Why do cell phones have a data limit but home internet doesn't?

lousyd@lemmy.sdf.org to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world – 175 points –

Why do cell phones have a data limit but home internet doesn't? I understand bandwidth limits, but how can home internet get away with giving users all the data they can use, but cell phone providers can't?

108

cell phone providers can, they just won’t (would eat into their profits)

and most of the home internet sold as “unlimited” was a scam – if you started to get too close to some hidden value, they would start throttling your connection

'Member when Comcast was caught illegally using Sandvine in around 2006/2007 to illegally throttle or block BitTorrent traffic?

Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

More recently, they throttled Netflix until they could extort them to pay for the traffic being used by their own customers, who were already paying Comcast for the very same data usage.

I wonder what that is? I've gone trough 300TB a month at one point

Not all home internet is unlimited. In many US rural areas, home internet connections have a monthly cap just like mobile networks do. A higher cap costs more, if it's available at all.

In many US rural areas, home internet connections have a monthly cap

And suburban, and urban. I've never lived anywhere that didn't have a cap.

And not all cell service is limited. I switched from cable to 5G fixed wireless, because I was tired of having a data cap. It's faster and cheaper too.

Umm, my home internet has a 50GB per month limit. Can't complain much though, it's cheap at literally $1 a day, and I'm not a gamer or online streamer.

50GB a month though?? You don't use any video streaming services at all? What do you use for media?

I do browse through YT videos, but I don't bother watching full length movies. Honestly, I've lost interest in watching newer movies, seems like a waste of time to me. However, I do enjoy educational and scientific content.

That's more than $1.50 per Gigabyte.
When you download a game from Steam, most games you literally pay more for the data than for the game.
Even when you pirate, you pay like $15 for a BluRay quality movie

You'd be dumbfounded to see what I've been able to accomplish using my connection. Terabytes of games archived, I just didn't have to download nor upload them myself.

How is 1€/day cheap for such limited home Internet? I guess it might depend on where you are, but unless you are in the middle of nowhere that seems expensive.

Here in Germany for example, which really isn't known for its cheap internet, I can find options that offer 100Mbit Flatrates for 20€/month.

My German friends and family don't believe me when I tell them how expensive internet and phone is in the US. They all think it's expensive in Germany. Having said that, there are some big differences in take home pay.

I ain't even talking about the internet speed, I'm talking about the data cap. And $1 a day is about as cheap as it gets in my area.

as cheap as it gets in my area

That's not a very good approach to assess prices

$50/mo for internet is a relatively low rate for the US unless you're lucky enough to live in one of the few places with municipal internet.

For ~$30 a month, that's a complete and utter rip-off.

Even here in Neuland Germany you get at least decent internet with no caps for that price.

Where even has that sort of plan anymore? Are you really rural American?

Guess so. The installation tech had to test like 18 sets of dead phone lines before managing to find one live pair to even connect the internet.

Good thing, because some games would take up all of that just to download and install.

Found the American. In France that would be a huge ripoff compared to what the other providers have to offer. Like, literally any VDSL offer is around 30€/month (or under) and no caps

Of course you can complain, I pay less than half what you do for unlimited cellular data.

My home Internet charges extra when I use more than 1 TB per month. Not sure but I think it's metered both up and down.

I remember Comcast suddenly started enforcing a limit of about 1 TB some years ago when I had them. Realized it happened when I renewed my contract to get a lower price again for a promotional period. Apparently I agreed to a new contract or something that included the new limit. >:|

FCC is looking into that, I think it was during Trump's administration

I currently have that cap and wondering how I will be able to play MSFS2024 under these conditions. Absolute trash they get to enforce this.

Had the same thought, and a rep already told me I'm 200gb away. Let's hope some of the stuff is cached.

Just try to pnpy so flights at 30k ft or above so you don't have to load ground textures lol

damn, I share almost a TB/day.

Hopefully only Linux ISOs ^/s^

Nintendo roms

Wow.

How many nintendo roms are there?

switch roms range from 6-20GB each. plus SNES, full collection about 5gb.

Ah yes, switch games are not tiny small cartridges.

Gotta finish my "arcade" box-stick-raspberry one day ...

5GB you say? That's so incredibly cool actually.

For cell / mobile phones, you're sharing the capacity of the cell among multiple people.

In this example, a rural cell tower can provide up to 395Mbps.

It would only take 40 people watching Kayo at high definition (or any high definition video service) via their phone or a 4G router to saturate this tower.

For everyone else at this time, it'll still work but even though they might have a strong radio signal (lots of bars), the internet will become slow.

Limiting monthly usage, or charging more for more data per month, reduces the risk of saturation.

There aren't going to be 40 people using that tower if it's truly a rural tower. If it isn't a rural tower then they can update it to handle more throughput. The issue isn't the towers, it's the companies wanting to keep using old tech to squeeze out as much profit as possible.

Both of you can be correct. The policy is prevalent to squeeze money out of consumers. However, it's also easy to imagine more than 40 people in a rural area using their phones for media purposes during PM times in 2024. There's less to do, internet availability might not exist for some or all residents, and people use their phone for everything now. Casting from a phone is a larger percent of viewing TV now.

In a rural area the population density is a lot less than that of suburbs or the city. We're talking about 40 people or less using a single tower, this also takes in account of the 3 carriers. If each carriers tower can handle 40 people, that's potentially 120 users total in a few mile radius, which is normal for rural populations.

This tower has about a 20km radius on average due to topography, covers a stretch of the New England Highway and also covers the nearby village of Black Mountain. A good few hundred phones will be in range I expect.

The tower also has cells for Optus and Vodafone, but they are a significant minority of customers in this area.

This sounds like an issue with the carriers not actually putting in more towers to properly handle the load though. Aka greed.

In theory at least it’s because you pay for a specific bandwidth for home internet (the size of the pipe) but a specific amount of data for cellular (how much stuff you can get through a fixed sized pipe).

Home internet is a little unique in that way, almost all other utilities are consumption based with no real tiers in terms of how it’s delivered (you pay for the volume of water or gas you use, electricity is the same, just different units).

Networking equipment gets more expensive based on the bandwidth it supports, but it doesn’t much care how many bits you push through it. So ISPs charge based on their capacity to deliver those bits, and provide tiers at different price points. Cellular though is much more bandwidth constrained due to the technologies (and it used to be much more so before LTE and 5G), so it didn’t makes sense to charge you for slow or slower tiers. Instead the limiting factor is the capacity of a tower so by limiting data to small amounts it naturally discourages use. That model carried forward even now that the technologies support broadband speeds in some cases. As such and ISP could provide the biggest pipe (highest speed) to all homes and just charge based on consumption (they used to in the days of dial up, and satellite before starlink always has). Many ISPs instead are now double dipping though and charging for both.

Home Internet usually doesn't have unlimited internet. There's usually caps baked in somewhere. Don't believe me? Read the fine print. At some point, at some bandwidth usage in the monthly cycle, they will throttle the living crap out of your connection. It's written into pretty much every contract I've ever signed, and I've been with over a dozen carriers of landline internet over the years.

The reason being that they don't want you serving websites or business class functionality with residential level internet. They didn't build their network with those constraints. They want you paying for and using the business internet package, which has dedicated bandwidth and no caps because you're paying for a dedicated line to be run.

For mobile phones? Old pricing models still trying to be relevant. There's no technical reason.

Home internet has unlimited internet

It's not 2002

Well, maybe not in that....one.... country

Are you sure?

There's "hard" caps, and there's "soft" caps. When you hit the soft caps with many of these ISP's, they start throttling your internet usage by a substantial amount.

Relevant Screenshot of caps as of Sept 2024.

I said "home internet hasn't had data caps for a couple of decades, well except maybe in that one country where people have no consumer rights and everyone gets fucked up the arse for money just for existing". I'm paraphrasing here.

You said - "Oh yeah, let me prove you right!"

I'm not sure where you're going with this

Ok, I missed the sarcasm and allusion to the US as the country you were talking about. That's fair.

I assumed the OP was asking the question for the US. Which of course, is the thing people in my country do. Assume everything is about us ;)

Weird how 97% of people don't think that eh? 😂

Closer to 96/95% now ;) But yeah, your point stands. What's even worse about this, is I'm working on a dual citizenship with Portugal, so I should have had more self-awareness than I showed ;)

Good luck! Everyone deserves unlimited internet and consumer rights!

I can only speak from a UK perspective, but most home ADSL/VDSL/Fibre providers don't have limits, other than "if your usage is tanking the network, we'll ask you to knock it off" type clauses.

Most providers are also signed up to an agreement that if your speed drops 50% below the agreed speed on the package on average, they'll either give you refunds, or let you out of the contract.

The only ones that throttle are the bargain basement operators aimed at people who don't care, and one otherwise very competent provider that for some unexplainable reason only gives 1TB by default, charging an extra £10 for 10TB.

And I guess there is also a pricing step up to guaranteed bandwidth. For business use, they tend to be things like 1gbits headline, 500mbit guaranteed burst, 100mbit guaranteed sustained.

I am in the US and I do not have a hard cap, and I regularly go WELL above the soft cap listed for my ISP in that image with no throttling.

1 more...

money.

data caps are coming to home internet soon too and with inescapable hidden contracts; switch to an independent isp to avoid it before you're entrapped into one.

Ah yes I'll just pick from one of the many ISPs in my area

they exist and they usually suck compared to something like comcast or at&t; but they're much better than a $500 internet bill because you went over your limit or paying considerably more for breaking the contract that you didn't know you signed when you didn't read the fine print.

In a lot of places in the US there is only one home service provider.

i'm aware and fwiw; that's where it'll be implemented last since the people there are the biggest and best chance at pushing back against this successfully.

AT&T asks the same question. They provide the bold option to pay more than the competition and get data limits on your home internet.

I went over my home data cap a couple times. The ISP rep was not amused when I called to have them bump my speed down to the lowest tier and add unlimited data. I pay less now and the speed difference is not noticeable for me with daily usage. I told them I was going to download random crap all day, delete, and redownload out of spite lol.

Caps are fake there's no need for them besides to build golden marble pillars outside CEOs mega mansions.

Lots of home internet does have a data cap, but you might not realize it. Typically what will happen is that, once you hit your cap, you'll be rate throttled. That throttle might not affect most video streaming since Netflix is really good at video compression, but you'll see the hit if you are, for instance, downloading large games from PSN, Steam, etc.

If my phone didn't have a cap, I'd hotspot it all, which is basically the idea of cellular home internet routers. I found a home router without a cap, which time will tell to be true, but it's still more expensive than my phone with a very large but not unlimited cap.

They want to get paid, that's the reasoning. The amount of data is really irrelevant except for pricing.

Roaming fees used to be the same until EU stepped in. Hopefully EU will eventually step in and order a full stop to ALL CAPS too. We live in the "future" now, right? Bring me my free unlimited connection so I can download that car they talked about.

I have the opposite. Unlimited phone data, but it throttles above some high number that I've never hit. Capped home internet from crapcast, 1.3 TB, I haven't hit it but I've come within a couple gigabytes.

They offer unlimited data if I use their modem/router for an extra $10/mo. Of course their modem comes with the wonderful feature of a public hotspot for any other Comcast customers in the area. I've been thinking about getting their modem, putting it in a metal box and just using pass through with my opnsense box.

Playing devil's advocate here. A possibly legitimate reason ISPs put in data caps is wireless spectrum congestion.

It's going to be precisely the reason. If you have a dedicated wire, fibre or copper then the entire available bandwidth is available per connection (one caveat with copper is crosstalk but it is minimal and can be mitigated). With fibre the available bandwidth per strand is huge.

It's so fast that even where there's contention, it is rarely a problem that everyone sharing a part of the connection is downloading or uploading at once. So pretty much most of the times you test, you get the full speed.

With mobile data, the entire cell is sharing a small amount (in comparison) of spectrum. Unlike a wire, the entire spectrum cannot be used by a single tower, a pretty small number of channels are carved out for them. Also because the signals are travelling through the air, there is more of a problem of signal loss and interference to contend with, so the channels very rarely reach the maximum possible speed (forward error correction and reducing bits per symbol to reach a suitable signal to noise ratio both will reduce speed for example.

For upload (which isn't usually much of an issue) there's another problem of guard time between timeslots. When downloading, the cell transmitter transmits the whole time and shared the channel between all users (another thing that can slow things down) so there's no problem of needing a guard time. But when it's separate transmitters (phones) sending there's going to be a guard time between different handsets timeslot and the more active transmit stations there are (phones) the more these guard times add up to wasted bandwidth. Luckily most people are downloading far more than uploading, so it's less of an issue.

I think for these reasons caps are used to limit people from ALWAYS consuming data on the cell/mobile networks and instead using wifi wherever they can in order to keep it fast for those that do/need to.

Playing devil’s accountant here. A possibly legitimate reason ISPs put in data caps are shareholder dividends and capital appreciation.

  1. Charge more
  2. Provide inferior service
  3. Profit

It's a self managed QOS. If the customer knows they can only use X data they're going to be a bit more cautious about using it. Vs if they have unlimited data then they'll just download that 50 gig file on their phone because "fuck it why not". The less data each individual customer uses the less infrastructure they have to build, and the faster/more consistent their existing stuff will be.

Cell tower time is a LOT more expensive than time on a fiber optic cable. Your ISP installs a few boxes to serve your neighborhood, a cell carriers tower might go 20 miles.

I guess it depends what country you're in. I don't have limits on either and don't want to imagine having that concern.

The first time I saw a mobile plan without any limits was somewhere around 2003-2004. Pretty soon after that, all the competitors started offering similar plans. So glad we got rid of those stupid limits.

AOL used to be $19.95/mo for forty hours, then an additional charge per minute beyond that.

Oh god, taking me back to their stupid always-on-top timer on the screen. It was anxiety inducing. I'm so glad pay by the minute internet didn't last, can you imagine??

I can. My phone bills were over $400 for a while in the early 90s. $400 in 1994 is worth over $850 today.

Neither of those statements is universally true. It is a tendency, but not a universal rule.

Mobile internet is newer, less essential to many people, and I think mostly more costly to operate for the ISP per amount of data transferred, so this is why it tends to be the case. But there are unlimited mobile plans and limited home plans too in the world.

Where are my Rogers home internet customers at? 🇨🇦

I moved to Telus when Rogers bought Shaw and screwed up my billing plan, and were unwilling to be competitive.

Both Rogers and Telus have capped plans and more expensive “unlimited” plans.

My Comcast has a terabyte monthly data cap. They will send you an email if you get close to it, and if memory serves they allow you one time to go over it before they charge you some.

Even with downloading many big games sometimes when I refresh my PC and using streaming video apps all the time, I've never hit it but have come close several times. I also work from home.

I am lucky to have a local ISP that is amazing. I'm hoping that they never change.

It is a proxy for don't use too much on the busy towers. In small towns it doesn't matter, but if you are in a downtown the tower will have many people connecting to it and the radio frequencies are shared. By putting a limit on everyone they force better sharing of that limited bandwidth. The limit is very large - far more that than the large abusers will use alone, but in a dense areas it is less than the common person will use all at once.

Tmoblie has (or had?) a binge on plan - if you used video (which we quickly figured out meant low quality - but probably good enough for a tiny phone screen) or audio you were using a lot of data, but it was consistent all day and so they didn't have to count it - if the tower doesn't have enough bandwidth for everyone on the first day of the month they have to fix that. That is the real worry: the tower running out of bandwidth on the first day of the month.

Not all of them do, I've seen that in America data limits on home internet is common, and here in Europe unlimited phone data is common.

Home internet usually does, it’s just pretty high.

Neither my phone internet nor my home internet has a GB limit. The phone internet costs 25€ a month, and home internet 30€.

They convinced the FCC, cellular networks are different than wired, and should have different rules.

My previous home line had a hard cap at 1TB per month. That seemed like a lot at the time, but I think as the internet grows and requires more bandwidth these "sky high" caps will feel smaller and smaller.

Limits on home service used to be more common, but some plans still have caps. My home internet has a cap, it is just really, really high and they charge you more for exceeding it instead of cutting off access.

My phone also has a cap, but the cap means the connection is throttled instead of charging more.

I have had a home plan in the past woth no limit, but they didn't offer service to my new house when I moved.

It depends where you live, Here pay $45usd for unlimited 1Gb/500Mbps Fibre and it is truly unlimited (usually 15-20Tb a month) and  $35usd for unlimited 5G tho it's throttled abit after 60Gb.

My cell provider Telia gives me unlimited internet and calls in all nordic countries, pretty sweet deal as I need to use my phone in more than one of them.

It's really mostly a US thing. Regular countries are exempt from their shenanigans.

They do have unlimited data plans here and it's at same price as your average wifi plan.

Mine Internet at 500gb, but it's only an extra $10 for unlimited data. My cell data is unlimited but I know they throttle speed after a certain amount. At least I don't get charged extra.

  1. Some home internet providers have data caps.
  2. Some wireless providers do not have data caps.

What you're up against:

Home internet providers have high-speed lines that run through population centers and into every neighborhood. The backbones are fiber, so adding more capacity isn't all that expensive. If they run a 2.5-gigabit line to your neighborhood and it gets stressed, they can upgrade the local aggregate. Wired internet has enough bandwidth to service an incredible number of people.

Wireless internet needs towers and faces challenges like exposure, interference, and balancing power so everyone doesn’t try to reach the wrong tower. Each tower has to have it's own network backhaul to service everyone in that area. Each tower has limited bandwidth and time to slice up the connections. It's hard and expensive to expand cellular tech.

Data caps let IPS's handle capacity planning. Charging more for overages makes money and dissuades users from making them upgrade prematurely.

I pay an extra $30/mo on top of the $100/mo for comcast to not charge me extra when we shatter 1TB usage every single month (average 3.5-4TB usage in this home). They absolutely do have caps on home internet, always have, at least in my state. During the pandemic they relaxed the fees so going over didn’t cost but as soon as they could, they went right back to charging $10 per 50gb over 1TB usage with a max fee of $100. It’s bullshit but we don’t have a choice here, can’t even get satellite internet as an option because the complex doesn’t allow dish installation on the building.

Home internet had data limits too. In fact, you originally paid by the minute of usage through your telephone line before flat rates became a thing, blocking all calls in the process. Back in the day we'd use various time limited free trials by AOL and other ISPs to browse (Freenet was a very big one here in Germany), which they kinda threw out battling each other for customers. Look up AOL free trial CDs for example.

greed. some home internet services are also capped too for the exact same reason.

Some home Internet plans do. I’ve seen AT&T had in their terms that if you hit 99GB, they would throttle your speeds.

This was years ago, so not sure if that changed or not.

Satellite plans often had limits too because they didn’t want to encourage lots of usage on their satellites. I haven’t checked in a few years, but last I checked, these weren’t throttle limits either, sometimes they had hard limits where you just couldn’t connect anymore once you hit the limit.

Home internet did happen to have a limit in most places prior to the pandemic (at least in California). It was one of the big quiet changes that occurred. For example, ATT used to have 150GB limit about 5 years ago but it kept getting bumped up.

That is exactly the reason.

Those caps also prevent the small percentage of people who would abuse the system from having as much of a negative impact on other users.

Back when the company I used to work for offered an unlimited voice calling deal (we're talking 25 years ago on the old analog cell system) there were a few people who decided it would be a good idea to use their phone as a baby monitor, which tied up a voice channel for days at a time. There being only a dozen or less voice channels on most towers at the time made that kind of thing a signifigant cause of congestion.

Yep. And to add to your statement, its probably to make torrenters/massive downloaders pay or curtail their activities. Then streaming came along, voice chat, etc... that both helped us entertain ourselves and work within the home from the pandemic. If people didn't have unlimited plans, they would switch ASAP because it was no longer a want, it became a need.