The FCC wants to regulate broadband data caps again(theverge.com)
theverge.com
The FCC wants to regulate broadband data caps again
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/20/23767094/fcc-investigation-internet-data-caps-net-neutrality
81 comments
The biggest problem for me is that Comcast does shitty things with the devices that they provide to customers. The CPE Comcast gives with their highest XFinity plan comes with "unlimited data", but if you refuse the device they charge an additional $30/mo to get "unlimited data", because they use the CPE to enforce customer-hostile QoS and throttling to negatively impact throughput and performance. When you use your own equipment you aren't impacted in the same way by this (with some exceptions, which you can workaround). The $30/mo fee is really just a "fuck you" from Comcast to try to get you to give up or abandon the idea, but is completely meaningless from a revenue perspective.
Comcast's problem isn't that they can't afford to provide the service you paid for without the caps, it's that they're oversubscribing their backbone so heavily that they would never be able to do it from a technical perspective. The reality is most people don't hit that cap, so the cap is actually meaningless and does nothing for large consumers. It's just a consumer-hostile practice, where Comcast is trying to take ten miles where they were given an inch. This FCC is just going to codify it though, the FCC has been in the pocket of one provider or another for the last 15 years at least.
Comcast's problem isn't that they can't afford to provide the service you paid for without the caps, it's that they're oversubscribing their backbone so heavily that they would never be able to do it from a technical perspective. The reality is most people don't hit that cap, so the cap is actually meaningless and does nothing for large consumers. It's just a consumer-hostile practice, where Comcast is trying to take ten miles where they were given an inch. This FCC is just going to codify it though, the FCC has been in the pocket of one provider or another for the last 15 years at least.
That's not how QoS works on a DOCSIS network. DOCSIS QOS is controlled via the DOCSIS config file and is applied to any cable modem, it is part of the standard that all cable modems - so any QOS that would be applied to Comcast supplied modem would also be applied to a customer provided modem.
I don't have any specific knowledge of how Comcast does or doesn't do throttling on their network but it is very unlikely that is happening via the CPE. They may be doing some QOS via PCMM (PacketCable MultiMedia) but that is often used to manage congestion on the cable network and not the backhaul/transport side.
I don't have any specific knowledge of how Comcast does or doesn't do throttling on their network but it is very unlikely that is happening via the CPE. They may be doing some QOS via PCMM (PacketCable MultiMedia) but that is often used to manage congestion on the cable network and not the backhaul/transport side.
You're correct that there is also DOCSIS QOS being performed and this happens regardless of who supplied the modem, this affects traffic between the modem and the head-end, but past the head-end traffic is shaped using other techniques. QoS is protocol specific, and based on the behavior I've observed I believe they are doing application classification and doing IP QoS on the CPE in addition to any DOCSIS QoS applied regardless. I'm a little rusty on my understanding of the DOCSIS specs, but this is a L2 protocol and QoS applied here isn't based on application classification, AFAIK.
Any proof of that? Especially 'customer-hostile QoS'. I don't like the monopolies like the other guy, but QoS/CoS has very technical meaning and this is a technical forum.
"Customer-hostile QoS" really only has one possible meaning. They de-prioritize your data after some threshold.
The extra $30/month would be for "actually unlimited" since removing the QoS means you never get de-prioritized. This might be better than the alternative where there is no $30/month service but all data defaults to the lowest priority and you need the extra device to get reasonable performance when the network is busy. But then one wonders why someone couldn't just set up their home router to tag all packets at the highest priority, why do they need this device in the consumer's home at all instead of doing it in the CO?
The extra $30/month would be for "actually unlimited" since removing the QoS means you never get de-prioritized. This might be better than the alternative where there is no $30/month service but all data defaults to the lowest priority and you need the extra device to get reasonable performance when the network is busy. But then one wonders why someone couldn't just set up their home router to tag all packets at the highest priority, why do they need this device in the consumer's home at all instead of doing it in the CO?
They ignore QoS tagging from non-Comcast devices, FYI. I've tried that trick of tagging all my traffic as DSCP 30 (Flash High), and it gets reset to 0 (Best Effort) as soon as it crosses the head-end. This is unfortunately also commonplace for providers and an annoyance to businesses in our new post-pandemic world where they need to appropriate tag collab/voip traffic and it gets reset along the way. Lumen (formerly Level 3) often resets to best effort as soon as you cross into their transit edge from your ISP. These values often do not get carried across peering relationships. QoS across the Internet is not guaranteed.
In the case I'm talking about, it really only matters how Comcast's network treats their direct customers, not how you get treated after, and they absolutely ignore customer QoS (at least on residential links).
In the case I'm talking about, it really only matters how Comcast's network treats their direct customers, not how you get treated after, and they absolutely ignore customer QoS (at least on residential links).
That makes me wonder how it can distinguish between a Comcast and non-Comcast device on the network. If this were built into the Cable Modem it would be reasonably doable, but if it's a separate box entirely I'm not sure.
The CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) /is/ the cable modem, as well as a WiFi router. Another thing it does is provide an authenticated SSID for WiFi that is available to other Comcast customers and utilized to boost coverage for Comcast's mobile offerings, via built-in WiFi profiles. The basic understanding I have is that you get free "unlimited" with the Comcast CPE, because they got sued and lost due to the provided authenticated WiFi being used by other customers to utilized what would otherwise be part of your data cap, so they had to lift the cap when they provided the equipment. Since your own equipment doesn't provide the Xfinity WiFi SSID, you must pay to lift the cap.
I did a quick search and couldn't find what I was looking for, but it looks like in 12 states they were prevented until 2022 for enforcing the data cap, and there's a pending class action suit in California related to the WiFi impact on data caps: https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news...
Anyway, that's my understanding. The net-net is I coughed up the $30/mo because I have no alternatives to Comcast (even at lower speeds) because my landlord has an exclusivity contract with them, and I don't want their shit-tier CPE anyway, especially throttling my traffic and broadcasting a WiFi SSID I don't control. My entire network is proper SME enterprise-grade rackmount gear and I have WiFi 6E throughout my house that is secured to only allow devices I control/allow to connect.
I did a quick search and couldn't find what I was looking for, but it looks like in 12 states they were prevented until 2022 for enforcing the data cap, and there's a pending class action suit in California related to the WiFi impact on data caps: https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news...
Anyway, that's my understanding. The net-net is I coughed up the $30/mo because I have no alternatives to Comcast (even at lower speeds) because my landlord has an exclusivity contract with them, and I don't want their shit-tier CPE anyway, especially throttling my traffic and broadcasting a WiFi SSID I don't control. My entire network is proper SME enterprise-grade rackmount gear and I have WiFi 6E throughout my house that is secured to only allow devices I control/allow to connect.
Take the Comcast CPE, put wifi router in small faraday cage or open it up and unplug the antennas?
Most of Silicon Valley is in the clutches of Comcast as well, unfortunately. It's 1.2gbps down / 35mbit up or ATT 768K DSL (and we'd have to pay to get phone lines) where I'm at. Of course, if you check the FCC Broadband Map, there are 7 providers here, with ATT showing 5gbps FTTH, which I've confirmed with their reps multiple times is not possible (there's no fiber on the poles in our backyard and they won't install any anytime soon).
Apartments I've lived in around SV as well are also under the Comcast exclusive contract, with restrictions on any antennas or dishes, so the only other choice would be tethering an LTE or 5G device.
We sold out the critical infrastructure of our country to investors and this is the result.
Most of Silicon Valley is in the clutches of Comcast as well, unfortunately. It's 1.2gbps down / 35mbit up or ATT 768K DSL (and we'd have to pay to get phone lines) where I'm at. Of course, if you check the FCC Broadband Map, there are 7 providers here, with ATT showing 5gbps FTTH, which I've confirmed with their reps multiple times is not possible (there's no fiber on the poles in our backyard and they won't install any anytime soon).
Apartments I've lived in around SV as well are also under the Comcast exclusive contract, with restrictions on any antennas or dishes, so the only other choice would be tethering an LTE or 5G device.
We sold out the critical infrastructure of our country to investors and this is the result.
So correct me if I've misunderstood, but you originally said "customer hostile QoS" which would imply traffic shaping being done on the CPE router, say perhaps with the goal of decongesting the cable segment. This comment you've seemed to walk it back saying the problem with their CPE is that it facilitates service to other customers. If that second thing is really the only problem, then couldn't you just stick their CPE in a Faraday cage and/or unplug its antennas?
Also if they are doing traffic shaping, where does the default unclassifiable (eg VPN) traffic fall? It should be easy enough to get an unlimited VPS at a close enough data center and relegate Comcast to a dumb pipe (as they should be).
Also if they are doing traffic shaping, where does the default unclassifiable (eg VPN) traffic fall? It should be easy enough to get an unlimited VPS at a close enough data center and relegate Comcast to a dumb pipe (as they should be).
I haven't walked anything back, thank you. There's more than one bad thing Comcast does to their customers, we haven't got close to enumerating the full list. The two issues with the CPE are orthogonal to one another. Whether or not they lift the cap, they still perform traffic shaping when using their CPE (they also perform shaping /without/ their CPE, but it's much cruder).
Sorry, I missed that you addressed the request for details in another branch. I was hoping to see a description of what their CPE was actually doing - metadata-based traffic shaping, throttling after a certain amount of usage, too small NAT table like ATT routers were famous for, just underpowered performance, or what. But now I understand you just investigated enough for your own purposes.
FWIW I think the DiffServ RFC explicitly acknowledges that the QoS marks are generally ignored across administrative boundaries. It was an extension of the earlier 4-level QoS priority, so by that time it was clear that transit networks weren't paying them much attention. What would be surprising is finding a consumer ISP that actually did something different when a customer set them.
FWIW I think the DiffServ RFC explicitly acknowledges that the QoS marks are generally ignored across administrative boundaries. It was an extension of the earlier 4-level QoS priority, so by that time it was clear that transit networks weren't paying them much attention. What would be surprising is finding a consumer ISP that actually did something different when a customer set them.
I don't think it does sophisticated traffic classification. It's just a way for Comcast to say "you've used more than 10GB of traffic this month, all of your packets get sent down to the best effort Thunderdome until the next billing cycle".
That conflicts with OP's description saying their Steam downloads were 20% slower, which presumably was tested before hitting any soft transfer cap.
I'd guess the goal of traffic shaping on CPE would be to keep upload bandwidth on the cable segments less congested. Or perhaps conntrack is easier to do in a distributed manner?
I'd guess the goal of traffic shaping on CPE would be to keep upload bandwidth on the cable segments less congested. Or perhaps conntrack is easier to do in a distributed manner?
I wonder how Hulu streaming traffic is QoS'd on Comcast. Someone should check that out and file a lawsuit.
I don't have any proof I can share, as I only had the box provided by them for a month prior to ponying up the $30/mo fee to run my own equipment w/ unlimited and that was over a year ago. I'm well aware of the technical meaning of QoS. My specific claim is that Comcast uses their provided CPE to de-prioritize traffic which is throughput heavy like downloads of updates/games via Xbox Live, Steam, etc and to prioritize traffic which is most noticeable to users (Netflix, VOIP) and they implement throttling. You could argue that this is perfectly reasonable and what you would expect from network behavior anyway, but I see it as customer-hostile because I pay for a certain amount of throughput to be available to me and I want the ISP to act as a dumb pipe and leave it up to me to make these types of decisions, and not to have traffic de-prioritized or throttled at their whim. I had a 20% increase in average throughput downloading games via Steam using my own equipment vs the Comcast provided equipment with no other changes, as an example of the direct impacts. The purpose for Comcast doing this is network management on their part, they heavily oversubscribe their service and use network management techniques to apportion available throughput in whatever way is most advantageous to Comcast.
You can make whatever argument you want that Comcast's behavior is reasonable and necessary or that this isn't consumer-hostile. You won't convince me. I pay for gigabit connectivity, I should get gigabit connectivity. If they can't offer gigabit connectivity, they shouldn't offer it, rather than lying to me and then penalizing my traffic. It's that simple. Companies can't take a product to market they're incapable of actually offering and then act like it's the customer's fault, it's fraud. Nearly every residential ISP in the US behaves in these ways, it's not unique to Comcast, and it's not aligned to what is promised and offered in their advertising/contracts.
You can make whatever argument you want that Comcast's behavior is reasonable and necessary or that this isn't consumer-hostile. You won't convince me. I pay for gigabit connectivity, I should get gigabit connectivity. If they can't offer gigabit connectivity, they shouldn't offer it, rather than lying to me and then penalizing my traffic. It's that simple. Companies can't take a product to market they're incapable of actually offering and then act like it's the customer's fault, it's fraud. Nearly every residential ISP in the US behaves in these ways, it's not unique to Comcast, and it's not aligned to what is promised and offered in their advertising/contracts.
It is not just an issue of deceptive marketing. If the FCC intervenes minimally and just mandates a data cap disclosure (that most won’t read), you will still be stuck with a cap.
You're right, and I agree. I wouldn't consider such a disclosure requirement to be make it no longer deceptive. They might just enshrine the deception into law. Like how all the spam in my inbox is (or at least masquerades as) CAN-SPAM act compliant junkmail. Following the law doesn't make it not-spam to anyone but the advertisers that were able to get a favorable legal definition.
Yes, it's an issue of price gouging as well. If a basic plan is say 10TB/mo for $100, then overages shouldn't be allowed to be greater than $10/TB. In general plans should have to be a linear (or sublinear) combination of connection fee and data used.
(Not that I have a dog in this fight. Municipal fiber ftfw. Unless you live somewhere that already has 3+ competing providers, the only question you should be asking is "what will it take?")
(Not that I have a dog in this fight. Municipal fiber ftfw. Unless you live somewhere that already has 3+ competing providers, the only question you should be asking is "what will it take?")
It’s yet another good reason to make sure you are using an ad-blocker. Don’t waste your limited bandwidth on ads!
The bigger issue is lack of competition. I lived in an area with multiple services. AT&T gave me a $50 1G symmetrical plan, no cap. Had a friend about 5 min drive away, pays $60 for a 200/10 Concast plan with a 1T cap because that’s all the community offers. Are there abusers in the system? Yes. Is it the reason why there’s a data cap? No.
Not abusers. People who use the service. Using your bandwidth that you paid for is not abuse. Just because some people can't think of a way to use up "all that bandwidth" doesn't mean that using it is actually abuse.
Data caps are largely a scam... they could easily QoS or otherwise throttle their heavy users at times where total bandwidth is exhausted without creating a total cap, or overuse charges, or throttling the rest of the month.
> The bigger issue is lack of competition.
Agreed, I rent currently and the landlord has a deal with Comcast, so that's the only option. There are no alternatives. This is a commonplace practice for corporately owned rentals, which is like 70% of the US rental market.
Compare this to my situation prior to my recentish relocation, where I had the ability to negotiate with multiple providers and was able to get two separate links dropped to provide myself redundancy/backup and maintain a negotiating position on price. Now I'm just over the barrel with one of the most consumer-hostile ISPs in the world.
Agreed, I rent currently and the landlord has a deal with Comcast, so that's the only option. There are no alternatives. This is a commonplace practice for corporately owned rentals, which is like 70% of the US rental market.
Compare this to my situation prior to my recentish relocation, where I had the ability to negotiate with multiple providers and was able to get two separate links dropped to provide myself redundancy/backup and maintain a negotiating position on price. Now I'm just over the barrel with one of the most consumer-hostile ISPs in the world.
[deleted]
> In the case of AT&T, pricing can start at $55 per month for a 25Gbps plan ... Cox internet is similar, with plans starting at $50 per month for a 100Gbps or 200Gbps plan...
I absolutely refuse to believe those speeds are offered at those prices. Otherwise, I'm getting totally ripped off.
I absolutely refuse to believe those speeds are offered at those prices. Otherwise, I'm getting totally ripped off.
It's almost certainly a typo for Mbps. 100Mbps and 200Mbps are common broadband offerings in the US. Rates in excess of 1Gbps are not -- certainly not 100Gbps. No consumer is going to have the expensive hardware required to terminate 100Gbps, much less utilize it, and there's no way in hell it would only cost $50/mo. 100Gbps+ is not even prevalent inside data centers; it's just super expensive and many applications don't need that kind of throughput.
Just want to point out it's not that far out there to terminate 100gbps without breaking the bank these days. 1x Mellanox ConnectX-5 Dual Port 100GbE NIC ~$400 (single port ~$200), Brocade ICX6610/6650 ~$150/$600, then a hardware router (pricey) or server with routing software. VyOS is fine up to maybe 40gbps depending on hardware (not line rate), anything more would need something like VPP+FRR/VPP+DPDK/DANOS/TNSR.
More for homelab, but a road I would definitely go down if 100gbps service was available to me for $50/month.
More for homelab, but a road I would definitely go down if 100gbps service was available to me for $50/month.
10gbps is ~800k-15m packets/sec. https://www.netgate.com/blog/tnsr-home-lab has a blog post about using their product to do 40gbps for someone with a home 100gbps lab setup (that uses a $30k switch among other things). Not sure what your financial situation is like, but getting even 10gbps across NAT is going to be at least a few grand (Netgate's HW solution that claims to saturate 10gbps with any packet size is $4k + $1k/yr software subscription https://shop.netgate.com/products/1541-base-tnsr ) and not many places would even support transferring at that speed, so what's the point unless you've got many heavy users?
> so what's the point unless you've got many heavy users?
There isn't really a point except some people like to push the boundary for fun. Agreed it's not anywhere close to necessary for normal home users. But we don't always do things just because they're necessary :)
I mentioned VyOS won't handle line rate (it'll do ~5 Mpps on average hardware) but there are options like DANOS that will. 10 Gbps is do-able with < $1k in hardware, including the server.
VPP+FRR or VPP+DPDK can handle 100 Mpps/100 Gbps across NAT. And with the new Linux Control Plane in VPP, it's possible VyOS will get support in the future (https://vyos.dev/T1797). They're also considering using eXpress Data Path (XDP).
Again, totally pointless but so are many other things we spend our time/money on.
There isn't really a point except some people like to push the boundary for fun. Agreed it's not anywhere close to necessary for normal home users. But we don't always do things just because they're necessary :)
I mentioned VyOS won't handle line rate (it'll do ~5 Mpps on average hardware) but there are options like DANOS that will. 10 Gbps is do-able with < $1k in hardware, including the server.
VPP+FRR or VPP+DPDK can handle 100 Mpps/100 Gbps across NAT. And with the new Linux Control Plane in VPP, it's possible VyOS will get support in the future (https://vyos.dev/T1797). They're also considering using eXpress Data Path (XDP).
Again, totally pointless but so are many other things we spend our time/money on.
Yeah, that has to be someone not knowing what they are talking about and getting stuff confused... for example, in what world would 5Gbps upload speed be "teeny-tiny", while it would make sense to call it "teeny-tiny" if it's 5Mbps
> teeny-tiny 5Gbps upload speed
EDIT:
Also, checking Cox, they have the exact plans the article mentions, but in Mbps not Gbps.
> teeny-tiny 5Gbps upload speed
EDIT:
Also, checking Cox, they have the exact plans the article mentions, but in Mbps not Gbps.
Lol 100% it's a typo and it should be Mbps and not Gbps throughout the article.
Sloppy reporting. The full sentence for context:
> In the case of AT&T, pricing can start at $55 per month for a 25Gbps plan before going up to $65 per month or more after a year, and the company will charge $10 for every extra 50GB you use (unless you upgrade to unlimited for $30 per month or have a plan that’s already unlimited).
Links to https://www.att.com/internet/internet-service-plans/
The pricing can start at $55 per month for a 25Gbps plan is clearly a reference to the "Internet 25" plan which is 25Mbps (not Gbps).
There's a footnote on the price for the Internet 25, 50, and 100 plans indicating the data cap: "Incl. 1.5TB data/mo., overage charges apply." There's also "See offer details" link with this pop-up:
https://imgur.com/a/mZBetsA
It links to https://www.att.com/help/internet/usage/ for info on data allowances. Internet 25 and Internet 50 have a 1.5TB allowance, but Internet 100 is unlimited. All of the AT&T Fiber plans are also unlimited data.
I don't know why anyone would choose Internet 25 or Internet 50 over Internet 100 since all three are the same price, so it must be an availability issue.
It's also weird to me that AT&T would price all three of these plans the same and apply a data cap only to the slower speed plans. I wonder if it indicates is more expensive for them to provide the lower tier plans for some reason?
Disclosure: I've had AT&T Gigabit Fiber since Jan 2017. It's $70/month (total) which has included HBO Max as a freebee for several years now. No data cap. It's the best residential Internet service I've ever had, by far.
> In the case of AT&T, pricing can start at $55 per month for a 25Gbps plan before going up to $65 per month or more after a year, and the company will charge $10 for every extra 50GB you use (unless you upgrade to unlimited for $30 per month or have a plan that’s already unlimited).
Links to https://www.att.com/internet/internet-service-plans/
The pricing can start at $55 per month for a 25Gbps plan is clearly a reference to the "Internet 25" plan which is 25Mbps (not Gbps).
There's a footnote on the price for the Internet 25, 50, and 100 plans indicating the data cap: "Incl. 1.5TB data/mo., overage charges apply." There's also "See offer details" link with this pop-up:
https://imgur.com/a/mZBetsA
It links to https://www.att.com/help/internet/usage/ for info on data allowances. Internet 25 and Internet 50 have a 1.5TB allowance, but Internet 100 is unlimited. All of the AT&T Fiber plans are also unlimited data.
I don't know why anyone would choose Internet 25 or Internet 50 over Internet 100 since all three are the same price, so it must be an availability issue.
It's also weird to me that AT&T would price all three of these plans the same and apply a data cap only to the slower speed plans. I wonder if it indicates is more expensive for them to provide the lower tier plans for some reason?
Disclosure: I've had AT&T Gigabit Fiber since Jan 2017. It's $70/month (total) which has included HBO Max as a freebee for several years now. No data cap. It's the best residential Internet service I've ever had, by far.
Too bad AT&T is the world’s slowest to actually build out fiber. They advertise it to me on Facebook daily (too many dollars allocated to the marketing budget apparently), but they haven’t bothered to actually build it out. I’ve lived in their footprint all my life and they’ve never delivered FttP to anywhere I’ve lived. In many different cities and counties.
Google Fiber has been advertising to me since 2015. I have the T-shirt to prove it:
https://twitter.com/googlefiber/status/628651613637361665
They finally trenched my neighborhood six months ago, a full six years after AT&T. But I still can't order service.
https://twitter.com/googlefiber/status/628651613637361665
They finally trenched my neighborhood six months ago, a full six years after AT&T. But I still can't order service.
They're only 3 orders of magnitude off. Give them a break.
I suspect that, as typical for ISPs, those are "up to" speeds they can set their throttling limits at. Possibly achievable under ideal conditions between you and your neighbor's house. Look up how much 100G NICs cost and the rest of the equipment required to reach those speeds, and it's clear that the vast majority of people using these plans are unlikely to ever get close to that limit.
I absolutely refuse to believe those speeds are offered at those prices. Otherwise, I'm getting totally ripped off.
Yeah, someone definitely didn't sanity check the units on those speeds. Especially the reference to the "...with a teeny-tiny 5Gbps upload speed" which is more than twice as fast as the fastest (2Gbps) plan that my local fiber company offers.
Yeah, someone definitely didn't sanity check the units on those speeds. Especially the reference to the "...with a teeny-tiny 5Gbps upload speed" which is more than twice as fast as the fastest (2Gbps) plan that my local fiber company offers.
I think the article might've switched out the M for a G.
Most home equipment, even the computers themselves, can't handle those speeds. Unless they're moving into the ultralow cost home data center segment, it's probably a mistake lol...
Most home equipment, even the computers themselves, can't handle those speeds. Unless they're moving into the ultralow cost home data center segment, it's probably a mistake lol...
If you don't switch provider yearly, you are almost certainly getting ripped off.
I was paying less than $55/month for 25mbps with Comcast.
I was paying less than $55/month for 25mbps with Comcast.
> $55 per month for a 25Gbps plan
> I was paying less than $55/month for 25mbps with Comcast
The Comcast plan is ~1000x slower than the AT&T plan cited, FWIW I was not able to locate the 25Gbps plan on the linked AT&T site so likely a typo.
> I was paying less than $55/month for 25mbps with Comcast
The Comcast plan is ~1000x slower than the AT&T plan cited, FWIW I was not able to locate the 25Gbps plan on the linked AT&T site so likely a typo.
Screw the 25Gbps plan, I want that 200Gbps plan. That's 200 times fast than my current fiber connection.
Oops, I mistaken the G for a M... Thanks.
Yeah, that would be extremely cheap then, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Yeah, that would be extremely cheap then, but I'll believe it when I see it.
The parent comment said 25Gbps not Mbps
More than likely a mistake in the article
Centurylink 100/10 mbps price for life @ $33/month. Golden handcuffs, I want faster but can't justify paying 3x the price.
Drop the "ps" abbreviation/suffix off of those, so they become data cap measurements?
They finally fixed the article. Of course they meant Mbps and not Gbps.
Data caps are the biggest rip off and just a way for ISPs to extract extra revenue from customers that don't have a choices. I live in a newer community that has 2 providers that offer 1Gbps service. Neither has a data cap.
My parents live 5 minutes away in a slightly older community that only has 1 high speed provider, and another provider that maxes out at 15Mbps. They have a data cap of 1TB/month, despite the ISP offering 1Gbps service. They then offer Unlimited Data for an extra $50/month.
Consuming 1TB/month is pretty easy to do if you do any gaming/streaming. Most games these days easily consume 50-100GB to download and install.
My parents live 5 minutes away in a slightly older community that only has 1 high speed provider, and another provider that maxes out at 15Mbps. They have a data cap of 1TB/month, despite the ISP offering 1Gbps service. They then offer Unlimited Data for an extra $50/month.
Consuming 1TB/month is pretty easy to do if you do any gaming/streaming. Most games these days easily consume 50-100GB to download and install.
50$ for unmetered 1Gbps is 0.000147964$ per Gigabyte. AWS charges like 0.02$ per Gigabyte or 6758$ per Gbps. Somehow people think the later is justified while the first is the biggest ripp off. Can somebody explain this to me?
I don't think anyone thinks AWS pricing is justified and in fact many complain about it, but AWS is a behemoth and if you want to reach your customers, you're going to spend money with them.
With AWS you get charged on consumption only. If you consume 10GB of bandwidth, you get charged $0.20. With ISP's you pay $80-120 upfront for 1TB whether you use 10gb or 500gb, and then an extra $50 for unlimited on top of that. Why offer 1Gbps service, if your customers are not supposed to use it and would max out the data cap within a day of actually making use of the 1Gbps service?
With AWS you get charged on consumption only. If you consume 10GB of bandwidth, you get charged $0.20. With ISP's you pay $80-120 upfront for 1TB whether you use 10gb or 500gb, and then an extra $50 for unlimited on top of that. Why offer 1Gbps service, if your customers are not supposed to use it and would max out the data cap within a day of actually making use of the 1Gbps service?
I hate caps because they don't reflect the underlying reality of the way the backbone works. I run backups in the middle of the night when the lines are otherwise idle. This is also true of data plans for cell phones which have X GB of 5G data then unlimited 3G data.
Caps discourage people from using too much and making the network slow for everyone and/or very expensive to run. It'd be great if, instead, bandwidth was prioritized based on usage each month. So the really heavy users that cause problems for everyone else will run slowly during the day but still can be fast at night.
Ideally there would be a way to mark streams as low-priority in a way that didn't count against your quota, that could be used automatically by backup software and other cases.
Another possible system which seems fair to me would be to give each user a guaranteed 1/N of the bandwidth. If there's any unused, then split it equally among those that are using it. In practice an ISP needs to have enough capacity to support streaming during the peak hours, so that'd keep the 1/N value reasonable. For example, if a local ISP offers 1 gbps connections to 200 customers and has them sharing a 10 gbps upstream connection to the wider internet, each would have a guaranteed 50 mbps, with ability to burst to all 1 gbps most of the time. That's plenty fast for streaming from several devices per household. If someone needs faster guaranteed speed, they can pay extra for more bandwidth shares.
Caps discourage people from using too much and making the network slow for everyone and/or very expensive to run. It'd be great if, instead, bandwidth was prioritized based on usage each month. So the really heavy users that cause problems for everyone else will run slowly during the day but still can be fast at night.
Ideally there would be a way to mark streams as low-priority in a way that didn't count against your quota, that could be used automatically by backup software and other cases.
Another possible system which seems fair to me would be to give each user a guaranteed 1/N of the bandwidth. If there's any unused, then split it equally among those that are using it. In practice an ISP needs to have enough capacity to support streaming during the peak hours, so that'd keep the 1/N value reasonable. For example, if a local ISP offers 1 gbps connections to 200 customers and has them sharing a 10 gbps upstream connection to the wider internet, each would have a guaranteed 50 mbps, with ability to burst to all 1 gbps most of the time. That's plenty fast for streaming from several devices per household. If someone needs faster guaranteed speed, they can pay extra for more bandwidth shares.
> So the really heavy users that cause problems for everyone else will run slowly during the day but still can be fast at night.
If you do backups at night and send 50TB/month but only at times when the network would otherwise be idle, why should your connection be slower than anyone else's during the day? Likewise, even if you did send a lot of data during peak hours, what would be the point of throttling you at night when the network has capacity to spare?
It only make sense to throttle people during peak hours who send a lot of traffic during peak hours. But that's what already happens if you don't do anything, because the links get saturated during peak hours and people have to share them so the people who are using the network when it's saturated have slower speeds.
What they could do is sell a more expensive plan where you get prioritization during congestion. Then if you don't use the network during peak hours or don't care about it being slow at those times you can save money, and if you want your connection to be fast all the time you can pay more.
AFAICT the reason they don't do this is it requires admitting that their network is heavily oversubscribed and they're too cheap to upgrade it, which is kind of a PR fail.
If you do backups at night and send 50TB/month but only at times when the network would otherwise be idle, why should your connection be slower than anyone else's during the day? Likewise, even if you did send a lot of data during peak hours, what would be the point of throttling you at night when the network has capacity to spare?
It only make sense to throttle people during peak hours who send a lot of traffic during peak hours. But that's what already happens if you don't do anything, because the links get saturated during peak hours and people have to share them so the people who are using the network when it's saturated have slower speeds.
What they could do is sell a more expensive plan where you get prioritization during congestion. Then if you don't use the network during peak hours or don't care about it being slow at those times you can save money, and if you want your connection to be fast all the time you can pay more.
AFAICT the reason they don't do this is it requires admitting that their network is heavily oversubscribed and they're too cheap to upgrade it, which is kind of a PR fail.
An even simpler explanation for why they don't do this is because they don't need to. The vast majority of consumers likely don't know any better anyway, and even if they did, it's not like they have other viable options to switch to.
Doing that would make them money. They would charge the same amount they do now for what they provide now, but remove the data caps. This might cause some people to use the network more and increase congestion, creating a market for a higher-priced plan that puts all your traffic at the front of the line.
It would also both drive and pay for network upgrades, because the people paying the higher price would expect to get the full speed they were sold, so the ISP would have to keep the network at least fast enough to handle all of that traffic. And could afford to because they have more revenue.
Then the better network is faster even for the people paying the lower price at times outside of peak hours.
It would also both drive and pay for network upgrades, because the people paying the higher price would expect to get the full speed they were sold, so the ISP would have to keep the network at least fast enough to handle all of that traffic. And could afford to because they have more revenue.
Then the better network is faster even for the people paying the lower price at times outside of peak hours.
What is this? Article makes no sense, and the numbers must be 1000x the actual value. Classic The Verge.
Are datacaps normal on fibre in the US? I was first thinking it was mobile data. 1 Gbps 5G with 100 GB usage before the speed is reduced to 3 Mbps for the rest of the month is ~37 USD in Norway. As for fiber, ~100 USD is a normal price for 1 Gbps no matter how much data you use.
Are datacaps normal on fibre in the US? I was first thinking it was mobile data. 1 Gbps 5G with 100 GB usage before the speed is reduced to 3 Mbps for the rest of the month is ~37 USD in Norway. As for fiber, ~100 USD is a normal price for 1 Gbps no matter how much data you use.
Fiber usually has no data caps but is not as common as other ISPs. The article talks about companies that offer cable and DSL services which are the most common connection types in the US. Those will often times have data caps.
Fiber is rarely the only service, because just about everywhere that gets fiber also has DOCSIS due to the prevalence of cable TV. So it might be because of competition more than anything.
Since competition law is too toothless to do its job and ban data caps, FCC should step in.
> That could be difficult because the FCC is currently headed by a four-person board that has been politically deadlocked since President Joe Biden took office and Chair Ajit Pai stepped down. Biden’s nominee to replace Pai, Gigi Sohn, was never confirmed, leading her to withdraw her nomination earlier this year. Biden submitted telecommunications attorney Anna Gomez in her place — her first hearing is expected to take place in two days on June 22nd.
Well, until Congress decides to not kneecap every department in the government. We're kind of boned.
Well, until Congress decides to not kneecap every department in the government. We're kind of boned.
There are certainly many candidates that congress would approve. They are under no obligation to accept executive nominations they disapprove of. That's the point of senate approval!
If Biden considered it a crisis that the FCC has an open seat, he would look for a clearly palatable candidate.
If Biden considered it a crisis that the FCC has an open seat, he would look for a clearly palatable candidate.
https://www.theverge.com/23437518/biden-fcc-gigi-sohn-fox-ne... Rupert Murdoch & Co got scared that they'd somehow use the FCC to censor conservative speech so they ran a successful media campaign to slander her and used all their power to block her. The vote to confirm her never even made it to the Senate floor. Every day of FCC stalemate is another gift to companies that benefit from the huge lack of regulation in these sectors. It's just a shame that so many people now are convinced that this situation is fine (or they don't know / care and just go full team red on every issue) and that the critical infrastructure in this country should be entirely owned and operated by for-profit rent-seeking companies that collude in a race to the bottom.
That's great and I still don't care, the senate has the constitutional authority to block whoever it wants for any reason.
> Well, until Congress decides to not kneecap every department in the government
Checks and balances is called kneecapping these days? There is a reason the president doesn't have unlimited power over the executive branch.
Checks and balances is called kneecapping these days? There is a reason the president doesn't have unlimited power over the executive branch.
Well, I mean if you're all into getting nickeled and dimed using telecommunications services subsidized by the public; you do you I suppose.
ISPs have data caps? Didn't know that. I've been on 3gb mint mobile since 2016, never run out.
> I've been on 3gb mint mobile
...so you're on an ISP with a data cap. Not even a very high one.
...so you're on an ISP with a data cap. Not even a very high one.
I figured mobile = carrier and residential internet = ISP
You don't use enough data
my pihole blocks 70-80% of requests, my ISP should be paying me ... I should also receive carbon credits
Pihole doesn't really block large data transfers...
It blocks requests for ad and tracking requests (configured properly) which aside from video streaming, accounts for the majority of internet traffic.
If they do, then two things will happen: 1. The majority of ordinary-usage folks will be subsidizing the small number of high-usage folks, leading to higher prices for the majority over the medium-long term. 2. Connection speeds will stop going up.
Or Comcast can ensure their infrastructure can handle the load they advertise to their customers and keep upgrading and improving it using the subsidies provided by the US government to do just that.
Comcast is ripping off customers twice. Don't defend it.
Comcast is ripping off customers twice. Don't defend it.
Don't forget Comcast charging large companies to "deliver bits" to "their customers", so that's another time that Comcast rips off customers if anyone is counting. Read up on "Comcast zero rating" too for more reasons we shouldn't let critical infrastructure providers also own media companies in this country.
> Going over a terabyte-plus data limit isn’t all that hard, either,
I have zero problem with caps. I use my connection mainly for text and HTML; to the extent that I download video, it's usually being forced on me by advertisers. I use a satellite dish and STB/PVR for most of my film and TV news requirements.
I don't want to share a cap-less contended channel with people who spend all day watching 4K movies on a 6"x3" device; and I certainly don't want to share the costs. It's like a vegetarian going to a restaurant with colleagues who all order T-bone steaks, and splitting the bill equally.
For what it's worth, I have a no-data smartphone contract, and capped FTTC to my home. Even the smartphone contract is abusive; I have it mainly to call a taxi, or to receive 2FA challenges over SMS (i.e. ultralite usage), and yet I still seem to use up my monthly budget every month.
I have zero problem with caps. I use my connection mainly for text and HTML; to the extent that I download video, it's usually being forced on me by advertisers. I use a satellite dish and STB/PVR for most of my film and TV news requirements.
I don't want to share a cap-less contended channel with people who spend all day watching 4K movies on a 6"x3" device; and I certainly don't want to share the costs. It's like a vegetarian going to a restaurant with colleagues who all order T-bone steaks, and splitting the bill equally.
For what it's worth, I have a no-data smartphone contract, and capped FTTC to my home. Even the smartphone contract is abusive; I have it mainly to call a taxi, or to receive 2FA challenges over SMS (i.e. ultralite usage), and yet I still seem to use up my monthly budget every month.
It's like the always-hilarious argument against universal healthcare, where people "don't want to pay for other peoples problems" without realizing that that's literally what they're doing with insurance, or indirectly via price increases due to non-paying customers at hospitals.
> It's like the always-hilarious argument against universal healthcare
Not really; I'm strongly in favour of universal healthcare. I would like it to be more universal, and better-funded.
Now, you mention insurance: are you advocating for an insurance market where everyone pays the same rate, regardless of their previous claim record? Because that's what you get if there are no data caps. In fact it's even worse with insurance, because there are many situations where you must have insurance by law; nobody's compelled by law to have an internet connection, let alone a contested one.
Not really; I'm strongly in favour of universal healthcare. I would like it to be more universal, and better-funded.
Now, you mention insurance: are you advocating for an insurance market where everyone pays the same rate, regardless of their previous claim record? Because that's what you get if there are no data caps. In fact it's even worse with insurance, because there are many situations where you must have insurance by law; nobody's compelled by law to have an internet connection, let alone a contested one.
I don't know if any home markets still advertise "burstable cap" billing, but it existed in the early 2000s. Comcast doesn't want a small number and a "sometimes more" asterisk. They want a big number with an "always less" asterisk. And they don't want to make usage-based billing part of the messaging, customers already understand the pain of cellphone data caps.
It's just an argument about how much dishonesty they can get away with and for how long.