Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
US Senators [...] want to ban Internet data caps. The senators today introduced the "Uncap America Act," which would "prohibit predatory data caps that force families to pay high costs and unnecessary fees to access high-speed broadband," they said in a press release.
"A broadband Internet access service provider shall not impose a data cap except when tailored primarily for the purposes of reasonable network management or managing network congestion," the bill says. The proposed law would order the Federal Communications Commission to issue "regulations to define the conditions under which a data cap is to be considered tailored to the purpose of reasonable network management or managing network congestion."
Data caps that don't comply with the exceptions would violate the Communications Act. "While certain broadband Internet access service networks may require practices to effectively manage congestion, those practices should be tailored to improve equitable access among consumers," the bill says. "Unnecessary data caps limit participation in the digital economy and are contrary to the public interest."
The bill can be expected to attract fierce opposition from the broadband industry and would face long odds of passing through the Senate and House. If it does become law, it would likely prohibit the home Internet data caps imposed by Comcast and others, which clearly exist for financial purposes and not for any network management need.
[...] "Americans need fast, reliable, and affordable Internet connections that are free from the burden of data caps that chill Internet use and make it more expensive," said Consumer Reports Senior Policy Counsel Jonathan Schwantes. "Where caps are legitimate and justified, so be it. But we can't allow ISPs to maximize profits at the expense of consumers."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday July 24 2022, @11:35PM (10 children)
The disease is that most places have only a single (or if you're lucky, two or three) internet provider with infrastructure to their customers' premises.
What makes more sense would be to have municipal and/or quasi-public [investopedia.com] (similar to these [wikipedia.org] types of organizations [wikipedia.org]) corporations which install, maintain and upgrade local and last-mile network infrastructure.
Multiple ISPs can then connect to those local networks and compete on price (including data caps), services, and customer support. This enhances competition and would almost certainly make the ISP market significantly more competitive. Which would likely make data caps and other rent-seeking terms and conditions (e.g., abusive TOS, recording and sale of DNS query and web surfing data, etc., etc., etc.) and other stuff that people hate, but generally don't have any choice about currently, obsolete or at least one strike against ISPs that try to implement such things.
This can (and has been in various places) be financed through bond issues, assessments and interconnect fees charged to ISPs.
This would end up being less expensive for ISPs (as they don't need to manage/maintain the last mile infrastructure) and significantly lower barriers to entry for ISPs with the bandwidth and corporate structure to support their customers, without having to get rights-of-way and deploy infrastructure to the premise.
All that said, data caps (especially given the huge amounts of dark fiber [wikipedia.org] that currently exists) are clearly rent-seeking moves to increase profitablility by charging more (while simultaneously not upgrading infrastructure to support increased usage) to those who, often, have no other choice in internet connectivity.
As such, I hope this bill passes and that municipal broadband to the premise becomes the norm rather than an outlier.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatOutdoors on Monday July 25 2022, @01:05AM (3 children)
While I agree with your statements, I suspect that any bill passed down will be watered down to favor the largest companies, etc.. They just make far too much profit to not purchase politicians..
Yes, I did make a logical argument there. You should post a logical response.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RS3 on Monday July 25 2022, @01:31AM
I think lobbyists are a big part of the problem. Big money can afford big lobbying.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday July 25 2022, @02:31AM
That's as may be, but the soluition lies in local/state governments and not in the Federal government.
Which, of course, is why bottom feeders like ALEC [wikipedia.org] have been shilling for the big ISPs with anti-municipal broadband model bills for more than a decade [alecexposed.org].
The answer isn't to rely on Congress or the FCC to take action. The answer is for you to do so!
Remember that while Senators and the President are elected state-wide (with the electorate being all eligible voters across your state) and congresspeople elected by the eligible portion of almost 2 million (1.7 million, actually) residents of their district, state senators/representatives/whatever they're called in your state have an electorate a fraction of that size.
And town/city council members even fewer -- usually much, much fewer.
Since few people even bother to communicate with their elected representatives and/or those seeking such offices, even a small group can make a lot of noise around a particular issue and press candidates (incumbent or not) to support municipal broadband.
Especially in primary elections (and even more in non-presidential election years), where the difference between victory or defeat (even for an incumbent) can be a couple hundred (or less) votes. Which means that making an effort, even with only a few dozen folks can often turn the tide on an issue.
So talk to your neighbors, your relatives and friends. Get them to harangue their candidates to support municipal broadband. Even in states which are heavily (D) or heavily (R), if enough (and enough can be a couple dozen or less -- especcially if there seems to be some organizational order behind it) folks press a prospective (or incumbent) town/city council member or state representative to support municipal broadband, that can absolutely have an effect.
And don't just do that with one party either. Get this talked about/supported by candidates in primary elections for both parties. Because this isn't a partisan issue, is it?
Make a lot of noise. Call/email reporters at local papers/news outlets, tout the benefits of municipal broadband -- force candidates to take a stand on the issue. And if they say they're against it, see how much money (political contributions are almost always public records) the big ISPs and their shills are contributing.
Then ask the question: Whose interests do you represent, your constituents or these big ISPs?
That's how you make this happen. If you wait around for the Federal government to do something, you'll be waiting a long time.
Yes, it takes some effort. But many of us are being ripped off by these ISPs -- paying them for their crappy service and rent-seeking takes money out of your pocket. I guess the question is, "how important is good internet to you and your community?"
In most places, especially where there's only a single (or even two) ISP, service sucks and they basically do what they want because you have no other choice. Strong competition would create better, cheaper services that make it more attractive for business to locate in your area -- boosting the local economy.
So don't just throw up your hands. Communicate with your neighbors, friends and family. I'd expect that most folks would be willing to write an email or even (*gasp*) make a phone call for the chance to have good quality broadband with real competition, don't you think?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Interesting) by stretch611 on Monday July 25 2022, @02:32AM
Sometimes that is the whole point...
A few congress critters start thinking what industry needs to increase its "donations"? Oh, ISPs have been slowing down contributions lately, time for some new telecommunication regulation...
And, yes, I agree this thought is quite cynical, but if you really think about it, and about our congress, do you really doubt that it happens? Especially when everyone vies for committee chair to steer the legislative planning.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday July 25 2022, @09:32PM (5 children)
If your ISP or ISPs are overly horrible, then StarLink begins to look like a viable competitor. Not a perfect one to be shore.
If we work together, we can cut all homeless people and poor people in half by the end of 2025!
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday July 26 2022, @12:56AM
Starlink median speeds are ~90Mb/sec down and ~9Mb/sec up [starlinkhardware.com].
Compared with the potential for (multi-)Gb/sec symmetric service as can be provided with Municipal wireline broadband, there may be a niche for them in this space.
Otherwise, they're just another slow ISP.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday July 26 2022, @04:23AM (3 children)
Upon reflection, my initial reply may seem to be dismissive of Starlink or your point.
It was not meant to be. At all. If it came off that way, my apologies.
Starlink (and/or similar offerings) certainly has a place, especially in areas where infrastructure build-outs are difficult/expensive.
That said, in the context of the senate bill in particular and wireline broadband in general, Starlink isn't (even if just from a latency perspective, leaving aside the bandwidth limitations) a real solution to the lack of wireline broadband competition in the US.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday July 26 2022, @02:11PM (2 children)
Thanks. I think you get my point. If your wire based service or the company's practices become bad enough, then StarLink could look attractive -- by comparison to local alternatives.
If we work together, we can cut all homeless people and poor people in half by the end of 2025!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday July 26 2022, @05:18PM (1 child)
This one that nobody took home may look attractive by comparison to some of the others still at the bar.
If we work together, we can cut all homeless people and poor people in half by the end of 2025!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2022, @08:49PM
Sadly, unlike MOTAS bar patrons, bad internet service is something a bag can't cure. :(
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stormreaver on Monday July 25 2022, @01:52AM (2 children)
This is a useless proposal, as it boils down to: ISP's shall not impose data caps unless they want to impose data caps. The whole, "...except when tailored primarily for the purposes of reasonable network management or managing network congestion" is a loophole big enough to drive a galaxy through.
(Score: 3, Funny) by krishnoid on Monday July 25 2022, @02:10AM
Oh, so Samsung's [samsung.com] behind this?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stormreaver on Monday July 25 2022, @11:22AM
I should also point out that it's the exact same excuse ISP's have been using to imposed data caps to begin with.