FCC boss backs usage-based pricing for cable Internet access

[IDemo]

Source: msnbc.com

BOSTON -- The head of the Federal Communications Commission said he supports cable companies' charging for Internet based on how much a subscriber uses the service, and also welcomed a cable industry initiative to share Wi-Fi hotspots around the country.

Most Internet service providers charge a flat fee and price their packages based on the speed of the service. Cable providers have been considering charging based on usage, similar to the way utilities charge for electricity.

"Usage-based pricing would help drive efficiency in the networks," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said on Tuesday, speaking at the cable industry's annual NCTA Show.

Genachowski said usage-based pricing would also be fairer to users and would encourage competition.

Read more: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11815105-fcc-boss-backs-usage-based-pricing-for-cable-internet-access?lite

[Angry Dragon]

1. Sold down the river again

[may3rd]

2. So, how much will the bundle package increase?

[Politicalboi]

3. What they should do

Charge you for how many channels you watch. I only need about 10 myself, and that's probably a few too many. And I am getting pissed at Brighthouse for listing shows that are supposed to be on, but instead it's an infomercials.

[IDemo]

4. We're talking cable internet bandwidth, not tv

I believe their intent is to charge more for those who download a lot of video, music, or use other high data sites.

[klook]

6. They see the handwriting on the wall

-- more and more viewers are going to be watching streaming Internet TV in the future, and the cable ISPs want a slice of that.

[Ed Suspicious]

5. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Youtube, etc need to be screaming bloody murder over this. n/t

[BadgerKid]

20. No doubt cable operators' streaming services won't count against the quota. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

27. Maybe not to begin with but they will eventually come after them as well, that's how

you eat an elephant one bite at a time.

[limpyhobbler]

7. Did he check with consumers of this service,

AKA the American people, before deciding to support this industry proposal? I doubt it. This is either going to result in higher bills or worse service for most people. If this were put up for a vote to the American people there is no way in hell it would pass. Just another example of corporations running the show.

When the industry says this will increase efficiency what they mean is they will make more money. That's it. How on earth could it be more efficient to have to track people's time on the internet. It's introducing a huge new accounting and metering process. What's efficient about that. Watch the FCC chairman go get a seven-figure salary job at Time Warner when his term expires.

[lib2DaBone]

8. OF COURSE he does... he gets his funds from the PACS.

It doesnt matter what is the best for the Tax Payers or Consumers... the only thing that matters is how much money he can stash in his pocket.

Remember when they de-reugulated Cable TV.. and we were supposed to get all these free channels and wonderful TV?

WE GOT SHIT... end of story.

[magic59]

9. Bad idea from the corporate controlled FCC

another gov agency that sold its soul to the devil. In Europe you can get higher speed internet, phone and cable TV for around $40 a month, same package here over $100 a month. Why? Because the USA is run by monopolies and there is no sharing of cable. No competition = screwed consumers.

[christx30]

35. No kidding...

I just started at Time Warner Cable and in training, there was a training video about TWC's PAC.. They listed a bunch of the achievements of the PAC and most of them were just so disgusting that I said "Hell no" when they asked if I wanted to join.
"In the 1980's, we lobbied to prevent the San Antonio school district from starting their own television network."
Most of the great things that they boasted about were just ways of decreasing competition and cementing themselves as a monopoly.

[lookingfortruth]

10. It is amazing how our government agencies find ways to screw the American Public.

My husband refuses to pay for cable because it is too much for the channels and he refuses a contract that can be change by the company but we get screwed if we want a change.

So if internet becomes Pay by the hour or whatever it will limit my ability to stay informed and I am not going to speak for everyone but I would think some people are in the same boat.

[bl968]

11. Petition created

Sign the petition demanding his resignation.

[drdtroit]

12. The continued nickel and diming of Americans to death!

[99th_Monkey]

13. AAAGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! PLEASE fucking leave the Internet ALONE, as it is ~nt

[ryvanwi]

14. Saw this coming.

I'm all for this, but only if they get rid of the broadband monopolies in most markets. It only makes sense. My parents only use the internet for basic web surfing and email. Why should they have to pay the same price as someone who uses it as their primary television device?

I think we'd be singing a different tune if they decided to go to flat rates for electricity or gasoline. (For one monthly price, you could drive a 2 ton SUV unlimited miles for the same price as driving a hybrid.)

You know, I distinctly remember saying this was coming if net neutrality wasn't broken down. Either the broadband companies are going to need to tier service, (pay extra for access to high bandwidth websites,) tier bandwidth, (with caps and overage charges like cell carriers have now,) or charge a lot more to everybody.

Time Warner already tested this in some Texas markets. They were able to knock about 15% off the bill for low usage customers. This was made up for by charging high usage customer more.

In Canada, the cable companies are already doing this. Netflix had to lower their video resolution there just to stay under the caps.

But like I said, this is all predicated on actual competition in the MSO marketplace. If cable companies continue to maintain franchise monopolies, there is really going to be little benefit to the consumer for this change.

[limpyhobbler]

18. Is there some bandwidth shortage or something?

Is the internet full? Why would they have to tier usage or raise rates for everbody, as you say? What is forcing the cable industry into this? Are we reaching bandwidth capacity on the existing infrastructure? I doubt it. And even if we are, how will increasing rates (or tiering rates) solve the problem?

My opinion is it is just an attempt to raise rates as a way of soaking consumers to increase corporate profits.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Really, is there a shortage of electrons?

I'm sure the physicists would have warned us if there were.

[harmonicon]

23. It's a false dichotomy that you've laid out.

You can reason through it yourself.

[supernova]

54. Dropping pins and shoes

In the 1980s you could hear the Spring pin drop.

In 2012, you will hear the Time Warner shoe drop.

I envision AT&T gaining a lot of customers that were former cable internet subscribers.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. 'would encourage competition'

[4saken]

16. This will be a big step against net neutrality if other ISPs follow suit.

Take for example Bell ISP in Canada, where it's $1.50/GB, and the Shaw ISP where it's $2/GB that you use over their monthly limit. Terrible for anyone who uses media with large data types, like those who watch Youtube/Netflix/Hulu , etc , instead of TV.

They will use this as an excuse to not have any unlimited plans for a decent price. Where unlimited used to be the norm.

It's one way to bring people back to the TV and their commercials.

[JDPriestly]

17. Usage-based pricing would permit the rich to use the internet more than the poor.

That's what it would do.

It would further increase class divisions especially in terms of access to information.

What a Republican idea.

[DCKit]

28. And there you have it: Regressive Pricing

Like regressive taxes, the poor get hammered.

[brooklynite]

42. Sorry, your argument doesn't work...

The Rich will ALWAYS be able to buy more, unless you're going to impose pricing limits. They can go to more movies, sign up for more TV channels, and get faster internet speeds. The question isn't whether the Rich will be able to afford more usage, it's whether more of the Poor will be able to buy usage to start. All-you-can eat pricing is based on a midpoint price that covers the usage of MOST users: some will use more and some will use less. Cable and DSL service run about $35-45 a month for everyone: what if the entry point for a smaller allotment was $10-$15? Would more lower income customers be able to afford participation at all?

[JDPriestly]

52. I think that kind of pricing would just make a huge mess.

A lot of people hardly use the internet during their vacations or around Christmas.

But if you are sick or you have a paper to write or work to do, you use it a lot.

The providers would have to track each customer's usage all the time. What a mess.

DSL means you have access to the internet 24 hours per day as you wish. If it is any less, it is not really DSL.

Sometimes I don't touch my computer for an entire weekend. Sometimes I'm up typing away in the middle of the night.

No. I think it is a lousy idea and will raise the cost of doing business for internet providers.

If an internet provider wants to offer the alternative, great. But I think most people will opt for full coverage. We just called and increased our bandwidth level.

But then, we do not subscribe to cable. We use the internet to watch Netflix -- much cheaper than many people who only subscribe to cable.

[brooklynite]

55. What makes you think your usage isn't measured?

The providor has your IP address and can measure your upload and download capacity. Every iPhone and iPad features this capability.

What SHOULDN'T happen is the need to buy a smaller bundle (which expires) and then pay higher overage rates for misjudging your need. There should be a standard usage charge, just like your electric bill.

[Fumesucker]

19. Just for the record, Genachowski was appointed by Obama in 2009 to head the FCC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Genachowski

[villager]

26. What!? An Obama appointee favoring corporations over people!?

well, it must be a hopeful, change-filled kind of corporate screwing that we're getting now!

[Dokkie]

29. what some people fail to realize

is that not everyone uses Netflix or spends hours on end surfing the web. Why the hell should I pay the same rate with someone who watches movies or plays video games online?

This kind of policy would be mercilessly attacked if it was implemented in any other aspect of our lives but for some magical reason, its ok if they charged the everybody regardless of consumption the same amount. I for one do not see any problem with this move. Use loads of bandwidth? then pay for it. Its that simple. And while they are it, please introduce an ala carte pricing for cable TV god knows that its aint fair to charge me $70/month when all I watch is cooking channel and espn

I just cannot understand the outrage. How is it going to be a windfall for ISPs? if they cannot over charge now, how will creating a consumption pricing change that? I hope someone screaming big corp give away can explain that to me

[Fearless]

31. Why should abortion be legal if you never use it?

Because it's the right thing to do.

[Dokkie]

33. weird reply

I dont even know how to reply to your comment. But 4 wheel driving is legal but I don't have to pay for someone else entertainment. This is the way we sell food, fuel, education and far for infinitely important goods and services but lets all go crazy when someone suggests we try it with internet service.

[Fearless]

36. You pay for public education even if you don't have kids using it...

Your social security tax pays for seniors to live. You pay for Medicare and Medicaid. Do you collect them? In terms of private companies... You pay car/house/renter's insurance and your rates are what they are not because of you but because of the collective number of people who have that insurance. Undoubtedly, if no one ever got in a car accident, your insurance, even if you personally now never have gotten in an accident, will be considerably lower.

The same is true about net neutrality.

There is an entrance fee to society. We pay it. Because it's the right thing to do.

[Dokkie]

59. I hope you see the difference between

public schools and private internet connection. One is for public good and the other for satisfying share holders and owners. I just think its only going to be fair if you also extend the outrage to the fact that you dont enjoy the privilege of paying a flat rate for other utilities like gas, electricity, water.

If its good for ISP, then it should be good for public utility companies

[Fearless]

61. Internet access is for the public good.

I challenge you to find a job today that doesn't require computer skills. Hell I challenge you to find a skilled job today without the internet.

Gas/electric have subsidies for the poor. Water is purified by the city/town/township/etc. and everyone pays for it then.

[Dokkie]

63. Internet connection

at your local public library is for the public good, not the one in your house. You know something else that is just as important to finding and holding a job? a motor vehicle but you dont see any regulations making cars affordable to ever American. I say it again, ifs consumption pricing is good for calculating food cost, electrical and water bill, it is good for calculating internet service cost.

[Fearless]

64. Public transportation. Discount passes. Both exist to get the poor/working class to work.

Consumption pricing good for food? Electric? Gas? Water?

There are people starving in this country even with free food available in some places.

There are people who go without heat or limit heat each winter because they can't afford it.

There are people who bathe in public restrooms because they can't afford hot water or any water.

There are people who sit in the dark at night because their electricity has been shut off because they can't pay their bill.

Consumption is NOT good for these things. It is not good for internet either. This is the 21st century. Find me a person that states that not having the internet benefits the working class/poor in finding work. Anyone reputable. I will eat my hat.

[Dokkie]

66. All true

But I bet there are programs in the books that help people pay for access to internet. And even with the best policy in the book some people are still going to be left out. This is probably going to make internet more affordable to anyone who can avoid using their computer for watching movies (Hollywood and porn), and playing video games

[Fearless]

67. Kinda kills social media...

Egypt would have serious issues no doubt.

And don't think for a moment that if this were to happen that your prices would go down! Hell no! Everyone else's would just go up! Look at cell phone plans with data caps... When AT&T and Verizon introduced them last year, prices on the small plans didn't go down... the others went way up... And if you go over your limit... pray... because it's going to cost you an arm and a leg.

[villager]

32. Yes, I'm sure the corporations will drastically lower your prices now

in the wake of this consumer-friendly decision

[Dokkie]

34. You betcha

heavy users will see a cost increase and ordinary users like me will get a cut. You have to understand that if this was about price gouging they wouldn't need to go through all these steps to do this, they can just increase everyone's bill by 50c and still get away with it.

[Uncle Joe]

39. This is about neutralizing the peoples' power on the Internet.

Price gouging is down the road, with them it's first things first, get control of the Internet and that's what they're trying to do for now.

Once they've accomplished that goal, they have the people by the short hairs.

[villager]

40. You report back on that great big price cut the cable companies are giving ya, okay?

We'll be waiting with baited breath.

[brentspeak]

48. "Ordinary users like me will get a cut"

:

[Dokkie]

60. yes, I will definitely get a cut

in my monthly bill cos all I do online is spend 30mins to 1 hr on DU and at the same time listening to my youtube videos. Its bare bone minimum so laugh all you want.

[JDPriestly]

53. A la carte pricing for cable? Now that I could go for.

We have a higher bandwidth capacity because we watch Netflix instead of having cable.

I'm pretty sure we pay a higher rate for our higher bandwidth capacity. We just had the capacity increased somehow.

We had cable TV for a year and hardly used it. The programming was just awful. So we switched to Netflix and internet.

Do you watch your cable and use your internet at the same time?

Couldn't you get a combined package for both your internet and cable?

[4saken]

62. What you fail to realize...

...is that this is motivated by a desire to send people back to the TVs and commercials. To keep people on the form of media that they profit the most out of. This isn't motivated by a desire to make super cheap internet bills for those who only use the net for text. It's astounding how many people are as shortsighted as you. Right now you're not just paying for the bandwidth, but the connection and ability to access it at anytime.

[Dokkie]

65. Then they are going to fail

If that is the goal of the ISPs. The cat is out of the bag and it ain't coming back. I think the goal is to recover the revenue lost now more people are spending more of their screen time on the computer. Just the this last month, 2 of my close friends cut their TV cable service and subscribed to Netflix, their monthly internet bill is still the same but their bandwidth use is probably going to triple+.

Now I have not doubt the idea is increase the price of the heavy users without alienating the low bandwidth users and I have no problem with that

[harmonicon]

21. FCC boss backs rich against poor (nt)

[joeglow3]

43. How? It will reduce the cost for the low end entry point.

Or, are you saying he opposes the poor being able to stream netflix and play World of Warcraft all day?

[harmonicon]

47. Clearly the rich are more deserving of information.

We can't risk having an informed electorate, now can we? What would happen then? Good on the FCC to do what they can in this struggle.

[joeglow3]

49. This would not impact someone looking up news

This impacts people streaming the shit out of movies and video games.

Nice try, though.

[harmonicon]

50. And, you know, the self-employed. Artists. Musicians. Hobbyists.

That is, normal people. This is mostly about profit, I'll give you that, but it just has the added benefit of strengthening class divisions.

[joeglow3]

56. How many of those people are streaming video?

Obviously, this is what is killing internet usage and slowing it down for everyone. Not too many of these people are needing to stream video for hours every day. I saw a study that showed a very small number of people account for the majority of internet ussage. If anything, this could lower the cost for these people you are referencing.

[Fumesucker]

57. And yet bandwidth per capita in the US lags far behind may other developed nations..

The US is #23 on the list..

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/int_int_int_ban_mbp_percap-international-bandwidth-mbps-per-capita

[harmonicon]

58. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY

It's not like the episode of South Park where you can get "just a little internet". There is no problem with streaming video slowing down the speed of the internet.

Anyway, regardless... I use a lot more bandwidth sending and receiving audio files than I do from watching movies online.

[melm00se]

22. As I don't really track

how much bandwidth/data I use per month, I don't know if this would be bad (or good) for me personally

[Odin2005]

24. The bastards are trying to strangle Netflix and YouTube.

[Harmony Blue]

45. Don't forget google

The only people that support this are those that don't comprehend the importance of the internet.

[BlueToTheBone]

25. Republican to the core.

I am so tired of these people. It's making me think of running for state office in 2014 (if we survive until then)

[Fearless]

30. Two words... FUCK YOU!

Any internet provider that tries this will NOT EVER have my business. I don't care if that means I will NEVER have an internet connection again. I WILL NOT PAY FOR THIS CRAP.

[neohippie]

37. Corporations make the rules and get to change them in their own favor, is why we need regulators

The corporations use unlimited data as a selling point, to get customers and then they want to change the rules (contracts) because they now realize that they can make a whole lot more profit by selling everything a la carte, and who is out there to protect consumers from these types of practices? apparently not the agencies that were setup to do just that

[Roland99]

38. This administration is the most disappointing in history!

[Harmony Blue]

44. Anyone that supports this

does not deserve to be called a Democrat or be associated with the Democratic party.

Please do us all a favor and change your party affiliation if you support this.

Public eduation, unions, and internet are the cornerstone of the Democratic party. They can't be compromised with because they are important to a healthy Democracy.

[Steerpike]

46. Curses!

Internet and cable are thru the roof here already! I canceled my cable a long time ago and probobly will never renew...
I require the internet and pay 100 dollars a month right now for the 2nd largest bandwith they have. There is no unlimited anymore in Anchorage. There has not been for a long time.

[Dash87]

51. Unrelated, but this graphic always scared me.

[img][/img]

[woo me with science]

68. We've been bought and sold. nt