FCC Chief Backs Usage-Based (Metered) Broadband Internet Pricing

[woo me with science]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575648043301403732.html


FCC Chief Backs Usage-Based Broadband Pricing

By AMY SCHATZ

WASHINGTON—The top U.S. telecommunications regulator endorsed the use of metered-broadband Internet pricing Wednesday as he formally unveiled proposed rules to prevent Internet providers from interfering with traffic.
....

The rules would bar Internet providers from deliberately tampering with legal Internet traffic and would provide some limited protections for wireless Internet users. Mr. Genachowski said he was putting the rules up for a Dec. 21 vote.

The rules recognize "the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost, such as usage-based pricing."

Bernstein Research analyst Craig Moffett released a research note Wednesday morning saying the FCC's endorsement of usage-based pricing "must be viewed as very positive" for broadband providers. Previous efforts by broadband providers to switch to such metered-Internet usage has been unpopular with consumers.
....

Initial reaction to the FCC's net neutrality rules, which were widely expected, varied from tepid to hostile. The FCC's two Republican commissioners blasted the proposal. Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker said the FCC does "not have authority to act" while Commissioner Robert McDowell said he would "strongly oppose this ill-advised maneuver."

AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. offered lukewarm responses to the proposed net neutrality rules. Public interest groups expressed disappointment, with the Media Access Project saying it was "very disappointed" with the proposal.

(more at link)

[Poll_Blind]

1. I have no problems dropping my provider in a heartbeat if they choose metered service.

Boom! Dollars and cents in action!

PB

[ejpoeta]

3. what happens when that is all that is available

[GodlessBiker]

10. We go back to talking with people face to face and reading real books.

[woo me with science]

14. Do you have DU in your neighborhood?

I don't.

[GodlessBiker]

19. Kind of. My friends and the neighbors I speak to could all be DUers.

[Fumesucker]

34. Eh, I live in quasi rural Georgia..

I'm surrounded by Freepers.

The only thing that keeps me from going postal sometimes is the fact that I can communicate with intelligent and informed people on the intertubez..

[arcane1]

2. While we're at it, let's have usage-based cable tv!

Someone who watches an hour a day can pay half as much as someone who watches two hours.

:crazy::silly::crazy::silly::crazy::silly:

[enough]

7. +1

[KharmaTrain]

12. It's Called "Ala Carte"

There have been bills for that for years that the cable industry fights tooth and nail. They get money from all those worthless channels that clutter your dial.

[City Lights]

25. Great idea!

:thumbsup:

[Lucian]

4. If they go with that shit again like they did in the 90s with dialup...

I'm switching internet providers. I love my unlimited internet access and going online knowing I don't have to watch my hours and minutes while surfing. That got really frustrating to do with dialup.

[woo me with science]

5. "Previous efforts....has been unpopular..."

I see copy editors continue to do a stellar job.

[BlueJac]

6. Just sell the entire country........

that is what's happening. We are all the losers. This is the change I've been dreaming of. Washington DC is awash with lobby cash and we are the victims.

[Renew Deal]

8. Time Warner did it somewhere and dropped it quickly,

I think it's also been proven to be troublesome with cell phones. Of course, it will likely raise money.

[Newsjock]

9. Tiers vs. metered

Many providers are switching to tiers of service, which is a far less ornery deal than a "meter."

Someone who downloads 100GB of movies every month probably should pay more than the little old lady in Omaha who checks her email and reads the local obits. But the proper way to do this is by defining reasonable tiers and pricing them openly and fairly.

[PBS Poll-435]

11. I would like to see a federal Internet infrastructure project so all of this shit is moot

With tele-commuting, email, chat, etc... The internet is just as important as roads and bridges.

[woo me with science]

16. I agree that it should be considered infrastructure at this point. nt

[onenote]

26. some roads and bridges are "metered" too

Tolls?

[dionysus]

30. +1. sorry about the cupcakes....

[PBS Poll-435]

31. LOL!

They were stale and "interesting tasting".

7-11, my ass.

[newscott]

13. People who play Warcraft ain't gonna like that!

[woo me with science]

15. What about people who don't download a lot of junk

but have it ON all the time?

We keep it on, because we use email heavily and like to hear when it comes in.

[newscott]

18. I hear ya. I know a lot of people who leave their computers on

even when they aren't home.

[KharmaTrain]

17. It's Already Going On...

The problem is the rise in video downloading and streaming that is draining bandwidth. In some ways this isn't fair to those who just want to browse websites as the costs to expand the system are shared by all. There already are special services to "industrial" or "commercial" users tha put you on a totally different pipe and the speeds are faster...but you pay extra for it.

In many ways this is a moot argument as bigger and better systems are being built and put online. The battle here is who pays. While I favor net neutrality as far as open access for all, there still remains a question if a "power user" who uses more bandwidth should pay the same as someone surfing DU or using the internet for email.

[ejpoeta]

21. there is nothing wrong with charging more if you use more depending on what that 'more' is.

what i don't want is faster getting to walmarts site than amazon because they have a deal. or making it easier to get to faux news site than democratic underground.

[woo me with science]

24. My concern is that every time there is a restructuring,

they figure out a way to charge MORE.

We are being bled for profits.

[bluetrain]

20. I assume we'll be charged for forced video advertising which is programmed to play

upon simply viewing a page. That sounds super fair.

[ejpoeta]

22. i get junk texts on my cell phone. pisses me off because while i have unlimited texting to verizon

phones, it does count when i get texts from others. or send texts to others.

[bluetrain]

23. You may be able to block them. Not sure what the Verizon protocol is, but Sprint has a feature

where you send a text to 9999 with the body BLOCK and then the number and then no texts from that number can get through. Also, there are various apps you might want to investigate which can block incoming texts, calls and even prevent a caller from leaving a voicemail. I'm using YouMail to block my ex from calling/vmailing at the moment.

[ejpoeta]

28. thanks. i appreciate the info.

[Posteritatis]

27. Yeah, my phone provider bills me for receiving their advertising too. (nt)

[L0oniX]

29. Well ya see ...they need more money for lobbyists and campaign contributions...

and they'll get it by charging you more.

[BzaDem]

32. Why would anyone be opposed to this? Why should low-usage users subsidize high-usage users?

Let's say a hypothetical company Kabletown has has 2 customers. One customer watches videos day and night, and uses 99% of the bandwidth. The other customer just uses the Internet for surfing the web, e-mail, and an occasional video (and only uses 1% of the bandwidth). Why should both be charged the same flat rate (making the low usage user pay more because of the high usage user)?

Or is there something else to this proposal that I'm missing? I thought the main goal of net neutrality was to prohibit Kabletown from blocking say Netflix and favoring some other service (or blocking DU in favor of Free Republic, etc). Not from charging data-hogs more than non-data-hogs.

[krabigirl]

33. this is horrible and will hurt many companies as well.

ie Blizzard and the like.