Comcast Forced To Back Off Broadband Cap Expansion... Until Next Year

from the how-gracious-of-you dept

Last November, Comcast quietly announced that the company would be expanding its bullshit broadband caps into the Northeast, one of the last Comcast territories where the restrictions hadn't been imposed yet. Of course Comcast was utterly tone deaf to the fact there was a historic health and economic crisis going on, or how imposing unnecessary surcharges on consumers already struggling to make rent wasn't a great look. In some states, like Massachusetts, lawmakers stood up to the regional monopoly, going so far as to push a law that would have banned usage caps during the pandemic.

After gaining some bad press for the behavior, Comcast initially delayed the efforts a few months, hoping that would appease folks. When it didn't, Comcast last week announced that it would be suspending the caps until 2022. This, according to Comcast, was to give consumers "more time to become familiar" with the restrictions:

"The ISP’s reasoning for the delay, according to the announcement, is that the company realizes that the “data plan was new for [its] customers in the Northeast,” and it wanted to “provid[e] them with more time to become familiar with the new plan.” This isn’t a courtesy the company extended to other states when it expanded the data caps to them (apart from the one or two “free” overage months). But to be fair, there also wasn’t a global pandemic going on during those rollouts."

The problem, as we've noted repeatedly, is that these restrictions shouldn't exist in the first place. The other problem, the pause only applies to the Northeast; the majority of Comcast markets already face such arbitrary limits, and will see no reprieve, pandemic or no. As such, delaying them is more about managing PR blowback than making any serious concession. It's theater.

There's no technical reason for such restrictions to exist on a fixed line network in 2021. The restrictions don't manage network bandwidth, something that can already be done with existing hardware. Such restrictions aren't financially necessary either; Comcast's flat-rate broadband margins are significant, and any "extremely heavy users" can already be shoved toward business-class tiers. Caps only have two real purposes: (1) to impose covert price hikes on uncompetitive markets without changing your advertised rates, and (2) as an anticompetitive weapon in the streaming wars.

As such, it's not entirely clear what Comcast wants these users to "get familiar with." Familiar with getting ripped off by a massive telecom monopoly that not only faces no real competition, but fairly feckless federal regulatory oversight? 83 million Americans have only the choice of one ISP. Federal regulators could either work tirelessly to drive more fiber-based competition to market (and no, neither 5G nor next-gen satellite are magic bullets), or they could step in to hold monopolies accountable in the absence of that competition. Here in the United States, we do neither. At least not consistently.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband cap, competition, data cap
Companies: comcast

Lawmakers Complain About Comcast's Bullshit Expanded Usage Caps

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

Last November, Comcast announced it would be expanding its bullshit usage caps and overage fees into the Northeast. For years, the Northeast had avoided the utterly pointless cash grab that is broadband usage caps because Comcast faced at least a tiny bit of competition from (uncapped) Verizon FiOS. But as federal and state regulators have grown more toothless and pathetic, Comcast's eagerness to expand the surcharges has only grown.

Reminder: Comcast's own internal memos have indicated such restrictions don't manage congestion or serve any valid technical or financial purpose. They're a glorified price hike on captive customers, and Comcast's decision to expand them (in addition to a bevy of other price hikes and fee increases) during a pandemic isn't being taken particularly well by lawmakers like Massachusetts State Rep. Andy Vargas:

"Rep. Vargas said it’s just a money grab. “Are they seeing increased cost as a business because people are using more data? And the answer to that question is no."

Comcast continues to push the claim that the caps are no big deal because only a few customers will hit the 1.2 terabyte monthly restrictions. But with entire households quarantined and hoovering up bandwidth during work Zoom calls and home education, that's simply not true. Usage has soared during the pandemic, and U.S. consumers already pay some of the highest prices for bandwidth in the developed world. Flat rate broadband has proven hugely profitable, and greed is the only thing driving this latest expansion.

Comcast wants folks hung up in a debate over whether "1 terabyte is fair," and not discussing why these confusing and arbitrary charges are being imposed in the first place, a ploy at least a few lawmakers, like Vargas, are seeing through:

"Rep. Vargas is not convinced. “This data cap is arbitrary, and there’s no reason for them to put this in place right now,” he said."

Vargas was one of a dozen Massachusetts legislators who "strongly urged" Comcast to reverse course during the pandemic:

"It is inconceivable that that Comcast would chose to impose this 'cap and fee' plan during a pandemic, when many Massachusetts residents are forced to work and attend school form home via the internet," the legislators said. "The last thing our consumers need is to worry about paying more for the same quality of service."

The question then becomes: what are lawmakers actually going to do about it? Telecom monopolies like AT&T and Comcast are powerful enough that they've effectively neutered any meaningful oversight on both the state and federal level. They're politically powerful enough that they literally get to write state law, usually with an eye on hamstringing competition. They were so politically powerful, they convinced the FCC to effectively self-immolate via the net neutrality repeal based on a bunch of bullshit data points that had been debunked for years.

Either we care about holding natural monopolies accountable or we don't, and based on the fact that Comcast will likely see zero penalty for price gouging during an historic health and economic crisis, it's not particularly complex math to determine which side of that line the United States falls on.

Filed Under: andy vargas, broadband, competition, data cap, overage fees, usage cap
Companies: comcast

Nervous About Regulatory Action, Comcast Bumps Usage Caps To One Terabyte Per Month

from the giving-you-a-little-more-rope dept

After taking a PR beating for several years on the matter, Comcast has announced that it's significantly bumping the company's usage caps. Since 2013 Comcast has been conducting a "trial" in many of the company's less competitive markets, capping usage at 300 GB per month, then charging users either $10 per each additional 50 gigabytes, or providing users the option of paying $30 to $35 per month extra to avoid the cap entirely. But according to a new blog post by the cable giant, the company will be bumping that usage allotment to one terabyte per month starting June 1.

Users will still need to pay $10 per each additional 50 gigabytes of data consumed should they go over the cap. And they still have the option of paying a penalty should they want to avoid usage caps entirely, though Comcast has bumped the price of such an option to an additional $50 per month. Comcast's quick to insist that the terabyte cap is so generous, few consumers will ever find themselves running into the limit:

"A terabyte is an enormous amount of data. It’s far more than most of our customers will ever use in a month. Today, more than 99 percent of our customers do not come close to using a terabyte. Our typical customer uses only about 60 gigabytes of data in a month – that’s far less than a terabyte (in fact, 940 gigabytes less), or less than six percent of a terabyte."

Of course, while that's true today, that doesn't mean it will be true tomorrow. And while the increase is certainly welcome, that doesn't change the fact that usage caps on fixed-line networks still aren't necessary. As we've repeatedly noted, Comcast's cost to provide broadband service remain fixed or in decline, and the company's own support documents and engineers have suggested the caps have nothing to do with congestion or network necessity. That's because they have everything to do with protecting TV revenues from Internet video competitors.

While Comcast's announcement implies Comcast is graciously responding to consumer feedback, the origins of the company's decision lie elsewhere.

With the FCC imposing a seven year ban on usage caps as a Charter merger condition this week, many believe the FCC is signaling it intends to finally crack down on usage caps. The agency has tap-danced around the issue for years, but with a growing number of companies exploring the option -- and a growing number of companies (including Comcast and Verizon) exempting their own content from such caps, pressure has mounted steadily on the FCC to wake up from its regulatory coma on the subject. If that's to happen, it will likely happen after the industry's lawsuit against the agency over net neutrality is settled.

Comcast's also responding to the fact that AT&T is planning to impose its own usage caps starting May 23. AT&T plans to begin imposing usage caps ranging from 300 GB to 1 terabyte, and, like Comcast, charge $10 per each additional 50 GB consumed. Also, like Comcast, AT&T intends to begin charging customers a $30 premium should they want to avoid the charges, effectively charging customers significantly more money for the same service they had yesterday. Comcast bumping its cap to more closely match AT&T's is the U.S. broadband market's rather twisted version of competition.

It seems likely that some news outlets will frame what Comcast's doing as "generous." And while a definite improvement, it shouldn't overshadow the fact that these caps are little more than glorified price hikes on uncompetitive broadband markets, and an anti-competitive weapon against the threat of Internet video disruption.

Filed Under: 1 terabyte, broadband, cable, data cap, fcc, usage cap
Companies: comcast

Comcast CEO: It's Not A Broadband Cap, It's A 'Balanced Relationship'

from the semantic-manure dept

Comcast continues to play semantic patty cake as it defends the company's broadband usage cap plans. With about 12% of the company's customers now capped (and growing), Comcast insists the 300 GB monthly usage cap (with $10 per 50 GB overage fees) is simply a "trial" of a new, "balanced" relationship. You see, Comcast isn't just taking advantage of a lack of broadband competition to cash in on Internet video, it's simply experimenting with "flexible data consumption plans" that bring greater choice and freedom than ever before to customers of the least liked company in America.

Speaking at a conference last week, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts added more insult to injury by insisting that imposing such limits on broadband makes sense, because broadband is just like gasoline and electricity:

"Just as with every other thing in your life — if you drive a hundred thousand miles or a thousand miles you buy more gasoline," Roberts said during Business Insider's Ignition conference on Tuesday. "If you turn on the air conditioning at 60 versus 72, you consume more electricity," he said. "The same is true for [data] usage, so I think the same for a wireless device — the more bits you use, the more you pay."

Except that's nonsense. Unlike gasoline and electricity, Comcast's cost to provide broadband is fixed. It costs Comcast the same to deliver 10 Mbps as it does to deliver 50 Mbps, and while the company does incur capacity costs overall, generally they're easily offset by modest network investments like the upcoming upgrade to the DOCSIS 3.1 standard. Any ISP earnings report will show you that with bandwidth costs generally dropping, flat-rate broadband profit margins are incredibly healthy, and it's the cost of service and support (which again Comcast is literally the worst in the country at) that tend to be the biggest expenses.

Roberts knows this, but his attempt to distort what the company's doing has been par for the course so far. Roberts also trotted another favorite Comcast claim -- that what the company is doing isn't a bandwidth cap:

"They're not a cap," Roberts told attendees. "We don’t want anybody to ever not want to stay connected on our network." Comcast is, the CEO claims, "just trialing ways to have a balanced relationship."

Except again, there's nothing "balanced" about what Comcast is doing. Users previously on unlimited (and already expensive) data plans not only face caps and overage fees, but they have to pay $30 to $35 if they want the same unlimited usage they enjoyed yesterday. Surely there's a planet where the populace thinks a mammoth rate hike of no benefit to the consumer can be considered "balanced," but it's certainly not this one. Remember, Comcast's own support documents have shown that these caps are in no way technically necessary. They're a rate hike to protect Comcast's TV revenues from Internet video.

It's clear Comcast brass hopes that by moving slowly, and framing the caps as a "trial" that offers "flexibility," it will keep the public and regulators slack-jawed and docile. But the company needs to tread carefully. ISPs have whined incessantly that they shouldn't be regulated like utilities despite being so eager to bill like them. And despite a lot of hand-wringing over "utility regulations" during the net neutrality fracas, so far regulators have complied, refusing to apply most of the specific utility regulations during the recent ISP reclassification to Title II.

But eventually consumers, the press and a few politicians will realize that unlike gasoline and electricity, nobody is objectively working to ensure that broadband usage meters are accurate. The result has been meters that at times have logged usage even when the modem's off or the power is out, problems that will only grow as caps expand. As such, broadband ISPs eager to cap may be inviting the kind of price controls and price caps (sorry, balanced relationships with regulators) that gives any good duopoly ISP executive nightmares.

Filed Under: brian roberts, broadband cap, data cap
Companies: comcast

Comcast Users Now Need To Pay A $30 Premium If They Want To Avoid Usage Caps

from the screw-you dept

Comcast has slowly but surely been expanding the company's usage cap trials since around 2012, largely focusing them on less competitive markets where annoyed users can't vote with their wallets. In these seventeen (and counting) trial markets, Comcast broadband customers face a monthly usage cap of 300 gigabytes. After that, users need to shell out $10 for each additional 50 gigabytes of data consumed. The trials have expanded slowly but surely in the hopes of minimizing user backlash. Basically, Comcast is the hot water slowly coming to a boil, and you're the frog.

It appears that Comcast has now added a new wrinkle to the mix, and has started charging these trial users an extra $30 if they want to bypass usage caps. The company's FAQ for the new option tries to argue that the change is being made to provide consumers with greater "choice and flexibility":

The Unlimited Data Option provides additional choice and flexibility for our customers who may make heavier use of the Internet. Enrollment is optional. The Unlimited Data Option costs the current additional fee of $30 per calendar month, regardless of actual data usage. The 300 GB plan will not apply to customers who enroll in the Unlimited Data Option.

Yeah, that's bullshit. Back in 2012, users in these trial markets used to get uncapped Comcast broadband service as a matter of course. They now get to pay $30 more a month for the honor of avoiding Comcast's totally arbitrary and unnecessary usage restrictions. And it's all thanks, of course, to the painful lack of competition in most Comcast markets. While this "unlimited" option is currently only being tested in the Florida cap markets, Comcast has made it clear for years it hopes to impose this kind of punitive pricing system in all markets.

You'll recall the cable industry used to claim usage caps on fixed-line networks were necessary due to congestion (fear the Exaflood!). But as bandwidth costs dropped and intelligent network gear offered far more sophisticated ways of managing network load, the cable industry finally admitted that congestion had nothing to do with it. And while the cable industry now tries to argue that usage caps are necessary due to "fairness," they're really about one thing and one thing only: taking advantage of limited competition and protecting legacy TV revenues from Internet video.

If you peruse the Comcast usage cap FAQ you'll notice that Comcast doesn't even really bother with an explanation or justification as to why the caps are necessary, since even the nation's least-liked company knows any defense of this position is futile. This is about as close as Comcast gets to delivering a coherent explanation as to why these limits were imposed:

As the marketplace and technology change, we do too. We evaluate customer data usage, and a variety of other factors, and make adjustments accordingly. Over the last several years, we have periodically reviewed various plans, and recently we have been analyzing the market and our process through various data usage plan trials.

So yeah, we're not a massive incumbent telecom exploiting uncompetitive markets and lazy regulators, we're just experimentin' and changin' and what have you! Comcast has made it abundantly clear that it plans to keep expanding these usage caps (and charging you to avoid them) until either the competition fairy somehow materializes better broadband options out of the ether, or regulators wake the hell up and realize that usage caps on fixed-line networks are a predatory assault on captive customers, an affront to innovation, and an aggressive abuse of monopoly power.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, data cap, fees, usage cap
Companies: comcast

DailyDirt: Speedy Connections In The Future

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Who doesn't like a fast broadband connection? The faster, the better! The only problem seems to be that there are some capacity limits with current technology. Details, details. But what if there were some technologies that could vastly increase those capacity limits? There might be some awkward situations where fiber-based internet service wasn't as fast as a wireless connection. Perhaps ingrained data cap pricing tiers would still stick around? Here are just a few developments that could bring much faster broadband (someday, maybe).

• Alcatel-Lucent's Bell Labs set a broadband record of 10 Gbps over traditional copper telephone lines in 2014. There are some practical limitation, such as the distance couldn't be too far and the copper line quality probably needs to be a bit better than the 100yo stuff running into some homes. Still, the work is pushing the limits of copper further, and there are some predictions that 40 Gbps speeds over copper are on the way. [url]
• Researchers at Columbia University have created full-duplex radio integrated circuits that could effectively double frequency spectrum resources. Devices made with this technology could transmit and receive data over the same frequency at the same time, but obviously this capability is going to take some time to get into commercial gadgets. [url]
• The orbital angular momentum (OAM) property of electromagnetic waves could provide nearly limitless data capacity. It might take a really, really long time to see this get out of the lab and into commercial products, but when/if it does, we might never hear about exoflood FUD again. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: bell labs, broadband, copper, data cap, exaflood, fiber, oam, orbital angular momentum, wireless