IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

A Slam Dunk on Tiered Bandwidth Pricing
(previous | next)

The Wall Street Journal reports that growth in downloading and web browsing by iPhone subscribers will strain AT&T's wireless network, resulting in need for more infrastructure investment by the carrier. Already, the article notes, AT&T and Verizon Wireless, the two largest wireless providers, each were spending more than $9 billion last year on new wireless spectrum, as well as $6 billion annually on overall capacity. These yearly expenditures dwarf the $7.2 billion in Recovery Act funds devoted to extending our national broadband footprint and encouraging broadband adoption.

Although the new 4-G networks the carriers are building are reportedly more efficient at delivering data applications than the old, Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett argues that returns on invested capital related to these new services will be lower than on older services. The WSJ article continues:

In the short term, carriers should abandon unlimited data pricing plans. Both AT&T and Verizon Wireless already charge extra for heavy users with wirelessly connected laptops. They will have to contemplate similar strategies for smartphone users. Setting the right price won't be easy. With competition, the temptation to discount will be hard to avoid. And there's no guarantee that customers will pay as much for entertainment as for voice-calling and e-mail. Whatever they do, the carriers may be caught between a rock and a hard place.

The market realities for "smartphone" data services seem tough enough according to this report. The last thing providers need added to this mix is regulatory intervention prohibiting or limiting the move to tiered bandwidth pricing. Fortunately, early signals from at least one of our antitrust agencies, the Federal Trade Commission, indicate an acceptance of carriers charging more for higher speeds or heavy usage. Broadcasting & Cable reports that FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz appearing on C-Span's Communicators series, stated that he has no problem with tiered bandwidth pricing by broadband providers, so long as consumers are adequately informed in advance of the charging structure. According to a similar account in PCWorld, Chairman Leibowitz maintains that as long as providers give consumers advance notice, it is fair for broadband providers to charge customers more for higher speeds or charge more for high-bandwidth users. Similarly, broadband providers need to inform consumers about the types of network management practices they're deploying. Chairman Leibowitz observed:

In a perfect market marketplace where you had more competitors, you wouldn't need the government necessarily to be terribly involved . . . Particularly in the consumer protection area, we have a big roll to play. Broadband is a deregulated product. That's good, we like deregulation generally. But when you have deregulation, you also [need] law enforcement to make sure people do the right thing.

Chairman Leibowitz's endorsement of the deregulation, or one might say, non-regulation of broadband Internet access services is noteworthy. It stands as an important endorsement of the overall approach to this area taken by the Federal Communications Commission since 2001. Significant also is the FTC Chairman's implicit recognition that consumers can be adequately protected if broadband Internet access service is treated just like any other service where providers are held to the terms of their service agreements under general consumer protection, fair trade practices and competition laws.

The upshot is that, like many of the stars in the net neutrality constellation - for example, blocking access to content for anticompetitive purposes - the consumer protection issues raised by tiered bandwidth pricing may be more appropriately handled by the FTC under the Federal Trade Commission Act rather than by the FCC under the Communications Act. Let's hope that incoming FCC Chairman-designate Julius Genachowski, a reported basketball buddy of Chairman Leibowitz's, also sees this issue as a "slam dunk."

posted by Barbara Esbin @ 1:04 PM | Broadband , Communications

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly


Many broadband providers in the U.S. already offer speed tiers at different prices. Data caps are also common in many countries. A third option – used by electrical utilities -- is time-of-day pricing, where users are given the option of downloading large files (e.g. movies) during non-peak times (e.g. early morning) at discounted prices.

Providing users options such as speed tiers, data caps and time-of-day pricing gives users an incentive to be more efficient in the use of their bandwidth. It could also provide a solution to the problem of the high variation among subscribers’ data rates, with a reasonable expectation of network neutrality. If the pricing model were adjusted to maintain the network provider’s overall revenue, then the price would decrease for subscribers to the lower tiers, while the price would increase for users with greater capacity demands.

Posted by: kostas liopiros at May 15, 2009 3:36 PM

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation