U.S. DoJ Probing Cable Companies Over Data Caps

rated by 0 users
This post has 2 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 25,873
Points 1,172,935
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Thu, Jun 14 2012 2:30 PM
The Internet is still something of a wild frontier, where everything is growing and evolving fast, but the rules are still being written and shootouts between companies are general practice. It’s grown so much that it’s gradually invading just about every other market sector, from phone service to retail and more.

The TV industry is a major battleground, as online streaming video from the likes of Netflix and Hulu nibble away at cable companies’ market share and, more importantly, make people question why they’re paying so much money for cable and satellite. In an on-demand world, the paradigm of cable/satellite programming is laughable, as TV programming is delivered in bundles of channels that users are forced to pay for but won’t ever watch.


Lobby at Comcast HQ (Image credit: The Consumerist)

Cable companies such as Comcast see the writing on the wall, and they’ve been using the ISP wings of their services to creatively stifle the encroaching competition through measures such as monthly data caps. According the Wall Street Journal’s anonymous sources, the U.S. Department of Justice is looking into whether those tactics have slipped into antitrust territory.

From the consumer’s point of view, the faster the DoJ can pick apart cable companies’ (allegedly) underhanded tactics, the better. Pay TV is expensive yet contains an overabundance of horrifically bad and boring content, while there’s more great stuff available on demand from far cheaper online sources than a body one watch in one’s lifetime. Still, though, some of the most popular content (such as sporting events) is still on pay-TV, and those providers maintain a death grip on it. Many people would be more than happy to cancel cable if they could still get those few favorite channels, so if the DoJ could shake things up for us, that’d be super.



On the other hand, ISPs have a point when they complain that power users are overwhelming their networks. Rolling out nationwide broadband was/is not exactly a small investment, and continually maintaining and upgrading that infrastructure is no small task either. They need to charge for their services.

Fortunately, although we can (and will) all have our opinions on the matter, the Antitrust Division of the DoJ is going to do the actual work of deciding if any antitrust violations have occurred. Whatever comes of the investigation, the TV market is going to be shaken up.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 272
Points 2,170
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
karanm replied on Thu, Jun 14 2012 10:18 PM

Got a similar battle going on in Canada against Rogers (which is owned by AT&T). Rogers were under accusations that they were throttling some ip addresses because of excessive downloading, streaming or even playing games online. An independent study found it to be true and rogers barely got a slap on the wrist, even now I am with another ISP but Rogers owns the cable network so I am subject to their douchebaggery.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 3
Points 30
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: Pakistan
geekmaan replied on Fri, Jun 15 2012 2:33 PM

Thats kinda sad. I may not know much about the monopolies in US and Canada, but here where I live, our speeds are throttled if we cross 300GB monthly limit. The interesting part is that faster connections (10Mbps, 20Mbps and 50Mbps) has no such limit O_o

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (3 items) | RSS