Comcast Cap Blunder Highlights How Nobody Is Ensuring Broadband Meters Are Accurate

from the phantom-charges dept

For years now we've noted that while broadband ISPs rush toward broadband caps and usage overage fees, nobody is checking to confirm that ISP meters are accurate. The result has been user network hardware that reports usage dramatically different from an ISPs' meters, or users who are billed for bandwidth usage even when the power is out or the modem is off. Not only have regulators historically failed to see the anti-innovation, anti-competitive impact of usage caps, you'd be hard pressed to find a single official that has even commented on the problem of inaccurate broadband usage meters.

Enter Comcast, which has, of course, been slowly but surely expanding its usage caps into more and more noncompetitive markets. And given that Comcast continues to have among the worst customer service in any U.S. industry, the combined end result is about what you'd expect. Like users who say they've been repeatedly over-billed for broadband consumption that never actually occurred:

"Oleg received warnings in September and another in October, the latter while he was overseas for a multiple-week vacation with his wife. When they returned home on November 9th, Comcast’s data meter was “showing I used 120 gigs of data, like, while I was gone,” he wrote. Customers can check their usage on Comcast’s website."

...Calls with Comcast customer service agents didn’t clear up the problem. "I called Comcast... and was patronizingly informed that 'it must be somebody stealing your Wi-Fi,'" he wrote. "Possible, but highly unlikely. I’m a software developer, Linux kernel contributor, and I take my home security very seriously."

This being Comcast, the user was ignored when he told the ISP he was being billed for 120 GB of usage that supposedly occurred when he was away on vacation. So the user set about trying to document his problem over at YouTube, noting how he spent a few months using only cellular data to try and prove to Comcast their billing system was broken:Note this is actually a Comcast user with some technical skills; many Comcast users likely wouldn't know they were being over-billed, or if they did, wouldn't know how to measure their own usage. And of course in traditional Comcast fashion, it once again took somebody in the press to get Comcast to fix its screw up. Ultimately, Comcast admitted that it had accidentally swapped the user's MAC address, and was charging the customer for somebody else's usage:

Oleg provided us his full name and address so we could check into his situation with Comcast. The company investigated the problem after being contacted by Ars and confirmed that its meter readings were inaccurate. “We have reached out and resolved this,” a Comcast spokesperson told Ars. “There was a technical error associated with his account, which we have since corrected.”

"Comcast told Oleg that its system had him confused with another customer, he said. “It turns out their system had my modem MAC address entered incorrectly, there was an off-by-one typo that was hard to see so they were counting data from some modem who knows where,” Oleg told Ars.

So yeah, you've got multiple problems at play all creating a supernova of dysfunction. One, Comcast's taking advantage of the lack of broadband competition to impose usage caps (the user above says he'd leave, but has no other choices). Two, Comcast is using these usage caps to give its own content a leg up by exempting it from said caps (zero rating). Three, Comcast's dismal customer service means that even if you can prove you're being over-billed, you may not be able to get it fixed. Four, nobody in government can be bothered to make sure ISPs are metering accurately.

ISPs are incredibly eager to bill like utilities, but they've fought tooth and nail against being regulated as such. And despite all of the ISP hand wringing over net neutrality rules saddling them with draconian "utility regulations," regulators have by and large avoided truly applying most utility-grade regulations and price controls on ISPs. Should Comcast and other U.S. ISPs keep pushing their luck with usage caps, all of that may eventually need to change.

Filed Under: accuracy, broadband meters, data caps
Companies: comcast

FCC Boss Mocks Unfair Comcast Broadband Caps At Industry Dinner, Still Hasn't Done Squat About It

from the tilted-playing-fields dept

As we've covered for some time, Comcast has slowly but surely been expanding the company's immensely-unpopular broadband usage caps. Primarily deployed to less competitive markets where consumers can't vote with their wallet, the caps restrict customer consumption to 300 GB per month, after which users have the option of either paying $10 per each additional 50 GB, or paying a $30 to $35 fee for the same unlimited data they used to enjoy. It's Comcast's charming way of imposing a glorified rate hike on uncompetitive markets while simultaneously using market power to protect TV revenues from Internet video.

And while arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps are bad enough, the company recently added a new wrinkle to the mix: it launched a streaming video service (creatively called "Stream") that won't count against Comcast's usage caps. That obviously puts competing services at a disadvantage, so it raised alarm bells among net neutrality advocates. Comcast, however, has argued that because Stream is a "IP cable service delivered over our managed network to the home," net neutrality doesn't apply. What has the FCC said? Nothing.

The FCC's neutrality rules don't specifically restrict zero rating, and the agency has said it will approach such issues on a "case by case" basis. So far, however, the FCC has been utterly mute on the subject of Comcast caps and zero rating of its own services. That was until last week's FCC Bar Association Chairman's dinner (aka the "telecom prom"), where lobbyists and regulators rub elbows and giggle over the year's events. FCC boss Tom Wheeler spent some time making fun of the industry's chicken little response to Title II, but also Comcast's usage caps (and its refusal to call them caps):

"Wheeler had hardly gotten warmed up when he turned his attention to Comcast, which had a table at the dinner. Wheeler said the custom at the dinner was "to drink as much wine as you want." Then he asked: "Where's the Comcast table," then repeated himself and scanned the crowd. When the table had identified itself, the chairman went to work. "Waiters, pay attention. If they want more wine, it's 35 dollars a bottle. And don’t consider it a wine cap. Just think of it as a wine usage plan."

That would be much funnier had the FCC taken any action over the last three years as Comcast has moved slowly to punish less competitive broadband markets with usage caps. In fact, not only has the FCC turned a blind eye to the inherent anti-innovation and anti-competitive impact of usage caps, it has ignored the fact that as ISPs bill by the byte -- nobody objective is checking to ensure usage meters are accurate. That has resulted in instances where customers were billed for usage even when their modems were off or they had no power.

It's possible the FCC is waiting for the dust to settle from its current legal battle with the broadband industry (which could demolish its rules entirely). Given that net neutrality abuses are a symptom of limited competition, it's also possible the FCC hopes its policies (like embracing municipal broadband) or a deus ex machina (Google Fiber) will somehow fix the market, making action unnecessary. But it's just as possible the FCC's current leadership thinks this kind of obvious discrimination is just "creative pricing." After all, the FCC's reaction to other zero rating plans has ranged from quiet, tacit approval to outright praise.

Still, the FCC has yet to seriously acknowledge the threat of using broadband caps as a zero-rated weapon against smaller competitors, and that could prove problematic for those expecting the FCC to actually use the net neutrality rules many fought so hard for.

Filed Under: broadband caps, data caps, fcc, net neutrality, tom wheeler
Companies: comcast

Leaked Comcast Docs Confirm What Everybody Knew: Broadband Usage Caps Are About Profit, Not Congestion

from the you're-bad-at-bullshit dept

For many years the broadband industry relentlessly argued that broadband usage caps were necessary to protect networks from congestion. Unless ISPs were allowed to meter broadband usage, we were told, the rise in Internet video would clog the world's tubes, resulting in a mammoth network apocalypse known as the exaflood. Years later, with the exaflood debunked as fear mongering nonsense and most engineers pointing out that caps don't really fix congestion anyway, the broadband industry was forced to admit half of the obvious: that broadband usage caps weren't about congestion.

Still, as the nation's biggest ISP and current leading proponent of the "necessity" of usage caps, Comcast has tried to tap dance around this fact. Until now. On the heels of the news that Comcast was expanding its usage caps and overage fees yet again, an employee leaked Comcast's talking points about caps to 4Chan and Reddit. The six-page support document confirms what everybody already knew; namely that usage caps are about raising rates to protect legacy TV revenues, not about congestion. Employees are told:

• Do say: "Fairness and providing a more flexible policy to our customers."

• Don't say: "The program is about congestion management." (It is not.)

Yes, as Comcast has shifted away from the congestion excuse it has tried to argue that imposing a glorified rate hike on all of its users is somehow about...fairness. Under Comcast's new proposal, customers face a usage cap of 300 GB a month, after which they pay $10 per each 50 GB consumed. Users also have the option of paying $30 to $35 to return their connection to its original, unlimited status. Of course nobody under the proposal pays less, and understandably, users suddenly forced to pay $30 to $35 more for the same connection they had yesterday aren't seeing the fairness.

The document also reiterates Comcast's frequent insistence that these aren't "usage caps," they're "flexible data plans." Employees are told:

• Do say: "Data usage plan"

• Don't say: "Data Cap" (This is not a cap. We do not limit a customer's use of the Internet it any way at or above 300 GB)"

Comcast was already quite literally the least liked company in the country thanks to abysmal customer service. Now, despite breathless proclamations that it's trying to renovate its public image, the cable giant apparently thinks it's a good idea to not only raise rates, but insult its customers' collective intelligence. Of course when you don't have any meaningful competition you can do pretty much whatever you'd like -- something that Comcast is increasingly making abundantly clear.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, business models, congestion, data caps, pricing
Companies: comcast

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.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, competition, data caps, usage caps
Companies: comcast

With 12% Of Comcast Customers Now Broadband Capped, Comcast Declares It's Simply Spreading 'Fairness'

from the not-really-helping dept

Comcast continues to expand its usage cap "trial" into the company's less competitive markets, hitting these lucky customers with a 300 GB monthly usage cap. These users also now face a $10 per 50 GB overage fee should they cross this arbitrary limit, and in a new wrinkle -- have the luxury option of paying a $30 premium should they prefer to dodge these usage allotments altogether. To the non-lobotomized among us, Comcast's intention is obvious: drive up the cost of broadband to help counter the inevitable loss of TV revenues caused by Internet video.

With Comcast's usage cap "trial" slowly creeping past around 12% of the company's customer base, Comcast's slow stranglehold over the uncompetitive U.S. broadband market appears to have finally gotten the attention of outlets like the Associated Press. Having been forced to give up the bogus claim that usage caps are necessary due to congestion years ago, Comcast can only try and defend the practice to the AP by insisting it's an issue of "fairness":

"About 8 percent of all Comcast customers go over 300 GB, the company says. Data caps really amount to a mechanism "that would introduce some more fairness into this," says Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas."

Except there's nothing fair about it. A tiny fraction of Comcast customers are absolute gluttons (we're talking dozens of terabytes), and Comcast could easily nudge those users toward business-class lines without imposing an entirely new pricing structure. Instead, Comcast customers who used to enjoy pricey but unlimited data are suddenly facing usage restrictions and significant additional fees. And indeed, judging from some of the customers the AP spoke to, most users can see through Comcast's bullshit justification:

"Matthew Pulsipher, 23, lives in the Atlanta metropolitan area and decided to pay Comcast's extra fee for unlimited data to support his family's streaming of shows from Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. But he's not happy about it. "I think the idea of limiting your usage is absolutely insane," Pulsipher said. "It would make sense if the cap was 2 terabytes, but 300 is just low enough to punish streaming."

All Comcast's doing here is taking advantage of a lack of broadband competition to price gouge a captive audience. And while only 8% may cross the cap now, Comcast clearly hopes to have usage caps in place before Internet video (and 4KTV, and virtual reality cloud-driven gaming) hit critical mass. It just hopes if it moves really really slowly -- and pretends it's an agent of altruism -- most people will be too stupid to notice what's happening.

Filed Under: broadband caps, data caps, fairness, price discrimination
Companies: comcast

Slate Informs Its Readers That Confusing, Unnecessary, Anti-Competitive Broadband Usage Caps Are Simply Wonderful

from the in-defense-of-price-gouging dept

For years we've explained that broadband usage caps are a horrible idea. Not only do they hinder innovation and confuse the hell out of customers -- but they simply aren't necessary on modern, intelligently-managed networks. Caps are an inelegant and impractical way to handle congestion, and U.S. broadband consumers already pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world (2015 OECD data), more than covering the cost of running a network (as any incumbent ISP earnings report can attest).

And while the mega-ISPs consistently try to argue that usage caps are about fairness, most people are able to see them for what they really are: aggressive rate hikes imposed on uncompetitive markets to protect TV revenues from Internet video.

But according to a strange article over at Slate by Eli Dourado, we've got it all wrong, and caps are secretly "good for most consumers and for the Internet." Like the countless other usage-cap defending missives I've seen in fifteen years of writing about broadband, Dourado's piece begins with the premise that there's something inherently wrong with the current, flat-rate pricing model most broadband users are comfortable with:

"The “equal dues” approach has a critical flaw: It leaves many households with no Internet access at all. For example, suppose “equal dues” work out to $50 per month, not far from the average cost of broadband today. Some households with limited use for the Internet may only value access—and be able to afford it—at $30 per month. One example is a grandmother on a fixed income who uses email but doesn’t watch online video. Under the equal-dues approach, the grandmother is priced out of the market. She has to go without Internet access altogether."

But broadband service isn't expensive because of the type of pricing the broadband industry employs. It's expensive because of the lack of competition in the last mile. As a result, when companies like Comcast do impose metered billing it's not some kind of Utopian vision where light users pay only a little and heavy users pay more in the name of fairness. It's usually a system where the existing, already expensive flat-rate pricing is layered with entirely new annoying fees and surcharges for all (conveniently just as Internet video spikes and 4K video streaming arrives). In the real world, the end result of usage caps as the industry envisions them is everybody winds up paying more than ever.

Dourado's entire narrative is based upon a fantasy: that without outside incentive (regulators or competition), ISPs want to reduce revenues by charging light users less money. That kind of price competition simply doesn't happen in the broken U.S. broadband market unless you're lucky enough to live in a handful of Google Fiber or municipal broadband markets where incumbent ISPs are spurred to action. Still, Dourado at least provides entertainment value by trying to claim usage caps will be great for the nation's grandmothers:

Grandma will pay less than $30 per month for her light email usage, and her granddaughter who streams movies all weekend will pay more. Metering, therefore, is a way of expanding broadband Internet access to a wider portion of the population.

Except that's simply untrue. Because most people lack the option of more than one or two ISPs (75% of homes lack the choice of more than one ISP at speeds of 25 Mbps or higher), there's no downward pricing pressure for grandma. This fantasy narrative that usage gaps will somehow lower granny's broadband bill is utter nonsense, yet it's an argument ISPs like AT&T have been leaning on for years. Amusingly, it's a missive that has at times even managed to annoy the nation's actual grandmothers who are smart enough to know when they're being ripped off by duopolists.

Dourado only really offers up one other argument in favor of usage caps, and it's equally specious. In short, Dourado tries to claim that flat-rate pricing somehow results in stagnated broadband investment, whereas usage caps, meters and overage fees will somehow encourage and stimulate the necessary upgrades of tomorrow:

Think about it: If everyone paid equal prices for unlimited data plans, cable company revenues would be limited by the number of people willing to pay that equal rate. The only way they could increase profit would be to reduce their costs, for example by neglecting maintenance or delaying upgrades. As a result, we would expect the quality of broadband networks to stagnate."

We'd expect that? We operate under flat-rate pricing now and, despite the desperate sock puppetry of some industry-tied think tanks busy trying to demonize net neutrality, investment has been just fine. That's because companies see very healthy profit margins under flat-rate pricing; if there's a reason they don't put enough of that money back into the network it's not because of the pricing model being used, net neutrality, or the bogeyman. It's because they lack the competitive incentive to do so.

But Dourado fails to acknowledge the lack of competition in the market as the primary culprit behind pricing and investment inequality (in fact the word competition isn't used once in the entire story). And his only "evidence" of the purported investment benefit of caps is the totally unsupported claim that upcoming DOCSIS 3.1 cable industry upgrades will slow if the cable industry isn't allowed to price gouge:

Again, this isn’t theoretical. The DOCSIS 3.1 cable modem standard, just now being finalized, will allow downloads over the existing cable network up to 10 Gbps (10 times faster than Google Fiber). Cable companies are now facing a choice as to how fast to roll out support for DOCSIS 3.1. As the theory predicts, Comcast, now experimenting with metering, is planning an aggressive rollout of the new multi-gigabit standard.

Here's the thing though: nearly every cable operator will be upgrading to DOCSIS 3.1 starting next year because it's relatively inexpensive way to obtain huge performance improvements. It's an upgrade that, thanks to its efficiency benefits and low cost, will likely occur even in uncompetitive markets, and usage caps have nothing to do with that. Comcast's currently promising to upgrade 18 million homes with fiber to the home by the end of this year. Only about a dozen or so Comcast markets are capped. How is it logically consistent to thank usage caps for this investment?

There's certainly an argument to be made for more creative, flexible usage-based pricing options where the lion's share of users potentially pay less -- if they use less. But that kind of model is simply not happening in a broadband market without real competition. To suggest that we can somehow leapfrog this competitive logjam, build better networks and help the nation's grannies -- all by letting ISPs charge users more than ever -- is aggressively and obnoxiously misleading.

Filed Under: broadband caps, competition, data caps, differential pricing, innovation

As Comcast Broadband Usage Caps Expand, Company Still Refuses To Admit They Even Have Caps

from the Tomato,-tomahto dept

Like the boiling frog metaphor, Comcast continues to slowly deploy usage caps in a growing number of uncompetitive markets in the hopes that nobody will notice until it's too late. As noted previously, Comcast has started imposing a 300 GB monthly cap in more than seventeen "trial" markets, after which users have to pay $10 for each additional 50 GB of usage. In a most recent wrinkle, the cable operator has also started offering users the honor of paying $30 if they want to avoid these usage caps entirely. It's a glorified rate hike on what's already some of the most expensive broadband in the world.

Amusingly, for some time now Comcast spokespeople have been scolding any reporters that call these restrictions a "usage cap," in the belief that changing the terminology will somehow fool the public into thinking paying more for the same service is somehow reasonable. No, states Comcast, it doesn't impose usage caps -- it delivers friendly neighborhood "data thresholds" that provide greater "choice and flexibility."

This week the company's usage caps went live in Fort Lauderdale, Miami and the Keys, and once again Comcast spokesfolk are making the rounds trying to force journalists to adhere to specific lingo when discussing the plan:

"Charlie Douglas, a Comcast spokesman, argues that its wireless-style plans aren’t a cap. A true cap, he argues, was what Comcast implemented in 2008 when it told users that if they used more than 250 gigabytes per month they would be first warned and then cut off from service. That plan ceased in May 2012. Comcast insists that its offering since then is better described as a “data usage plan.” “We don’t call it a cap,” Douglas says. “We call it a data plan just like wireless companies have data plans."

Apparently, Comcast believes it gets to unilaterally redefine what a broadband usage cap is, and that the public is too stupid to realize when they're looking at a rate hike if you just call it something else. Contrary to common wisdom, usage caps don't really help network congestion, and even the cable industry has admitted caps aren't about congestion anyway. What are they about? Comcast's deep-rooted love of fairness, apparently:

"Why would a company that has plenty of capacity on its network need a data plan? It’s not a matter of capacity, Douglas argues, but fairness. “Ten percent of our customers are consuming half of all of the data that runs on our network each month,” Douglas says. “So part of the rationale for all of these trials is this principle of fairness. Those who want to use more pay more, and those who want to use less pay less."

Right. Except fairness would be simply moving those 10% of users on to business plans if they're such heavy users, and leaving the rest of the user base alone. Fairness would be truly usage-based plans that let your grandmother pay $5 a month for her thrice-weekly viewing of the Weather Channel website and e-mail use. Instead, Comcast is imposing caps and overages (a rate hike) on all users right on the eve of the 4K and Internet video revolutions, knowing full well most user households will run face-first into the caps over the next few years.

That's of course because caps aren't about "fairness" either, they're about ensuring that Comcast gets to keep revenues fat and bloated as more cable TV customers cut the cord and shift to Internet video. Apparently Comcast believes its users are collectively too stupid to realize this, and that by simply fiddling with basic definitions (it's not a usage cap, it's a wholesome family consumption calculator!) the public will nod dumbly and graciously accept one of the biggest rate hikes in Comcast history.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, data caps
Companies: comcast

Comcast Admits Broadband Usage Caps Are A Cash Grab, Not An Engineering Necessity

from the whoops-a-daisy dept

For years the broadband industry tried to claim that they were imposing usage caps because of network congestion. In reality they've long lusted after usage caps for two simple reasons: they allow ISPs to charge more money for the same product, and they help cushion traditional TV revenues from the ongoing assault from Internet video. Instead of admitting that, big ISPs have tried to argue that caps are about "fairness," or that they're essential lest the Internet collapse from uncontrolled congestion (remember the debunked Exaflood?).

Over the years, data has shown that caps aren't really an effective way to target network congestion anyway, can hinder innovation, hurt competitors, and usually only wind up confusing consumers, many of whom aren't even sure what a gigabyte is. Eventually, even cable lobbyists had to admit broadband caps weren't really about congestion, even though they still cling to the false narrative that layering steep rate hikes and overage fees on top of already-expensive flat-rate pricing is somehow about "fairness."

Comcast is of course slowly but surely expanding usage caps into its least competitive markets. More recently the company has tried to deny it even has caps, instead insisting these limits are "data thresholds" or "flexible data consumption plans." But when asked last week why Comcast's caps in these markets remain so low in proportion to rising Comcast speeds (and prices), Comcast engineer and vice president of Internet services Jason Livingood candidly admitted on Twitter that the decision to impose caps was a business one, not one dictated by network engineering:Jason's not the first engineer to admit that caps aren't an engineering issue and therefore don't have anything to do with congestion. In fact if you followed the broadband industry's bunk Exaflood claims over the last decade, you probably noticed that ISP lobbyists say one thing (largely to scare legislators or the press into supporting bad policy), while actual engineers say something starkly different.

Repeatedly we've been told by ISP lobbyists and lawyers that if ISPs don't get "X" (no net neutrality rules, deregulation, more subsidies, the right to impose arbitrary new tolls, whatever), the Internet will choke on itself and grind to a halt. In contrast, the actual people building and maintaining these networks have stated time and time again that nearly all congestion issues can be resolved with modest upgrades and intelligent engineering. The congestion bogeyman is a useful idiot, but he's constructed largely of bullshit and brainless ballast.

Livingood will likely receive a scolding for wandering off script. Comcast, unsurprisingly, doesn't much want to talk about the comment further:

"We've asked Comcast officials if there are any technology benefits from imposing the caps or technology reasons for the specific limits chosen but haven't heard back yet. Livingood's statement probably won't come as any surprise to critics of data caps who argue that the limits raise prices and prevent people from making full use of the Internet without actually preventing congestion."

That's worth remembering the next time Comcast tries to insist that its attempt to charge more for the same service is based on engineering necessity. The problem? Our shiny new net neutrality rules don't really cover or restrict usage caps, even in instances when they're clearly being used to simply take advantage of less competitive markets. While Tom Wheeler did give Verizon a wrist slap last year for using the congestion bogeyman and throttling to simply make an extra buck, the FCC has generally been quiet on the implementation (and abuse) of usage caps specifically and high broadband prices in general.

There are some indications that the FCC is watching usage caps carefully, and says it will tackle complaints about them on a "case by case basis." But what that means from an agency that has traditionally treated caps as "creative" pricing isn't clear. It's another example of how our net neutrality rules were good, but serious competition in the U.S. broadband sector would have been better.

Filed Under: broadband, business models, data caps, jason livingood, technologists
Companies: comcast