Comcast Thinking About Overage Fees And Tiered Usage

from the please-don't-use-our-broadband dept

Following Time Warner's recent plans to test broadband caps and overage fees, Broadband Reports has the scoop that Comcast is very strongly considering the same thing. Unlike Time Warner Cable's plans to test super low caps, Comcast is looking at 250GB/month -- which it claims will only impact 0.1% of users. Overage fees will be pretty high, however: $15 charge for each 10 GB over the cap. Comcast will also give users one free "slip up" month per year, for those who go over just for that one month.

There are some good and bad things to this news. On the good side, it would represent a big step up for Comcast in terms of actually being transparent. The company has always had caps, but they've been totally secret "fuzzy caps." Users would have no idea if they had gone over until Comcast sent them a nasty letter telling them to cut down on usage -- or they would lose their account. That said, the problem with tiered broadband is that it can serve to hold back innovation. It puts a limit on what people can do online, just as ISPs should be encouraging more innovative uses. As higher bandwidth applications are coming, limiting the value of an internet connection doesn't seem particularly wise. Providers who embrace innovation and supply the bandwidth to support it will be rewarded with happy customers.

Filed Under: broadband, cable, caps, overage fees, transparency
Companies: comcast

Time Warner's Overage Caps May Be Set Very Low

from the that's-not-overage----that's-normal-usage dept

Last week Broadband Reports broke the story of Time Warner's decision to test overage charges for their biggest users. I don't think it really makes sense for ISPs to charge in a way that makes their own services less valuable, but that's a different story. As long as the caps are clearly stated, it's worth seeing what happens. However, most of the talk about the caps seemed to suggest they would focus only on the off-the-charts extreme users of bandwidth in the "top 5%." However, Broadband Reports has another report now, suggesting that Time Warner will be testing a few different cap levels, including as low as 5GBs/month, which seems excessively low. If you're doing perfectly normal things, such as watching (authorized!) online videos or doing remote backups, 5GB can disappear mighty quickly. That doesn't seem like a way to stop "excessive" use. It seems like a way to squeeze more money out of a large percentage of users. On top of that, this gives less and less incentive for Time Warner to improve their network. The more they can claim the need for these congestion charges, the more money they can make. That seems backwards. Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if there were serious broadband competition, but that's still a long way away apparently.

Filed Under: bandwidth, caps, overage charges
Companies: time warner cable

Time Warner Cable Experimenting With Overage Charges For Top Users

from the bait-and-switch dept

Broadband Reports notes that internal memos from Time Warner Cable suggest the company is experimenting with overage fees for their highest bandwidth users in Beaumont, Texas. If those overage charges work, the idea, of course, would be to then roll them out nationwide. On the whole, overage charges are a lot more palatable than unpublished traffic shaping rules or "fuzzy caps" where the top users are cut off without any explanation of what line they crossed. The key, of course, is that with both of those latter "solutions," the subscriber is told they're getting unlimited service, but the reality is different. Assuming that the overage charges and the rules surrounding them are clearly communicated, such charges are more reasonable. However, there are still questions about how consumers will react to such a change, especially after being sold on an "unlimited" service. The bigger issue is that capping bandwidth usage is a way to slow down internet-based innovation. If there had been overage charges a few years back, services like YouTube might never have caught on, as people would be too worried about how much bandwidth it would suck up. If the cable companies can't provide enough bandwidth, that's clearly an issue -- but most reports suggest that claims of a bandwidth crunch are overblown. Update: Just saw Adam Thierer's amusing pre-emptive reply to me on the topic. I'm not as against the idea as he suggests, though I do think, in the long run, it's not a very good solution.

Filed Under: bandwidth, caps, overage charges
Companies: time warner cable