this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
242 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37708 readers
400 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Please, yes.
Limiting how much I can pull at a time (bandwidth) makes sense; 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.
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.
When limiting is required, because many people are using the same network, limiting those who have already used the most seems fair.
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.
Really the current internet model is a little weird, it should be pay to use with on and off peak hours the same as other utilities, and throttling should be seen as a major failure that needs immediate attention.
Throttling everyone equally during times of congestion is also fair in its own way. I'd be okay with that.
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.
Weird way to frame it! Is this post sponsored by Comcast?
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?
I reiterate what I've written elsewhere: protect consumers by forcing companies to add choice, instead of forcing them to remove it.
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.
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. And they all have data caps unless you're a qualified business.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
You mean except the reason I gave, and you ignored?
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.
If there is no reason for caps, why wouldn't one of these companies simply remove them, giving them a competitive advantage, and making them more money? Why would one company reject making more?
Maybe capless actually costs them more due to bad infrastructure, and they don't see consumer demand for it? Forcing them to go capless would in that case result in higher prices.
Maybe they form a cartel and have collectively decided to keep caps. But why, if it doesn't actually cost them more to remove the caps? And if it does, then prices would again rise if forced to go capless.
Around here they charge for going over your cap, so easy profit with no regulation would be the likely culprit. Also, you keep talking about competition, but there are 2 whole broadband companies in my area, and one does not have fiber/gigabit in my area. That is not what anybody would call healthy competition.
Indeed two companies is not really competition. So why not focus on that, instead of reducing choice, which may lead to even less competition by making differentiation harder?
You act like I work at the FCC. The reality is the city has tried focusing on that in the past and failed because the contracts set up with the ISPs were renewed by the centrist city government. I think you are thinking of an ideal situation where one does not exist.
The solution to lack of choice is even less choice?
Fight monopolies by adding choice, not just accepting that monopolies/cartels are natural and just the way things have to be.
WHAT CHOICE!? Data caps are on all plans. What options are there? Lay out what you think the choices are.
Nonsense. There are lots of plans without caps. Maybe not where you live, but at most that means caps should be banned where you live. IMHO it makes much more sense to require offering a cappless plan, rather than banning capped.
Do you live outside the US? The way the US works is far less centralized than other countries. Most of this time this kind of stuff is left up to state regulations or even city regulations and contracts. The truth is that capless plans exist, but that is not the reality for large swaths of the US. You're taking a broad approach to a specific problem. Ending data caps ends at the Federal level ends the problem and does away with the mess of state BS. Anyway, I am done talking to a brick wall. Have a good one
I'm taking a broad approach? The article is literally about the FCC. You know, the Federal Communications Commission. That applies to the entire country.
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.
I think you missed (or ignored I suppose) part of his statement that data caps can reduce overall (across multiple subscribers in an area) used simultaneous bandwidth. People say “I can pull 1Gbit/sec, but I know I’ll hit my cap if I do that perpetually, so I’ll just do short bursts here and there when I need it”. This puts people in the mindset not to push their max data speeds all day/month long. Doing so reduces the possibility that everyone in an area (likely using the same data backbone) will ask for all their speed at the same time. This means that the backbone can be smaller and support a higher number of subscribers.
I completely agree on not having much choice though. And thats really what needs to change in many places.
No, I specifically stated that the technology has moved past that, especially in the fiber business. That is not ignoring it, I'm stating he's flat wrong. This isn't coaxial shared bandwidth like the late 1990s/early-mid 2000s. That time has passed. The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding that the technology no longer requires such data cap/bandwidth tradeoffs (in the wireless business, this may still be necessary due to the congestive nature of wireless signals and how towers handoff/pickup/etc, but it is not necessary in the wired business any more). And if an ISP can't properly support 1Gbps, they shouldn't offer it. Anecdotally, for my use case (I don't saturate my 1Gbps synchronous fiber 100% of the time, but there are times I'm downloading on Steam, many many GBs) my ISP handles it perfectly fine -- and not once has a data cap been introduced.
Outside of the wireless space, data caps are a money grab -- pure and simple. And playing psychological games with consumers, as you have alluded to, in order to get them to not use the bandwidth they pay for is also quite unethical, in my opinion.
I'm curious, where can I find an ISP capable of delivering 100Gbps networking to a residential building for a reasonable price. I'm serious. Has the technolgy truly reached the level that we can guarantee 1Gbps connection to each appartment in a 100 unit building?