Comcast's Christmas Present To Broadband Users: More Usage Caps In More Places
from the captive-markets dept
Comcast has quietly announced that the company is expanding its usage caps into nearly a dozen new markets just in time for the holiday season. And by announced, I mean the company buried the freshly capped markets in a FAQ over at the Comcast website. As we've been noting, Comcast has slowly but surely been expanding a "trial" of usage caps whereby users face a 300 GB cap with $10 per 50 GB overages, or pay $30 to $35 if they want to bypass the usage cap entirely. Apparently, Comcast believes if it moves slowly toward capping all users, people won't notice they're the frog in the boiling frog metaphor.As the press and public have grown increasingly critical of the cash grab, Comcast has responded -- by first pretending it didn't actually have usage caps (they're "usage allotments," Comcast insists), then by claiming these limits are necessary to establish "fairness" in the broadband market. In this latest e-mail sent to customers, Comcast falsely informs customers that they have nothing to worry about, because the majority of customers will never hit the company's cap:
"The median usage for XFINITY Internet customers is 40 GB of data in a month. And based on your recent usage history, it appears this new 300 GB data plan will not impact you. If you are not sure of your monthly data usage, please refer to the Track and Manage Your Usage section below...While we believe that 300 GB is more than enough to meet your Internet usage needs, if for any reason you exceed the 300 GB included in your plan in a month, we will automatically add blocks of 50 GB to your account for an additional fee of $10 each. We’re also implementing a three-month courtesy program. That means you will not be billed for the first three times you exceed the 300 GB included in the monthly data plan.Isn't that sweet. Of course it's irrelevant what the median customer consumes, because we're on the eve of the cord cutting revolution, and every house in the country will soon be burning through 300 GB as entire families consume streaming video (and soon 4K streaming video) like popcorn shrimp. Comcast knows this, and wants to get usage caps in place before this inevitable future delivers a round house kick to the face of its traditional TV revenues. You'll note the e-mail to customers doesn't even try to provide a reason for the caps, since Comcast long ago gave up on the bogus claim that such limits help police congestion.
Historically, Comcast has aimed these usage cap "trials" at less competitive markets, where users can't really vote with their wallet. But this latest expansion includes Chattanooga, Tennessee, home of one of the more notable municipal fiber broadband deployments by the name of EPB broadband. Comcast not only tried to sue EPB out of existence, it effectively bought a state-level protectionist law to ensure EPB couldn't grow. As such, it's odd Comcast is now eager to drive its customers to a competitor it tried for a decade to destroy, though EPB likely appreciates the sentiment all the same.
Historically the FCC has been utterly tone deaf to the anti-competitive, anti-innovation implications of both usage caps and zero rating, seemingly buying the broadband industry's claim that rate hikes imposed on captive markets are somehow about "creative experimentation." There have been some reports that the FCC is watching Comcast closely, but it's far from clear if the agency will ever actually act, and our new neutrality rules don't specifically forbid caps. The only real solution to Comcast's cash grab is competition, but unless you're lucky enough to live in an area with Google Fiber or municipal broadband (like the EPB example above), Comcast's got you exactly where it wants you: captive and capped.
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, data caps, usage caps
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is this before or after the throttling occurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is competition in my market, they try that shit here I'll switch in a second. They already tried to up me to a "faster" connection for a fee automatically. One phone call and not only did I get the upgrade, but I'm paying $10 less a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you not have Hughes Net satellite service in your area? I haven't checked them out but I have thought of it since my ISP keeps raising their price (I'm now paying twice what I did 5 years ago with no better service).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self-defeating argument
Of course, the above only makes sense if you take them at their word that the 'super users' are the reason for the caps, rather than a blatant cash-grab to get the caps in place, and get people used to them before people start really switching to streaming options for their entertainment, when those caps will suddenly seem a lot less 'generous'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Preparing for somethig that isn't happening
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Preparing for somethig that isn't happening
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1: Buy politics to acquire regional monopolies
2: Merge to acquire even stronger monopolies
3: Resist upgrades and improving your service
4: Provide poor customer service
5: Raise prices
Their entire business model has always revolved around these concepts and continues to do so. Competition is entering the market and it may cut into our profits? Can't have that. Who can I buy to keep them out!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
6. cheer like simpletons when net neutrality was passed and enforced by the organization that started the problem to begin with.
7. Watch FCC remove the fast lanes BS that was affecting business as little more than a highways tax by brigands only benefiting consumers indirectly.
8. Still not doing anything to ISP's playing this fucking game by just moving the bandwidth strategy away from business to business traffic and right down to the end consumer where no one is protected AS USUAL!
Keep cheering for net neutrality as the FCC see it folks, you will find out there is more than one one trick pony at this show!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, my curiosity was piqued
And the thing is, I'm not a cord-cutter. I have a Comcast TV package that I use constantly (I just happen to be online while I'm watching). Even so, I'm over the limit? Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Okay, my curiosity was piqued
I can only guess how much I'm using now since Verizon doesn't even count past 175G. They just tell me I'm using a lot of data and I might be better served by upgrading to their Quantum service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cordless!
Its not hard to go over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight locally?
Remember, Comcast relies on city-by-city regulations to exist. They can only get away with this because city officials let them. Don't wait for the FCC to do something, fight this from the bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fight locally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If lying put their execs in jail they'd be singing a different tune.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ambiguity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm considering moving into a region with a Comcast monopoly.
Help us, Google. Help us!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mediacom did this to me.
What happened you might ask? They transferred me to their customer retention dept SMFH. I mean seriously, how could they not get the message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]