dslreports logo
 story category
Charter's Promising To Avoid Usage Caps To Get Merger Approved

Charter appears to want regulatory approval of its acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House to go through so badly, it's not only willing to adhere to real net neutrality, but to swear off usage caps entirely. The company's even gone so far as to hire consumer advocate and fierce neutrality advocate Marvin Ammori, who in a piece over at wired notes that Charter allowed him to write the company's network neutrality pledge.

Click for full size
As regular readers are aware by now, most ISP merger conditions and promises are utterly meaningless, designed to look good when announced by ISPs and loyal politicians, but accomplishing little to nothing of benefit to consumers.

Charter's pledge (so far) really does appear to be different, in that Charter's promising to adhere to most of the FCC's definition of net neutrality. But the company is taking things one step further than even the FCC by promising not to cap users, or to make some services cap exempt (zero rating):

quote:
Since zero rating favors some sites over others based on the broadband provider’s preferences (not the users’), my allies and I urged the FCC to ban zero rating in all forms, but the FCC didn’t go that far. Charter necessarily will. In fact, it will commit to no data cap at all–and no usage-based billing–therefore it will be unable to exempt any applications from those practices.
Charter has of course flirted with usage caps for years, but rather quietly abandoned the effort late last year. Most cable operators have hungrily eyed usage caps as a way to jack up broadband prices in the inevitable face of lost revenues as users hang up on Internet voice and traditional TV to embrace Internet-based services.

That Charter's willing to go this far is relatively unprecedented in the years I've watched merger rejections and approvals, suggesting that Charter really wants this deal to make it past a suddenly more consumer-friendly FCC. The only catch: the conditions Charter's agreeing to only last three years, at which point we'll be having this conversation all over again. Especially if Charter and friends are successful at destroying the FCC's net neutrality rules in court.
view:
topics flat nest 
MrkFrnt
join:2000-11-26
Winston Salem, NC

MrkFrnt

Member

promising?

Screw that, i want it in writing
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

elefante72

Member

Re: promising?

A pledge is as useless as the paper it is written on. The issue they will have is network management, monetization is another issue (meaning making ungodly profit).

They can always adjust tiering pricing at their whim to make more profit, but as we all know as these guys start promising 100 or 1000 their networks are not ready so they are going to oversell and underpromise, or what I think they are going to do is drag their a$$es on peering optimizations and blame the content originator for the problem and that will create bottlenecks upstream.

Random6969
@charter.com

Random6969

Anon

Re: promising?

said by elefante72:

A pledge is as useless as the paper it is written on. The issue they will have is network management, monetization is another issue (meaning making ungodly profit).

Yes why do companies that exist in a country whose economy is based on capitalism think they are entitled to make a profit? Don't they know they should be offering products and services to the proletariat AT COST or even a loss just to be nice?

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena to MrkFrnt

Premium Member

to MrkFrnt
said by MrkFrnt:

Screw that, i want it in writing

And even if it is in writing, the FCC does not have any power to enforce it.

Everything Comcast promised with the NBC/Comcast merger was in writing. And as soon as the merger was done, they basically said: screw you, make us! - Which is probably the biggest reason why the FCC denied the TWC/Comcast merger.

Charter can play nice for a year or two, and then all over sudden change the terms of service and maybe the speeds.... and oh guess what, implement caps too.

And there is NOTHING the FCC can do about it, UNLESS they are willing to ban caps across the board, for every provider.
WhatNow
Premium Member
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC

WhatNow

Premium Member

Re: promising?

If it is good for only 3 years they are not offering much. It will take them that long to merger the companies.
IanLee
join:2014-11-24
Woodland, WA

IanLee to maartena

Member

to maartena
I'm on a 250 GB cap right now, and it sucks.

Instead of charging overage fees my ISP just throttles me to dial-up speeds until the next billing cycle, or until I complain that my service is slow.

Random6969
@charter.com

Random6969 to MrkFrnt

Anon

to MrkFrnt
Seriously you said that?

A) I'm pretty sure it would in fact be in writing

B) You're overlooking the fact Charter got rid of caps last November. Last month I used 850 GB. In two other months this year I used 600 GB and 650 GB

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

SimbaSeven

Member

Re: promising?

I just got done eating ~1.8TB over a couple months. Had to reinstall my Steam games on my laptop and desktop.

Trimline
Premium Member
join:2004-10-24
Windermere, FL

Trimline

Premium Member

I didn't realized there was a choice

"Charter's pledge (so far) really does appear to be different, in that Charter's promising to adhere to most of the FCC's definition of net neutrality"

Adhere to most of the FCC's definition? I wasn't aware any ISP could pick what they liked and what they didn't like.

Seems like Charter is hiding something.
techguru306
join:2015-02-11
Cincinnati, OH
ZyXEL VMG4381

techguru306

Member

Looks like a great condition Charter Communication's is willing to abide by

Looks like a great condition Charter Communication's is will to abide by, what other cable company do you know of that would have offered that as a condition. Not to mention that Charter Communication's prices are cheaper than Time Warner Cable from what I can see. If Charter Communications is willing to agree to that in writing to the FCC and their is fines set if Charter Communications violates this agreement then I think this is good for the customers of the companies involved. Not to mention the backlash Charter Communications would get if they even tried to cap customers. Remember when Time Warner Cable tried to cap it's customers and the customer backlash stopped their plans to cap us Charter Communications might want to keep that in mind if they think about placing caps in the future.

sraz
join:2013-10-28
Tucson, AZ

sraz

Member

Re: Looks like a great condition Charter Communication's is willing to abide by

Exactly, I don't remember Comcast ever offering anything of the sort, because they know their TV service is overpriced dung and upcoming IPTV offerings will probably give them a run for their money.
Chuck_IV
join:2003-11-18
Connecticut

Chuck_IV

Member

Not sure if Charter was anticipating this situation or not but...

They have actually been advertising "no caps" on their website for some time now, well before the attempt to buy TW.

This was one of the (many) reasons I didn't want to be punted to Comcast, if that merger went through.

why60loss
Premium Member
join:2012-09-20

why60loss

Premium Member

Re: Not sure if Charter was anticipating this situation or not but...

said by Chuck_IV:

They have actually been advertising "no caps" on their website for some time now, well before the attempt to buy TW.

This was one of the (many) reasons I didn't want to be punted to Comcast, if that merger went through.

You mean even two years ago in 2013 when they tried to do so?

I don't remember that, TWC has been doing it for a while and as I recall Charter started to do it afterward but before they made this bid after Comcast failed to get TWC.

DaSneaky1D
what's up
MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou

DaSneaky1D

MVM

That's like the sun promising to rise tomorrow

I know this may be met with some level of skepticism, but Charter can deliver on this. They do not exercise any sort of cap/limiting of service. In this day and age, that's nearly unheard of. But, they've been practicing this since I've had their service.

Evergreener
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO

Evergreener

Member

Re: That's like the sun promising to rise tomorrow

I wish there was at least the option for pure usage based billing for residential service.

ipv6movement
@pppoe.ca

ipv6movement

Anon

Re: That's like the sun promising to rise tomorrow

said by Evergreener:

I wish there was at least the option for pure usage based billing for residential service.

No ISP will implement that properly as they would then be losing out on "profits".

BK3
join:2001-04-10
Geneva, IL

BK3

Member

Only for three years?

It would be far better if the promise was permanent, rather than for just 3 years.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Not looking forward to being a Charter customer

Looking at the possibility of moving to Maine (if things go as planned), I don't like the prospect of being a Charter customer.

I may just use them for Internet and DirecTV for TV. I may go with the wireless Genies so I can put TVs where there are no cable outlets.

okwhatever
@charter.com

-1 recommendation

okwhatever

Anon

Re: Not looking forward to being a Charter customer

said by IowaCowboy:

Looking at the possibility of moving to Maine (if things go as planned), I don't like the prospect of being a Charter customer.

Yeah it sucks saving money and no caps
travanx
join:2002-01-15
Altadena, CA

travanx

Member

Re: Not looking forward to being a Charter customer

I really like Charter. Cheaper, faster, no caps, just works service. Especially compared to when we had TWC in Downtown Los Angeles. Switching over to business was even better.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Being in Western Mass, I've heard more complaints from Charter customers than Comcast customers. I'll miss my X1.

cork1958
Cork
Premium Member
join:2000-02-26

cork1958 to IowaCowboy

Premium Member

to IowaCowboy
Been a Charter customer since 1997 and have NEVER had an issue with them other than their dumb business practices, at times! My main complaint with them right now is the lack of tiers for intenet. I don't need their 60m speed for $50 anymore as I'm only on computer for a couple hours max, a day doing simple things.

As far as reliability, been 3 outages since 1997 and 2 were weather related (no power here) and 1 was a screwed up maintenance job in another county that messed up everything! That one only lasted a few hours.
notonto
join:2015-06-26

notonto

Member

provide service?

how about requiring them to provide service to the communities they control before allowing the merger.
floydb1982
join:2004-08-25
Kent, WA

floydb1982

Member

They'll go back on the there word

Should Charter get what they want then they'll just go back to there old ways afterwards. I don't believe for second they would get rid of usage caps at all.

Jaybonaut
join:2012-05-29
Sheboygan, WI

Jaybonaut

Member

Upload

They need channel bonding on upload to get us more upload speed. The rest of Charter is fine IMO, even though we all wish they could be cheaper.

Suntop
Wolfrider Elf
Premium Member
join:2000-03-23
Fairfield, MT
·T-Mobile
Netgear R6400
Netgear WNR1000
Netgear WNDR3400

Suntop

Premium Member

I do nor know why there are caps to begin with

I live in a small town. My Telco Co-Op is small and they have fiber with no caps. Granted it is a tad expensive but they have the only service here other than Cell and Sat.(shudder) I used 550GB last month and poised to use more this month with Netflix and they told me that I could use a TB if I wanted to. The cost of delivering content is next to nil. But then again if there was no caps everywhere those who have super fast internet who can download 10s of TB a month would eat into the profit of said isps I guess. The fastest fiber I could have here is 100/100M but that would cost me 1/2 year of my money per month. (aimed at businesses no one has it at all) I would love it if Google came here and installed 1GB service but that is asking a lot and I do not know what Montana laws are pertaining to that.

In all reality 10/10M is what I got and it is fast enough for me for now. I wish I could afford 20/20m But that would almost double my bill. I was at 26/1m I did not use all 26MB so I traded off 16 MB download to add 9 of it to uplooad so when I upload my videos to youtube it will not take an hour. LOL