5 Comments

Summary:

The FCC today opened the door to metered pricing plans on wireline broadband networks such as those attempted by Time Warner Cable and AT&T. In a speech outlining his network neutrality proposal, Julius Genachowski condoned usage-based pricing as a means to ensure continued investment in networks.

angry_baby_2thumb

Updated with comment from the FCC:The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Wednesday opened the door to metered pricing plans on wireline broadband networks such as those attempted in 2008 by Time Warner Cable and AT&T. In a speech this morning outlining his network neutrality proposal, Julius Genachowski said, “Our work has also demonstrated 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.” Yes, wireless networks already employ usage-based pricing (of a sort), but wireline has been all you can eat, or more recently capped. That could now change.

Ryan Kim already outlined some of the other elements of the proposal, such as its weaker provisions protecting traffic on wireless networks and it’s reliance on transparency as means for ensuring that consumers on both wireline and wireless broadband services understand how providers manage their networks and may affect the flow of traffic. The FCC also has decided not to attempt to push through any effort to reclassify broadband and gain a legal basis for making rules on broadband pipes, so any action it takes on network neutrality is still likely to face a legal challenge.

However, the decision to promote usage-based pricing on wireline and wired networks in the speech comes as somewhat of a surprise, especially given how pro-consumer Genachowski’s FCC is. While it had never taken a stand when broadband providers attempted to try usage-based tiers, it was an issue that was roundly criticized by consumer organizations and those in Silicon Valley (including GigaOM) as anti-consumer and anti-innovation. In a press conference after Genachowski’s speech, FCC officials replied to a question on usage-based pricing saying that it didn’t want to determine the right business models for the space. Officials said usage-based pricing, “can be consistent with a level playing field and consumer control,” while Genachowski expressed it as having a “level of comfort with usage-based pricing,” in the press conference.

Update:It looks like the FCC isn’t ready to give up its consumer advocacy on usage-based pricing plans. An FCC spokeswoman emailed me a statement attributed to a senior FCC official that said, “Usage-based pricing can create more choice and flexibility for consumers. But practices that are arbitrary, anti-consumer, or anti-competitive would cause serious concern. The FCC will be a cop on the beat for consumers.”

In principle, usage-based pricing is great. One pays for what one uses. However, in the broadband arena where there is little competition among providers and a tendency to avoid investment in networks because of pressure from Wall Street and (again) a lack of competition, usage-based pricing could lead to expensive broadband and stifle burgeoning technologies such as online video and HD video conferencing. While there are several pro-consumer elements in this network neutrality proposal, beginning with the fact that the web may soon actually get network neutrality rules, the whole plan never addresses the elephant in the room, which is competition. In reality, if U.S. broadband were competitive, it likely wouldn’t need intricate network neutrality rules, because consumers could dump providers that didn’t offer them what they wanted and needed.

Related GigaOM Pro Content (sub req’d):

  1. Thanks for the information. Just another new tax.

    Share
  2. The ‘net as we know it is dead.

    Comcast will complete the job of turning the internet back into what it wanted it to be… cable TV.

    Share
  3. @BrettGlass

    “Have users pay for the resources they use? Oh, horrors! ”

    Internet access is NOT resource as electricity or water. It is not resource that must be produced as those and than used. If I use x amount of water or electricity producer needs to make/purify it and deliver it to me and than it is gone from the system as I use it, more needed to be made.

    Internet access as name implies is ACCESS to something. We pay for ability to access any Internet content at any time with only price difference being how fast we can get to it (and that is fair pricing distinction).

    Say that I and my neighbour pay for the same tier of Internet access to the same ISP. I use Internet occasionally for browsing and e-mail while he watches Netflix 24/7, shares a lot of data on torrent sites and who knows what else. We pay the same. As we should! Because both of us do have access to all of the Internet 24/7 at the same speed of access. That is what we are paying for. If at any moment I want to access Netflix same as him – I CAN! Does some factory need to churn more of that same Netflix content once I or him uses it? -NO. It is “just there” to be accessed. It would be there whether we watched it or not. That is the reason for the same pricing and insanity of “amount of usage” of something that is not spent.

    Hence “amount of usage” is false concept. We pay for access to whole Internet at any moment at certain speed. That’s it.

    Share
    1. In that case, I’d like to buy your house for the price of a dog house. This should be agreeable to you. After all, all houses should cost the same, right?

      Share
  4. Wow, so much for the Democratic party being the party of the people (LOL!). Last time I checked they are hosing me left and right along with taking our rights spitting on the consumer. I bet all the silicon valley libs are crying now that they know they made a deal with a worse devil. At least the republicans only took our rights with regards to terrorists. Oh well i think i’ll just stroll on over the DFW and play feel up lottery with the TSA. Good times!! NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Share
  5. [...] board. While my immediate coverage of the framework focused primarily on the fact that Genachowski opened the door to usage-based billing, others spent a lot of time dissecting the various loopholes that could allow operators and ISPs [...]

    Share
  6. [...] an ISP from discriminating against legal content passing over its networks, the FCC gave the okay for such trials to begin again. In a speech announcing the rules, Julius Genachowski, chairman of the FCC, condoned the idea of [...]

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post