If that type of legislation passes then they also couldn't regulate electricity, water, gas, or any other type of utility if the private company that provides your utility deems it necessary. I don't think the libertarian in me can get behind this idea. - xero

I don't think it follows that they couldnt regulate other utilities. Why not? - Andrew Baron

Almost everything I access on the internet is paid for (commercials, banner ads, sponsorship, etc.). If I can turn on my tv and leave it on all day, why can't I do the same with my internet connection? I call BS on ATT, Comcast, and Time Warner. - Eric Thompson

How about we ban government sponsored monopolies so what Verizon can provide fiber to me since Sprint/Embarq refuses to? And banning caps will raise prices or result in charge-by-MB because of the abusers. - John Rubier

What is infuriating is that when I signed up for Comcast it was 'unlimited' and they unilaterally changed it to capped and they give you no tools for telling how much you have used by their meter. TWC/Comcast/whoever - no difference really in my eyes. When companies pull moves like that and then bring back the same product but with wildly different pricing they should expect backlash. The TWC pricing is particularly harsh for 1GB. - chris tirpak

Here in Australia, our providers at least have decent online meters. By the same token, it's not like we have a truly "unlimited" plan on data yet. And you'd be surprised at what our MAIN provider charges for a measly 150mb for mobile phones per month. Once we go over a certain amount, the providers all charge you the excess. - George Hall (Australia)

A good percentage of people are trying to get Internet service considered a utility and thus regulated like all the others (supposedly for the good of the people). I don't see how legislation to ban the idea of maximum usage by a single customer is good for the people. Just like electricity (which is required for inet svc), if one or more people are using too much the providers can lower or stop flow to them to maintain a certain level of svc to other customers. - xero

Caps will utterly destroy any hope of IPTV taking off any more than it already has. - Josh Haley

If a provider can not provide enough to everyone by need, then those with higher needs will move on to another provider that can provide them with enough. If there is not a provider for them then they will find another route such as acquiring the utility independently or complaining until the service exists. While the lack of caps will be good to the consumer and tech in the short term, it could easily hurt business expansion due to a handful of abusers. - xero

I think it is up to the consumer to demand a certain level of service and transparency from their service providers. In the US, we've let them walk over us for years now. AT&T only functions through abuse of its customers via price gouging and faulty billing. If an ethical business had its self-defeating internal structure, it would have collapsed years ago. - xero

@xero, so let me see if I follow. We have crappy broadband now. You support the telcos in their plan to make broadband crappier. That much I get. And the reason you support them -- now this is the tricky part -- is because if we don't allow them to make it even crappier now, it will hurt business expansion and.....become so crappy it'll be worse than nothing? Or would there be a black hole that would consume the universe? I'm not following your line of thought. - j1m

I don't support them in making it crappier. We have crappy broadband because the public hasn't outright demanded better broadband, sure a handful of us have, but the vast majority just take what they can get. It's getting better in tech-heavy areas, but it's rolling out slow. I just don't see the need for random govt intervention in a system it doesn't technically regulate at the moment. It must first adopt it as a strategic utility before it can start making tactical regulations. - xero

Caps are a viable route to maximizing the current infrastructure while gathering capital for expanding and upgrading that infrastructure. If there is any legislation on ISPs it should be for transparency in terms and truth in advertising. The implementation of new technology and hardware and the promotion of a more competitive market should be guided by the govt for the good of the consumer, but not forced. - xero

If the market is not ready to switch/upgrade and the govt forces them to, then they will have to change practices so they can make the money to do what the govt told them. The companies have limited funds, limited time, currently limited unused capacity, and limited proven tech. To get to the goal they need to change the things they can, such as package offerings, pricing, special billing, and available/maximum bandwidth to each customer. - xero

If the regulation just says, "you can't limit the usage for a customer" then the company response will be "ok, then prices will go up to pay for our sudden surge of unplanned infrastructure". Then prices never come back down because consumers get used to paying the outrageous price and no regulation/market stepped in to promote competition, especially now that the entry bar is that much higher. - xero

But to note re: the actual legislation: it's not about caps, it's about tiering like other utilities. And Time Warner is trying to do it at ridiculously low levels as are other companies. I think that provided the companies are truthful and transparent about what their costs really are to expand/provide service then it might be a viable solution, but according to what I've seen of the proposed rates and plans, they're just being greedy in true teleco fashion. - xero

All that being said, there is a really strong argument that due to the unique nature of the Internet, no subscriber should have access limited or billed per usage. Only speeds should be tiered, with a regulated minimum speed. It is a great tool to enable the less fortunate or less educated by offering unlimited information. Penalizing those that could benefit from it the most by forcing useless speeds or data limits at low rates would lessen their ability to better self. Tradeoff would be slower coverage - xero

As an ex-state congressman from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, here is my opinion: typically the government should not interfere in the private bsector, specially because in the future they could charge for the gig and not for the speed, BUT in this case, at least in Brazil, there are only 2 internet companies, and there is no way to create a competitive service (only with satellite), so there is space for STATE law to ban download caps. If I was still in Congress, I would vote for the ban. - Kiko Cherman