.
Enter broadband, only the cable company can provide service over the coax, many ISP's offered DSL service over your phone line. Alternate DSL providers flourished, most offering better packages and lower prices than the telcos. Buy off a few Congressmen and presto, only the local phone company can offer DSL over your phone line. Options went down, prices went up, customer service generally stunk. If there is both a DSL and a Cable provider (esp. if the telco is rolling out FIOS) no talk of caps. If the telco is AT&T and offering caps, then so will the Cable company, if there is one. You live too far for the telco's DSL, too bad. A competitor isn't allowed to provide service any more and the telco isn't under any pressure to offer you that service.
When you choice is accept the unfair offer or do without, that isn't really a choice. If your electric company wanted to offer tiered electricity rates, would you say, just get your electricity from another provider? No? Why not? Same answer to internet access.
Internet access is like phone, or electric, or water service. It's become a utility. It needs to be regulated like a utility, or we could do what other countries do. Separate the lines from the service. Have the lines be a regulated monopoly and allow anyone to offer service over those lines. We need to treat it like the electric company or like the roads. Pick one. Until then we will fall farther and farther behind the rest of the developed world all to line the pockets of a select few at the expense of the vast many.
Just my $0.02.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If we go back to Dial Up rules it wouldn't be a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Current Advertising Laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know that anyone on this site would say they approve broadband caps - except maybe Weird Harold, cause bandwidth is soooooo expensive - but I think most people realize that this law pretty much falls flat on its face.
The only thing I might consider would be that if an ISP did have a monopoly in a given area, they can't cap that given area since the users would have no outside choice. But even that would be unlikely, especially since most areas have those lovely 2-3 "choices" in most places, between telcos, cable companies, and satellite companies - and it would have nothing to do with free speech at any rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the first amendment problem
ISP's want to limit or block certain traffic to ease the strain on their networks, but once they are able to discriminate against one type of traffic over another, say based on data type (giving streaming video preference over p2p traffic for example) what's to stop ISP's from discriminating against traffic based on vendor or some other non-technical criteria such as political or religious affiliation?
with the selective application of broadband caps, a similar scenario emerges, where some sites and services are "free" from applying to the cap while others do. mobile carriers already do this by providing unlimited calls to other subscribers, while charging you minutes for calls to a competitor's subscriber.
if a cable company wants to sell video services over its data service, and it does not want to compete with hulu or youtube, then having the cable company's service not apply to the users' broadband cap gives the cable company's service a huge advantage thanks to the captive audience. by using the competitive service, you run the risk of going over your cap and losing access or incurring a higher bill for service.
i will admit that is seems far fetched right now, but ISPs have deliberately degraded or blocked access to competitive services in the past, what's to stop them from doing so in the future? what's to stop them from letting politics or religion from entering into the equation as well?
if the application of caps is subjective, then what's to stop a liberal ISP from providing unrestricted access to The Nation, while counting (or double counting) traffic from fox news? what's to stop an ISP that is sympathetic to scientology from applying caps to the websites of psychologists and scientology critics?
if there were more competition in the residential broadband space, there would be significant pressure on ISPs to not engage in these kinds of activities. but since the broadband market has failed, perhaps legislation at the state level will be enough to scare ISPs into abandoning their pursuit of caps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the first amendment problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>cards, if anyone uses them. And didn't dial-up
>come in tiers at some point in time?
But do they sell those plans as unlimtied cell phone service? It is one thing to sell a package of a known quantity of anything by either weight, volume or time and entirely another to say it is unlimited as long as you don't use too much.
I think what governments can and should mandate is the acceptable methods to measure band width use and how these limits are advertised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So yes, basically you can lie in advertising if you include a notation mark and an illegible blurb that says, "Just kidding."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no competition
I would like to see the congressman add that companies can engage in price gouging if there is at least one competing service available to every customer in its service area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulated Utility, Anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good review
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also at $2 a GB over, I would be looking at about $1500 in overage charges last month and I am well on my way this month. I am against the caps but I think that open market should decide weather these companies should do this or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
apparently you are either clueless or don't read other comments. The problem is, there is NO competition in many areas. So leaving it to the market doesn't work.
As was stated earlier, Time Warner is only rolling out "caps" in areas where they have no competing service to theirs. So where will those customers go to?
Oh, and it's "lose" , not "loose".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Competition
Don't believe for a second that TWC or any other provider is anywhere near the limits of their networks, they just want to make it harder of other companies to provide services and compete. TWC has their own VOIP phone system and is planning on providing on-demand streaming video content, none of which counts toward your cap. But a competitors VOIP service or streaming content will be used against you.
While it might not be the best solution, I have no choice but to support this bill. I would prefer to to tell TWC that if they implement caps, We'll sign-up with XYZ, but there is no competition in this area.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
broadband monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this then that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If this then that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Easy....
So say:
5GB = $50
10GB = $60
25GB = $75
100GB = $125
Unlimited = $150
I don't actually pay bills, so I wouldn't know how much it should asctually cost. I was just throwing around numbers. And that's just my opinion. It makes sense. You wouldn't charge someone $10 for 20 texts. Just like you wouldn't charge someone $10 for 2000 texts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caps have advantages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
say no to caps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caps... No one likes them
I am also a big gamer... which isn't good for my cap, I play xbox live, steam games and other stuff.
Usually by the end of the month I have acumumulated about 12 gigs in usage even with the cap in affect.
So if anyone of you isp is reading this i just want to say, "up yours for making me play games at a limited speed and having me lag and fail at what im trying to accomplish"
Now that thats outa the way, I'm going to download Left 4 Dead via steam client (which is 7 gig) and leave my computer on for about 2 days straight just to finish the download.
Oh and btw I WONT BE RECOMENDING YOUR SERVICE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caps... No one likes them
I hate playing call of duty 5 and getting so laggy because my speeds are capped that i can on get killed because im lagging to much.
"F THE ISP'S WITH CAPS!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]