dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
FCC Boss Suddenly 'Concerned' About Bandwidth Caps?
Genachowski Tells Silicon Valley What it Wants to Hear
by Karl Bode 09:09AM Wednesday Sep 12 2012
FCC boss Julius Genachowski back in May heartily embraced usage caps and overage penalties, insisting that "business model innovation is very important." While Genachowski was speaking to the audience of a cable trade show at the time, the FCC boss showed absolutely no understanding of the potential ways caps and overages could be used anti-competitively, or the problems we've repeatedly seen with carriers measuring data accurately. Visiting Silicon Valley this week his position miraculously shifted, with Genachowski saying he had serious "concerns" about usage caps:
quote:
When asked about the impact of data caps on broadband innovation by my colleague Janko Roettgers and how his thinking had evolved on the topic, the chairman said he was concerned about data caps. He added, “Anything that depresses broadband usage is something that we need to be really concerned about.” And he further said, “We should all be concerned with anything that is incompatible with the psychology of abundance."
Granted Genachowski's big criticism is that he's a consummate politician who is afraid to take real stands and just tells everyone what they want to hear, and that certainly seems to be the case here. The fact that regulators simply do not care that ISPs are incorrectly charging users or using usaged-based billing to attack threats to TV revenues shows a total regulatory failure. These are hard, real problems Genachowski is completely ignoring, and worrying about the "psychology of abundance" is just hollow politician speak.

view:
topics flat nest 

mb

join:2000-07-23
Washington, NJ

As has been said before

Capitalism is running amok! Our government was bought and paid for long ago...

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Re: As has been said before

said by mb:

Capitalism is running amok! Our government was bought and paid for long ago...

Capitalism is doing just fine. If an ISP needs to put limits to ensure that everyone can get the service they pay for, then that's a good thing.

My ISP limits us to 350GB, but only counted during peak hours (5PM-1AM). Unless I am streaming HD video non stop I will never hit this limit.
Telco

join:2008-12-19

Re: As has been said before

said by fifty nine:

Capitalism is doing just fine.

Sounds like someone has not left Jersey and certainly not traveled to any other advanced or developing nation.

I've honestly seen 3rd world nations that are cleaner and have astronomically better infrastructure than vast sections of Jersey.

It's laughable to hear someone from there, of all places, endorse a creed that has turned his state into nothing but a joke.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Re: As has been said before

said by Telco:

said by fifty nine:

Capitalism is doing just fine.

Sounds like someone has not left Jersey and certainly not traveled to any other advanced or developing nation.

I've honestly seen 3rd world nations that are cleaner and have astronomically better infrastructure than vast sections of Jersey.

It's laughable to hear someone from there, of all places, endorse a creed that has turned his state into nothing but a joke.

I lived for 20+ years in a third world country where they had a heavily regulated and monopoly owned telco. It was 51% owned by the Gov't and the rest owned by cable and wireless.

It was pretty terrible until they got competition, after which things suddenly improved.

Government regulation only ensures that we all suffer in misery together. Free markets and competition bring better service to consumers because companies need to get off their asses and offer better service or their subscribers who have options flee.
Os

join:2011-01-26
US

Re: As has been said before

You do realize that monopolies and not the free market is what we have when it comes to broadband, right?

We have government protected monopolies.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Re: As has been said before

said by Os:

You do realize that monopolies and not the free market is what we have when it comes to broadband, right?

We have government protected monopolies.

There's no monopoly here. I have two wired options and several wireless options here. I can get service up to 100Mbps. The free market works well here.

Of course, if you're out in BFE you'll only have satellite because it's simply not profitable to run a whole fiber optic cable just for you. If you have a problem with that, move.
Os

join:2011-01-26
US
Reviews:
·Comcast

Re: As has been said before

Works well there for you. VZ has a statewide contract to lay FiOS too.

Guess what they're doing in the rest of the world? Milking 3 Mbps DSL until it dies or they can remove the copper. And that's not just for those of us not in major cities. And considering the ridiculous price of wireless, to even compare that to a wireline service is blatant trolling.

The cable company has a monopoly beyond that pittance of a speed.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Re: As has been said before

said by Os:

Works well there for you. VZ has a statewide contract to lay FiOS too.

VZ doesn't have a statewide contract to lay FiOS. They have a statewide franchise agreement for TV service, but even so they don't serve all parts of the state. Up where I live it is not Verizon territory, it is CenturyLink.

In fact it was because of the Government easing regulations that those in this state in FiOS areas get to enjoy it now.
canestim

join:2012-01-20

Re: As has been said before

Like osravens said you are lucky to live in a section where you have that option. Millions of people do not have that option and its a big deal. You don't realize it because you don't live with it every day.

Cable or DSL/Fiber pretty much if you are lucky. He said monopoly when it's actually a duopoly in most areas. Are they really that much different? In both cases the consumer gets screwed. No competition = higher prices and or bad service. To compare wireless or satellite service to a wireline service like osravens said is absurd.

In my area we either have AT&T DSL (Upgrade our lines?? I love copper, please leave it in my yard forever), Clear (please throttle me??), Satellite (I'm still waiting...) or AT&T/Verizon/Sprint/Tmobile wireless (Caps? I don't need to eat).

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by fifty nine:

Of course, if you're out in BFE you'll only have satellite because it's simply not profitable to run a whole fiber optic cable just for you. If you have a problem with that, move.

I know a fellow who lives in Morgan Hill, California. It isn't BFE, but he does only have a duopoly: Charter, or Verizon. No FiOS or U-verse.

Here, in San José, California, it is mostly a duopoly: Comcast and AT&T (some areas Verizon, no FiOS or U-verse). There are a couple of resellers of AT&T DSL; but resold AT&T is still AT&T.

I am one of the lucky ones with a real third choice. I have friends and relatives who don't have my choice; just AT&T or Comcast.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

1 recommendation

said by fifty nine:

I lived for 20+ years in a third world country where they had a heavily regulated and monopoly owned telco. It was 51% owned by the Gov't and the rest owned by cable and wireless.

It was pretty terrible until they got competition, after which things suddenly improved.

Government regulation only ensures that we all suffer in misery together. Free markets and competition bring better service to consumers because companies need to get off their asses and offer better service or their subscribers who have options flee.

Those who did not live under regulation are easily misled by the socialist siren song. The days of paying $.39/minute to call across the street and mitigating $300 home phone bills are thankfully, behind us.

Does anyone here really want to pay $45/month and $.45/minute (plus long distance and roaming charges) for their cellphone service?

I think there is still a case to be made, in some low-density/underserved locales, to re-take the last mile and run it as a cooperative or regulated monopoly with guaranteed rates of return in order to assure deployment - but doing so will result in substantially higher pricing than most here are imagining.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Re: As has been said before

I'm fine with cooperatives, including low interest loans to help them get established. Our electric service is from a cooperative and it works out pretty well.

But the last thing I want is the Government running my broadband utility.

David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice

Re: As has been said before

said by fifty nine:

But the last thing I want is the Government running my broadband utility.

I have to agree with you, if the goverment started running it, who do you think would run to congress first with new laws and such?

RIAA/MPAA anyone?

I can bet they wouldn't even sleep if that happened. I am kind of surprised they haven't approached local goverment owned services already forcing them to give up user info for lawsuits. They would have a rather large foot to stand on as it is a "publically owned service" after all.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
steevo22

join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
said by elray:

Does anyone here really want to pay $45/month and $.45/minute (plus long distance and roaming charges) for their cellphone service?

I think there is still a case to be made, in some low-density/underserved locales, to re-take the last mile and run it as a cooperative or regulated monopoly with guaranteed rates of return in order to assure deployment - but doing so will result in substantially higher pricing than most here are imagining.

$45 a month and .45 a minute. That brings back memories: bad ones. I was one of the first cellular phone subscribers in the world, on the PacTell Cellular System. I had a phone screwed in my car, and that was the rates I paid. Don't bring back the bad old days!

But seriously, lots of people are comfortable with the "cellular phone pricing model" that has been in play, where they charge you $30 for 500 minutes, and .45 a minute for overages. So if you use 500 or less you pay $30, and if you use an extra 20% or 600 they charge you more than double, or $75. It's called using pricing as a deterrent.

In everything you can think of you get a better price if you buy more: Roast beef, gardening services, buses, airplanes, real estate, plywood.

In cellular, and in broadband, if you use "too much" they essentially fine you.

That should be stopped and you should be a valuable bigger user getting a discount if you use more. That makes sense to me.

So sure, if bandwidth must be metered, as long as the first 200 gb cost more than the overage per gb, it would be working economically the way it's supposed to.

Bigger customer, better price, it's how it's supposed to me.

Using pricing as a usage deterrent is for the birds and anti competitive. It's not how business is supposed to work. There's no shortage, or there should be a shortage here in America.
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: As has been said before

said by steevo22:

said by elray:

I think there is still a case to be made, in some low-density/underserved locales, to re-take the last mile and run it as a cooperative or regulated monopoly with guaranteed rates of return in order to assure deployment - but doing so will result in substantially higher pricing than most here are imagining.

In everything you can think of you get a better price if you buy more: Roast beef, gardening services, buses, airplanes, real estate, plywood.

In cellular, and in broadband, if you use "too much" they essentially fine you.

Using pricing as a usage deterrent is for the birds and anti competitive. It's not how business is supposed to work. There's no shortage, or there should be a shortage here in America.

While I don't find the cap-and-overage model necessary for wired broadband providers, it is NOT anti-competitive. Quite the contrary, if the ISP or MSO is making "record profits" by charging "steep overages", someone else will enter that marketplace and charge less.

As it stands today, with a few rural exceptions (i.e. Frontier), broadband prices are substantially lower and bitrates higher than they were a decade ago - the result of "greed", not regulation. And the rural case will generally improve with LTE.

The advantage to the consumer with caps is that the carrier can afford to offer a lower priced tier to those who otherwise might choose to do without. This whole historical discussion started over a $15/month rate plan, which was censured by so-called "consumer advocates" even before it debuted.

Capped models do follow your volume-discount desire.
Unlimited tiers are generally available, sometimes they're "business class".
Only in the mind of Karl Bode do they routinely charge punitive overages - that practice is almost completely retired.

There most certainly is a shortage of spectrum compared to the potential demand - some of it is the result of boneheaded governance, and some of it is arguably arbitrary and artificial, but even disposing of the waste and abuse, there isn't much available.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: As has been said before

said by elray:

if the ISP or MSO is making "record profits" by charging "steep overages", someone else will enter that marketplace and charge less.

Right.... because it is so easy to enter the market and those 2-3 BILLION dollar quarterly profits arent incentive enough already are they? Go back to sleep. We will wake you when there is actual competition.
steevo22

join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
said by elray:

said by steevo22:


In everything you can think of you get a better price if you buy more: Roast beef, gardening services, buses, airplanes, real estate, plywood.

In cellular, and in broadband, if you use "too much" they essentially fine you.

Using pricing as a usage deterrent is for the birds and anti competitive. It's not how business is supposed to work. There's no shortage, or there should be a shortage here in America.

While I don't find the cap-and-overage model necessary for wired broadband providers, it is NOT anti-competitive. Quite the contrary, if the ISP or MSO is making "record profits" by charging "steep overages", someone else will enter that marketplace and charge less.

I just don't think that's true at all. You are just wrong.

In 99% of the areas there is only one or two providers. One wireline ILEC and one cable provider. In some rural areas there is only cable, no competition at all.

The barrier to entry is so steep to provide wired internet service with the ILECs owning the local loop and charging what is likely a ridiculous amount to rent space in their CO and local loop usage it keeps nearly all competition away. That was all a stillborn idea that is dead as hell now. A few companies tried, but they all failed.

In my area we have TWC charging an exorbitant amount and ATT with slow DSL service. So I can get crappy and fairly cheap from ATT, or pretty decent but it's $70 a month. And I don't much care for TWC's business practices. Bundle, please!

So for now I have crappy and cheap. I wish I had a choice of three more providers who were actually competing with each other but I don't.

Sonic.net resells ATT so even though they could be expected to harangue them to give me better service there is ultimately nothing they can do. I talked to them. It was a waste of time.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by fifty nine:

Capitalism is doing just fine. If an ISP needs to put limits to ensure that everyone can get the service they pay for, then that's a good thing.

If you actually believe that's why they are doing it then you're very obtuse.
zed260
Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN
Reviews:
·Charter
said by mb:

Capitalism is running amok! Our government was bought and paid for long ago...

»heinberg.wordpress.com/2009/08/0···-growth/

the goverment is really inept they wont even admit that oil is what has caused the economy to stay sluggish

nothing the goverment does makes any sense they live in some parallel earth where there's limitless money for them
rdmiller

join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

It's in the Constitution!

It says right there in the Constitution, "Thou shalt not cap."
Os

join:2011-01-26
US

The System At Work

Genachowski and Obama are friends. This is Genachowski's way of helping Team O. They want some Silicon Valley cash.
PacketExodus

join:2010-07-26

YES! PUBLICTY!

Put it all under a microscope. We The People will love you for it!
old_wiz_60

join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

this will settle

as a bribery battle between the carriers and the entertainment groups. The carriers want the caps, the entertainment people don't. Whichever group manages to bribe the FCC the most will win.

mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

elections everyone?

Anyone notice how things that are forgotten about suddenly become topics when elections come around?
Like they pave streets when they are trying to get re-elected. Now they care about caps and next month they will care about pricing but come january they will forget again.

cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26

Re: elections everyone?

How long did it take you to realize that?

I'm not in any major city, but not in BFE either and have a whopping 2 choices for internet.

Stupid, business wise, Charter or even stupider (all around) Frontier. Charter now offers a whopping 2 choices of plans for internet and you can't even own your own modem anymore and we all know what kind of crap Frontier is.
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/