Report: data caps just a "cash cow" for Internet providers
Caps have remained steady even as costs of delivering data have plunged.

by Nate Anderson
Ars Technica

Dec 18 2012, 8:44am CST

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/12/report-data-caps-just-a-cash-cow-for-internet-providers/


Why do so many Americans now live with Internet data caps—and what are 
these caps doing to the future of broadband? Those are the questions 
posed by a new paper from the New America Foundation, which wants to 
shake up the lethargy that has descended over the data caps debate by 
pointing out just how odd the caps truly are. "Internet service and 
mobile providers appear to be one of the few industries that seek to 
discourage their customers from consuming more of their product," write 
the paper's authors. "The reason for this counterintuitive business 
model is that in the noncompetitive US marketplace, it is highly 
profitable."

The arguments presented here aren't novel, but they do act as a fine 
summation of the anti-cap position (and the report is only 13 pages, 
making it a quick read). First up, the paper questions the very 
existence of data caps, which are now imposed by most major wireline and 
wireless Internet providers in the US, by noting that monthly limits 
have little to do with moment-to-moment congestion. While Internet 
providers like Comcast realize this and have taken steps to address 
actual congestion, many of them still impose monthly limits to stop 
"excessive use" of data.

The truly curious thing about the entire debate has been the way in 
which caps have mostly remained steady for years, even as the price of 
delivering data has plunged. For example, paying for transit capacity at 
a New York Internet exchange costs 50 percent less now than it did just 
one year ago, and many major ISPs aren't paying at all to exchange data 
thanks to peering. So why don't prices seem to fall? When I have asked 
this question in the past, ISPs have responded with a variety of 
answers, but one of the most popular is that the costs to move data are 
in fact dirt cheap, but the labor needed to build and maintain the 
network is not, and such operating expenses are not one-time, but ongoing.

The authors of the new paper contend that all explanations are more or 
less hand-waving designed to disguise the fact that Internet providers 
are now raking in huge—in some cases, record—profit margins, without 
even the expense of building new networks. (Apart from Verizon FiOS and 
Google Fiber, most cable and DSL operators in the US still offer service 
over upgraded versions of networks they built and paid for long ago.) 
While Internet users have to endure a ceaseless litany of complaints 
about a "spectrum crunch" and an "exaflood" of data from which ISPs are 
suffering, most wireline ISPs are actually investing less money in their 
network as a percentage of revenue, and wireless operators like AT&T and 
Verizon are seeing huge growth in their average revenue per user (ARPU) 
numbers after phasing out unlimited data plans—which means money out of 
your pocket. In the view of the New America authors, this revenue growth 
is precisely the point of data caps.
New America

The concern here isn't just that Americans will spend too much for 
Internet access, but that they will also find themselves deterred from 
using hot new services thanks to concerns about data usage. Such limits 
could encourage users to adopt ISP's own unlimited services for 
telephone and television, for instance, rather than those services 
delivered over the Internet. "Over the longer term," was how it 2011 
Credit Suisse presentation put it, "consumption based billing could 
reduce the attractiveness of over-the-top video options (e.g., Netflix 
and Hulu)." Critics have long speculated that this was in fact the ISP 
plan all along.

In a competitive market, how can Internet providers get away with 
holding prices steady even as their own costs drop? The New America 
report provides a simple answer: the market is not actually competitive, 
either in wireline (where most people have one or two good choices, and 
often just one truly high-speed choice) or in wireless (where AT&T and 
Verizon dominate, and where their customer "churn" rate is below one 
percent). Caps are "a strategy for ISPs to increase their revenue per 
user," says the report. "The trend is driven in large part by a woefully 
uncompetitive market that allows the nation's largest providers to 
generate enormous profits, as well as enable them to protect their 
legacy business models from new services and innovators."

One has only to look at an ISP like France's Free to see what an 
innovative Internet competitor looks like; unfortunately, things have 
gotten so bad in the US that cities like Chicago, Seattle, and 
Chattanooga have opted to build their own fiber networks to get the job 
done, while companies like Google are trying to prod existing ISPs into 
greater efficiency and higher speeds by building select fiber networks 
of their own—an implicit counter-argument to all the "we need data caps 
and have to charge high prices" doom and gloom that one hears from most 
ISPs.

Anecdotally, Ars staffers report almost no issues with wireline data 
caps, though the far more draconian mobile caps create regular problems. 
As mobile devices play ever-larger roles in our personal and work lives, 
the situation becomes more troubling, as does the fact that the wireline 
data caps are generally not being upped yearly and will cause increasing 
problems, especially for families.

But what to do about the situation? Ah, well, that's always the problem. 
The New America authors do have some ideas, including more regulation of 
"special access" lines and lowering the barriers to switching wireless 
carriers, but these aren't the sorts of things like to bring about, in 
the short term, the competitive wonderland that the authors envision.

Link: Data Cap Report
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/capping_the_nation_s_broadband_future

_______________________________________________

Please be sure to include a URL to the article. Reply to the sender with a 
"Thank you" if you like this post.
_______________________________________________
Medianews mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.etskywarn.net/mailman/listinfo/medianews

Reply via email to