Cable ISPs compare data caps to food menus: Don’t make us offer unlimited soup
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
yes, the proceedings are pointless busy work to make it look like the FCC is capable of doing something. The FCC is well aware that data-caps are bad for consumers. That being said, in terms of oversight, there is nothing to "torch".Aren't all these proceedings moot at this point? Therump administration is gonna torch all over site of these companies.
so very little will change
Upvote
-8
(4
/
-12)
The analogy is relevant, but their usage is not.
It's more like advertising soup at $4.95 for an 8oz bowl, but it is only served as a 64oz bowl. After dining they weigh your bowl and charge $24.95 / oz that you've gone over 8oz.
Additionally, it would have to be a scenario where soup is the only form of sustenance you are allowed to consume, there is only a single restaurant in your town/city, it is impossible to make your own soup, and the government is prohibited by law in many places from supplying starving citizens with soup.
If your soup provider is motivated, they might warn you that you are nearing the 8oz mark within a couple hours of when you hit the 7oz mark. That way they can justify the overage charges in a way that most people will blindly accept as normal.
Upvote
47
(48
/
-1)
America is the most inhumane country on earth. And has successfully gaslit everyone into thinking it's the greatest.
Upvote
28
(37
/
-9)
Often overlooked is the additional stress having a metered plan may cause, especially for low-income people. Under plans with a data cap, everyone has to make decisions and worry about how much internet they use in a month. For a person better off, a $10 spike in a bill would be annoyance. For a low-income person, it might be part of rent, food, etc., for the month. The low-income person already has enough stress worrying over bills in their life. The internet should not be part of that because internet service has no need to be capped.
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
Fixed wireless Internet with AT&T is practically a scam. They use it as an excuse to not run wireline internet (Fiber) by proclaiming coverage. We tried AT&T Fixed Wireless and:
- There were low limits on use that depend on your location (can't just look it up)
- They limited the number of concurrent devices connected to the network or WiFi (something ridiculous like 4)
- It was intermittent, both the wireless uplink and their router would go down at least weekly
- I was often slow, like <2Mbps but sometimes up to about 25Mbps
- Upload Speeds <2Mbps all the time.
- It was expensive
Upvote
42
(42
/
0)
We all know this is BS and reality counters all their arguments.
Data caps haven't made any plans cheaper. It's just another way to advertise one price and then actually charge people more. Actual competi8tion makes plans cheaper.
It really isn't a congestion management necessity as it really does nothing to address that. It doesn't do anything to reduce usage when there is congestion other than incidentally. A data cap for "peak" hours would actually do something to help congestion but no one I know of actually uses that.
Area's with actual competition largely don't have have caps. If caps really were beneficial for customer there would be no reason to drop them where they actually have competition.
Having said that I don't think we can rely on competition to fix these issues as expecting multiple companies to run local physical infrastructure to provide said competition everywhere is a pipe dream. We can't even get one good option to everyone even in area's that are nominally served. We aren't going to get everyone 2, 3 or more options if they all have to run their own fiber/cable.
Data caps haven't made any plans cheaper. It's just another way to advertise one price and then actually charge people more. Actual competi8tion makes plans cheaper.
It really isn't a congestion management necessity as it really does nothing to address that. It doesn't do anything to reduce usage when there is congestion other than incidentally. A data cap for "peak" hours would actually do something to help congestion but no one I know of actually uses that.
Area's with actual competition largely don't have have caps. If caps really were beneficial for customer there would be no reason to drop them where they actually have competition.
Having said that I don't think we can rely on competition to fix these issues as expecting multiple companies to run local physical infrastructure to provide said competition everywhere is a pipe dream. We can't even get one good option to everyone even in area's that are nominally served. We aren't going to get everyone 2, 3 or more options if they all have to run their own fiber/cable.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
When ISPs are paid $2.13 and hour plus tips, they can talk to me about soup. Until then, they can shut the fuck up.
Upvote
38
(38
/
0)
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
Does my soup come from a CDN that never leaves the soup network or does it require multiple interconnects to get to my bowl? Does my soup deliverer co-locate with other soup dealers that make this soup interconnect cheap and symbiotic? If we're paying for delivery then it would be nice to know how much my soup cost to reach me... The article is about soup, right?
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
Everyone at the NCTA and FCC knows that data-caps exist only to enrich ISPs. That is why the FCC is having these proceedings instead of doing something to solve the problem.
Service prices go down, and data-caps go away, when there is meaningful competition; which is fine and dandy in dense urban areas with high income earners. Competition like that will never exist in low-income urban and rural areas unless it comes in the form of municipal broadband; which isn't likely to ever be a reality.
In low-income urban and rural areas, service prices will go down, and data-caps will go away, when the regulators decide to earn their paycheck and regulate; which isn't likely to ever be a reality.
There is absolutely nothing stopping most ISPs (cable,fiber,LEO) from giving up data-caps and instead offering unlimited 25/5 service for $50/month except for corporate greed.
Service prices go down, and data-caps go away, when there is meaningful competition; which is fine and dandy in dense urban areas with high income earners. Competition like that will never exist in low-income urban and rural areas unless it comes in the form of municipal broadband; which isn't likely to ever be a reality.
In low-income urban and rural areas, service prices will go down, and data-caps will go away, when the regulators decide to earn their paycheck and regulate; which isn't likely to ever be a reality.
There is absolutely nothing stopping most ISPs (cable,fiber,LEO) from giving up data-caps and instead offering unlimited 25/5 service for $50/month except for corporate greed.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
But my good ISPs... many do offer unlimited soup... if you pay an outrageous sum for the service already (ie, everyone already).
Wasn't it already debunked that data caps "save" cost these people money? Sorta doesn't work when smaller groups don't have data caps mysteriously...
Wasn't it already debunked that data caps "save" cost these people money? Sorta doesn't work when smaller groups don't have data caps mysteriously...
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
If the ISPs became classified as a utility.
Power and water are both classified as a utility, and they both (generally) charge based on usage plus the infrastructure component (being a customer and having a connection has its own cost, even if you use none of it, or even provide more than they give (through solar generation or similar)).
I bet the ISPs don't want to be regulated like a Utility, but they sure do have a hard time tap dancing around it.
Power and water are both classified as a utility, and they both (generally) charge based on usage plus the infrastructure component (being a customer and having a connection has its own cost, even if you use none of it, or even provide more than they give (through solar generation or similar)).
I bet the ISPs don't want to be regulated like a Utility, but they sure do have a hard time tap dancing around it.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
practically? It absolutely is a scam. Fixed Wireless is the tech used by AT&T to claim CAF-II subsidies from the FCC. Honestly, based on my experience with AT&T's CAF-II funded Fixed Wireless, I'm surprised they actually provided a "usable" signal at your location.
Do you happen to know if AT&T's fixed wireless in your area was publicly funded?
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
I mean you could price things by the amount of data your transfer, and then you wouldn't need a monthly subscription right? Because obviously the cost of the data that's transferred is linearly related to how much is used.
But these scum want both.
But these scum want both.
Upvote
12
(13
/
-1)
True. My water service even has "caps" in the sense that I pay a higher rate if I use more than 200 cubic feet in a month.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I'd be happy to pay by cap - but then I fully expect them to provide me unlimited speed without paying thru the nose for speed tiers.
You know, like if I buy 1 soup I can eat it as fast as I want without paying extra?
You know, like if I buy 1 soup I can eat it as fast as I want without paying extra?
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
There ISP execs go again, trying to make comparisons that they know are asinine but hope the gullible public won't look at it critically, because they think everyone is an idiot. But let's go ahead and dismantle this bullshit argument once again.
The cost of 'unlimited' soup increases linearly with each additional bowl of soup the customer consumes. More soup means less profit, or even profit loss if customers consume enough.
-versus-
The cost of delivering digital data is static, whether the user 'consumes' 1gb in a month or 10tb in a month. It doesn't cost an ISP any additional money. Their operational costs don't change, no matter how much data moves through their network.
The cost of 'unlimited' soup increases linearly with each additional bowl of soup the customer consumes. More soup means less profit, or even profit loss if customers consume enough.
-versus-
The cost of delivering digital data is static, whether the user 'consumes' 1gb in a month or 10tb in a month. It doesn't cost an ISP any additional money. Their operational costs don't change, no matter how much data moves through their network.
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
It's not their fucking soup to begin with, they didn't make it, we're not buying it from them. You don't pay your plumber for the water you buy from the water utility, you pay your plumber to make sure the water pipe works!
We pay ISPs to maintain an uplink that meets specific operating requirements. And the maintenance of that uplink is what costs ISPs money. Usage does not result in wear and tear, it does not bring additional operating costs upon them, it costs them nothing. And yet here they are, brazenly lying about what their role in this is.
Quite frankly, I think that these consumer advocacy groups should sue these ISPs for fraud in how they represent their business expenses. There is no justification beyond pure, unmitigated malice for deliver such brazen false information.
We pay ISPs to maintain an uplink that meets specific operating requirements. And the maintenance of that uplink is what costs ISPs money. Usage does not result in wear and tear, it does not bring additional operating costs upon them, it costs them nothing. And yet here they are, brazenly lying about what their role in this is.
Quite frankly, I think that these consumer advocacy groups should sue these ISPs for fraud in how they represent their business expenses. There is no justification beyond pure, unmitigated malice for deliver such brazen false information.
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
My data cap with Comcast mysteriously went away when ATT rolled fiber into the neighborhood.
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
A friend in Houston saw it go away when there was a proposal for Google Fiber. Then when Google abandoned the idea it came back.
Upvote
28
(28
/
0)
Cat_Herder
Smack-Fu Master, in training
Except for this one little detail: the more data they use, the more they get charged, and these are the people who are least able to afford the price increases.
Edit: typo
Last edited:
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Sadly if you are a low income person the Internet is likely your only source of entertainment and social networking.
Over the air TV? Good luck in most places. Want to apply for a job or fill out a government form, internet.
Or you have to pay for a cab or public transportation to go there (if your area even has that).
Regarding soup, don't we provide soup kitchens for those who are hungry? Because that is the right thing to do?
Pretty sure we do have those, our kids have volunteered at some.
So the rich companies can use the crazy prices that I pay and give out some 'soup'.
Over the air TV? Good luck in most places. Want to apply for a job or fill out a government form, internet.
Or you have to pay for a cab or public transportation to go there (if your area even has that).
Regarding soup, don't we provide soup kitchens for those who are hungry? Because that is the right thing to do?
Pretty sure we do have those, our kids have volunteered at some.
So the rich companies can use the crazy prices that I pay and give out some 'soup'.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Cat_Herder
Smack-Fu Master, in training
More like "We offered an all-you-can-eat menu, but after we saw how much people were eating, we decided to cancel that while still charging you the same price." The cable companies have no plans to offer a lower-priced tier unless the added data usage fees will make up the difference in price between that tier and their regular, more pricey tier.
If ISPs want to cap your service and charge extra for overages, then they should be required to provide each customer with usage-metering software that warns when you hit 25% left, 10% left, and 5% left. Also, this software must not spy on customers, simply keep track of how much data is used.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
we are lucky to have competition here with a local ISP and Spectrum so we have no data caps. Across the state my parents only have comcast and DSL so naturally they have harsh data caps....
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Cat_Herder
Smack-Fu Master, in training
- The first cup of coffee was highly overpriced.
- Those refills only cost a nickel each.
- You must be at the coffee shop to get them.
- There are no other coffee shops in your area (and boy, don't we know it!).
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
USA is just three corporations in a trench coats masquerading as a country. But I would still rather live here than China, Russia, or tons of other places.
Upvote
13
(15
/
-2)
The food analogy is simply horrible !
With data connections, it's establishing connections and building capacity for concurrent sessions that drives cost. How much data one crams down the pipe is largely irrelevant. Of course, that story doesn't make for flashy headlines. ISPs rely on consumer (and legislative) ignorance to keep the status quo and keep their profits flowing.
With data connections, it's establishing connections and building capacity for concurrent sessions that drives cost. How much data one crams down the pipe is largely irrelevant. Of course, that story doesn't make for flashy headlines. ISPs rely on consumer (and legislative) ignorance to keep the status quo and keep their profits flowing.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
This right here is why we need regulations. All corporations will race to the bottom of the service to price through without tru competition and that can't be done without multiple players in all the markets and laws and enforcement to stopp price fixing.
This has nothing at all to do with what is best for the customer. It is simply about increasing profits at any cost.
The food analogy is especially stupid because I have never accidentally eaten more from the kitchen without ordering it. Also the cost of extra data is ridiculously low vs the cost of extra food. It's a dumb argument for a fallacious reason by greedy assholes.
This has nothing at all to do with what is best for the customer. It is simply about increasing profits at any cost.
The food analogy is especially stupid because I have never accidentally eaten more from the kitchen without ordering it. Also the cost of extra data is ridiculously low vs the cost of extra food. It's a dumb argument for a fallacious reason by greedy assholes.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Next up, giving away free ponies! But you have to pay for the hourly feed bill.
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I think they should be required to price data cap overages at the marginal cost of data.
This should also give the IRS a reliable short-list of ISPs that are willing to lie about their finances.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Unlimited soup is a horrible analogy. Data caps are like charging for the use of the spoon after the first 10 spoonfuls.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
I wonder how loudly the ISP's would howl if their captured markets were forcibly integrated together, requiring all of htem to open their lines to any other provider so they can offer services to anyone, anywhere?
Competition is really the key in this issue. There's generally no competition among like for like providers in most places. That makes most users of high speed internet a captured market, being subjected to the abusive practices of whatever petty dictator provider they have the only realistic option to get.
Force a like for like competition by mandating like for like providers open their lines to any other similar type of provider, and introduce incentives to compete (say a break on taxes or something) so the people get more choices in pricing and plans. No more bailouts to build out, either. If a place is under-served, the government can build it out, and then collect rent on them from everyone who uses them, based on the revenue earned by each company.
And if there's collusion among thieves, make sure it's understood that the companies won't be punished. The decision-makers who colluded will be held personally responsible instead.
After all that's what should be done already.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
I'd be totally fine with cable internet providers charging what ever they would like if the government didn't enforce their monopolies. Our government prevents internet competition and protects cable monopolies... Sounds like the real problem is our government and un-elected bureaucrats deciding how best to carve out internet monopolies. In my area Comcast has a Texas city enforce monopoly on my greenfield housing development. What did Comcast install here due to no-competition, 2006 circa DOCSIS 3.1/3.0 low-split garbage, we get data caps, 1.2Gb / 35MB/s speeds and were happy for it ugh.... I'd be happy to have google fiber or frontier, well anyone else as a real landline option. I'm sure comcast is working hard to prevent starlink upgrades.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Why there are no data caps in other Western countries? Do you have a different kind internet in the US?
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)