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

Technology

37719 readers
143 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 12 points 3 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.

[–] Banzai51@midwest.social 4 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

But bandwidth is only limited in points in time, not usage over a month. Makes sense to limit in times of congestion, but not outside that. That is the OP's point.

[–] Buttons@programming.dev 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

When limiting is required, because many people are using the same network, limiting those who have already used the most seems fair.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Does it?

user A uses their full bandwidth from 2am-4am when the network is empty then watches a 720p video at 5pm (or whenever the networks peak is).

User B watches an 8k video at 5pm and nothing at any other time.

UserB clearly contributes to congestion on the network more than user A despite user A using more data. Furthermore throttling user A does less to resolve the congestion than throttling user B.

IMO If the network needs to throttle then the people the most data at that instant in time need to be throttled and the network needs to start upgrading its infrastructure or amending its marketing materials.

Really the current internet model is a little weird, it should be pay to use with on and off peak hours the same as other utilities, and throttling should be seen as a major failure that needs immediate attention.

[–] Buttons@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

Throttling everyone equally during times of congestion is also fair in its own way. I'd be okay with that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)