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

Technology

37734 readers
311 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
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 66 points 4 weeks ago (27 children)

Please, yes.

Limiting how much I can pull at a time (bandwidth) makes sense; limiting how much I can use in total is bullshit. It's not like it can run out.

[–] spoonbill@programming.dev 12 points 4 weeks ago (25 children)

limiting how much I can use in total is bullshit. It’s not like it can run out.

There isn't a limit because it "runs out" of data, but because of statistics, and the fact that bandwidth is limited.

Adding data caps reduces the total data volume, which in turn statistically reduces the average bandwidth used by all subscribers together (or whatever subset shares a connection).

Another approach would of course be to reduce the speed of each individual subscriber, but it may well be that subscribers prefer e.g. to be able to watch 10h of 4K video, vs 100h of 1080p video, despite the former being a lower volume of data.

Essentially it comes down to whether you want lots of data, but slowly, or less data but quickly (assuming the same price).

It seems weird to ban consumer choice here.

A related, but different, question is if the consumer truly has a choice in the US. But to me it would make more sense to solve the competition question instead of even further restrict consumer choices for those that do have a choice.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 9 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Adding data caps reduces the total data volume, which in turn statistically reduces the average bandwidth used by all subscribers together (or whatever subset shares a connection).

I would like to know how you figure that load of horseshit. The average customer never even hits the data cap, so it's not like it's just cutting people off so others can get on.

It seems weird to ban consumer choice here.

What choice? Most of the country is stuck with whatever singular entity controls the network in your city. Very few places have any choice about what service they get. And they all have data caps unless you're a qualified business.

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

I would like to know how you figure that load of horseshit. The average customer never even hits the data cap, so it’s not like it’s just cutting people off so others can get on.

Well no, of course not. That would upset people. What it does is make people afraid of hitting the limit, which makes them concious of data use and reduces it, even if it does not actually hit the cap.

Very few places have any choice about what service they get.

Most of the country has no choice, so remove choice from those that do, to make it even? Shouldn't we rather make it even by giving everyone choice? How about instead e.g. forcing ISPs to offer capless plans, while still allowing for capped, but cheaper, plans for those that prefer it?

load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)