Please ban data caps, Internet users tell FCC
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
"The group, which plans to submit the white paper to the FCC docket, says it "has received financial support from numerous companies, foundations, and individuals, including firms with interests both supportive of and in opposition to the ideas" presented in the document. The law and economics group has consistently opposed net neutrality regulations, taking positions similar to those advanced by the broadband industry."
In other words, the "International Center for Law & Economics" is getting more money from the industry than from individuals, and because money matters more than consumer rights, the industry is obviously right.
What a bunch of bullshit.
In other words, the "International Center for Law & Economics" is getting more money from the industry than from individuals, and because money matters more than consumer rights, the industry is obviously right.
What a bunch of bullshit.
Upvote
244
(244
/
0)
The problem with the coffee analogy is that coffee has a high marginal cost. The cost of marginal bandwidth on any transmission pipe that is not at capacity is essentially zero.
The only bandwidth management that makes sense in terms of managing costs is how to prioritize traffic at times when capacity is constrained (such as early evenings when everyone streams). But this would imply that users get a limited "peak data allowance" rather than an across-the-board data cap.
The only bandwidth management that makes sense in terms of managing costs is how to prioritize traffic at times when capacity is constrained (such as early evenings when everyone streams). But this would imply that users get a limited "peak data allowance" rather than an across-the-board data cap.
Upvote
190
(190
/
0)
Please. Don't people know that 1s and 0s are a finite resource? That even now, grim men in hard hats dig ever deeper into the earth in search of pure veins of data bits? Oh, sure, a lode of 1s is found periodically, strip-mining protected wetlands yields a decent store of 0s with the odd 2 as impurities, but it's getting harder and harder to find pure data streams. Even as they dig down and down.
Caps are essential! What happens when the world runs out of easily obtainable bits and we have to start rationing? Will wealthy nations use more than their fair share of internet while other regions suffer? Will the wealthy squander internet while others scrabble for the few bytes left over?
We must think of the future! Think of the children! Internet must be capped! For the good of generations to come!
Caps are essential! What happens when the world runs out of easily obtainable bits and we have to start rationing? Will wealthy nations use more than their fair share of internet while other regions suffer? Will the wealthy squander internet while others scrabble for the few bytes left over?
We must think of the future! Think of the children! Internet must be capped! For the good of generations to come!
Last edited:
Upvote
226
(227
/
-1)
I wonder if that economist group thinks we should also have electricity caps and water caps?
Oh, maybe Simington could suggest that the FCC go tell public schools and other state and federal institutions that they're not allowed to require internet connectivity for services, since it isn't a regulated utility and isn't guaranteed in some areas, because that would mean giving out coupons for free coffees or something?
Sort of related: I also wonder why we don't have a fight happening between "big tech" and "big media" and "big gaming" - who want everything to be streaming, cloud-based, digital downloads, etc - and the ISPs who, by placing data caps, effectively are directly interfering with that. Seems like the two groups should be at odds, but I don't think I've seen anything recently about Google, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, whoever else getting into fights with Comcast about how the caps interfere with what they're doing.
Oh, maybe Simington could suggest that the FCC go tell public schools and other state and federal institutions that they're not allowed to require internet connectivity for services, since it isn't a regulated utility and isn't guaranteed in some areas, because that would mean giving out coupons for free coffees or something?
Sort of related: I also wonder why we don't have a fight happening between "big tech" and "big media" and "big gaming" - who want everything to be streaming, cloud-based, digital downloads, etc - and the ISPs who, by placing data caps, effectively are directly interfering with that. Seems like the two groups should be at odds, but I don't think I've seen anything recently about Google, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, whoever else getting into fights with Comcast about how the caps interfere with what they're doing.
Upvote
87
(91
/
-4)
Weren't data caps suspended by most major ISPs during COVID?
I don't remember there being a shortage of bits to supply over the internet lines...
I don't remember there being a shortage of bits to supply over the internet lines...
Upvote
153
(153
/
0)
They saved the bits up for medical emergencies. They gotta stockpile them again for the next outbreak.
Upvote
102
(102
/
0)
More importantly, what happens when they dig too deep?
I think I hear drums...
Upvote
86
(86
/
0)
Our Comcast connection was metered through COVID, I can say that much. The cap hasn't budget over the years, either.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Ugh.
But caps do not solve that any problems related to shared over usage. If I over use and then pay to keep doing it then it's still affecting everyone else and just costs me more.
You also forget that electricity is a finite resource and that you do not pay monthly for both usage and the amps you can use.
Upvote
72
(78
/
-6)
We'll see just how good it is for users when everyone makes it a point to go to every free hotspot and use up all of their data. Let the merchants get charged with overage fees, as long as they aren't subscribing to unlimited, and see how happy they will be. They'll end up putting caps on free users, or remove the free wifi entirely. Yup, good for users..
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
You know what's missing from this? Rate.
Does your water utility also charge you based on how fast your faucets allow flow? Perhaps they have a dual pressure distribution system and you need to pay extra to be on the higher pressure so your upstairs shower can have water hm?
Think for more than a few seconds and it quickly becomes clear why this analogy is stupid
Upvote
77
(91
/
-14)
Up here in northern New England is, I believe, the only area in the country that Comcast does not enforce data caps. No 1.2TB limit, no unlimited usage fee, just uncapped Internet. Because they have competition.
In related news, I switched to a local fiber provider a few months ago..
In related news, I switched to a local fiber provider a few months ago..
Upvote
92
(92
/
0)
I love that coffee analogy. It's great at illustrating just how disconnected republican politicians are from reality
Upvote
104
(107
/
-3)
Wow, comcast lets you pay to remove the data cap altogether? There was no way out of Mediacom's data caps...
Fuck it, regulation isn't enough, we have been outright gracious with these ISPs fucking us over and performing psy-ops on the general public to keep this political gamesmanship going. I want these businesses shuttered for the malicious contempt that they have shown for the people whose needs they have exploited, I want their operations seized for daring to treat a critical modern utility like a game of fucking monopoly, I want all of their corporate officers, lobbyists, and every shitfuck who signed off on those political 'donations' publicly ostracized as the belligerent sociopaths they've proven themselves to be.
We should never have gotten to this point, and we should not tolerate the malice that brought us here.
Fuck it, regulation isn't enough, we have been outright gracious with these ISPs fucking us over and performing psy-ops on the general public to keep this political gamesmanship going. I want these businesses shuttered for the malicious contempt that they have shown for the people whose needs they have exploited, I want their operations seized for daring to treat a critical modern utility like a game of fucking monopoly, I want all of their corporate officers, lobbyists, and every shitfuck who signed off on those political 'donations' publicly ostracized as the belligerent sociopaths they've proven themselves to be.
We should never have gotten to this point, and we should not tolerate the malice that brought us here.
Upvote
45
(46
/
-1)
You have to ACTUALLY be from an alternate timeline to think that caps allow low-use consumers to pay less. And since by most ISP admissions ~99% of customers stay below these BS caps, that further proves no one is paying less for less; they're all paying the same, and some people pay even more.
Upvote
78
(78
/
0)
It's all bullshit, especially that "white paper" that was just released. If a company must rely on overage fees to fund their infrastructure enhancements, they are clearly failing to properly budget for the use of their service and invest appropriately.
Upvote
47
(47
/
0)
Oof, that is unfortunate. I do remember at least some were suspended.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
"usage-based pricing provides more options for consumers than flat-rate pricing and can generate additional revenue to fund network improvements and expansion."
what a load of manure.
Yes, it generates more revenue, and all of that revenue goes to the shareholders or ends up as a CEO bonus. ISPs have zero incentive to improve or expand their networks thanks to the FCC's penchant for giving ISPs millions of dollars every few years for 'network expansion' and never requiring that the funds are used to actually provide service.
More options don't mean shit if the 'affordable' option can't be used for video conferencing every day of the month.
A better option, would be to mandate all ISPs offer an affordable option with a max speed of 50Mbps. However, that would require the regulators to do their jobs and regulate pricing; something the FCC will avoid as long as possible due to the negative affect it will have on the profits of the commissioners future employers.
what a load of manure.
Yes, it generates more revenue, and all of that revenue goes to the shareholders or ends up as a CEO bonus. ISPs have zero incentive to improve or expand their networks thanks to the FCC's penchant for giving ISPs millions of dollars every few years for 'network expansion' and never requiring that the funds are used to actually provide service.
More options don't mean shit if the 'affordable' option can't be used for video conferencing every day of the month.
A better option, would be to mandate all ISPs offer an affordable option with a max speed of 50Mbps. However, that would require the regulators to do their jobs and regulate pricing; something the FCC will avoid as long as possible due to the negative affect it will have on the profits of the commissioners future employers.
Upvote
22
(24
/
-2)
Sure. As a one time fee.
What you are in favor of is paying monthly for access to the tank and for how much you use.
Upvote
12
(15
/
-3)
There's a more fundamental problem with the coffee analogy. Coffee is generally not marketed as an unlimited beverage. If I was paying for an unlimited amount of coffee, the same problems with a coffee cap would applicable
Upvote
37
(37
/
0)
And?
There are ways to handle that for any service. Move them to a business level.
If the only enforcement is a fee than it's just an extra cost for the abuse not an actual block.
Upvote
30
(32
/
-2)
Unfortunately, what is "easy to believe" is also, often, complete bullshit.
Upvote
36
(36
/
0)
One of the underlying assumptions in this discussion that I think is open to question is - to what extent do end users actually choose and control the amount of data they consume?
Once upon a time, reading a random web article might be 500k including images. Today it might be 500k on load... plus as much as 10mb of ads and video pushed to you while you are reading it. Per page.
Even when you stream video, you often don't control the resolution - it's decided automatically by your download speed. So a fast connection with a tight cap can go through a lot of data in a way that the customer doesn't particularly control. Not to mention that it's not really friendly or appropriate for ordinary humans to have to manage their usage in that way (or the attached video ads that download the same ad over and over and over again as if your bandwidth was free).
And beyond that, not all internet usage is recreational or discretionary.
Data speeds are in line with the costs to the provider and an experience that the customer can understand and control. Data caps are not.
Once upon a time, reading a random web article might be 500k including images. Today it might be 500k on load... plus as much as 10mb of ads and video pushed to you while you are reading it. Per page.
Even when you stream video, you often don't control the resolution - it's decided automatically by your download speed. So a fast connection with a tight cap can go through a lot of data in a way that the customer doesn't particularly control. Not to mention that it's not really friendly or appropriate for ordinary humans to have to manage their usage in that way (or the attached video ads that download the same ad over and over and over again as if your bandwidth was free).
And beyond that, not all internet usage is recreational or discretionary.
Data speeds are in line with the costs to the provider and an experience that the customer can understand and control. Data caps are not.
Upvote
69
(69
/
0)
I actually agree with the idea that companies should be allowed to put together cheaper plans that have caps.
However, to allow that to have the desired effect, you'd need competition. ISP's don't have that, unless of course we regulate them as Title II common carriers... which would certainly be my preferred outcome. The more competition, the better my choices.
The ISP's, for the very same reason, will not like my preferred competitive state, even if it allows them to get creative with pricing models.
Upvote
8
(12
/
-4)
I would honestly be fine with usage based pricing if all plans were offered at the same (max) speed, up and down. Water, power, and gas are usage based billing, but you don't have to pay extra to get better water pressure, or better gas. Fundamentally, usage based billing isn't a bad concept. But ISPs should absolutely not be allowed to charge for usage and speed. Just one
Upvote
37
(39
/
-2)
when I was on HughesNet's affordable plan, my datacap was 10GB/month. What, in your opinion, is an acceptable minimum amount for a datacap?
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Upvote
7
(10
/
-3)
In truth, isn't it more like we're being expected to pay for coffee refills that other people are ordering for us and delivering to our table, perhaps the coffee bean provider or cup manufacturer? I'd estimate that more than half the data I consume is due to other people's choices and preferences. After all, my bandwidth is free to them.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
Yep. Competition is how real capacity constraints get separated from unnecessary fees that generate pure profit.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
I think the difference is that - to use your analogy - internet service is explicitly charged by flow rate and utilization.
The water equivalent would be paying a flat rate for certain levels of water pressure and also paying more if you use too much.
Now, if they provided, say, gigabit internet service to every home in the country, and ISPs only charged a metered rate, you could probably directly compare it with a water utility.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Two week ago I was notified that fiber service was finally available in my neighborhood, with no data caps and a fixed price. So, I called my ISP's (Cox) retention department and asked what they were willing to do to keep me as a customer. Guess what? "Mr. Devnull, we'll gladly remove your data caps and upgrade you to unlimited service at no charge!"
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA8T4bn5PIE
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA8T4bn5PIE
Upvote
41
(41
/
0)