ISPs Are No Longer Even Bothering To Provide Bogus Excuses For Their Expanding Use Of Bullshit Usage Caps
from the pay-more-money-for-the-same-exact-service dept
A few years ago, large ISPs began taking advantage of a lack of competition in the broadband market by imposing arbitrary, unnecessary and confusing usage caps and overage fees. Initially, these companies tried to claim that this was necessary to manage congestion on their networks. As data emerged indicating that this claim was bullshit, large ISPs were ultimately forced to acknowledge as much and back away from the claim.
Shortly after that, ISPs instead began claiming that these glorified price hikes were necessary as a simple matter of "fairness," and the industry narrative-du-jour became that it only made sense that heavier users should pay more money for broadband.
This excuse was bullshit too; Americans already pay some of the highest prices for broadband of any developed nation under the flat-rate pricing model, which any large ISP earnings report will show you is perfectly profitable. And if "excessive consumption" really was a problem, it was a problem caused solely by a small number of users that could easily be shoved toward business-class tiers. It didn't require saddling everyone with confusing and expensive surcharges.
These days, after being hammered for years for bogus justifications, large ISPs no longer even provide a reason for these rate hikes. Take Cox Communications for example. The company has quietly announced it would be expanding usage caps into several new markets, charging users $10 per each additional 50 GB of data users consumed over a one terabyte limit. The e-mail being sent to users, which is getting widespread attention on Reddit, doesn't even really bother to offer a justification for the price hike:
Several news outlets and reporters (including myself) tried to get Cox to explain its reasoning for the hikes, and the company simply refused. Of course there's a simple reason ISPs no longer try to justify this behavior: they don't have to.
Consumers in captive markets can't vote with their wallets, and cable providers are slowly but quietly enjoying a growing monopoly over next-gen broadband as telcos refuse to keep pace and upgrade their DSL networks. The end result is the ability for these companies to impose massive new rate hikes that not only result in users paying more money for the same-exact service, but help incumbent ISPs penalize the use of would-be streaming competitors. Zero rating an ISPs own services -- while still penalizing competitors like Netflix -- adds another layer of anti-competitive adventure to the proceedings.
But fear not! Cox did tell some news outlets that the company would soon be letting users avoid the caps and subscribe to an unmetered connection, for an added, unspecified cost. In other words: if you don't want to pay us more money for the exact same service, please pay us more money for the exact same service. Why? Because we can, and regulators couldn't care less.
Whenever the conversation about broadband caps pops up, many people quickly get bogged down in debate over whether or not a terabyte is fair, losing sight of the fact that these limits are utterly unnecessary, and we wouldn't be seeing them at all in a healthy, competitive market. What's deemed "fair" today won't necessarily be fair in the multi-user 4K streaming households of tomorrow. And without competitive pressure, there's nothing ensuring these caps scale with use. In fact, ISPs are incentivized to tighten the noose further once you've agreed to have your usage metered.
And with the current Ajit Pai-led FCC clearly intent to turn a blind eye to both a lack of competition and the predatory behavior that results from it (be it violations in privacy or net neutrality), there's plenty more anti-competitive shenanigans and feebly-justified nonsense waiting in the wings.
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, fcc
Companies: cox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ISPs, that I happen to be able to count on one hand that's short two fingers, are cunts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: caps are theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there was any actual issue with network congestion, management, excessive consumption, or "fairness" that had to be dealt with by caps and extra fees, then the ISP should also be able to pass along a refund to each and every user who doesn't hit their cap every month.
After all, if their networks are so full that 1.05 terabytes costs $10 more than 1.00 TB, then if I only consume 500 GB in a month I ought to be getting a huge payback for all that bandwidth I'm not using.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulation
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
LACK OF REGULATION IS REGULATION
PAINT CHIPS ARE DELICIOUS
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
War is war. And peace is peace. And America has never been at peace, despite the majority wanting peace.
Lack of regulation is lack of regulation. Regulation is good but has been played, abused, lobbied and corrupted by few huge companies with huge corrupting pockets.
The problem is not regulation.The problem is the conspiracy between corporation and government officials to rig the laws, in their writing, in their interpretation and in their application, for their own benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
But that does not mean that we need ZERO regulation. Zero regulation will be even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
Well, it's a new generation and all of those companies that got rich off of unlimited service are now wondering why they offer such a thing when they can make people pay for every byte. I expect that in a decade or so, some brilliant young MBA will have the novel idea of providing unlimited internet, and running all of their competitors out of the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Caps are proof the ISPs have no competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be nice to be able to resell my unused bandwidth, or at least join a pool of other users to equalize usage so no one would ever gets hit by a surcharge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Isn't it easier to ditch data caps so you can use the whole capacity of the pipe you hired (ie: your speed) to the fullest if you so desire?
Everybody is paying for an allocated speed (or pipe capacity) and the ISPs are denying such use as the customer sees fit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I would like to see...
With Century Link at the 50mbs speed I could hit the data cap in a day and a half. (Even more interesting was that their data cap policy was a cut and paste from Comcast's data cap policy.)
Part of this is to move high bandwidth users to the much more expensive business class service which has no data caps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Cox customers
https://www.cox.com/residential/support/data-plan-and-usage.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Cox customers
https://www.cox.com/residential/support/data-plan-and-usage.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"That's not rain Cox, and you're not fooling anyone claiming it is."
If they feel safe enough to just hit people with caps, they should at least be honest enough to tell people why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
henceforth
WE ARE GREEDY BASTARDS and wot ya gonna do about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: henceforth
We are greedy and savage bastards, what you gonna do about it?
That is terrorist thinking you idiot.
We put bombs in public places and kill innocent because we are savages what you gonna do? We do it because we heard the same: "We are the american government and we will invade you for your oil and what you gonna do?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mobile Carrier Dejavu
The $10 BS will be a thing until a real other option (ie. 5G) comes. Then watch the overcharge transition to a rate limiting throttle after you consume your full speed tier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mobile Carrier Dejavu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A marriage of the rich, corporations and the government is Fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A marriage of the rich, corporations and the government is Fascism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once we get that we will be able to use same connection aka the same same fee, for everything:
- different places, different houses
- your cell or your laptop or any other device
- use it mobile while out or as wifi while at home
Once this is achieved, the ISPs business model will stop booming and it will flat out. There will be no more growth in this and they will be forced to either conform or to provide other services for continued revenue growth. And this requires actual hard work, actual innovation and actual competition.
It is not a matter of if this will happen or not. It will happen. The question is when and how. We need to do everything in our power to accelerate this as much as possible and at the lowest price.
It has to be unlimited, it has to be unrestricted, it has to be mobile, and the low price component is to give EVERYONE access. No point of having the best internet ever if no one or almost no one can make use of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]