Oh fuck off FCC, you know exactly why and intentionally don’t address it.
Would be wonderful if the FCC did their fucking job for once and banned data caps. Companies like Mediacom abuse the fuck out of them
Because MONEY and lack of choice in some markets… easy.
If Ajit Pai were still in charge, he’d say “Woof woof! The telcos can do anything they want!,” and the Verizon CEO who owns him would pat him on the head and give him a Milk-Bone.
Because fuck you, pay me, that’s why.
— Comcast, probably.
It will always make me happy that no matter how hard they try to make Xfinity happen, everyone remembers their real, ugly face before the facelift, and that ugly face is Comcast.[1]
“Stop trying to make
fetchXfinity happen! It’s not going to happen!”
Hey Comcast’s service improved in my area once google Fiber got installed.
Just goes to show you that companies are fine with you complaining as much as you want, just NEVER let there be an alternative.
Why is the FCC asking this question instead of already correcting the issue?
They are asking ISPs to lay out their best justification so that they can decide whether it’s valid or not. Judging by their wording, they want a good explanation. It’s good to gain understanding of something before we gut it and who better to ask for the ‘best argument for’ than those who enforce it?
In short, the Administrative Procedure Act. It sets out the procedures that have to be followed before policy decisions get made. If the FCC doesn’t follow the APA’s procedures exactly, that gives the industry grounds to sue. Even if the industry eventually looses, it would still mean a stay on the new policies during which they would continue to exploit consumers.
The APA isn’t a bad thing, since it forces federal agencies to be deliberate in making policy decisions that could have far reaching consequences. That said, it does make the government even slower to react to situations that often change quickly. But it has tripped up this administration and previous administrations when they have tried to make hasty decisions, including Trump with his “Muslim ban”.
Question, what the fuck was the “Muslim ban” I’ve never heard of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
It was never law, which is why it was so easily reversed.
Because of corporate greed and a ridiculous lack of meaningful regulation.
It’s ridiculous I have to pay Xfinity $110/mo for my speed and unlimited bandwidth
Over here, I’m getting the Cox… last bill was $99 a month, now my “promo period” expired, and it is the full $170 a month thanks to “unlimited”. It’s pretty gross, but it is the only plan that gives the “amazing” 30 mbps up. :|
God damn. In Austria I’m paying 35€ for 250/250, and am still looking over to the Romanians with longing eyes. Data caps are only on mobile - which is still questionable in my eyes.
Data caps on mobile makes more sense to me, simply because mobile data is so much more expensive.
Is it?
To me it seems it’s cheaper to build an antenna to serve 100-1000s of users than to dig and install cables to all of them.
It depends on what you’re trying to do. If you’re just trying to reach them and don’t care about bandwidth, wireless is the way to go. It’s why more developed countries lagged behind developing countries on the transition to wireless phones. But when you’re trying to deploy shear amounts of bandwidth, nothing beats fiber. It’s incredibly fast, has low latency, and doesn’t get interference.
And I suppose I should say that I think unlimited is a bad idea in general. I favor paying for what I use. People who use expensive infrastructure sparingly should pay less than people use it a lot.
Because there is money to be made!
This is a rhetorical question right?
GREED. That has always been the answer.
$$$ and because the ISPs don’t get charged for unethical and blantly illegal activities…
The real question should be why is the internet not a public utility yet…? Huh FCC/CRTC…?
What’s going to stop the forms being filled out by industry-controlled bots this time?[1] Last time the FCC took public comment, anti-net-neutrality comments were being made under the names of dead people and people who would later claim they never participated in making comments to the FCC.
Otherwise, it’s going to be the same dumb shitshow as last time.
The same dumb shitshow as last time is probably the goal.
I used to work in utilities. Electric, not telecom so different set of regulators. What they would do is yank you into and office and tell you something to the effect of: “[Name of Regulatory Body] is considering [issue]. You should really consider going on the public comment section of their website and voicing your [support/opposition depending on corporate stance] for it. It’s not mandatory but you should really consider doing that. It’s very important to our company.”
It wasn’t “mandatory” but they would repeatedly hound you until you either did it or told them to fuck off, at which point you would be branded a “troublemaker” and they would find ways to punish you.
True, but research showed up to 80% of the comments from the previous FCC public comment were made by bots.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/43a5kg/80-percent-net-neutrality-comments-bots-astroturfing
Lack of healthy competition. It’s plain to see from the other side of the ocean where I live… Is it maybe one of those things you can only see from afar?
€20 every 28 days on a PAYG sim for unlimited 5g in Ireland, it’s just boggling to see what folks in the US and Canada pay
OP was about data caps on landlines… yeah, at first glance I too thought it could only be mobile
The infrastructure over which that data travels isn’t free. If you have a resource and it has any kind of scarcity, you want to tie consumption to the cost of producing more of it.
You can reduce the transaction cost – reduce hassle for users using Internet service – by not having a cap for them to worry about, but then you decouple the costs of consumption.
Soft caps, like throttling, are one way to help reduce transaction costs while still having some connection between consumption and price.
But point is, if one user is using a lot more of the infrastructure than any other is, you probably want to have that reflected in some way, else you’re dumping Heavy User’s costs on Light User.
I want to know where the storage tanks of gigabytes are hiding
Like, what kind of costs exist? Lines, network hardware, putting up the tunnels and poles that hold up lines, the network admins who deal with issues on them. Your ISP can’t just push a button and instantly provide 1Tbit bandwidth capacity at no cost to themselves to every subscriber.
Oh you mean like the $400 billion the industry has taken to adopt Fiber-optic high speeds, but somehow Fiber access has never materialized in most US cities? You mean like that infrastructure? That we’ve already fucking paid for through grants and other federal programs handing money to the ISPs?
Are you having a laugh or do you work for these fuckers?
I’m not disputing the costs, I’m disputing that they already have money to cover the costs (taxpayer money, I might add) and they’re bilking the consumer on top of it.
EDIT: Also, let’s not forget that they got this money during a period of media consolidation. Why was Comcast using its money to buy NBC in 2011 instead of spending that on (*audible gasp) infrastructure?
I’m disputing that they already have money to cover the costs
Federal subsidies to telcos were not intended to provide Internet service for free, but to reduce costs.
You could argue that a subsidy should reduce prices relative to what they should have been, had no subsidy existed.
But you cannot argue that pricing should be decoupled from consumption as a result of that.
And I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that it’s clear that pricing has been decoupled from consumption, but in the other direction, where the ISP’s are setting prices arbitrarily. That’s been a choice on their part, and a big reason why people like me are distrustful of any data they claim shows their case. They have been caught lying so many times before. I’m old enough to remember Comcast paying homeless people[1] to stuff a courtroom to make it seem like more people supported them (once again if they don’t have money to cover infrastructure costs, why are they instead spending their money on things like this?). There’s also issues like when they bundle unnecessary services, essentially consumers paying for nothing, like when the AG of Washington State sued them in 2016.[2] I could go on for pages about shit like this going all the way back to illegally shaping traffic with Sandvine targeting BitTorrent traffic.[3] I honestly don’t wish to and maybe you ought to do more research on how much money these companies ream the American consumer for before acting like there is any connection between pricing and consumption here.
