SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the also-have-great-deals-on-oceanfront-property-in-Kansas dept.
Charter tries to convince FCC that broadband customers want data caps
Charter Communications has claimed to the Federal Communications Commission that broadband users enjoy having Internet plans with data caps, in a filing arguing that Charter should be allowed to impose caps on its Spectrum Internet service starting next year.
Charter isn't currently allowed to impose data caps because of conditions the FCC placed on its 2016 purchase of Time Warner Cable. The data-cap condition is scheduled to expire on May 18, 2023, but Charter in June petitioned the FCC to let the condition expire two years early, in May 2021.
With consumer-advocacy groups and Internet users opposing the petition, Charter filed a response with the FCC last week, saying that plans with data caps are "popular."
"Contrary to Stop The Cap's assertion [in an FCC filing] that consumers 'hate' data caps, the marketplace currently shows that broadband service plans incorporating data caps or other usage-based pricing mechanisms are often popular when the limits are sufficiently high to satisfy the vast majority of users," Charter told the FCC.
Or you could offer some kind of software that shows which users are hogging the network.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2020, @12:41AM
Seriously, government backed monopolies shouldn't have shareholders. Utilities like Charter are required to have licenses to operate in specific geographic areas. Essentially, this monopoly exists in part due to regulations. Cable companies benefit from the use of public land to place their infrastructure. This is necessary because it's a limited resource and needs to be used responsibly, to serve the public. It's a matter of practicality, otherwise anyone could essentially seize public land for however they might want to use it. This places limits on the competition that can exist in such an industry. Some of the infrastructure is then built with public money in the form of subsidies. Both the cost of building the infrastructure and the regulatory hurdles are large barriers to entry, so there is absolutely nothing free or competitive about this market.
Charter is looking for any excuse to increase revenue, whether it's lying about broadcast fees or trying to break their agreement about data caps. But this revenue doesn't generally benefit the public. It benefits the shareholders. Charter isn't in good financial shape, but a lot of that is due to debt incurred acquiring Time Warner Cable, which again enriched shareholders.
Charter should not be enriching shareholders while benefiting from government backed monopolies and subsidies. There could be good alternatives like municipal broadband but companies like Charter fight these at every turn. Even if no taxes funded municipal broadband and the entire operating costs were covered through billing customers, Charter could probably operate at cost and be less expensive than the municipal option. Operating at scale allows Charter to reduce their costs in ways that a small municipal broadband service could not. But operating at cost wouldn't provide shareholder value, which is what this is about. Virtually without exception, companies like Charter place shareholders ahead of customers and the general public, even when they directly benefit from monopolies granted by the public. This is why shareholders must go. Fire the damn shareholders. In practice, eminent domain could be used to acquire the assets so shareholders and creditors would get a fair deal.