Cable companies and Trump’s FCC chair agree: Data caps are good for you

Data caps reflect "highly competitive environment," cable lobby tells FCC.

See full article...

 

[Robin-3]

Most definitely NOT.

Wyoming: < 600K pop, 3 EV
California: > 38M pop, 54 EV

< 200K per EV, vs > 700K per EV.

A vote in Wyoming is weighted more than 3.5 times a vote in California.

And when you look at the Senate? A vote in Wyoming is weighted SIXTY-FIVE TIMES a vote in California.

The rural states trend very red. The way the system advantages Republicans is insane.

What I'm seeing here is that we need a grassroots campaign specifically suggesting liberals move from California to Wyoming. Few enough will that it won't budge the needle on California's blue/red balance, but it just might shift it in Wyoming. (Besides, cost of living is bound to be better.) I can't even tell if I'm joking or not, though.

 

[FredGarvin]

People voted in an idiot and they GOT an idiot. For a second time. Don't blame me for the coming cluster "F".

 

[s73v3r]

I hate data caps, and I currently have an ISP that doesn't impose data caps.

But... here's my argument for no regulation.

1. Cable internet is widely avaiable.
2. 5G to the home is becoming even more available, and most don't have data caps.
3. Starlink is getting more prevalent, and there isn't a data cap there.
4. Fiber to the home is slowly getting to more and more homes...

So... I think where this all goes is that competition will force reasonable data caps over time. I understand there are still plenty of households (like my parents) that are stuck with a single internet offering, but it won't stay that way.

Your post ignores the fact that most people have ONE isp that services their home. Thus, all your bullshit about "competition" is completely invalid.

 

[Asten77]

Over half of the country voted for this, they get what they deserve and the rest is just collateral.

Only about 30% voted for this. Another ~30% voted to avoid this. 40% don't seem to give a shit.

 

[s73v3r]

A populist vote literally disenfranchises states with small populations, but maybe you'd be happy with New York City, Los Angeles, and other large cities deciding what's best for the country.

No, it absolutely doesn't.

And why do you think that the majority of people shouldn't have the majority of say? Why should the minority of people have the majority of say?

 

[Koga Onutalepo]

No, it absolutely doesn't.

And why do you think that the majority of people shouldn't have the majority of say? Why should the minority of people have the majority of say?

Policies being decided by actual people not empty land, the horror!

 

[Sedreaus]

Do caps allow more users (all of whom have caps) to use the same service (wired/wireless/whatever)?

Seems like they don't because everyone wants to use the service at the same time (so number of users is gating, not how much data they use). Timed caps would make sense because they encourage people to use the service when it has spare capacity.

Timed caps were widely used in the 2G era. No word on whether the caps allowed more people to use the service, but they probably did.

Once infrastructure is built out everything is basically gravy. Some is more costly than others, some is shittier than others overall, but data caps will not save hardware, even if all of the equipment from your home to a data center was running full tilt, it would be fine. It doesn't generate enough heat or pull enough power. Its just a money grab, its a hidden fee designed to skim a few more bucks from rubes or people with no other options. You pay for your bandwidth, and they already throttle consumers in bulk to make sure the network doesn't go down due to saturation, and the biggest threats to the network absolutely do not face the kinds of caps that would make a difference. Netflix, Amazon, Google, they all pay gobs of money for the best access for their data centers. A literal city watching Arcane season 2 at 4K at the same time would barely register on an ISPs network monitor.

"But why are you using so much data?! Is our cable bundled option too good for you?! Stop streaming so much, use our much more efficient on demand cable option! Believe us when we say that you uploading a single video file is basically costing us as much as two-to-eight hours of a minimum wage job somewhere in the US. Really you should be thanking us for data caps, like Immortan Joe said, do not download too much, for you will resent not having the speed you pay for when your data gluttony has hit the cap. We'll have to throttle you of course AND charge you more for the reduced speed. Its your sinful nature we're having to plan around, and in fact thinking about it makes us want to not implement the latest docsis protocol for you specifically. Oh did you not rent your equipment from us? Further blaspheme. Get thee to a church and think on your wretched soul foul creature. Also we're offering a cheaper bundle with higher caps if you also sign up for a land line, which theoretically would put more strain on our equipment, but in practice just helps you pay a tax that gives us free money to point and laugh at people who depend on old copper. Truly we are God's chosen few, or one (probably), based on whatever legislation we've lobbied for at the state and federal level."

 

[mvam]

Luckily I'm in the AT&T Fiber area here, and to be competitive, they have no caps (for now). I've gone back and forth with AT&T / Sonic / AT&T. Sonic didn't have Gb Fiber (they usually resell AT&T stuff when they don't offer a direct hookup) when AT&T fiber first came out - I think I was like in the first 10 in my neighborhood to get it. If AT&T adds caps, I'll have to see if I can get back to Sonic again..

mostly in the same boat. started out with Sonic reselling AT&T fiber, then Sonic decided to no longer work with AT&T. Now we have uncapped AT&T fiber and Sonic doesn't service our area (with their own fiber service). If AT&T decides to cap, the only alternative is Comcast.

 

[Seraphiel]

People disqualified from office shouldn't get to make appointments, and any appointments they make should be disregarded by everyone as obviously illegitimate.

If that means individual governors/AGs implementing their own rules for everything, so be it.

 

[clownb456]

There is literally more than enough cheap bandwidth to go around. It's just another way to try to squeeze their consumer. NO THANKS.

 

[Tonkaman]

A populist vote literally disenfranchises states with small populations, but maybe you'd be happy with New York City, Los Angeles, and other large cities deciding what's best for the country.

They still can vote. That's not disenfranchisement. It's just we won't have tyranny of the minority anymore.

 

[Tonkaman]

What I'm seeing here is that we need a grassroots campaign specifically suggesting liberals move from California to Wyoming. Few enough will that it won't budge the needle on California's blue/red balance, but it just might shift it in Wyoming. (Besides, cost of living is bound to be better.) I can't even tell if I'm joking or not, though.

When remote work became common for a bit there, the folks in Wyoming and other red states started to freak out as their cost of housing skyrocketed as Californians started moving there for the comparatively cheap housing.

 

[Zontar]

All of those talking points and more are just continuing efforts to gaslight. Many are spawned by Russian trolls, since MAGA is not smart enough to come up anything remotely complicated. A recent Russian troll was claiming to be solidly against Felon45 but voted for him anyway because:

"I could not vote for Harris either because her lack of knowledge on economics was so evident. Her even mentioning taxing unrealized capital gains showed me this."

Of course, he conveniently left out the part about that only applying to those with a net worth of at least $100M. Is he actually in that group?

There are MANY gas-lighting goons active on the net trying to convince people that Felon45 won a "free and fair election" and just to relax because everything will be fine. And Harris actually lost because she was such a bad candidate; some of the dimmer democrats are even falling for that one.

I'll just leave this here.

 

[mmiller7]

You don't understand. There is a very competitive race to the bottom.

Now THAT I would believe!

 

[Zeppos]

Wow, they do something crazy like...stream TV? Those fucking hooligans!

/s

And now you know why caps exist. Watching TV not from the cable company? That'll cost ya!

Stream TV in 4k and hdr you mean? Yup, bandwidth goes through the roof if you turn that on.

We do Netflix here. Cap is still no issue. Only a minority has issues with data cap in my experience. It usually is limited to tech oriented people.

Oh well...

 

[yoshipod]

Will they also make it the law that I can legally skip any content I don't want from downloading and eating into that cap. If ISPs can charge me by the amount of data I use, then I should be able to prevent 4K ads from eating into the limited data I have on my streaming services. I don't want them downloading and I should not be forced to pay for things I don't want.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

Stream TV in 4k and hdr you mean? Yup, bandwidth goes through the roof if you turn that on.

We do Netflix here. Cap is still no issue. Only a minority has issues with data cap in my experience. It usually is limited to tech oriented people.

Oh well...

My parents aren't "tech oriented people." They're normal older folks. They use 1+TB a month pretty easily because they have an OTT linear TV service as well as a handful of streaming services.

God forbid someone watches a highly compressed Netflix stream in "4K." A whole 15mbps, wow. How can the poor ISPs cope.

I don't know anyone who has an issue with data caps because I don't know anyone with a data cap. They're unnecessary. My parents used to have one when they were on a lower tier of service from their cable provider. They upgraded to a higher speed and the cap went away. So what, the cap isn't needed if you have an even greater ability to suck down more data? Or is it an excuse to squeeze more money out of people? They've since switched to a cellular provider because the cable company was so unreliable and they have no cap.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

Will they also make it the law that I can legally skip any content I don't want from downloading and eating into that cap. If ISPs can charge me by the amount of data I use, then I should be able to prevent 4K ads from eating into the limited data I have on my streaming services. I don't want them downloading and I should not be forced to pay for things I don't want.

You're not forced. Don't want to watch the ads? Don't use the service that's supported by the ads. Shit's not free. Ads are how you pay for it.

 

[Zeppos]

My parents aren't "tech oriented people." They're normal older folks. They use 1+TB a month pretty easily because they have an OTT linear TV service as well as a handful of streaming services.

God forbid someone watches a highly compressed Netflix stream in "4K." A whole 15mbps, wow. How can the poor ISPs cope.

I don't know anyone who has an issue with data caps because I don't know anyone with a data cap. They're unnecessary. My parents used to have one when they were on a lower tier of service from their cable provider. They upgraded to a higher speed and the cap went away. So what, the cap isn't needed if you have an even greater ability to suck down more data? Or is it an excuse to squeeze more money out of people? They've since switched to a cellular provider because the cable company was so unreliable and they have no cap.

Looks like our experiences are different. 10 000 miles can do that I guess.

 

[Jacksonn]

Now apply the argument of “…requiring flat pricing plans with unlimited data would effectively require those who use less data to subsidize those that use more" to auto/homeowners insurance.

 

[randomname7123]

As a networking tech, I can absolutely guarantee you that there's no benefit to you, the consumer, for data caps. All it is is an excuse to charge you more for using Internet. That's it, that's all. Whether they send you 50MB or 500GB of data a month, it literally cost them the same amount of money to offer that. An ISP does not pay for data flowing, just the bandwidth their networks can handle. They simply don't want to upgrade their slower routers.

Let me start by saying that I hate data caps and am lucky enough to get Internet without caps. With that out of the way, I think you're contradicting yourself. You say it costs them the same, then you say they need to upgrade routers (which costs money).