this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
243 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37683 readers
234 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
[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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?

[–] ulkesh@beehaw.org 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] thejml@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ulkesh@beehaw.org 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

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?

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

WHAT CHOICE!? Data caps are on all plans. What options are there? Lay out what you think the choices are.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Data caps are on all plans.

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.

Edit: Googling for "capless internet usa" gives as the first result https://broadbandnow.com/guides/no-data-caps, listing several providers.

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago

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.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] Vodulas@beehaw.org 3 points 4 days ago

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.