Comcast Continues to Claim Usage Caps Are About 'Fairness' Comcast didn't have a very good week last week, once again finding itself on the receiving end of an Internet hate storm after expanding its usage caps into significantly more markets. Things were then only compounded by a leak customer support script in which the company admitted for the first time in print that usage caps had nothing to do with congestion. That's because, as most customers are aware, they're about raising rates on broadband to counter TV revenue losses from Internet video.

Unfortunately, Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas is being forced to stick to the company's ongoing claim that these rate hikes are about "fairness." In trying to downplay last week's bad news, Douglas tells Fierce Cable the caps are an attempt to "create a more fair approach, where the heaviest data users pay a little more and the light data users get to pay a little less. It means the heavier data users will pay a little more for us to re-double capacity on our network every 12 to 18 months." The problem with that narrative continues to be that nobody gets to "pay a little less" under Comcast's new pricing model. Comcast customers already pay some of the highest rates in the developed world for broadband (OECD data), and as households increasingly consume Internet video (and soon 4K streams), Comcast is well aware that the changes effectively mean higher rates for all customers. In fact, in areas where customers now face new usage caps, they're being told they can now pay $30 to $35 more for the exact same service they enjoyed yesterday. Fairness doesn't much enter into it. The company's refusal to listen to its customers on this issue runs contrary to the cable giant's repeated claims that it wants to improve its showing in customer satisfaction studies, most of which rank Comcast as among the least liked companies in any industry. Hitting customers with massive new rate hikes, then insulting their collective intelligence by claiming it's only fair likely isn't going to help matters. The company's refusal to listen to its customers on this issue runs contrary to the cable giant's repeated claims that it wants to improve its showing in customer satisfaction studies, most of which rank Comcast as among the. Hitting customers with massive new rate hikes, then insulting their collective intelligence by claiming it'slikely isn't going to help matters.







News Jump WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 114 comments

jorcmg

join:2002-10-24

USA 43 recommendations jorcmg Member fairness I think an anti trust lawsuit from the dept. of justice sounds pretty fair right now.

howsthis3

@charter.com 28 recommendations howsthis3 Anon yeah but A) Who are the people paying less. I don't see where Comcast has LOWERED pricing for those that are under the cap.



B) Double capacity every 12-18 months? Hmmm let's have fun with math. Even at 18 months. If the cap was 250 GB in 2008 then doubling capacity every 18 months means the cap should be 8 TB. If overages were $10 per 50 GB 3 years ago they should be either $2.50 per 50 GB or $10 per 200 GB. itguy05

join:2005-06-17

Carlisle, PA 23 recommendations itguy05 Member Let me get this straight Yesterday I had "unlimited" for $49.99. Tomorrow I have 250GB for $49.99. Where is that fairness since today I'm getting less for the same price.



If it was about fairness it would be 250GB for $19.99 and unlimited for $49.99.



F-You Comcast.

buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20

Biddeford, ME (Software) Sophos UTM Home Edition

Ruckus R310

20 recommendations buzz_4_20 Member It is fair Assuming you're a shareholder or senior management.

For anyone else, it's just a cash grab to extort more money from the customer.

And in many cases I suspect, it'll be a scare tactic that causes people to pay the extra $35 for no reason.



There are very few who actually "abuse" their connections.

karlmarx

join:2006-09-18

Moscow, ID 17 recommendations karlmarx Member If it's REALLY about 'fairnesss' Then it would only be FAIR if they gave you a CREDIT of $10.00 for every 50GB UNDER the cap you used every month. Only used 100GB last month, instead of 300GB, then you get a $40.00 credit. The problem is, they have made the statement that 50 GB costs $10.00. If it's REALLY about 'fairness', then people who don't use all their bandwidth get the SAME credit for not using it that they charge the 'data hogs' who go over.

Why doesn't comcast do that?

TechyDad

Premium Member

join:2001-07-13

USA 7 recommendations TechyDad Premium Member Fair For Who The only "fairness" the caps are for are for the cable companies who feel it's "unfair" that people leave cable TV and use Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc. instead. The cable companies find it "unfair" that people's money heads to these companies instead of the cable companies. So to make things "fair" again, they institute caps and overages so that people who stream videos online will either a) stop streaming and pay for cable TV again for their video entertainment or b) keep streaming but pay more to do so with the extra going to cable companies. In both cases, the cable companies profit which translates to them as the situation becoming "fair" again.

Rob

Premium Member

join:2001-08-25

Miami, FL 7 recommendations Rob Premium Member Supported Comcast.. I use to support Comcast. Now, I can't wait until my contract is up to switch. I rather have slower Internet with another competitor, then keep using Comcast.

Economist

The economy, stupid

Premium Member

join:2015-07-10

united state ·AT&T FTTP

5 recommendations Economist Premium Member Why not do the same for TV? Charge those on the block more for watching certain channels given they run SDV. Get rid of free VOD since those greedy users are consuming bandwidth that could otherwise be added channel bandwidth for HSI.



It is just like Comcast's "How dare you not have our crappy CATV" penalty as it only applied to stand alone HSI and not stand alone CATV.