Internet Users Ask FCC To Ban Data Caps (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0175311311
- News link: https://politics.slashdot.org/story/24/10/23/209212/internet-users-ask-fcc-to-ban-data-caps
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/please-ban-data-caps-internet-users-tell-fcc/
> It's been just a week since US telecom regulators [1]announced a formal inquiry into broadband data caps, and the [2]docket is filling up with comments from users who say they shouldn't have to pay overage charges for using their Internet service. The docket has about 190 comments so far, nearly all from individual broadband customers.
>
> Federal Communications Commission dockets are usually populated with filings from telecom companies, advocacy groups, and other organizations, but some attract comments from individual users of telecom services. The data cap docket probably won't break any records given that the FCC has fielded many millions of comments on net neutrality, but it currently tops the agency's [3]list of most active proceedings based on the number of filings in the past 30 days.
"Data caps, especially by providers in markets with no competition, are nothing more than an arbitrary money grab by greedy corporations. They limit and stifle innovation, cause undue stress, and are unnecessary," [4]wrote Lucas Landreth.
"Data caps are as outmoded as long distance telephone fees," [5]wrote Joseph Wilkicki. "At every turn, telecommunications companies seek to extract more revenue from customers for a service that has rapidly become essential to modern life." Pointing to taxpayer subsidies provided to ISPs, Wilkicki wrote that large telecoms "have sought every opportunity to take those funds and not provide the expected broadband rollout that we paid for."
In response to Trump-appointed FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington's [6]coffee refill analogy , internet users "Jonathan Mnemonic" and James Carter [7]wrote , "Coffee is not, in fact, internet service." They added: "Cafes are not able to abuse monopolistic practices based on infrastructural strangleholds. To briefly set aside the niceties: the analogy is absurd, and it is borderline offensive to the discerning layperson."
[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/10/15/1922243/fcc-launches-formal-inquiry-into-why-broadband-data-caps-are-terrible
[2] https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/results?q=(proceedings.name:(%2223-199%22))
[3] https://www.fcc.gov/rulemaking/most-active-proceedings
[4] https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/1023429916741
[5] https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/1022422218200
[6] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/fcc-republican-opposes-regulation-of-data-caps-with-analogy-to-coffee-refills/
[7] https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/10162862104035
Fritz Post (Score:4, Funny)
I tried to make first post but I'd used up my data cap
Why the Elephant logo? (Score:3, Interesting)
what does this article have to do with the US Republican Party?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"what does this article have to do with the US Republican Party?"
TFS does refer to Trump-appointed FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington
One would assume that someone appointed by Trump would be a Republican.
Although not all Republicans support Trump these days...
Re: (Score:2)
I guess, seems tenuous to me though...
Re: (Score:1)
> Although not all Republicans support Trump these days
But, a growing number of Democrats do.
Throttle instead. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't like data caps, but at the very least traffic should be throttled if heavy users aren't being charged any more. I think my ISP does that instead of capping data and charging extra. My mobile carrier charges for traffic over the data cap, so I just don't use it for data.
The reality of oversubscription means that ISPs simply can't guarantee a high minimum bandwidth if every single user is using as much as they can simultaneously. This is true for POTS, the cell network, and ISPs. Networks are sized fo
Re: (Score:1)
My ISP lost a lawsuit over oversubscription. In short, stop porming insane speeds you cant deliver.
What?! (Score:2)
Banning data caps is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard...and there are a lot of dumb ideas out there on this interwebs thing. Caps can be a way to keep usage to reasonable levels in order to provide a reasonable level of service to all users. Let the providers and customers work it out in the market. Like with anything else they'll be smarter than central planners.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
"Caps can be a way to keep usage to reasonable levels in order to provide a reasonable level of service to all users."
Or, you know, maybe ISPs could quit oversubscribing their networks and use that 200 billion in tax breaks from 1996 to actually do what they were fucking supposed to do.
You corporate bootlicking shill.
Re: (Score:2)
> maybe ISPs could quit oversubscribing their networks
That would cost more. You're welcome to ask your ISP for such a subscription (ask for enterprise connection pricing)...but most people want to pay less than that so oversubscription is the deal. Forbidding caps in the context of necessary oversubscription is just asking to subsidize the heaviest users who will negatively impact your experience. Pick your poison carefully.
Re: (Score:3)
> You corporate bootlicking shill.
What a logical, well-reasoned, and persuasive argument.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't have an obvious taste for leather, you wouldn't have had to hear about the disdain for your proclivities.
Data caps are wholly unnecessary. Throttle users to something reasonable at all times, and provide enough bandwidth for typical use. Remember, these corporations are utilizing public land, public frequencies, or both to "provide" "service" to customers. There is literally no reason why these legal fictions which exist only on paper should be permitted to shaft users with our resources.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had a metered broadband connection but the TOS includes the ability for the ISP to tweak things if I was using the full bandwidth 24/7. It is an obnoxious thing to worry about these days.
What are data caps ? (Score:3)
Not seen these or data shaping, port blocking etc etc for probably 20 years now.
My unlimited 900/600Gb with a fixed IP costs me US$48 a month (including taxes)
I run my own servers, I have backed up 20TB one month with zero issues.
Own my own modem
I also have access to about 20 ISPs and if I want to pay more I can move up to 4Tb
Re: (Score:2)
LULz, you aren't getting 900Gb for $48. But your entire brag is just sad. No one cares.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, it should have been MB, typo, my mistake, apologies.
But as for caring... you did otherwise you would not have replied.
But as far as broadband is concerned, the USA is not great, other countries do it far better, far cheaper.
Re: (Score:1)
Because fiber doesn't have the same bottleneck old copper did. But we still very much see this in the mobile space. Mobile providers promise insane speed but in reality, can't offer it up if people use it.
Comcast makes you pay more for your equipment to h (Score:3)
Comcast makes you pay more for your equipment to have umlimted vs renting from comcast with umlimted
Re: (Score:1)
Because Comcast is trash. I would have Starlink before them.
Data bloat (Score:2)
Websites, services, and apps are generally getting more bloated, not less. So that means people are getting less and less value from their data plans as time goes on. Trying to tell these websites and services to stop bloating everything to hell and stop wasting ungodly amounts of data is as effective as walking out into a field and shouting at the moon, so the only thing to do is raise or eliminate the caps altogether. In other words "Prices for everything continue to skyrocket, but our paychecks are still
What about synchronus connections? (Score:1)
Comcast won't allow me a synchronous connection at my home. They only do this crap because there is no one else that offers even the speeds they have at my home. The only reason you get a upload increase is when other companies get close to them and start to threaten their monopoly.
Re: (Score:1)
> Why should a low income person who only uses the internet for work, job searches and the like need to pay as much as a wealthy person who streams high-def content to their high bandwidth displays? Why not charge by data use so the wealthy pay more?
First off, the person who only uses the internet “for work” (or even mostly), should be getting most or all of that cost reimbursed by their employer. It implies that internet service is primarily used in support of an employer.
That said, I feel making the low-income struggling student who’s busy streaming their degree into their brain “pay more” than the rich retiree audiobook fan hardly using any data by comparison. (See how easy it is to assume wrongly when only looking at
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Why should anyone pay more than anyone else when the costs to the ISP are the same regardless of how much bandwidth you use?
Details matter. NOT zero additional cost to use. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know what the cost structure is, but your internet provider needs to eventually negotiate with a 'backbone' provider who connects everybody else (like Level 3). They have 'peering agreements' that say how much everything costs when data is sent/received.
Additional use by one person shouldn't be crazy more expensive to an ISP, but it might not be a rounding error either (less than a penny).