Why are data caps allowed?

Why are data caps allowed?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering
consumerist.com/2015/11/06/leaked-comcast-doc-admits-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion/
consumerist.com/2012/12/18/new-report-says-cash-cow-data-caps-are-about-pleasing-investors-not-congestion/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network#List_of_Tier_1_networks
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because if they weren't you would be paying 30x the price.

because it's the land of the """"free""""

Because if net neutrality is a non-starter, banning data caps is tantamount to full-on communism.

Even though both are pure antitrust law, that's it.

because "free market"

>implying you're using 100mbps 100% of the time
>work out cars max range vs speed
>omg why are fuel tanks so slow
>greedy users should be protected by law

There is absolutely no non-ideological reason to allow data caps. It's pure rent-seeking and thus detracts from the economy as a whole.

An ISP that is truly having capacity issues can simply offer lower speed tiers. Problem solved.

if I rent a home I should have full access to it 24/7

it costs isps nothing to transmit data once the initial infrastructure is in place, which is covered by your monthly fee

>speed caps are fine
>data caps which in turn limit people non stop streaming/downloading when not even using it are not fine

Because what the fuck are you gonna do when there's only one or two ISPs in town and they both have data caps?

Because otherwise people would download all the internet and not leave any for the rest of us you stupid fucking cunt. Think for 2 seconds before you post bullshit threads

third worlders shouldnt be on the internet either way
shoo shoo

Huh, that's funny. In big parts of Europe we have uncapped internet access for 0.5x the price.

I don't know. They aren't here.

Why can't we be more like Japan?
>Low crime
>technology everywhere including vending machines
>maid cafes
>The best internet

>analysts told the Financial Post the rough average is closer to 10¢ per GB. Incumbents contend it’s much more than that

>10c x1TB
>$100


>tier 1 ISPs don't charge anything

Speed caps are not only "fine", they are literally inherent to the network and its division between users. Or do you not know what bandwidth is?
Data caps OTOH are entirely artificial concepts.

You are going to get speed caped anyway you retarded brainlet. Because at some point ISP infrastructure will not be able to take it, that's why sometimes your network will not function at it's advertised maximum speed (mostly during peak hours).
There is a limit to throughput network can have (limited by infrastructure). On the other hand there is no such a thing as data limit that ISP can split between users. That's why data caps are fucking stupid, and why you only see them in third world shitholes, such as america, with it's uneducated sub 90IQ population.

>tfw from huezil and I unironically have better internet than OP.
I'm so sorry dude.

>unlimited data
>why turn off netflix streaming 4k?
>why turn off twitch in the background?

It's why YT doesn't let you buffer ahead to stop people opening 15 tabs of videos and loading them

if you had unlimited petrol for your car would you even think twice about going for a drive

>more traffic

Americans secretly love being cucked by large corporations.

Nice selective quoting.
>Netflix, for example, has claimed the cost is about 1¢ per GB. Other analysts told the Financial Post the rough average is closer to 10¢ per GB. Incumbents contend it’s much more than that. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

Also, that was in 2011. Bandwidth costs have tended to drop in price by half (or more) per year, so in the current year they would be around $0.0016 per gigabyte.

So my ISP charging $10 per 50gb overage ($0.20/gb) is marking up the price by 12,500%

>50% drop per year
>every year

lmao are you fucking retarded

>isps get free global traffic
>tier 1 isps make no money
>companies lay underwater fibre linking the globe for free

>technology prices stay the same as time goes on
brainlet.jpg

The gas analogy would work if you had a gas subscription that you had to pay a flat monthly fee for, but you could fill up as much as you wanted in any one month that you paid for it.

Which, given reasonable restrictions to prevent abuse (e.g. multiple vehicles sharing one subscription), is a business model that I'd be surprised if it isn't already used somewhere - that probably isn't the developed world though, what with its rampant entrenched monopolies.

The free market is a cool idea when government enforces competition, but tyrannical otherwise. It's quite ironic.

because you keep voting republican. enjoy

I wasn't aware that Democrats had a policy of abolishing data caps. Mind linking to a source?

lol wtf I pay like 8 euros for unlimited bandwith and 10/10 up/down
Literally an hour of work lmao

I live in a Democratic state with a Democratic legislature and a Democratic Governor

Actually it does, if people use a lot of bandwith the backbone gets overloaded

>right baaad
>left guuuud
Grow up

Unlimited bandwidth here for 24€/month
I seed and download 24/7 and nobody ever complained

If it does then why do other countries not for so much cheaper? Is America 3rd world?

>Is America 3rd world
Took you long enough to realize

>amerifats actually believe this

>it costs isps nothing to transmit data once the initial infrastructure is in place, which is covered by your monthly fee
That's absolutely not true.
This totally depends on the individual peering contracts with other companies and most of them are not a flat rate, they do pay for the amount of data peered through other networks.
Please educate yourself about how the internet works: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering
Your ISP does not just plug you into some magic network where everything is for free and just happens.

consumerist.com/2015/11/06/leaked-comcast-doc-admits-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion/
consumerist.com/2012/12/18/new-report-says-cash-cow-data-caps-are-about-pleasing-investors-not-congestion/

Because you fucks have 0 competition on the ISP market.
If there's no one to upset the market by providing a better service at better prices, why would they get rid of data caps ?

Because network congestion is a reality, and faggots like you who are trying to suck up 300mbps of bandwidth 24/7 fuck it up for everybody else. No, it isn't as simple as just "upgrade your equipment!", that's an entire infrastrcture upgrade needed to support.
The speeds advertised to you are meant to be enticing to consumers because it's expected people will use them as burst rates. This is all very clearly explained in the agreement you signed when you agreed to their service, but no no no, please, keep bitching about how you don't fucking read anything and then bitch about restrictions that come along with it.
You dipshit faggot.

see it may not cost LITERALLY nothing, but it's very close.

1tb should cost around $1.60 for the ISP. I wouldn't mind paying an extra $5 or even $10/month for that, but instead they want $10 for 50gb.

In a country half the size of an american state with three times the population density. Sounds like a dream for maintaining and upgrading network infrastructure for everyone.

Maybe not a dream for other parts of day to day life though.

consumerist.com/2015/11/06/leaked-comcast-doc-admits-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion/
consumerist.com/2012/12/18/new-report-says-cash-cow-data-caps-are-about-pleasing-investors-not-congestion/

Just FYI, in the first post I'm supporting both.
Just saying how Americans tend to view it.

Used to be big business feared antitrust laws...

this is the only reason why there are data caps in the us

it is true, the us isps just tell you bullshit to justify milking money from you 24/7

>1tb should cost around $1.60 for the ISP
In theory, yes.
In practice, they still have to pipe that over the same lines as everybody else who ISNT using things so excessively and they have to manage it in a way that ensures that nobody loses any bandwidth or priority, which is difficult as fuck when everybody starts paying into these programs and now they cant keep over provisioning lines.

>Literal speculation based on internal customer service memos
Do you know what PR is?

>The speeds advertised to you are meant to be enticing to consumers because it's expected people will use them as burst rates.
This should be banned, or enforced if it already is.

I did not intend to justify data caps, don't get me wrong. We don't have them here. But the quoted statement was simply wrong, the amount of data does cost them.

No country in the world has real ISP competition.
It's a literal oxymoron.

Price differences come from poverty or regulation.

>This should be banned
Okay enjoy your guaranteed 3mbps line
You think euro ISPs operate under a different business model? Everybody works on the same provisioning model. The difference is that America is fucking enormous with its population spread far more diversely than other countries, which makes it a logistical nightmare to connect with as many high-bandwidth nodes as smaller european countries of asian countries with higher density population centers.

It's not in theory. That's the total actual cost for peering and everything else.

>Do you know what PR is?
It's not PR. It's internal training memos where they admit it has nothing to do with congestion management.

Pic related

>the amount of data does cost them.
Saying it costs them nothing was clearly just an expression

And in the end they all have to pay these guys anyway: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network#List_of_Tier_1_networks

Because "net neutrality"


also yfw Mediacom can charge you up to $56,600 a month because of (((unlimited overages)))

>That's the total actual cost for peering and everything else.
Stated where?
This is an internal memo for customer service reps on how to talk, it's not official confirmation of anything. "Don't call it a data CAP because we don't actually CAP their usage!" is a valid statement, you're not actually prevented from using anything over your cap as long as you pay the "excess usage fees". That memo is a big PR change, not admissible confirmation that it's a pure money grab.

>referring to the "data usage plan"
>Don't say it's about congestion management.
>It's not
There are only a few reasons they would say this

1) It's factually true
2) They thought it would get leaked and lied to their internal staff to derail their public talking points

Population density of the EU: 116 people per km2
Population density of the US: 33 people per km2

That difference isn't even close to a single order of magnitude. All else being equal there should be virtually no ISP price difference resulting from those numbers alone.

As an additional thought, why would anybody bother with these caps with the enormous PR backlash as a money grab? They're not going to get any significant fucking money from it. 300GB caps were pretty low but also a trial period, they were trying to find the sweet spot where 99% of consumers wouldnt hit and the data whores like OP would be encouraged to not max their connection 24/7.
They're not going to make any kind of real money off the 0.01% of people that breach these caps and pay $1 per extra 50gb. But they're going to be able to provision much, MUCH higher burst speeds to everybody else, which makes them look great and also provide the average person with enormously better service. It makes perfect sense, but not for the "we're evil" perspective you're assuming.

They could say that the sun is a fucking cube for all it matters, its a PR memo, its to hammer in "DON'T SAY THESE THINGS CAUSE WE SAY SO". It doesnt matter what its actually about ,they push the memo to enforce the idea that you say whats on the sheet. Period. I assume you've never worked helpdesk.

>of the EU
no, of INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES. The EU isn't a fucking country, it's a trade network.

Lots of countries have more ISP competition than America does, considering any competition at all is infinitely more than literally none.
The only government regulation needed is forcing the ISP that owns the copper/fiber networks to allow smaller ISPs to rent their way onto it. Now you have ISPs competing on prices and things like not having bandwidth caps, maybe they come with a discount on shit like Spotify or Netflix or what have you.

It may not be "real" competition in the sense that there is only one network owned by one major ISP, but it's enough to make it so one or two ISPs can't just sit back and jew the fuck out of consumers.

It wasn't that long ago that a few ISPs over here tried to implement data caps on cable internet. It lasted a year or two before they dropped it because they lost their customers.

You are lumping in unpopulated areas like Alaska (population density of 0.5/km^2) with the rest of the country.

There are 8 states with higher population densities than the EU as a whole.
There are 44 states with higher population densities than Sweden
63% of Americans live in cities, with a population density of 1593/mi^2

So yes, internet in the tundras of Alaska should be more expensive and worse service. But not in major metro areas

>its a PR memo
No it fucking wasn't. It was an INTERNAL TRAINING MEMO regarding company policy and statements of facts

> INTERNAL TRAINING MEMO
I see you also don't understand what PR means.
>company policy and statement of facts
I see you've also never worked in a company of more than 5 people in your entire life.

>USA
>invent the internet
>50 years later
>pay more than other countries
>worse service than other countries
>worse speed than other countries
>worse competition than other countries
really makes you thonk

>Geographic costs don't exist
ok

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations

This is what PR means my ESL friend

>I see you've also never worked in a company of more than 5 people in your entire life.
So you're going with option #2, that they lied to their staff because they thought it would get leaked...despite it making their company look worse.

How does that make any sense?

>it costs more to lay fiber in American cities than European cities with the same population density

>Thread theme.

Don't you guys have a school shooting to attend or a loan to take so you can buy aspirin?

60% of the time, it works every time

How's flipping burgers for 8€?

>one isp controls a city
>high costs
>low bandwidth cap
>low speed
>google/municipal broadband/startup isp comes to town
>offers low cost, high data cap (if any), and high speeds
>original isp tries to sue them out of existence or block them, but fails
>suddenly the original isp lowers costs, increases or removes the data cap and increases speeds
really gets the neurons firing

russia has better internet
what excuse for the greedy isps will you find now?

Reasons for data caps:

#1: Network congestion (ISPs say this is not true)
#2: Greed

>european countries with 300-500 dollar salaries have giant fiber networks that cover almost all of the country (countries with sizes of somewhere around georgia to texas) and you pay 5-20 dollars for 100+mbit connections
>american cities with average salaries of 1500-5000 dollars can't afford fiber and you pay 30-50 dollars for 20mbit
sounds legit as fuck

That's what SPEED caps are for. Not DATA caps.

>no, of INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES. The EU isn't a fucking country, it's a trade network.
I'm referring to the EU as if it were one country for purposes of comparison. Do try to keep up.
Except the EU has many remote areas as well, but which still have decent Internet service at a reasonable price due to government regulation

>Except the EU has many remote areas as well, but which still have decent Internet service at a reasonable price due to government regulation
So you agree with me?

yes, government regulations are good
anyone but americans know this already

What the fuck's up with your math?

100 Mb/s = 12.5 MB/s so with a data cap of 1 TB (1000 MB) you could reach it in 80 seconds

Yeah that's right you're paying for a full month but not getting more than a little over a minute

>t. continental European
It's an enormous problem in all Anglo countries

Here in Canada, we had a mainstream politician proposing the abolition of our FCC equivalent nearly win a major party leadership.
It's pretty much by accident that we got net neutrality at all (happened to be an unusually pro-consumer advocate leading it at the time), but now that the US is doing this it's quite likely the policy will be changed - at the very least.

>1 TB (1000 MB)

>but now that the US is doing this it's quite likely the policy will be changed - at the very least.
you should just attack it with leftist logic
>that evil retard drumpf did it we should do the opposite
you're in canada that should work

Please don't post here again.

> 1 TB (1000 MB)
Please leave and never return.

Interestingly "net neutrality" was the status quo for years, mainly because the ISPs didn't understand the internet.

It didn't become a policy argument until ISPs started blocking things that competed with them or they just didn't like.

Lobbied by old copyright holders to suppress piracy. They have been pushing this in germany for years too, but luckily with only limited success - we have super cheap capped plans (like 15 eur for a 16/1 mbit line and 250 gigs of data) to attract poorfags and normies and feature-packed unlimited plans starting at 25 eur/month. I am getting 50/10 mbit with 4 free flatrate sim cards for 40 eur. Could also use cable for 150/10 for about 70 eur but its not worth it.

I already pay 65 CAD a month for 20/2

You really have to put in the effort to get a capped connection over here in Finland. No fixed connections are capped and probably only the absolute cheapest phone plans have any sort of caps.

You can get an uncapped 3G plan for about 14 euros a month. Uncapped 4G plans typically start at around 20-25 euros a month, but I think the cheapest offering is 18 euros a month.

Because anti monopoly laws is unfamiliar communistic concept in clapistan

My ISP luckily there is no data cap. They don't care what I download. Downside is that they don't got the bandwidth to keep constant speed for anything past 10 meg plan. Which is fine, 10 meg is all I need. Costs me $46 (tax/fees included). Could go as high as 100 meg but I's pay around $100 for it plus I'd never see it all the time.

Holy shit that's bad.

you pay more for less bandwidth than i do...

>1 TB (1000 MB)
Why even bother?

It's the only remaining explanation, they just love corporate dick in their ass

...

$70/month. Uncapped.

Works for me.

i pay around 50 euro for 300/300 mb
where the fuck do you live

...

100m/40m FTTB no data caps, and no fucks given about running servers for just $35 USD a month.

ISP doesn't care that I throw around multiple terabytes per month.

Because they are necessary. If the government forced ISPs to get rid of them, we'd be paying much much more for service. It's also why we need fast lanes, it's all to provide great service to those who can afford it.

this is fake news

Because NN is forcing everyone to subsidize Netflix users.

35€ for 1Gbps symmetrical uncapped no dns censorship.
come again when you have basic human rights in your shithole.