Should we regulate the price of a Segway, too, since there's no market price by your definition?

A price is a price.

@maruawe42:

I've written letters to our senators and congressmen before. The responses I get back are very heartening. They read, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I've already made up my mind on this matter, but I always like to hear from my constituents. Your letters provide excellent kindling during the winter."

If their decision on a bill matches my opinion, however, I get a glowing letter that thanks me heartily and tells me that they hope I vote for them in the upcoming elections.

@MarvinwasaLunatic:

The issue with wireless broadband is less about the caps and more about the cost. The Japanese pay slightly more than us on most mobile data plans, but offer higher caps and dramatically faster speeds. In the US, we're paying slightly less for slow speeds and low caps.

@smartmuffin:

Better to ask why the companies agree to it. If I ask you for $1000, and you clearly state that you get to determine exactly what I spend that $1000 on, I don't really have a leg to stand on if I complain about how you're telling me to spend that money.

The problem with metered broadband is that the prices don't actually go down. You still pay the same $50, you're just capped on it and pay an additional amount of money. If they want to offer metered plans at a steep discount, that's fine, but we already pay more than most other countries.

@michaelgibbons:

But the "market rate" for internet access isn't set by any market, it is set purely by the companies offering it, because they know that you have no other viable options.

A monopoly means that there's no market. You can't have both of them simultaneously.

This is exactly why we regulate industries that have no competition. In exchange for allowing them to monopolize, they agree to oversight. This raises their profits in the long term - they're allowed to price things higher than they would in a competitive marketplace (due to investment in the infrastructure), and we're assured that they won't simply be allowed to rape us.

It also ensures that they follow good business practices - they aren't simply allowed to devastate the landscape in order to run new cables and pipelines, and they're required to justify price increases.

@michaelgibbons:

LOL. LOL. No wait... LOL.

a href="#c13730632">ARP:

Or running you over in their verizon installation van.

*whimper*

Please answer my question: You think the answer is what? A government ISP? An agency that oversees the prices?

As a followup, why do you feel entitled to cheap* Internet?

*Below market-rate

Is this michael1969? Pro-class separation/Anti-disabled Rights, Thinks capitalistic America sheet don't stink no matter how wrong they are Michael?

I mean government doesn't breed greed or corruption at all...

When private industry becomes so corrupt and greedy, then the consumer/enterprise system isn't capitalistic for anyone.

if they preserved the ethics of doing business rather than doing ANYTHING & EVERYTHING dubious for the bottomline, Then other parties would not have to step in.

This is a bill I can support so long as it doesn't give away other rights secretly hidden in the bill.

to slow broadband is to slow internet economic growth.

Anyway, you at least agree on the need for competition but what are you saying? We need the government to create new companies? We need to fund new ventures to get more competition?

Or are you saying that price ceilings should be placed on Time Warner or whatever?

And is there a God-given or Constitutional right somewhere to cheap access to the Interwebz or cable?

Prices reflect the market equilibrium. If you're willing to pay for it, that's a fair price.

This was to show the point that it's ridiculous. Supply and demand, simply. You need it, they have it. You want more competitors, bitch about things on Consumerist and try to raise capital to start your own---don't turn to the government.

Monopolies are a natural part of a market economy and shouldn't be feared. With utilities, as you mention, there's high costs associated with running one.

So...we agree? There's a high barrier to entry so there are likely to be fewer companies.

Not sure what you're saying.

Your ipod logic: FAIL

Apple does not have a monopoly any more than saying that Nike has a monopoly of sneakers with a swoosh logo.

ipod is an MP3 player. So is Zune. So is Sansa, and many other MP3 players. Sure, they may make a UNIQUE mp3 player, but you still have a CHOICE.

Not so if you want cablemodem broadband access. You are limited to the provider in your neighborhood, read: 1 provider. While cable is not a monopoly becuase there are multiple cable companies (TWC, Comcast, Cablevision, etc) you are only able to use the ONE that services your area.

Your ipod analogy would work if you lived in an area that ONLY allowed ipods, and you were UNABLE to get a Zune, Sansa, etc.

If they didn't do that, and they offered the channels for a price that would make it less than what we pay now, they could offset that by selling a HELL of a lot more packages.

But then, that would make actual sense.

(There, now it's stuck in somebody else's head.)

If your business is being outdone by the government, you really are gouging/sucking.

Don't dissuade TWC from thinking he's from Alderon -- what have those nerf herders done for the outer rim lately, anyway.

Then the monopolies would try to legislate them out of existance, like how Time Warner is doing in NC with a SB 1024 I think.

On inelastic goods, government intervenntion is critical on monopolistic and monpsonistic companies, which is the situation we have now.

BTW Massa is in a conservative district so he is showing some massive cojones here.

@smartmuffin:

1) You are not naieve.
2) Yes, I think that's the argument being raised: because A is unfair B must be unfair.
3) If the government allows a monopoly, they also have a duty to prevent monopolistic behavior in order to protect consumers.

I think the ultimate answer is deregulation and removal of barriers to markets. But with the current Democratic administration and Legislature, it looks like we are going away from that, for now.

@grapedog: The problem is that they don't just up and leave. They blatantly get the rules changed in their favour, preventing repeat stunts. Or are you forgetting North Carolina?

If the companies are allowed to manipulate government in blatantly anti-consumer ways, why is it so horrible when the government takes pro-consumer steps?

@dave_coder: That's socialist and socialism is bad.

BTW- I agree with you. Let government own the tubes and let companies compete for your business.

A small town in SC (or NC) set up its own wi-fi network at very reasonable rates. and TWC is lobbying the state to outlaw it. Apparently competition is good unless someone actually competes with you.

@RandomZero: Arg, mangled the closing tag.

@smartmuffin: TWC's monopoly status has nothing to do with metered broadband? Is that why they were testing it in so many non-monopoly markets?

TWC sees the connection, it would seem.

@superberg: how rural of a location do they live in? I'm guessing it's pretty far from a major metropolitan area.

If you look at the example of Wilson, North Carolina though, the city created it's own infrastructure and provides it's own service too, competing against TWC.

There are always alternatives...but I think it would largely depend on the makeup and size of the population. If your parents live in a rural area, they could just be out of luck altogether...

@Jesse: This just doesn't make any sense though. So, because cable TV is priced unfairly, internet should be priced unfairly too?

The point is that "pay as you go" is generally the MOST fair pricing model when it comes to any product. Typically, consumers yell and scream "STOP MAKING ME PAY FOR WHAT I DON'T USE" Well, theorhetically, that's what metered broadband does.

I'm not totally naieve. I know that ultimately, this is going to result in higher prices for everyone. I know that these companies are monopolies and will take every opportunity to gouge the consumer and promote their other business interests. But more government regulation over the private sector is not the answer. Increased free market competition is the answer. I'm sick of the government giving out favors to corporations, then using those favors as an excuse for massive control over the private sector. "Well, we let you be a monopoly, therefore we can regulate your price structure" or "We gave you TARP money, therefore we can regulate your salaries"

@michaelgibbons: Slight distinction here: If you don't want an iPod, you actually have choices. You can buy a music player from any one of the dozens of other reputable companies in the market. You can get a phone from most of the same. Hell, you can even bring your laptop or netbook with you. If you're really dead-set on it, you can build your own. Compare and contrast with... at BEST four options? (maybe two cable companies, two satellite providers, and very often less?) So yeah, not even close. Thanks for playing, though.

Comcast will just start dumping selective (ie: not Comcast or Comcast partners) packets instead of putting a cap on usage.

@smartmuffin:

The issue I was trying to raise is that cable companies are treating their cable and internet customers differently.

You have a la carte pricing on intnernet but not cable. If you could get a la carte pricing on both, I would be all for caps and tiered pricing.

Study introductory microeconomics and it'll tell you why monopolies are a no no. That's why large utilities are regulated because infrastructure is a barrier to competition.

There is no free market when it comes to telecoms. In my area the only choice is Comcast Cable or ATT DSL. That is a duopoly. If both companies decide that charging 54.99 for 6Mb down and 1 Mb up service is great for them, the consumers in this area have no choice. There is no competition to force the best service and best price.

You know what unregulated private industry looks like? 16 hour work days, child labor, and slave wages. aka Industrial Revolution.

@smartmuffin: Ok, I gotcha on the seperate issues now, and I completely agree that it wont stop them from being a monopoly, but I do believe they should have acted sooner.

I pose this to you though: Should we let them take advantage of said monopoly? Because essentially that is what they are doing. They are using the fact that you cant go with an unmetered option because you are locked in, so should congress do nothing about this abuse because they have done nothing about other abuses in the past? I say no. As much as I want an overhaul of the system, one step at a time is better than nothing.

Sam Walton and the rest of his family are all huge tools.

Yes I am a Walmart hater.

I could go all the way and just say that the Libertarian concept of a true free market is as much a fantasy as Lord of the Rings...

What pisses me off is these companies want it both ways. They want to gouge their heaviest users and their rationale is that oh, well it's just this small minority that uses up the most bandwidth. Well then if that's the case, following their logic, shouldn't they be providing equally large credits to the people doing nothing but checking e-mail once a day and consume no bandwidth.

@smartmuffin:

I guess the point I was making is that it doesn't make any sense that someone should have to pay for what they don't use when subscribing for cable television but now get to pay for useage when it comes to the internet.

Believe me, I think metered broadband isn't a bad thing, in fact I support it. But cable companies are not being fair across the board with selective a la carte pricing for all their products.

That's not necessarily true. My parents live are stuck with 3rd rate internet because their only option is MediaCom. Verizon doesn't even offer DSL in their area. Comcast won't touch them.

MediaCom blocks the slingbox my brother had hoped to use while serving in Afghanistan (it wouldn't work out there anyway, but anytime I tested it, the feed stopped after seven minutes). To add insult to injurt, my parents pay something like $70 a month for 6 MB down.

If MediaCom left, they'd be screwed.

@Jeremy82465: The point is that TWC has been a monopoly for awhile. Metered broadband doesn't change that. Getting rid of metered broadband won't suddenly make them not be a monopoly anymore.

That's why they're separate issues. One did not cause the other. Whether or not metered broadband exists doesn't have *anything* to do with whether or not TWC is a monopoly. If congress cared about TWC being a monopoly, they could fix that totally independent of anything having to do with metered broadband.

@superberg: Yeah, but if they up and left, another company WILL fill that void. There is a profit to be made...there is a demane to be filled, someone will fill that demand. A small, much more manuverable company could come in, offer reasonable prices and still make a very tidy profit.

The profits that TWC requires for an area to be considered profitable and the profits required by a much smaller semi-local company are going to be two entirely different figures.

@smartmuffin: My first question is why are they totally seperate issues in your mind? The reason people dont want it is for those exact reasons. If you seperate causation from an arguement anything can sound reasonable, lets take slavery for instance. Take away that they dont get paid, or that they are slaves, and hell you have efficient, extremely cheap labor! But the world doesnt work like that, there are side effects that have to be assessed with the problem at hand.

Metered broadband isnt inherently bad but the side effects that come with it are: stiffling of newer technologies, overcharging, the growth and spreading of an already problematic monopolistic system.

@Saboth: Yeah, but from a Public Utilities Commission and Ratepayer Advocates standpoint, NOBODY is ever happy. We don't have Ma Bell anymore because telephone was deregulated. That created its own issues. So now we're slowly REregulating it because there's a public outcry. And, after a few more years, it'll be back to full regulation because it was "demanded" by the rate-paying public. Then they'll demand that it be DEregulated again to allow free enterprise to work its magic. The pendulum keeps swinging from extreme to extreme. Right now, we're in mid-swing. I'm going to just ride it out because I know it will be corrected.

@dragonfire81: Ehhhh, I think Congress, regardless of the party holding the majority, is dumb enough to fall for ANYTHING like that. Especially when the lobbyists start calling. Besides, America has this love-hate relationship with Wal*Mart that I think helps it in the long run.

@winstonthorne: Help them Winstonthorne, your they're only hope!

:)

@pgh9fan1: I think you're on to something with the a la carte option. Its not like you have to choose one channel, just better grouping. That way the AMCs of the world can survive, as a part of a drama package (along with crowd friendly TNT).

Eric Massa for President!!!

@grapedog: You mean "ass caps". That would be so much more apropos.

This has been attempted in many towns and cities. The cable companies fought it. They will up and leave a community rather than face competition.

@Jesse: And doesn't everyone hate that? Wouldn't most people prefer to only pay for the channels they watch?

That's what metered broadband is. Pay for what you use.

The fact that they're "charging too much" for it is a totally separate issue. The fact that they're monopolies is another separate issue (one created by government).

Large companies habitually do everything they can to eliminate the "free market" part of capitalism. Legislation like this forces them to compete, which is a situation where everybody wins. I have no problem with government intervention in the economy to stop anti-competitive behavior like these caps.

Apple has plenty of competition. Walk into Best Buy, there are at least twenty other MP3 players on the shelf right next to them.

Comcast has NO competition. It is incredibly expensive to create the infrastructure to set up a network, which is why we gave them tax breaks and a monopoly.

There are plenty of things wrong with a monopoly, and if you don't understand that, (or what a monopoly is, apparently) then you need to hit your history books.

Here are the easy loopholes:

1) Multiple small ISP's.
2) Not offering "unlimited" access, everything is paying for a certain data cap and data rate.
3) Lowering data rates to create a de facto data cap.

@JMB:
The issue is its incumbent upon TWC to build an infrastructure that supports full use of the internet's capabilities with current tech and software. Which means I should be able to use as much bandwidth as I want.

The cable companies did it to themselves- a few years ago, the plan came before the FCC to allow municipalities to "wire" a city and then have cable franchises buy into accessing the common wire-

This means that every new company would not have to lay their own lines. Makes a lot of sense.

Cable Co.s opposed it-- meaning their costs of, say, laying fiberoptics throughout their network to increase bandwidth, got prohibitive.

Had they allowed this, start-ups could buy into the grid and offer cable/internet access and we'd have had real competition.

What's wrong with a monopoly, anyway?

Can the government please cap iPod prices next since they have a monopoly on the industry? They have a huge SOM, and no real competition to speak of...so who's looking out for me?

I'm sorry, but you don't believe in the market if you like the FTC restricting private industry.

@dave_coder: the government needs to encourage cities and towns to create their own infrastructure and let outside companies offer services on those lines, that the most fair way...

@smartmuffin:

Lawmakers are using the Cable TV argument. You are forced to pay for blocks of channels every month irregardless of how many you actually watch.

@smartmuffin: Because the cable companies are trying to tie down bandwidth now, early, before the vast majority of people start figuring out about video and whatnot on the internet. Trying to stamp out the potential for IPTV which is widely availble in MANY other parts of the world. If they can control the bandwidth, they can control the content you receive. If they can it early enough and low enough, they can have these long standing policies in place so 10 or 15 years down the road, no one is actually using the lowest tier bandwidth package.

And it's not like you can make the choice, have you noticed how much more heavy websites have gotten now and days. It's not just links and text, you have flash video, music, tons of high res photos...

TWC is trying to f*ck you proper right now, so in the future they can give it to you REALLY dirty.

@Brian James Schend: That was tried and it failed because the Cable Co's got shifty about what their costs were and they complained that they were losing money.

One of the best options I've heard is to nationalize the lines (socialism: boo!). That way you can pick any provider you want and you're not locked in to a single provider. So all this socialism is bad talk is actually stifiling competition in my view.

...and before you give me the snark of "the US government does everything fine," tell me how easy it is to dispute a bill, get someone to come out, get someone to properly install your cable, etc. We tolerate waiting for someone during a 5-6 hour window and the government is bad? Big cable co's are no better than the government, they just take a lot more of your money.

How exactly is it "anti-competitive" to charge people per amount used, rather than a flat fee regardless of usage?

Will these same regulations apply to anything else? Is it anti-competitive for resturants to charge for individual items of food? Will Congress pass a bill declaring all resturants must be all-you-can-eat buffets?

I'm no fan of the cable companies. In most instances they ARE monopolies. But the idea that there is something *inherently* wrong with "pay as you go" is insane. Most of the people who have a problem with this are, you guessed it, people who use tons of bandwidth and would feel the brunt of the new cost. Many of these people are the same folks who used to complain about cell phone contracts charging you for more minutes than you used.

I'm surprised that substantial rate hikes wouldn't be subject to regulatory approval either. You know the cable companies are just going to respond by sending prices through the roof.

I like this bill a alot, I dont love it, but I like it. There is a lot of iffy wording in it that could let them squirm through to still charge us crazy fees or still put a cap of some sort on. I know we are a capatilisitc nation and this to a small degree interferes with that, I say fuck em. They still make billions a year off what people pay and much like I think the RIAA needs to get with the program on music, the ISPs need to get with the program on cable and internet.

Again, the biggest problem (especially in the area that I live) is that TWC is the only game in town. If they cap bandwidth, or unilaterally slow bandwidth there isn't much I can do.

We need more options so that the market can be competitive.

As long as the FTC can actually keep these rules up to date with the current techonology, I don't see much bad about this right off the bad. They will need to revisit their caps and whatnot every ~5 years or so, I would say, to make sure that we are not stuck in stagnation.

I'm curious what the likelyhood that this gets passed actually is? Considering how easily TWC seems to be bending North Carolina to its will. I'm aware of the fact that 95% of our Congress are professional asshats as well, bought and paid for by a myriad of anti-consumer interests, which could be a problem.

Look, I'm all for the free market, but there's no such thing as a free market when you let certain companies have monopolies and the occasional duopoly. If you are fortunate enough to have no real competition to speak of in your geographical region, then *someone* needs to look out for the consumer, because it sure as hell won't be the business that does it.