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.
Until he personally lost service for a couple hours
Because fuck you, pay me, that’s why.
— Comcast, probably.
It will always make me happy that no matter how hard they try to make Xfinity happen, everyone remembers their real, ugly face before the facelift, and that ugly face is Comcast.^1
"Stop trying to make fetch Xfinity happen! It's not going to happen!"
Hey Comcast's service improved in my area once google Fiber got installed.
Just goes to show you that companies are fine with you complaining as much as you want, just NEVER let there be an alternative.
What's going to stop the forms being filled out by industry-controlled bots this time? 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.
The same dumb shitshow as last time is probably the goal.
It did a great job of discrediting opening anything for public comment thenceforth. Which I really think was the long-term goal.
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
$$$ 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...?
Yep. Democrats should run making it a utility.
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?
Nah, we see it too. Those of us whose eyes are open, anyway.
€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
OP was about data caps on landlines... yeah, at first glance I too thought it could only be mobile
Oh fuck off FCC, you know exactly why and intentionally don't address it.
Why is the FCC asking this question instead of already correcting the issue?
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".
Question, what the fuck was the "Muslim ban" I've never heard of this.
It was never law, which is why it was so easily reversed.
I wish informative answers like yours would get the upvotes they deserve. You have my upvote.
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.
Indeed, I've been very ambivalent about the idea of everyone deleting all their histories to hurt reddit.
Sure, it hurts reddit in the short-term, but in the long-term it is hurting overall internet history.
Honestly, I don't think it does much of anything to Reddit, short or long term. It does far more to destroy Internet history.
Is this where the last Net Neutrality request for comments window failed miserably? Like, the FCC did the process, but they let it be provably sabotaged by the industry and went ahead anyways...
No. That saga was the reverse happening. The Obama administration had already gone through the whole procedure to implement net neutrality rules. Ajit Pai under the Trump administration then came in and started the procedure anew to reverse net neutrality. In that sense it "succeeded" in that Pai's rules were put into place. There was a legal challenge on the basis of the FCC not considering certain factors. This is where being thorough is incredibly important. If even a single spot is missed, implementation can be drawn out even further.
I want to point out that Pai did not “come in” during the Trump admin. He killed net neutrality during it, sure, but he was appointed by Obama and held the office long before Trump showed up. It’s really disingenuous to try and portray it as a result of one republican president, it was a team effort.
Democrats nearly always choosing Republicans for non-elected offices so they "don't look partisan." Republicans always choosing Republicans for non-elected positions because they don't actually give a shit about looking partisan.
This is part of why the FBI has always been run by Republicans. Not once have we had a Democrat in charge of the FBI.
At least the FCC has a slightly better track record. Wheeler was a good FCC chairman.
The country would be a lot better off if the Democrats abandoned their devotion to "bipartisanship". It's a one way street that seems to only exist as a convenient roadblock to implementing any kind of positive reforms.
Isn't there still a vacancy on the FCC? Wouldn't that also affect any new designations?
Yes, there is. At present, most actions that are taken by the board are consensus actions that won't hit a Democrat-Republican deadlock. Once a chairperson is confirmed, they can start tackling the more contentious stuff that will have 3-2 decisions. Biden's previous nominee was scuttled after some attention to some mildly spicy tweets that were critical of Fox. He nominated a replacement a month ago and her nomination will likely go smoother.
Because they have no intention of correcting it. They’re either doing this to keep up the charade of consumer protection, or gearing up to enshrine the practice in regulation.
They are asking ISPs to lay out their best justification so that they can decide whether it's valid or not. Judging by their wording, they want a good explanation. It's good to gain understanding of something before we gut it and who better to ask for the 'best argument' than those who enforce it?
Because MONEY and lack of choice in some markets.... easy.
Because of corporate greed and a ridiculous lack of meaningful regulation.
It's ridiculous I have to pay Xfinity $110/mo for my speed and unlimited bandwidth
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. :|
That’s crazy! I’m paying 18 EUR a month for unlimited 1000 mbps download and 1000 mbps upload and I thought my bill was high. 😲
Oh. You were talking about mobile data.
That’s still extremely expensive.
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.
Data caps on mobile makes more sense to me, simply because mobile data is so much more expensive.
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.
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.
@Atemu. Money. Same reason they don't really wanna disclose all the little fees.
OH SAY CAN YOU SEE
This is a rhetorical question right?
GREED. That has always been the answer.
Because there is money to be made!
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.
I want to know where the storage tanks of gigabytes are hiding
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.
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?
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.
And I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that it's clear that pricing has been decoupled from consumption, but in the other direction, where the ISP's are setting prices arbitrarily. That's been a choice on their part, and a big reason why people like me are distrustful of any data they claim shows their case. They have been caught lying so many times before. I'm old enough to remember Comcast paying homeless people^1 to stuff a courtroom to make it seem like more people supported them (once again if they don't have money to cover infrastructure costs, why are they instead spending their money on things like this?). There's also issues like when they bundle unnecessary services, essentially consumers paying for nothing, like when the AG of Washington State sued them in 2016.^2 I could go on for pages about shit like this going all the way back to illegally shaping traffic with Sandvine targeting BitTorrent traffic.^3 I honestly don't wish to and maybe you ought to do more research on how much money these companies ream the American consumer for before acting like there is any connection between pricing and consumption here.
You pay them for a certain throughput, that is your limit, if they can't provide that limit then they need to advertise and sell the actual limit they are comfortable providing.
I'd argue that the FCC's recent Broadband Consumer Label proposal is more important. Part of the problem with broadband as a market is that providers are able to bury the true cost and product under reams of legalese that no one ever reads. Economists refer to this as asymmetric information, where one party to a transaction has vastly more information than the other. Forcing providers to show all costs and restrictions up front would go far in preventing them from fooling customers.
I would also like it to be harder for providers to change their rates. It's frustrating to constantly have rates jacked up when I'm not seeing much of an increase in service. I finally left Comcast over their rate increases and calls trying to upsell me on services I had no interest in.
If they're advertising a guaranteed rate, sure -- and there are contracts that exist where one does buy guaranteed rates (usually over some period of time, though). Some businesses may buy that. But if you look at a typical consumer ISP, they usually aren't selling that. They'll have something saying that the speed isn't guaranteed, or "Internet speeds up to" or something along those lines.
Internet: Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed.
The ISP I use (small, most people won't be using it) says "Up to X speed" next to each price on their pricing page.
Like, consumer ISPs are not going to generally sell guaranteed-rate service, and most customers aren't going to want to pay for what that would run. That's not just a function of some users using a lot more than others, but because they're also overselling the infrastructure. They maintain infrastructure sufficient to handle load if customers are only using a portion of that maximum -- that is, if every one of their customers decided to simultaneously saturate their line, even if those customers aren't particularly heavy users normally, they'd simply overwhelm what infrastructure is there.
Now, that being said, I do think that it might be legitimate to ask ISPs to disclose overselling ratio (or maybe there's some kind of better metric, like how percent often their internal infrastructure to an average customer is above N% utilization). Or to explicitly disclose soft caps or something. Those might be useful numbers in helping a customer compare ISPs. But they aren't presently selling and won't be providing guaranteed sustained rates -- that's just the reality of what kind of Internet service that can be provided at what consumer prices are.
Lol FCC needs to look at the Philippines, telcos here have been doing that for almost 14 years!
SuperSurf, Smart Unli Data and GOMO Unli only have data caps.
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.
Until he personally lost service for a couple hours
It will always make me happy that no matter how hard they try to make Xfinity happen, everyone remembers their real, ugly face before the facelift, and that ugly face is Comcast.^1
Hey Comcast's service improved in my area once google Fiber got installed.
Just goes to show you that companies are fine with you complaining as much as you want, just NEVER let there be an alternative.
What's going to stop the forms being filled out by industry-controlled bots this time? 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.
The same dumb shitshow as last time is probably the goal.
It did a great job of discrediting opening anything for public comment thenceforth. Which I really think was the long-term goal.
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
$$$ 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...?
Yep. Democrats should run making it a utility.
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?
Nah, we see it too. Those of us whose eyes are open, anyway.
€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
OP was about data caps on landlines... yeah, at first glance I too thought it could only be mobile
Oh fuck off FCC, you know exactly why and intentionally don't address it.
Why is the FCC asking this question instead of already correcting the issue?
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".
Question, what the fuck was the "Muslim ban" I've never heard of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
It was never law, which is why it was so easily reversed.
I wish informative answers like yours would get the upvotes they deserve. You have my upvote.
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.
Indeed, I've been very ambivalent about the idea of everyone deleting all their histories to hurt reddit.
Sure, it hurts reddit in the short-term, but in the long-term it is hurting overall internet history.
Honestly, I don't think it does much of anything to Reddit, short or long term. It does far more to destroy Internet history.
Is this where the last Net Neutrality request for comments window failed miserably? Like, the FCC did the process, but they let it be provably sabotaged by the industry and went ahead anyways...
No. That saga was the reverse happening. The Obama administration had already gone through the whole procedure to implement net neutrality rules. Ajit Pai under the Trump administration then came in and started the procedure anew to reverse net neutrality. In that sense it "succeeded" in that Pai's rules were put into place. There was a legal challenge on the basis of the FCC not considering certain factors. This is where being thorough is incredibly important. If even a single spot is missed, implementation can be drawn out even further.
I want to point out that Pai did not “come in” during the Trump admin. He killed net neutrality during it, sure, but he was appointed by Obama and held the office long before Trump showed up. It’s really disingenuous to try and portray it as a result of one republican president, it was a team effort.
Democrats nearly always choosing Republicans for non-elected offices so they "don't look partisan." Republicans always choosing Republicans for non-elected positions because they don't actually give a shit about looking partisan.
This is part of why the FBI has always been run by Republicans. Not once have we had a Democrat in charge of the FBI.
At least the FCC has a slightly better track record. Wheeler was a good FCC chairman.
The country would be a lot better off if the Democrats abandoned their devotion to "bipartisanship". It's a one way street that seems to only exist as a convenient roadblock to implementing any kind of positive reforms.
Just ask Merrick Garland.
Isn't there still a vacancy on the FCC? Wouldn't that also affect any new designations?
Yes, there is. At present, most actions that are taken by the board are consensus actions that won't hit a Democrat-Republican deadlock. Once a chairperson is confirmed, they can start tackling the more contentious stuff that will have 3-2 decisions. Biden's previous nominee was scuttled after some attention to some mildly spicy tweets that were critical of Fox. He nominated a replacement a month ago and her nomination will likely go smoother.
Because they have no intention of correcting it. They’re either doing this to keep up the charade of consumer protection, or gearing up to enshrine the practice in regulation.
They are asking ISPs to lay out their best justification so that they can decide whether it's valid or not. Judging by their wording, they want a good explanation. It's good to gain understanding of something before we gut it and who better to ask for the 'best argument' than those who enforce it?
Because MONEY and lack of choice in some markets.... easy.
Because of corporate greed and a ridiculous lack of meaningful regulation.
It's ridiculous I have to pay Xfinity $110/mo for my speed and unlimited bandwidth
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. :|
That’s crazy! I’m paying 18 EUR a month for unlimited 1000 mbps download and 1000 mbps upload and I thought my bill was high. 😲
Oh. You were talking about mobile data. That’s still extremely expensive.
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.
Data caps on mobile makes more sense to me, simply because mobile data is so much more expensive.
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.
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.
@Atemu. Money. Same reason they don't really wanna disclose all the little fees.
OH SAY CAN YOU SEE
This is a rhetorical question right?
GREED. That has always been the answer.
Because there is money to be made!
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.
I want to know where the storage tanks of gigabytes are hiding
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.
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?
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.
And I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that it's clear that pricing has been decoupled from consumption, but in the other direction, where the ISP's are setting prices arbitrarily. That's been a choice on their part, and a big reason why people like me are distrustful of any data they claim shows their case. They have been caught lying so many times before. I'm old enough to remember Comcast paying homeless people^1 to stuff a courtroom to make it seem like more people supported them (once again if they don't have money to cover infrastructure costs, why are they instead spending their money on things like this?). There's also issues like when they bundle unnecessary services, essentially consumers paying for nothing, like when the AG of Washington State sued them in 2016.^2 I could go on for pages about shit like this going all the way back to illegally shaping traffic with Sandvine targeting BitTorrent traffic.^3 I honestly don't wish to and maybe you ought to do more research on how much money these companies ream the American consumer for before acting like there is any connection between pricing and consumption here.
You pay them for a certain throughput, that is your limit, if they can't provide that limit then they need to advertise and sell the actual limit they are comfortable providing.
I'd argue that the FCC's recent Broadband Consumer Label proposal is more important. Part of the problem with broadband as a market is that providers are able to bury the true cost and product under reams of legalese that no one ever reads. Economists refer to this as asymmetric information, where one party to a transaction has vastly more information than the other. Forcing providers to show all costs and restrictions up front would go far in preventing them from fooling customers.
I would also like it to be harder for providers to change their rates. It's frustrating to constantly have rates jacked up when I'm not seeing much of an increase in service. I finally left Comcast over their rate increases and calls trying to upsell me on services I had no interest in.
If they're advertising a guaranteed rate, sure -- and there are contracts that exist where one does buy guaranteed rates (usually over some period of time, though). Some businesses may buy that. But if you look at a typical consumer ISP, they usually aren't selling that. They'll have something saying that the speed isn't guaranteed, or "Internet speeds up to" or something along those lines.
Lemme grab Comcast, for an example.
googles
https://www.xfinity.com/learn/deals/internet#Pricing&otherinfo
The ISP I use (small, most people won't be using it) says "Up to X speed" next to each price on their pricing page.
Like, consumer ISPs are not going to generally sell guaranteed-rate service, and most customers aren't going to want to pay for what that would run. That's not just a function of some users using a lot more than others, but because they're also overselling the infrastructure. They maintain infrastructure sufficient to handle load if customers are only using a portion of that maximum -- that is, if every one of their customers decided to simultaneously saturate their line, even if those customers aren't particularly heavy users normally, they'd simply overwhelm what infrastructure is there.
Now, that being said, I do think that it might be legitimate to ask ISPs to disclose overselling ratio (or maybe there's some kind of better metric, like how percent often their internal infrastructure to an average customer is above N% utilization). Or to explicitly disclose soft caps or something. Those might be useful numbers in helping a customer compare ISPs. But they aren't presently selling and won't be providing guaranteed sustained rates -- that's just the reality of what kind of Internet service that can be provided at what consumer prices are.
Lol FCC needs to look at the Philippines, telcos here have been doing that for almost 14 years!
SuperSurf, Smart Unli Data and GOMO Unli only have data caps.