FCC ‘Investigation’ Into Broadband Caps Probably Won’t Amount To Much

We’ve noted for decades how US broadband caps are little more than a predatory cash grab. The usage limits and overage fees have zero real technical function and don’t manage congestion. Instead they’re little more than a glorified price hike; a way for regional telecom monopolies to nickel-and-dime captive customers, charging them more money for the same service under the pretense of technical necessity.

Recently, the Rosenworcel FCC announced that, decades after the fact, they’d be “investigating” broadband caps. As in, beginning the long process of a “notice of inquiry” that might or might not actually result in substantive reform of some kind:

“When we need access to the internet, we aren’t thinking about how much data it takes to complete a task, we just know it needs to get done. It’s time the FCC take a fresh look at how data caps impact consumers and competition.”

The FCC created a data cap experience form if you’d like to submit your thoughts.

There’s a few problems here.

One, everybody knows that broadband caps are bullshit (or should, if they’ve read Techdirt). It’s no mystery that they’re a direct result of limited competition and regional monopolization. And countless industry insiders, including numerous CEOs, have publicly made it clear they’re pointless and predatory. That the FCC needs to once again “study” this is… amusing.

Two, the current Jessica Rosenworcel FCC lacks the voting majority to actually implement meaningful reform after the industry’s successful and sleazy gambit to derail the nomination of popular reformer Gigi Sohn. Republican FCC Commissioners are generally little more than marionettes for the telecom sector (when they’re not busy hyperventilating about TikTok). They consistently support Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon policy issues, and I don’t they’d change their stripes here. Sohn’s replacement, the much safer choice, Anna Gomez, likely won’t be seated until at least the end of this year, assuming her nomination isn’t derailed by industry as well.

Three, even with a voting majority, I’m not sure the Rosenworcel has the political backbone or interest in actually acting here. I believe this likely a performative effort to undermine criticism that the FCC has been increasingly feckless on consumer protection.

While Democratic FCC officials sometimes enjoy unearned credit as being better on consumer protection, neither Rosenworcel nor Geoffrey Starks said a single, solitary peep of support during the year-plus that Sohn (a popular consumer advocate) faced down a campaign of sleazy, often homophobic, industry-backed attacks, alone. They were in no rush to ensure their own agency had a voting majority.

Similarly, neither Starks or Rosenworcel can even publicly even acknowledge that telecom monopolies exist and are the primary reason for expensive, patchy, substandard broadband. Both like to talk endlessly about the “homework gap” or “digital divide,” but neither has shown the courage to directly take aim (or even mention) the predatory monopolies at the heart of the problem.

Maybe this FCC will surprise me and grow a backbone sometime during the year-plus process this inquiry takes to culminate in actual policy. But I’m highly doubtful the end policy actually takes aim at the predatory monopolies that have been pushing a line of horse shit on this subject for the better part of the last two decades.

More likely, as they have previously, if the Rosenworcel FCC does anything they’ll focus on transparency. As in, require that ISPs very clearly outline how they’re ripping you off at the time of sale, but do nothing about them actually ripping you off. That’s better than a Republican-controlled FCC (which would actively support big ISPs ripping you off), but it’s simply not meaningful enough.