Comment on Please ban data caps, Internet users tell FCC

Kolanaki@yiffit.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• davehtaylor@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It also makes no sense with the bandwidth you’re given.

  For example, if you have a 1 Gb/s connection, that’s 0.125 GB/second, which comes out to about 320 TB/month if you fully use that bandwidth. Giving you a pipe that can download 320 TB but then limiting it to, say, 1 TB/month makes no goddamned sense whatsoever. You’re giving people a sports car and telling them they can’t drive over 15 mph.

  source
• spoonbill@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  limiting how much I can use in total is bullshit. It’s not like it can run out.

  There isn’t a limit because it “runs out” of data, but because of statistics, and the fact that bandwidth is limited.

  Adding data caps reduces the total data volume, which in turn statistically reduces the average bandwidth used by all subscribers together (or whatever subset shares a connection).

  Another approach would of course be to reduce the speed of each individual subscriber, but it may well be that subscribers prefer e.g. to be able to watch 10h of 4K video, vs 100h of 1080p video, despite the former being a lower volume of data.

  Essentially it comes down to whether you want lots of data, but slowly, or less data but quickly (assuming the same price).

  It seems weird to ban consumer choice here.

  A related, but different, question is if the consumer truly has a choice in the US. But to me it would make more sense to solve the competition question instead of even further restrict consumer choices for those that do have a choice.

  source

  • ulkesh@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I’m confused where you believe consumers are given choice here.

    Data caps are usually scaled up with faster bandwidth, not the other way around as you attempt to define. And that’s simple marketing that attempts to excuse the use of data caps.

    Also, data caps are artificial and are literally a money grab under the erroneous guise that data is manufactured and thus has intrinsic value. A congressman literally compared it to manufacturing Oreos — which is complete nonsense.

    Also, if what you say is true, then why does AT&T impose no data caps on their fiber network? Clearly this is a marketing issue, not a technical one. And perhaps in the past with the way coaxial internet was engineered, an argument could be made for data caps. The industry has grown up since then, technically speaking, and there is no cause for data caps except to continue to line the pockets of ISPs.

    I agree with you that working toward consumers having a choice of ISP is where most efforts should lie, but the FCC can walk and chew gum at the same time and remove anti-consumer practices such as data caps, all the while pushing for more competition at the last mile. They’re not mutually exclusive concepts.

    source

    • spoonbill@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I’m confused where you believe consumers are given choice here.

      I’m confused by you being confused. Consumers can pick a subscription with a data cap, or they can pick one without. Maybe you can clarify what you are confused about?

      Clearly this is a marketing issue, not a technical one.

      Why not both? Marketing can be a great way to work around technical issues, e.g. by steering consumer behaviour in a way that avoids the technical issues.

      Also, just because one network has sufficient spare capacity to not steer users to reduce data usage does not mean that every network does that. In fact this is where choice comes in: I can pick a provider which spends more money on the network, resulting in a higher costs, but also higher caps. Or I can pick a provider that spends less on networks, resulting in lower costs, but needing caps to make sure the limited bandwidth is sufficient for all customers.

      The industry has grown up since then, technically speaking, and there is no cause for data caps except to line the pockets of ISPs.

      You mean except the reason I gave, and you ignored?

      source

      • ulkesh@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I ignored nothing. You misunderstand technology. Data caps are not necessary – they are an artificial price hike. Either you see that, or you don’t, and you clearly don’t. Also, a large portion of the United States has a choice of ONE broadband provider, so your point of “I can pick a provider” is complete nonsense. Just because something doesn’t affect you, doesn’t mean it’s not an issue.

        Good bye.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Vodulas@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Consumers can pick a subscription with a data cap, or they can pick one without.

        I am in a major metropolitan area and I do not have an option to have no data caps. Even the slow internet plans have them. I don’t think you realize the stranglehold telecoms have on consumers.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Kolanaki@yiffit.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Adding data caps reduces the total data volume, which in turn statistically reduces the average bandwidth used by all subscribers together (or whatever subset shares a connection).

    I would like to know how you figure that load of horseshit.

    It seems weird to ban consumer choice here.

    What choice? Most of the country is stuck with whatever singular entity controls the network in your city. Very few places have any choice about what service they get.

    source

    • spoonbill@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I would like to know how you figure that load of horseshit. The average customer never even hits the data cap, so it’s not like it’s just cutting people off so others can get on.

      Well no, of course not. That would upset people. What it does is make people afraid of hitting the limit, which makes them concious of data use and reduces it, even if it does not actually hit the cap.

      Very few places have any choice about what service they get.

      Most of the country has no choice, so remove choice from those that do, to make it even? Shouldn’t we rather make it even by giving everyone choice? How about instead e.g. forcing ISPs to offer capless plans, while still allowing for capped, but cheaper, plans for those that prefer it?

      source
  • millie@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Weird way to frame it! Is this post sponsored by Comcast?

    source

    • spoonbill@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Comcast would be quite unhappy with me as I’m arguing against monopolies, and for consumer choice.

      Consider two companies, A and B.

      A offers capless at e.g. $50/mo, and B offers capped at $40/mo.

      Now B can no longer offer capped, and they have to raise prices to $55 to invest in better networking. A is cheaper, and pushes B out of the market. Now A is alone, and due to it’s monopoly position raises prices to $60.

      End result: Your capless connection now costs $10/mo more, and some people even end up paying $20/mo more for internet.

      Yay?

      Reducing competition helps the ISPs, not consumers, yet somehow I’m the shill?

      source
  • Banzai51@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    But bandwidth is only limited in points in time, not usage over a month. Makes sense to limit in times of congestion, but not outside that. That is the OP’s point.

    source

    • Buttons@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      When limiting is required, because many people are using the same network, limiting those who have already used the most seems fair.

      source

      • oo1@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        yes. And if i commit to modest contribution to the load, it’s nice for me to pay less - I dont want to pay for the extra modems for all the streamers who can’t afford DVDs. I’m saving my money for DVDs. I’d rather buy fast speed low quantity, rather than slow speed unlimited quantity.

        The regulator should focus on is the market competetive - at what levels, are profit magins reasonable (insofar as they can measure them).

        Not limiting choice unless it is obviously part of a price discrimination harming consumers overal (which means colluding to segment marget to drive up the profit margin. Even then the solution is not necessarily to homogenise the service, maybe just regulate prices, or regulate allowed total revenue as a fraction of regulated asset base/customer base.

        I’d rarely agree with anything calling itself “economist group” but this part seems reasonable to me. differentiation is not always abuse of market power. So long as the tarrifs on offer are broadly cost reflective.

        source
      • saigot@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Does it?

        user A uses their full bandwidth from 2am-4am when the network is empty then watches a 720p video at 5pm (or whenever the networks peak is).

        User B watches an 8k video at 5pm and nothing at any other time.

        UserB clearly contributes to congestion on the network more than user A despite user A using more data. Furthermore throttling user A does less to resolve the congestion than throttling user B.

        IMO If the network needs to throttle then the people the most data at that instant in time need to be throttled and the network needs to start upgrading its infrastructure or amending its marketing materials.

        source

        • -> View More Comments