FCC Backs Usage-Based Broadband Pricing

[Fredkc]

WASHINGTON – The top U.S. telecommunications regulator on Wednesday endorsed the idea that broadband providers could charge extra for providing heavy Internet users with lots of online video or data-heavy services such as videogames.

Mr. Genachowski's support for pay-as-you-go pricing represents a victory for cable and telecommunications companies because it clarified whether broadband providers had the power to charge by what users consumed.

"We were appreciative of them clarifying it," said AT&T senior vice president Robert W. Quinn Jr.

But communications providers may still get pushback from consumers, Silicon Valley and lawmakers on pay-as-you-pricing depending on how network operators implement such plans. Last April, Time Warner Cable shelved its tests of usage-based pricing after a consumer outcry and pressure from some lawmakers.

Some consumers complained the caps on data usage were too low and the pricing tiers were too expensive. In one trial, Time Warner Cable offered plans with five gigabytes of monthly data for $30 and 40 gigabytes for $55. Exceeding those caps cost $1 for each gigabyte.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...adband-pricing

________________________________

You know, they came within a hair's breath of doing this once before, many moons ago.

This was roughly 1990, so it was mostly the stage coach days of the Internet. Most people were on dial-up.

What the TelCo's wanted was the ability to charge for Internet based upon "resource usage" instead of merely time. What did that mean? Well it meant that:

* If you read a news story on the BBC's site, you ISP would be billed for the "phone call", or connection to England.
* Read some Aussie's blog post, and your ISP paid for the connection to Australia.

God knows what the bill would have been had you clicked on a link to the BBC story, on said Aussie's blog!

I think the bill was mostly about killing off small-time ISP's (a huge priority for TelCo's back then), but the costs would have eventually been passed down to users by those ISP's who had survived.

The bill made it to the house floor, and died there on a vote. Looks like this time, TelCo's are a bit smarter, and intend to use the "good government" they paid for.

[Fredkc]

A shameless



For all you people who watch/listen videos, instead of read...
1 Gb. = roughly 3 hours of video, or 5 hours of audio, compressed a la You Tube.

My current provider would be an interesting case. Considering that I pay for "TV" to stream into the house nearly 24/7, and they don't care, but want to charge by the Gb. if data comes in over the exact same line, but is routed to my computer.

[Fredkc]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ernet-freedom/
ASSOCIATED PRESS FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski outlined a plan to expand the federal government's power over the Internet.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to add the Internet to its portfolio of regulated industries. The agency's chairman, Julius Genachowski, announced Wednesday that he circulated draft rules he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement could better reflect the gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama administration policies.

With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the "freedom" of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped "non-public, for internal use only" to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled Dec. 21 vote. So much for "openness."

The issue of "net neutrality" is nothing new, but the increasing popularity of online movie streaming services like Netflix have highlighted an area of potential concern. When someone watches a film over the Internet, especially in high definition, the maximum available capacity of the user's connection is used. Think, for example, of the problems that would arise at the water works if everyone decided to turn on their faucets and take a shower simultaneously. Internet providers are beginning to see the same strain on their networks.

It's not clear why the FCC thinks it needs to intervene in a situation with obvious market solutions. Companies that impose draconian tolls or block services will lose customers. Existing laws already offer a number of protections against anti-competitive behavior, but it's not clear under what law Mr. Genachowski thinks he can stick his nose into the businesses that comprise the Internet. The FCC regulates broadcast television and radio because the government granted each station exclusive access to a slice of the airwaves. Likewise when Ma Bell accepted a monopoly deal from Uncle Sam, it came with regulatory strings attached.

No such rationale applies online, especially because bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a hands-off policy. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April by striking down the FCC's last attempt in this arena. "That was sort of like the quarterback being sacked for a 20-yard loss," FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell told The Washington Times. "And now the team is about to run the exact same play. ... In order for the FCC to do this, it needs for Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so."