• psycrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Would be wonderful if the FCC did their fucking job for once and banned data caps. Companies like Mediacom abuse the fuck out of them

  • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Ajit Pai were still in charge, he’d say “Woof woof! The telcos can do anything they want!,” and the Verizon CEO who owns him would pat him on the head and give him a Milk-Bone.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In short, the Administrative Procedure Act. It sets out the procedures that have to be followed before policy decisions get made. If the FCC doesn’t follow the APA’s procedures exactly, that gives the industry grounds to sue. Even if the industry eventually looses, it would still mean a stay on the new policies during which they would continue to exploit consumers.

      The APA isn’t a bad thing, since it forces federal agencies to be deliberate in making policy decisions that could have far reaching consequences. That said, it does make the government even slower to react to situations that often change quickly. But it has tripped up this administration and previous administrations when they have tried to make hasty decisions, including Trump with his “Muslim ban”.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I wish informative answers like yours would get the upvotes they deserve. You have my upvote.

        EDIT: Okay yeah, several hours later now it’s heavily upvoted. Thanks Lemmings, for giving me faith in comments sections again.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks! And it is getting upvotes, with you being the first. After all, I only wrote it a few minutes ago.

          I’m not scrubbing my account on Reddit partially because some of the comments are like the one above. Sure, much of what I wrote is of limited value. But if there is a historian going back through Internet history and using a language processing model to analyze comments, I think my voice is worth leaving there.

  • gmg@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lack of healthy competition. It’s plain to see from the other side of the ocean where I live… Is it maybe one of those things you can only see from afar?

    • FlanFlinger@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      €20 every 28 days on a PAYG sim for unlimited 5g in Ireland, it’s just boggling to see what folks in the US and Canada pay

      • gmg@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        OP was about data caps on landlines… yeah, at first glance I too thought it could only be mobile

  • Schwarz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s ridiculous I have to pay Xfinity $110/mo for my speed and unlimited bandwidth

    • BluePhoenix01@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Over here, I’m getting the Cox… last bill was $99 a month, now my “promo period” expired, and it is the full $170 a month thanks to “unlimited”. It’s pretty gross, but it is the only plan that gives the “amazing” 30 mbps up. :|

    • 0xD@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      God damn. In Austria I’m paying 35€ for 250/250, and am still looking over to the Romanians with longing eyes. Data caps are only on mobile - which is still questionable in my eyes.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Data caps on mobile makes more sense to me, simply because mobile data is so much more expensive.

        • Krik@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is it?

          To me it seems it’s cheaper to build an antenna to serve 100-1000s of users than to dig and install cables to all of them.

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It depends on what you’re trying to do. If you’re just trying to reach them and don’t care about bandwidth, wireless is the way to go. It’s why more developed countries lagged behind developing countries on the transition to wireless phones. But when you’re trying to deploy shear amounts of bandwidth, nothing beats fiber. It’s incredibly fast, has low latency, and doesn’t get interference.

  • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    $$$ and because the ISPs don’t get charged for unethical and blantly illegal activities…

    The real question should be why is the internet not a public utility yet…? Huh FCC/CRTC…?

  • tal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The infrastructure over which that data travels isn’t free. If you have a resource and it has any kind of scarcity, you want to tie consumption to the cost of producing more of it.

    You can reduce the transaction cost – reduce hassle for users using Internet service – by not having a cap for them to worry about, but then you decouple the costs of consumption.

    Soft caps, like throttling, are one way to help reduce transaction costs while still having some connection between consumption and price.

    But point is, if one user is using a lot more of the infrastructure than any other is, you probably want to have that reflected in some way, else you’re dumping Heavy User’s costs on Light User.

      • tal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like, what kind of costs exist? Lines, network hardware, putting up the tunnels and poles that hold up lines, the network admins who deal with issues on them. Your ISP can’t just push a button and instantly provide 1Tbit bandwidth capacity at no cost to themselves to every subscriber.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Oh you mean like the $400 billion the industry has taken to adopt Fiber-optic high speeds, but somehow Fiber access has never materialized in most US cities? You mean like that infrastructure? That we’ve already fucking paid for through grants and other federal programs handing money to the ISPs?

          Are you having a laugh or do you work for these fuckers?

          I’m not disputing the costs, I’m disputing that they already have money to cover the costs (taxpayer money, I might add) and they’re bilking the consumer on top of it.

          EDIT: Also, let’s not forget that they got this money during a period of media consolidation. Why was Comcast using its money to buy NBC in 2011 instead of spending that on (*audible gasp) infrastructure?

          • tal@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m disputing that they already have money to cover the costs

            Federal subsidies to telcos were not intended to provide Internet service for free, but to reduce costs.

            You could argue that a subsidy should reduce prices relative to what they should have been, had no subsidy existed.

            But you cannot argue that pricing should be decoupled from consumption as a result of that.

  • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What’s going to stop the forms being filled out by industry-controlled bots this time?[1] Last time the FCC took public comment, anti-net-neutrality comments were being made under the names of dead people and people who would later claim they never participated in making comments to the FCC.

    Otherwise, it’s going to be the same dumb shitshow as last time.


    1. https://www.vice.com/en/article/43a5kg/80-percent-net-neutrality-comments-bots-astroturfing ↩︎