SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
FCC asks for more public input on whether to let Charter impose data caps:
The Federal Communications Commission is taking another round of public comments on Charter's petition seeking permission to impose data caps on broadband users and charge network-interconnection fees to online-video providers, following a court ruling that may complicate the FCC's decision.
The deadline for comments on Charter's petition passed on August 6. But in a public notice issued today, the FCC said it is opening an additional comment period that will last until September 2, giving people time to weigh in on the impact of the court ruling.
"To ensure that the [Wireline Competition] Bureau has a full record upon which to evaluate the effects of the conditions, we initiate this additional comment period," the FCC notice said, while also inviting commenters to "address the effect" of the new court ruling on the FCC's consideration of Charter's petition. As before, comments can be submitted on the docket by clicking "New Filing" or "Express." There are more than 1,500 filings, mostly from consumers who object to data caps.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 21 2020, @05:59AM (1 child)
I plan on submitting a comment to the FCC blasting Charter. Instead of just posting here, tell the FCC that Charter is acting in bad faith. I've already ripped Charter once here [soylentnews.org] but it's worth expanding on that.
If we ignore the government subsidies for infrastructure expansion that companies like Charter receive and their government-backed local monopoly, it could conceivably make sense to charge heavy users more for their service than others who use less data. The argument that heavy users are harming Charter's network is absolutely dubious. If it was an issue, everyone working remotely back in April would have caused far more disruption to their network than it did. But let's ignore that.
Mobile providers do charge heavy users more to a limited degree with data caps, either through overage fees or throttling once a certain usage threshold is reached. But there's an alternative pricing model, one that's been standard for a long time going back to the days of dial-up internet. If you want faster speeds, you pay more for those speeds. Instead of imposing a data cap, there is no limit on the amount of data transferred, but people pay more for higher speeds. This has been standard practice in the industry for decades.
Nobody wants data caps. Nobody. People do want cheaper internet plans, especially with Charter's bad faith efforts to constantly raise cable bills with things like bogus surcharges. But these plans could be offered simply by providing lower speeds. Instead of starting at 60 Mbps, Charter could offer a 15 Mbps plan or a 30 Mbps plan that would be cheaper. Charter could offer these plans right now and wouldn't run afoul of their agreement with the FCC. The only issue, of course, is that these plans wouldn't have overage fees that can line the pockets of their shareholders. This is pure greed from a company that, as I explained in a prior comment, shouldn't have shareholders at all.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday August 21 2020, @08:20AM
I'm not a USian. But remember net neutrality, when it turned out the anti-neutrality lobby was run by shills and bots? That had a great effect in galvanising support against the FCC. Another similar round, while disheartening, will further galvanise support. Note there are Big Corps interested - YouTube/alphabet being obvious one - so you are not alone, and you can help them.