A new bill introduced on Thursday by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) seeks to put an end to price gouging through the use of data caps by Internet service providers.
Dubbed the Data Cap Integrity Act (DCIA), the bill would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish standards for how ISPs measure network traffic, and give the Commission the power to ensure that data caps are not put in place for the sole purpose of generating income. Instead, data caps would only be allowed for managing network congestion.
In addition, the DCIA would require ISPs to provide tools to customers that allow them to monitor and manage their own data consumption in real time. It also mandates that ISPs must explain how customer data usage information applies to “the terms of the data cap” instituted by a consumer’s ISP.
“Internet use is central to our lives and to our economy. Future innovation will undoubtedly require consumers to use more and more data – data caps should not impede this innovation and the jobs it creates,” said Wyden in a statement. “This bill is intended to help consumers manage their data more effectively and ensure that data caps are used only to serve the legitimate purpose of addressing congestion.”
To regulate data caps, DCIA would further enhance the FCC’s Net neutrality rules, stating that ISPs may not “provide preferential treatment of data that is based on the source or the content of the data.” This would, for example, prohibit ISPs like Comcast from placing caps on the streaming of videos from Netflix, while instituting no such caps for videos played through its own Xfinity app.
Sen. Wyden’s introduction of DCIA follows the release of a study by the New America Foundation, which found that data caps, especially those on home Internet connections, “are hardly necessary.” Instead, wrote NAF, these data caps “are motivated by a desire to further increase revenues from existing subscribers and protect legacy services such as cable television from competing Internet services.”
The DCIA is sure to meet intense opposition from the ISP industry, which has repeatedly argued that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the Internet because the global network has not been officially classified as a “telecommunications” service. Libertarian “open Internet” advocates who believe the FCC should not regulate Internet companies have already come out against Wyden’s bill, saying that data caps help keep the price down for light Internet users, while rightfully placing more financial burdens on those with high data consumption.
Some ISPs have taken the fight against Net neutrality even further. Verizon, for example, filed a brief in federal court earlier this year arguing that the FCC’s Net neutrality principles violated the U.S. Constitution because “broadband networks are the modern-day microphone by which their owners engage in First Amendment speech.”
Republicans in Congress have also come out against the FCC’s Net neutrality rules. Last year, House Speak John Boehner (R-OH) vowed to put an end to the rules.
What do you think of Sen. Wyden’s bill? Are data caps for the sole purpose of generating income fair to consumers? Let us know what you think.
View the full text of the DCIA below:
Data Cap Integrity Act Bill Text
Image via Sen. Ron Wyden
you all dont seem to understand this bill is to keep isps from using data caps to charge you when the caps are suppose to be in place to keep network congestion in check by limiting and charging those who heavily use data. Instead of just a way for ISPs to get income reguardless of congestion of their network.
Deer government: GTFO of the market and let consumers make those decisions fro the carriers instead. You bring added costs… the market lowers costs.
*DEAR…
damnit…
The argument against this is that many ISPs essentially have monopolies on the areas they serve. I, for example, have only one choice for my ISP. If I need home Internet access, I have to use the company that serves my area. This is quite often true, as the New America Foundation study illustrates. And the ISPs know this, so they are able to impose data caps and other fees with impunity from customers because customers have no other choice, aside from having no Internet. For people like me, who rely upon the Internet for a job, this is not a reasonable choice.
Just to be clear, I’m not necessarily advocating for this bill. I’m simply saying that letting the market decide does not always work when there is no market competition.
No. You have satellite choices & cellular choices & DSL pretty much everywhere.
Yes. What you’re saying may be true for many places, but not everywhere, my area included. The satellite companies do not provide Internet service to my area, which is very rural. And there is currently no wireless provider that has adequate 4G LTE or HSPA+ service in my area. As for DSL, that’s what I have, and it only comes from one ISP. I have looked extensively into all of these options, as I despise my ISP, which is too expensive even without taking data caps into consideration.
And I’m not the only one in this situation. An estimated 19 million Americans currently have no access to broadband Internet. None. And even if getting a 4G hotspot were possible, the data caps imposed by wireless companies are often far more limiting than those imposed by wireline ISPs. If you need Internet access for your job, simply having a 4G hotspot would only make it more expensive.
Got a view of the southern sky? ‘Cause, you know, there are a couple of dozen satellites in stationary orbit 20,000 miles above the equator. They’re lined up like birds on a wire. Here’s one provider’s coverage map:
http://www.satsig.net/images/ia-7-alaska-hawaii-satellite-beam-coverage-256a.gif
I’m not saying satellite Internet service is technically not available. I’m just saying that they do not provide this service to my area. If they did, or do in the future, I would jump on it in a second.
It will be interesting to see how much internet security garbage they stuff into this bill.
Caps are completely anti innovation, anti-user needs, and just plain unfair. The government must regulate ISPs and fight for the consumers. This is a perfect example where we the people need the government. An area which ISPs do not even want to talk about is what is not in a consumer’s control: In addition to the known data each consumer purposely downloads, such as watching a YouTube clip, there are thousands of behind the scenes data transfers the user does not know about or can control. There is not enough room in this blog to list all the internet traffic generated without the user even meaning to (e.g., auto updates by the very ISP, your computer’s OS, the telecomms devices in the house, unwanted advertising, etc). If we are going to be imposed limits or extra charges, we should be able to pass the bill to all those who are using our bandwidth to distribute to us unwanted or unselected data (commercials, patches, etc).
They need to stop the insane charges from Cell phone providers for going over your data plan alottment as well
I don’t think AT&T puts caps on our fiber lines, why should the ISPs do the same?
How about , like Comcast , lets you stream all you want of their content , but put a cap on other competing service , like Netflx .
And broadband internet should be available to everyone , everywhere , like landline phone service is .
Great, but does this extend to wireless carriers? Is great to have 30+ gigabit speeds, but must be used sparingly on my “unlimited” plan that AT&T is trying to force me out of. Also, Verizon’s first amendment argument is pretty weak at best.
indeed.