Top Telecom Analyst Urges ISPs to Cap and Meter Broadband Usage Over the last ten years there's been no bigger champion for low caps and broadband overage fees than telecom investment analyst Craig Moffett, whose clients obviously like the idea of subscribers paying more money for the same product -- while the cost to deliver that product continues to drop. Moffett's back at it again this week, insisting that cable operators should rush toward caps and overages before the FCC's new net neutrality rules ruin all the fun: quote:

Moffett's push for usage caps has been relentless and sometimes borderline comical. Moffett's push for usage caps has been relentless and sometimes borderline comical. Moffett urged ISPs to impose usage caps when the FCC's 2010 neutrality rules were passed, and argues ISPs should cap and meter each time the cord cutting conversation has heated up. Moffett pushed usage caps when AT&T was taking heat for its decision to kill off unlimited iPhone data, and urged cable operators to impose usage caps in 2012 when rumors emerged the DOJ was examining the anti-competitive impact of caps (the DOJ ultimately decided there was nothing to worry about).

Back in 2011, Moffett, who is probably the most quoted analyst in the telecom industry, went so far as to proclaim usage caps were the " next generation of communications ." While pushing for revenue generation for clients is his prerogative, Moffett ignores one small detail: US consumers used to the simplicity of flat rate pricing hate usage caps, and ISPs that aggressively impose them (usually with no eye for value) face tremendous public relations backlash and massive brand damage. Just ask Time Warner Cable circa 2009. So to avoid the ire of consumers, many cable operators have been slinking their way toward metered usage slowly enough to keep consumers calm (think of the boiling frog anecdote). Comcast has been slowly imposing usage limits and overage fees in its less competitive Southern markets, and as we exclusively reported last week, Cox is considering imposing meters nationally on the heels of summer trials in Cleveland. In a paywalled story over at industry trade magazine Multichannel News, the outlet mirrors Moffett's claim that ISPs like Cox are trying to beat the FCC's net neutrality rules to the punch: quote: Title II regulations, which reclassify broadband as a common- carrier service, are about to take effect June 12, and the Federal Communications Commission has said it would look closely at any usage-based pricing plans to determine if they discriminate against online video providers. That could force some Internet service providers to move to implement their version of usage-based pricing before the deadline. The problem with that narrative is that cable operators have been hinting at their metered usage ambitions for years. The only thing stopping them has been consumer outrage and the ambiguous threat that regulators might crack down on the practice. But so far, regulators at the FCC and FTC have seemed congenial toward usage caps, seeing them simply as creative pricing. Similarly there's no real mention of usage caps anywhere in the net neutrality rules.While the classification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II might certainly be giving ISPs pause, regulators have given absolutely no serious indication they plan to crack down on usage caps and ( The problem with that narrative is that cable operators have been hinting at their metered usage ambitions for years. The only thing stopping them has been consumer outrage and the ambiguous threat that regulators might crack down on the practice. But so far, regulators at the FCC and FTC have seemed congenial toward usage caps, seeing them simply as creative pricing. Similarly there's no real mention of usage caps anywhere in the net neutrality rules.While the classification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II might certainly be giving ISPs pause, regulators have giventhey plan to crack down on usage caps and ( often unreliable ) meters. ISPs want to cap and meter usage because it's a great way to counter inevitable lost TV and voice revenue in the face of Internet TV and wireless. As such they'll pretty much cling to any excuse to make this vision a reality.







News Jump 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 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed