Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The US government's probe into the necessity of ISP data caps has escalated with the launch of a formal inquiry and the publication of hundreds of testimonials from those affected to drum up support for potential regulatory action.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) yesterday announced the launch of its inquiry into ISPs, both terrestrial and mobile, for their use of artificial data caps and speed throttling to limit internet access for subscribers on lower-cost tiers. These limits, said FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, are indefensible in the post-pandemic era.
"During the pandemic, many fixed and mobile internet service providers refrained from enforcing or imposing data caps, suggesting that our networks have the capacity to meet consumer demand without these restrictions," Rosenworcel said.
But as the pandemic wound down, the caps returned, triggering an initial look into how consumers were affected by data caps in 2023. That effort centered on getting consumer feedback on how they were bilked by their ISPs through reinstated caps and subscription price hikes, the results of which were released yesterday alongside the formal notice of inquiry.
In one case, a family reported having to take their children to use public Wi-Fi because the only unlimited option in their area is $190. In an another instance, a telemedicine provider said that it was forced to pay for higher-priced services due to their need for bandwidth, while a disabled individual said an ISP had more than doubled the cost of their plan since the pandemic and added a data cap.
"For most people in the United States, rationing their internet usage would be unthinkable and impractical," Rosenworcel said of the comments. "But, for millions, limitations on how much data they can use online is a constant concern."
To that end, the FCC is seeking more comments from the public and the broadband industry on why, among other things, caps persist despite the demonstrated technical ability of companies to offer unlimited data plans without harming their networks.
Most crucial to the notice of inquiry, at least for those looking to the FCC for regulatory cues, is the Commission's question about whether it has the legal authority to take action on data caps. In 2023, when the FCC was first looking into the matter, it said it was exploring its legal authority to address the issue of caps without needing to pass new laws, and has seemingly identified a few possible avenues to do so.
The FCC is considering taking action on ISP data caps under section 257 of the Communications Act, which gives the FCC the right to eliminate market barriers for small businesses in acquiring or using telecommunications and information services.
"We also seek comment generally on our ability to rely on other sources of statutory authority within the Act for potential actions related to data cap practices," the FCC noted. Additionally, the Commission said it's examining whether there are any barriers – like the First Amendment – that could hamper its actions.
We approached the FCC (which didn't respond) as well as multiple ISPs, to ask about the Commission's proposal. Those who answered directed us to telecommunications industry trade associations.
CTIA, the wireless industry association, said: "Wireless providers maintain robust networks and offer a wide range of broadband service plans that enable consumers to choose what best suits their unique needs and budgets. American consumers used over 100 trillion megabytes in wireless data last year, and thanks to the highly competitive wireless industry, they are paying less for their service, including unlimited data plans that are more than 40 percent cheaper than in 2010. While many consumers choose unlimited plans, usage-based pricing plans give cost-conscious customers options and make it possible to offer Lifeline-supported mobile plans at no cost to eligible consumers."
A USTelecom spokesperson commented: "Providers offer an incredibly wide range of choices to empower consumers to select the plans that best meet their individual needs. Consumers should continue to be in the driver's seat when making these choices, not government."
US residents with a data cap story are invited to share their data cap tale with the FCC – the more the merrier when it comes to building a case for banning the practice, naturally.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Frosty Piss on Sunday October 20 2024, @08:02PM (7 children)
This will sadly go by the wayside if Orange Jesus assumes the dictatorship.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 20 2024, @08:22PM (6 children)
Geez, can't we keep the political flamebait out of these articles?
Look, as I said [soylentnews.org], I agree with one possible interpretation of your comment. Policies enacted by the FCC are not equivalent to laws passed by Congress, and it's easy for future administrations to simply reverse any policy voted on by the current FCC commissioners. That is a real problem, as well as the risk of any such policy being struck down by the courts, which is why Congress needs to step in and pass laws to ban data caps. We all know that Congress won't actually do this, either, because the telecom lobby is powerful and well-funded. Meanwhile, those who will be hurt the most by data caps, small businesses and low-income residents, don't have a similarly powerful lobby to represent their interests. But can't your point about future administrations reversing this be made without trying to start an argument about partisan politics and the upcoming presidential election? You've posted very similar flamebait before, and this type of shitposting isn't helpful. When I read front page stories, I do it to read comments on the actual story, not the exact same political flamebait I can easily see in many of the journals.
(Score: 4, Disagree) by janrinok on Sunday October 20 2024, @10:31PM (5 children)
I thought he made a valid point.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2024, @12:10AM (3 children)
Not really, congress writes the law, not the president. Congress is supposed to make the rules, the FCC exists to enforce them. And besides, the name calling is so tiresome, from the same people that tell how we shouldn't comment on a person's appearance. Personally, I don't care about the man. Much more disturbing is the awakened fascism that supports him, not to mention the feeble opposition that fails to overwhelm this phenomenon, on the contrary, it played a great part in this "awakening"
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Tuesday October 22 2024, @03:12AM (2 children)
There literally isn't time for congress to act on things like this. They barely have time to deal with their regular work. Even if you take things that are arguably BS like renaming post offices off their to do list, there still isn't time for them to debate and come to agreements on things like this.
The reason why Chevron deference was overturned was that the courts want to bog things down in litigation so the parties that are bribing them will keep the gravy train rolling. The GOP for it's part, has absolutely no interest in most regulations being enacted anyways, and the Democrats are quite frankly completely incompetent because they're mostly sold out to the same groups.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2024, @08:41AM (1 child)
I agree that it's simply not possible for Congress to regulate every issue closely. It's necessary for Congress to delegate some of their rule-making authority. This happens frequently, and it often isn't controversial at all. But it's not mutually exclusive to say that Congress must delegate their authority, and that Congress has also shirked its responsibility to act as a coequal branch of government. That means they've ceded too much power to both the Executive and Judicial Branches.
There are a lot of issues that really need to be addressed such as data caps, net neutrality, ensuring that high-speed internet remains affordable for consumers when many markets just have a duopoly, and reforming copyrights to fix many of the shortcomings of the DMCA. All of this could be incorporated into one or two bills and passed through the normal legislative process. This might affirm the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA while also adding more penalties for malicious DMCA takedown notices. If there were laws banning data caps and requiring net neutrality, we wouldn't need to be concerned about the next presidential administration changing policies on a whim or the courts ruling the FCC has exceeded its authority.
Congress does need to weigh in on the big questions, set the scope for the rule-making authority they're delegating, and then pass those laws through the regular legislative process. You say that Congress doesn't have time to debate everything, and I agree. But there has also been a notable decrease in the number of bills passed in recent sessions of Congress.
Sure, you could trust that the current FCC will enact reasonable rules prohibiting data caps and requiring net neutrality. But what happens the next time someone like Ajit Pai becomes FCC chairperson?
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday October 23 2024, @02:25AM
I'd agree with you, but even in cases where congress has pretty explicitly delegated the authority, SCOTUS has pretended that wasn't the case. Student loan forgiveness is a good example, if congress didn't intend for the President to forgive those loans, they shouldn't have made the forgiveness tax free.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2024, @01:10AM
In Congress, members of both parties frequently favor big business while harming ordinary people. That's how you get Thom Tillis, a Republican, and Chris Coons, a Democrat, introducing legislation to permit software and genetic patents. But there is evidence that the FCC under Republican administrations is far more favorable to the interests of telecoms and their profits.
When Charter acquired Time Warner Cable, one condition of the merger was that Charter not institute data caps for seven years. However, in the last few months of the Trump administration, Charter petitioned the FCC to let them out of that agreement early [soylentnews.org] with the disingenuous argument that customers really like data caps. No, customers like cheaper internet service, but they hate data caps and the associated fees for exceeding them. However, when Trump lost the election and FCC chairperson Ajit Pai resigned, Charter withdrew the request [soylentnews.org], knowing that they were going to face a far less favorable regulatory environment. At a minimum, Charter certainly believed that they were far more likely to get their way with a Republican-led FCC.
Although that is a reasonable assessment, I focused on the extreme loaded language like "Orange Jesus" and "dictatorship" instead of the actual message that could have been far better conveyed without the flamebait. I have no problem with people telling it like it is when the party affiliation is relevant to the story, but I also stand by my criticism of the original post as political flamebait because of the extreme loaded language. I'm a Democrat who thoroughly despises Donald Trump and almost certainly won't vote for a single Republican in the upcoming election, but I also believe I need to be intellectually honest and say when a message I actually agree with is presented in an extremely toxic manner.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 20 2024, @08:14PM (7 children)
There's a very good chance that any attempts to do this will result in lawsuits from the telecommunications industry saying that the FCC doesn't have clear congressional authorization to do this. This Supreme Court has signaled that it will involve the "major questions doctrine" and strike down what it considers overreach of Executive Branch authority in matters like this. It wouldn't necessarily be bad if we could count on Congress to pass good laws on matters like net neutrality, data caps, software patents, and preventing censorship to protect intellectual property. That would have the benefit of preventing a future administration from simply changing the rules established by the previous one.
Instead, just as the current Congress has taken up to allow software patents [soylentnews.org], we can expect that powerful and wealthy lobbyists will represent the interests of telecoms. Meanwhile, the people who will be harmed most by data caps, the low income people discussed in this article, don't have a similar lobby working in their favor. The lobbyists and political donations from the telecommunications industry have enough influence that we'll get excuses from members of Congress about how things like net neutrality and banning data caps will destroy innovation and are actually somehow bad for consumers.
We all know the truth here. Net neutrality and abolishing data caps prevent telecoms from establishing extra data streams that increase quarterly earnings, which is what Wall Street wants. When a lot of places are served by a high speed internet duopoly with one cable provider and one fiber provider that charge similar prices, there's insufficient competition to keep this corporate greed in check. That's why we need regulation, and maybe the best thing we could do is at least crack down on the powerful lobbying from telecoms and other similar big businesses. There is no free market requiring the telecoms to, you know, actually earn people's business. It's like we should recognize that corporate personhood really is a legal fiction and not intended to treat corporations as actual people with all of the rights in the Bill of Rights. Corporations shouldn't be granted the same level of first amendment rights to give massive donations to members of Congress as constitutionally-protected
briberyspeech.The FCC is trying to do the right thing. The problem is that the status quo virtually guarantees that Congress isn't going to do its damn job and permanently put an end to evils like data caps.
Note: This comment is NOT about partisan politics or about the election. Politicians in both major parties accept the donations I'm discussing and represent the interests of their "corporate person" donors over the real people in their states and districts. The problem is that the system is broken in a much more fundamental way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2024, @05:33AM (6 children)
Next time people vote for loser Democrats that aren't promising anything, or that haven't even attempted to follow through on their promises because it's important to vote "blue no matter who" they should remember that Obama should have been able to appoint 2 SCOTUS justices, the one that opened due to Scalia's death and RBG should have been pressured to step down because was clearly not going to last through another 2 terms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2024, @10:15AM (5 children)
Yeah, and why was it that Obama couldn't appoint Garland to replace Scalia?
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday October 21 2024, @02:13PM (4 children)
Because he preferred to play paddycake with the GOP and generally just folded we without making them pay. People make a lot of excuses for him, but in fact he was a loser that could have done so much more. He had a period where the Dems controlled both chambers and the Presidency and could do whatever they wanted and blew it. They could also have nuked the filibuster.
(Score: 2) by weirsbaski on Tuesday October 22 2024, @03:42PM (3 children)
Nuked the filibuster? Nuked The Filibuster?
Do you have any idea how that would've blown up in their faces next time "the other party" won an election?
Talk about a short-sighted move...
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Tuesday October 22 2024, @05:35PM (2 children)
They GOP did it anyways after Trump won the election anyways. So, perhaps be a bit less gaslit and a bit more informed would be helpful. The GOP had been working on packing the court with their nominees and had already announced their plans to prevent the Democrats from filling the opening.
(Score: 2) by weirsbaski on Tuesday October 22 2024, @09:25PM (1 child)
Ok, I didn't know the GOP neutered the filibuster so I'll give you a point for that.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday October 23 2024, @02:22AM
This is one of those things where many younger voters weren't aware of it to begin with and many of the older voters have forgotten. The Democrats don't really care about any of the issues enough to really go after the GOP. They lose an election, get a bunch of fund raising for having lost, if they do win, then they put up a pathetic fight to try to claim they tried, but hose GOP politicians prevented them from using their veto-proof majority and control of the House and Presidency to actually deliver much for the voters.
They just stand around gawking as the GOP gerrymanders itself to a permanent advantage and has the courts so stuffed with favorable judges that the GOP doesn't even need to win elections to win.
And, we're told to vote blue no matter who because of just how horrible the GOP is. But, rarely is there any real attention being paid to why so few eligible voters bother and there's far more effort by the Democrats to make themselves more appealing to the rightwing than to try to win over independents and non-voters.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Adam on Sunday October 20 2024, @08:15PM (4 children)
Presumably there is some cost to bandwidth - seems reasonable that a telehealth company would pay more than a less internet intensive company. I usually agree with the recent FCC pushes, but this one doesn't make sense to me. If pricing is exploitive or unfair, sure, but having a price per gig plus a service fee seems reasonable. Insisting everyone get unlimited bandwidth for the same price seems unreasonable and undesirable. Basing their case on anecdotes and sob stories suggests they're on shaky ground anyway.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 20 2024, @08:29PM (1 child)
Sure, and those types of tiered plans already exist. For example, I can pay less for 100 Mbps service, or I can pay increasing amounts for 300 Mbps, 500 Mbps, or 1 Gbps. These types of plans are not at risk from the current ruling. The terms of service for ISPs generally include language that allows them to terminate service for truly excessive use of bandwidth, such as running a high-traffic server from a residential internet connection. Because this type of pricing flexibility already exists, data caps are redundant. Large ISPs have more than enough capacity to provide the levels of service customers are paying for, meaning that data caps are really just a way to add additional fees and increase profits.
(Score: 2) by crm114 on Sunday October 20 2024, @11:06PM
+1
Back (pre-pandemic) in Comcast world, we had caps. As a Work-From-Home worker, we ran close to the caps.
We are now in Spectrum world, (We are Charter, before the Time-Warner Merger) - part of the merger deal was there would be no caps.
We use about the same bandwidth as Comcast, but it is nice to not worry about "overages" because someone in the family wanted to binge Netflix this month.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday October 21 2024, @01:53AM (1 child)
It's not unlimited, it's limited to whatever the most amount of data can be transferred over the connection over a month. Presumably, there would be some permission to throttle accounts that are using the most data when there's a need to limit how much is being used at a given time.
As far as it being unlimited for everybody, that's not ever been the case, nor will it ever be the case. The people who pay for the fastest connections get the highest cap, that's how it works, faster data transfer speeds mean you eat through whatever cap might exist because the amount you can theoretically transfer is higher.
The cost of however much bandwidth is needed just gets factored in based on the speeds and whatever the desired level of product for each tier is.
The current setup lets them sell bandwidth they don't have, charge extra fees for going over and provides no incentive to invest in upgrading the infrastructure unless they start losing customers to another ISP. Which is often not an option.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday October 21 2024, @02:45AM
Back about 18 years when I first got "broadband" (then 1.5Mbps was heavenly after 24k dialup) my choice-of-one ISP was a one man band, and he liked to talk about his work. He told me that downloaded data cost nothing due to peering agreements, and at the time uploaded data cost 5 cents per GB. That was why he didn't have any data caps; unless you were running s 24/7 maxed out server, it didn't cost him any extra. And his backbone was AT&T.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.