Why Internet Companies And Content Companies Should Oppose Broadband Caps

from the it's-going-to-stifle-innovation dept

I've been on record for quite some time as being opposed to metered broadband caps by ISPs. Plenty of others -- including some of the other Techdirt writers -- disagree, insisting that they will work fine allowing ISPs to "differentiate" service levels. I find that to be quite optimistic, as most of the examples we've seen so far have really only involved ISPs putting in ridiculously low caps in order to squeeze excess money out of people. And, before anyone says it, there's no evidence that ISPs "need" to cap usage to avoid a bandwidth crunch. Such things have been disproved time and time again.

But, my biggest reason for opposing broadband caps is that it will stifle online innovation in a variety of ways. First, bandwidth caps don't give ISPs much real incentive to invest in more bandwidth (contrary to their claims). That's because the more "congested" they can show their network is, the more they can charge more for basic usage. It sets up incentives for the ISPs to want more congestion, rather than less. Second, it will greatly limit the adoption of new and innovative services. Suddenly there's an additional "bandwidth" cost to testing out certain types of apps. This makes people less willing to even bother, and basically knocks out any (relatively) high bandwidth service before it can even get started.

For example, look at Larry Lessig's recent experience while traveling in New Zealand. He's apparently "subscribed" to the TV show House via iTunes. So, at the hotel in New Zealand, he paid for expensive broadband service that mentioned, in the fine print, that his access was limited to a grand total of 1 gig. He logged in and started checking email. In the background, iTunes started downloading the latest (high def) episode of House which itself ran 1.5 gigs. So half an hour later, not only is his broadband cut off, but a message pops up telling him he's being fined for "violating ethical rules." It's troubling enough that the provider somehow thinks it's an ethical violation -- but this shows how bandwidth caps can easily stifle perfectly legitimate activities and aren't (as many have implied) about "stopping pirates."

And, it's for this reason that many entertainment companies should also reconsider their support of caps. Many in the entertainment business have supported caps as one (of many) ways to combat "piracy." But now, as more and more legitimate, authorized content services are available online, these caps are going to do serious harm to their online business as well. Now, perhaps some of them (stupidly) think that this is okay, because it will just drive people back to the "old way" of doing things, that's unlikely to happen. It's just going to piss people off. Once you've shown them that they can do something, people don't tend to like having that option taken away from them.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, cable, innovation, lessig, tiered service

AT&T Jumps Into The Metered Broadband Game

from the not-too-surprising dept

As was widely expected, AT&T has officially jumped into the metered broadband game, initiating a system in Reno, with caps ranging from 20 to 150 gigabytes per month, depending on tier, and overage fees at $1/gigabyte. These caps are significantly lower than Comcast's caps, though higher than we've seen elsewhere. At this point, it's become pretty clear that all of the major ISPs seem to want to adopt such tiers and overage fees, which I still think will come back to bite them. It would be an opportunity for others to offer more competitive offerings if the FCC hadn't done everything possible to kill off competition in the broadband space.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, tiered service
Companies: at&t

When You Measure Broadband Caps In Terms Of How Many Emails, Something's Wrong

from the that's-not-broadband dept

We've already talked about how low it appears some ISPs are making broadband "caps." Doing so seriously destroys the value of a broadband connection and will likely backfire on the ISPs who provide it. But, for those companies that are putting in place such low broadband caps -- a small suggestion: when discussing how much the caps allow, listing out how many emails you can send or receive under the cap is probably a bad idea. If the cap is so low that the number of emails is even worth mentioning, you've got a serious problem.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, cable, tiered service
Companies: time warner cable

Time Warner Cable Tiered Broadband Test Begins

from the if-only-there-were-competitors dept

Earlier this year, the story came out that Time Warner Cable wanted to experiment with capping its "unlimited" broadband, trying to force the heavy users to pay more. Even worse, it appeared to want to use exceptionally low caps that would discourage innovation. Despite all of the concerns, Time Warner Cable is moving forward with the test as planned.

The end result will be taking away value from customers -- not just in limiting how much bandwidth they get, but by adding a huge mental transaction cost. Basically, what Time Warner is doing, is adding a huge overhead in terms of whether or not users are willing to actually use the bandwidth they signed up for. Just the fact that people need to think about how much they're using will decrease usage significantly. While that may be what TWC wants, what it really does is annoy customers. This would never actually happen if there were real competition, but with very little competition out there, TWC can try out this plan. Any other broadband provider competing against TWC in areas where this test is going on should be hitting on the limits in any advertising campaign. TWC is free to do whatever it wants, of course, but it's never a good business move to take away features from customers -- especially if in doing so you add an annoying mental transaction fee.

Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, cable, tiered service
Companies: time warner cable