419
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bitwolf@lemmy.one 7 points 11 hours ago

Data caps would be fine if they weren't colluding a monopoly.

Then everyone could freely switch to providers offering unlimited.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 6 points 12 hours ago

Ironically, he picked a metaphor that doesn't support his point at all

If you go to a Starbucks, it's like you're buying a set amount of data. You don't expect unlimited refills, because that's not how the transaction works - you buy the coffee by volume. It's yours with no strings attached

If you go to a restaurant, you buy access to coffee. I do expect unlimited coffee, I would be livid if they charged by the cup. However, you do not get to expect to take any coffee with you - you're using their "infrastructure" to hold your coffee, and you don't get to walk out with the cup. You don't get to share it with the restaurant or the table - you're burying a personal "subscription" to coffee for the duration of your stay

Coffee, like data, is effectively free at a restaurant. They must pay for the infrastructure, but after that each additional pot only costs a few cents. They must make at least 1 pot a day, and a human can't safely drink more than a couple pots in a day (which is an obscene amount only the heaviest caffeine addicts could tolerate). You get it one small cup at a time, if you bought a second cup you could double the rate of coffee delivery... They might even just give it to you for free, because it costs them so little and they want you to come back

You purchase access to coffee for a time, or you purchase coffee by volume. They shouldn't be allowed to charge for both - maybe if you've drank 14 cups and others want coffee, they should be given priority during lunch rush as the rate of coffee production is limited by infrastructure

It's actually a pretty decent metaphor, it just doesn't support his argument at all

[-] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 12 hours ago

I completely disagree that it is a decent metaphor. Unlike coffee, internet data usage is entirely nebulous to mostly everyone outside of the tech sphere. The metaphor serves as a way of misrepresenting a widespread ignorance for a fundamental understanding.

If we wanted a decent metaphor we'd have to compare data usage to something like health insurance. Well you see, you pay for your rate of coverage at these visits per year but also have to pay your deductible that might or might not be used off routine...

In the end if we want to simplify internet expense it is this: ISPs charge way more than they need to and search for ways to charge more to maximize profits without improving service.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 4 hours ago

The problem with health insurance as a metaphor is they have real costs... The insurance company does pay out real money every time you use your policy, and that makes it easy to muddy the issue

Let's take the coffee metaphor further. They say "you can drink up to 400ml of coffee, past that we'll add an extra fee. But don't worry, no one does that". Then they refill your coffee without saying a word, they won't tell you how much you've used unless you ask, and they won't stop refilling it unless you tell them not to

The reason the coffee metaphor is great is because, while it's a real thing, it costs them basically nothing. Just like the extra electricity to send your data costs basically nothing

The cost is the number of coffee pots, the labor, the restaurant - all things that don't change in cost no matter how much coffee you drink

Coffee works because the nature of the transaction is the same

[-] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

ISPs have real costs too

[-] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago

I think its like any other utility (water or electricity or methane) except that you pay for the generation separately. So imagine that for electricity you pay a service fee to the grid operator to keep your connection capable of a certain amperage, and you separately pay the hydroelectric dam for the power you use.

ISPs are the grid operator saying, yes you pay for 200 amp service but you've already bought enough power this month. Don't run your AC for the rest of the month.

[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

Access to data is a human right. Should be managed as utility or public service like the library and not for profit.

[-] _core@sh.itjust.works 56 points 1 day ago

The pandemic exposed the lie that ISPs need to cap data because of infrastructure limitations. We all went to WFH with no issues on the infrastructure.

[-] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 91 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You have data caps on your broadband connections in the US? Does your phones have rotary dials too?

$190 bucks a month for a limitless connection is insane. I'm too cheap to pay 30€ a month for unlimited fibre connection so I use 4G router which gives me around 40Mbps unlimited connection and it costs me 10€ a month.

[-] poke@sh.itjust.works 4 points 19 hours ago

I want what you have so badly, I hate our ISPs

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 17 hours ago

I pay double what I did in the city for half the speed, but thank fuck I've got no data caps or I'd not have moved here, and I've made a decent Internet plan a hard requirement on ever moving

The 6 TB of torrents I've uploaded in the last month appreciate it, I'm sure

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 63 points 1 day ago

It is insane. Even worse is we (taxpayers) gave them money to improve infrastructure and they put it in their pockets instead.

[-] Doom@ttrpg.network 35 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

And also you know we INVENTED THE INTERNET AND PAID FOR THEIR CABLES.

What the fuck do they even do? Sell data? Like this should just be a section of the government but everyone is obsessed with the private sector holding shit

[-] nomous@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago

Yes yes because any time the government does something to help individuals instead of business it's SoCiALiSm.

[-] hightrix@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

That seems like some one off or a rural connection.

I work with a large remote team across the US. Most people on my team have gig internet, some get slower 100 meg internet. Mine is gig, I pay $60/mo and have no data cap.

[-] MacAttak8@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A lot of plans do. Especially with the major telecom networks like ATT and Verizon.

Recently had a smaller company come in and install fiber. $85/mo for Gigabit service with no data cap. That’s pretty good compared to what I was paying. ATT only offered 500Mb/s and that was over $110 a month with a data cap, I want to say 800GB.

Do not get reliable enough cell coverage for one of those mobile routers. But they aren’t any cheaper here since those are owned by the major telecoms.

[-] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

yeah funny enough, this is more of a recent thing. it's still spreading at the moment. isps over here just kind of got it in their head that they could make extra money with this one day.

[-] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago

What an ass backwards take

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 68 points 1 day ago

Every place with free coffee refills knows there's a reasonable upper limit to what one person can consume.

And if they exceed it, it's coffee. It's dirt cheap (just like landline data)

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 224 points 2 days ago

None of this would be a problem if the government didn't sell us out for what we already paid for and allowed these vultures into the system. It should have be national from the start. It costs them about nothing to have data run through those lines. All those caps exist purely to garner profit.

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

There's a better idea really. Let the government not take money from the budget on infrastructure. Let it not give that money to companies, whatever the conditions.

Let it just fine to the ground those ISPs who prevent competition in their areas.

You know, sometimes you only need a gun and can do without that kind word.

It's a profitable business, so if competitive environment is created, there will be infrastructural improvements.

It's not government's job to directly finance private businesses.

[-] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 19 points 1 day ago

Mostly correct take IMO. I don't blame ISPs for trying. I blame government (and not necessarily just federal) regulations/regulators for allowing it.

I grew up in NY. We paid a boatload in taxes to make fiber happen everywhere. IT. NEVER. HAPPENED.

NY is strongly Democrat. Acting like Republicans are solely the problem is asinine, and nothing stops states from enacting their own laws within the state. If California and NY made it happen. Guess what would basically happen throughout the whole country?

[-] Cyteseer@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

I would just say, I do blame ISP's for trying. It's unethical to try and squeeze every cent out of your customers, community and country. It's never just "business". Businesses are operated by people while exploiting people. It's not a cold hearted machine doing the thinking, it's normal people making these unethical decisions.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah point to me where I said this was the fault of the Rubes? Because I didn't say that. This was a joint captilistic operation to severe untold amounts of wealth from the working class. You paid all them taxes and nothing happened because the ISPs decides to pocket the public funds instead of doing anything and the government let them.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 97 points 2 days ago

Yeah sure, then why is it that my entire bare metal server leased from OVH costs less than my Internet connection, and is fully unmetered access too.

I pay for a data rate and I should be able to use the full amount as I please. If we paid for the amount of data then why are we advertising speeds and paying for speeds?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works 49 points 2 days ago

The internet is not a ~~truck~~ Waffle House carafe.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Right. Everyone knows it’s a series of tubes! You’d think his fellow republicans would have explained this to him.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago

If there was a government-mandated monopoly on coffee and it was sold in L/s, we probably would.

[-] droopy4096@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago

funny that nobody argued opposite: all the new services are primarily streaming/hosted and otherwise "not here". New crop of tech solutions requires crap-ton of bandwidth. So caps prevent those companies from doing ripping off customers in other areas. How un-Republican is that? They are getting in the way of enterprises making a living! So the most Republican thing to do would be to let foxes watch the henhouse. Ask ISPs to regulate themselves so that "everybody"'s (and I mean every enterprise) happy. In other words getting in the way of this proposal is very much just "polid'ticking" trying to undo what dems are doing regardless whether it's actually a conservative thing to do or not.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
419 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

58737 readers
4093 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS