Wide Open West Promises Not to Impose Usage Caps Emboldened by a growing monopoly created by lagging telco investment, many cable providers are more than eager to begin imposing arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees to cash in on the reduced competition. But Wide Open West (WOW) this week used that trend to reverse marketing advantage, proclaiming that it would be taking the "consumer side" on the debate over usage caps, and will not be be implementing them anytime soon.

The company even went so far as to release a media statement (pdf) entitled "WOW! Internet, Cable & Phone Takes Consumer Side in Data Cap Debate." "With the increasing use of Internet‐connected devices in the home, the rise of telecommuting, online learning, and popularity of over‐the‐top (OTT) streaming services, WOW! recognized the coming seismic shift and invested early to create a better internet experience without limitations," notes the company. It's refreshing to see any ISP acknowledge that usage caps aren't a good idea for consumers. That said, it should be made clear that WOW's promise may not be worth all that much, especially given the fact the government is poised to eliminate oodles of consumer protections governing the broadband sector. WOW doesn't specifically offer any hard details on just what this promise entails, or how long it might last. There's also the fact that in the wake of the company's IPO, there's plenty of chatter that WOW is ripe for acquisition, and any acquiring company certainly won't need to adhere to ambiguous pledges made by the company previously. Since usage caps and overage fees are glorified price hikes, and notable price hikes only occur in less competitive markets, regional competition has more of an impact on whether ISPs cap than ambiguous pledges. The no-cap pledge comes as WOW says that speeds of 500 Mbps are now available across 95% of the company's footprint, and the company continues to slowly but surely expand access to gigabit speeds. The no-cap pledge comes as WOW says that speeds of 500 Mbps are now available across 95% of the company's footprint, and the company continues to slowly but surely expand access to gigabit speeds.







News Jump War Of Words Heats Up: T-Mobile Fires Back At Verizon, AT&T; Amazon Intros Gaming Service To Take On Stadia; + more news Starlink's Network Faces Huge Limitations; AT&T Whines T-Mobile Merger Put Too Much Spectrum In One Place; + more news 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 ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 14 comments



maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA 14 recommendations maartena Premium Member Caps are not needed Even the cable execs themselves have been caught in their own web of lies: Caps are not needed because of "technical limitations" or "capacity problems". Most wired providers have plenty of capacity to cater to even the fattest downloaders.



I can see that caps are needed for limited shared bandwidth, such as satellite internet and wireless internet, but if your internet comes to your house in the form of a cable, whether it is copper or fiber optic, there should never be a cap on it. Period.



The reason caps are implemented is because providers are afraid. They are afraid to lose television subscriptions to those who switch to streaming only, so they are trying to thwart them by implementing caps. Instead of being afraid, they should try and cure the cancer that is paid television subscriptions. adam1991

join:2012-06-16

united state 3 recommendations adam1991 Member Doesn't surprise me Before I say anything else, I invite readers to look up my fairly recent interactions with WOW and understand that I can be as critical as anyone about their business practices, and that I don't hesitate to call them out on BS--and vote with my wallet if need be.



That all being said: I believe WOW on this one. Two reasons:



1) years ago, WOW put up a web page explaining the causes of fees and price increases--and put the crosshairs straight onto the content owners. WOW was tired of taking flak for price increases that were out of their control, and they wanted their customers to understand exactly what was going on and where these increases were coming from.



2) Over 2 years ago, I called WOW to ask what my bill would look like if I dumped pay TV--and the woman responded like I was giving her the winning lottery ticket. She gave me a stupid price, and very clearly said that they would be happy for me to remove pay TV. 6 months later, I called back to ask again--and got the same reception and the same story, and the same stupid low price. I pulled the trigger. It's VERY clear that WOW is very happy to have broadband-only customers. I suspect they're more profitable.



In light of all that, none of this today comes as a surprise.