Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [ARSTechnica] ISP explains data caps to FCC: Using the Internet is like eating Oreos
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[ARSTechnica] ISP explains data caps to FCC: Using the Internet is like eating Oreos - Page 4  

post #31 of 155
Hardware companies re-design, shrink, and re-tool to innovate improvements and new products.
Financial firms re-package debt to spread out the risk and provide accessibility to credit.

ISPs ... are doing what? Capping data will segment and confuse the customers into accepting new "products", but this is ingenious and near malicious. It is not innovating improvements to latency nor bandwidth nor absolute up-time. However, it may improve overall up-time during typical heavy congestion peaks, which is a general customer service improvement. However, to take something away to give something else without consent is a no-no when it comes to contract services.

If an ISP is having trouble meeting all of its sold bandwidth, it needs to fix said problems from its end -- put in more lines, put in better routing/switching equipment, etc. If you sold 60Mbps to 100 people, you better be able to support 60Gbps at peak -- not throttle everyone so all your traffic can run on a 1Gbps line. The FCC may be stupid enough to understand OREO analogies, but internet-era high schoolers can wire and set up entire WANs now and know how this stuff works.
 
LGA775 X5470
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5470 4GHz (stock v) GA-EP45-UD3P EVGA 9800 GTX+ 512MB 8GB 4x2GB GSkill 1066MHz DDR2 
CoolingCase
XSPC Rasa, D5 + Res, 240mm Rad Lian-Li PC7-HX 
  hide details  
 
LGA775 X5470
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5470 4GHz (stock v) GA-EP45-UD3P EVGA 9800 GTX+ 512MB 8GB 4x2GB GSkill 1066MHz DDR2 
CoolingCase
XSPC Rasa, D5 + Res, 240mm Rad Lian-Li PC7-HX 
  hide details  
post #32 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmotty View Post

So I searched the competition. There is only one other company and their offerings are worse.

If it was that bad in my area, I'd move. Suddenly, my choices increase.

Starve ISPs like Mediacom. Losing their 'precious' bottom line is the only thing greedy companies like this understand.
post #33 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

If it was that bad in my area, I'd move. Suddenly, my choices increase.

Starve ISPs like Mediacom. Losing their 'precious' bottom line is the only thing greedy companies like this understand.


If the only thing I looked for in a community was a good ISP.
Longterm upgrader
(19 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom 965 BE ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer MSI R9 285 Gaming Team Xtreme 16GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
seagate SATA intel ssd Sony DVD Burner Corsair H110 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
140mm case fan x2 Windows 7 Insignia LG L1932TQ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Ergonomic 4000 OCZ 750w Fatality Fractal Design Define R4 Tt esport Talon 
Mouse PadAudio
yes Logitech 5.1 
  hide details  
Longterm upgrader
(19 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom 965 BE ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer MSI R9 285 Gaming Team Xtreme 16GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
seagate SATA intel ssd Sony DVD Burner Corsair H110 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
140mm case fan x2 Windows 7 Insignia LG L1932TQ 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Natural Ergonomic 4000 OCZ 750w Fatality Fractal Design Define R4 Tt esport Talon 
Mouse PadAudio
yes Logitech 5.1 
  hide details  
post #34 of 155
I've said this every time there is a discussion about data caps but I will say it again: Data caps on broadband connections is analogous to the artificial energy crisis Enron started in California. Data caps will be especially difficult to stay within for users who are streaming HD content, let alone 1440p or 4K content. Something has to be done, hopefully the FCC will do something sooner than later.
post #35 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBOMB View Post

I've said this every time there is a discussion about data caps but I will say it again: Data caps on broadband connections is analogous to the artificial energy crisis Enron started in California. Data caps will be especially difficult to stay within for users who are streaming HD content, let alone 1440p or 4K content. Something has to be done, hopefully the FCC will do something sooner than later.

What's also needed is mass IRS audits of ISPs engaging in data caps. If public money is being misused, and not being used to upgrade aging infrastructure, we need to know exactly what happened to it.
post #36 of 155
I must like OREO cookies according to my usage this month I have used 1178GB. june was 1592GB thumb.gif
Edited by rusirius - 9/26/16 at 9:13am
post #37 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozne View Post

Pretty bad analogy when it comes to the economy. It costs the Oreo company more money to make 40 cookies compared to 4. It costs the ISPs nothing to go from 2GB, to 100GB data caps.

No, and no.

To make more oreos is done in mass production, so each oreo cost less the more you make on the same equipment, since if the machine to make them cost 100,000, that price is subsidies on each oreo.
So making just 40 cost 2,5000 to make, and to make 4, cost 25,000 to make.

To ISPs it is different, but similar all the same.
And I'll give an example with very rough numbers.
If 100 people are getting 100GB cap, and using it to the fullest viewing netflix.
It means the ISP needs to support 10,000GB per month for those people, lets say during the 7 hours or rush hour on each day. That means the ISP needs to support 13MB/s overall. And for that you can use a home hub if you have to. Its overall nothing.
Now if he needs to support 100,000 people, it means he need to support 13GB/s. That is a big jump in terms of support.
Now lets say he has 100M people. Now he needs to support 13TB/s.

Now if he caps them from 100GB to 2GB, it means he only need to support 266GB/s in the overall of the network. And that is not a small home hub you are talking about. Its a series of huge network and infrastructure required.

And that is before I'm talking about 150Mb/s speeds, or 1Gb/s speeds which even more complicate the issue.

Because of 100 people have 100GB per month and they are all watching netflix at the same time at lets say 3Mb/s, it means the ISP needs to support 300Mb/s between netflix servers and him and the clients.
Now if he has 100,000 netflix users, he need to support he needs to support 292Gb/s, which requires a lot more. And if the ISP has 100M people, he need to support 286Tb/s.

And this is the reason why they want to get more money from netflix, as netflix is causing them to need to increase their network capacity between netflix and the consumers, increase performance, which all of that isn't a small change. It cost a huge amount of money. So someone needs to pay for it. And if its not netlix, it will be the consumers, either through government, or through data caps to make sure not everyone are watching all the time, or through increasing package prices.
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
Main system
(16 items)
 
Editing PC
(8 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsGraphicsRAM
E5-1680v2 AMD FirePro D700 AMD FirePro D700 64GB 1866mhz 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
1TB PCIE SSD OSX 10.10.x Dell U2713H Mac Pro 
  hide details  
post #38 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defoler View Post

...
And this is the reason why they want to get more money from netflix, as netflix is causing them to need to increase their network capacity between netflix and the consumers, increase performance, which all of that isn't a small change. It cost a huge amount of money. So someone needs to pay for it. And if its not netlix, it will be the consumers, either through government, or through data caps to make sure not everyone are watching all the time, or through increasing package prices.

Say In your example, I was quoted and sold a service at 3Mbps. It's not my problem that the ISP signed up an additional 100M people. I still need my 3Mbps 24/7, and it doesn't matter what content I'm consuming because they all translate into bandwidth, of which I'm allocated 3Mbps each MONTH. That translates to roughly 949GB per month. Capping that to 100GB is effectively reducing my bandwidth to 0.32Mbps (10%) without reducing my monthly fee. How is that reasonable?
Edited by mouacyk - 9/26/16 at 9:34am
 
LGA775 X5470
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5470 4GHz (stock v) GA-EP45-UD3P EVGA 9800 GTX+ 512MB 8GB 4x2GB GSkill 1066MHz DDR2 
CoolingCase
XSPC Rasa, D5 + Res, 240mm Rad Lian-Li PC7-HX 
  hide details  
 
LGA775 X5470
(6 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5470 4GHz (stock v) GA-EP45-UD3P EVGA 9800 GTX+ 512MB 8GB 4x2GB GSkill 1066MHz DDR2 
CoolingCase
XSPC Rasa, D5 + Res, 240mm Rad Lian-Li PC7-HX 
  hide details  
post #39 of 155
The problem with these people is they're educated, specifically, to generate corporate growth. Not just profit, but an increase in profit. If they aren't making more money than they did yesterday, they consider today to be a failure. It's not enough to grow consistent with inflation. It's not enough to use their profits more efficiently. Extra profit is justification for a higher wage. The success of their corporation is tied up with their ego and their own personal financial success. Nothing is ever "enough" for these people. If they aren't willing to break the law, they'll be willing to pay to have it changed. Morality is only an obstacle to profitability.

Citizens have gotten so tired of ISP abuse that we are now pressuring the government to do something about it. It's a shame that it should ever even need to come to that. It makes me feel ashamed that we ever even allowed things to get that bad. Citizens are freedom advocates by nature. It's depressing when we need to petition to reduce market freedoms and invent new law just to save ourselves from a body of people who are supposed to care about the health of the nation, but don't.

They aren't even trying to put up a valid argument. It shows that they have total contempt for us and the members of government who are working on our behalf.

In the early 2000's cable ISP's already figured out how to give users fair rates. Data plans can guarantee priority for bandwidth until you hit your cap. After that, you share whatever bandwidth is available with other people who have exceeded their cap. The ISP can then plan and create rates based on peak network usage instead of trying to keep network usage down by scaring people out of using the internet.

This style of billing was *almost* done by early cable providers, but the problem is that they did it in secret. You'd pay for guaranteed bandwidth but they wouldn't advertise hidden data caps and throttling. They also monitored usage and throttled certain high-bandwidth services like file sharing and streaming. This led a long battle just like this one, where the FCC eventually forced them to stop using hidden data caps and throttling.

What we got, was blatant data caps and options for pricing. I think the FCC intended for it to work out differently than this. Unfortunately, the people who made these decisions didn't get to stick around long enough to ensure they were implemented properly. Data caps were introduced as a pricing model, and throttling was stopped altogether because data caps keep us from every making full use of the network. Bandwidth is consistent because we can't use it, and ISP's enjoy a nice low operating cost with record high profit margins.

The obvious solution is to operate at peak loads and incorporate that into a base price. Modern ISP's can offer perfectly reasonable minimum speeds on a completely saturated network. Maximum speeds probably wouldn't even need to be lowered to offer a predefined minimum speed to all users once their data-cap has been reached. There's absolutely no reason not to choose this type of model for eliminating all overage charges and creating a better experience overall; it's clear that they choose data-plan based billing because it allows them to double dip.

Use less data than you planned? That means you paid more than you had to. Use more data than you planned? That means you paid more than you had to.
Even if you use exactly all of the data you prepurchased, you're still going to get ripped off in the long run. It's clearly a joke.

If we get fair internet pricing, they'll just try to subvert the situation again. Whatever legal solution is created would need to be completely bulletproof and there's simply no such thing as a perfect law. The only real way to get justice through law, is to create a culture where people actually adhere to moral limitations. We breed that out of lawyers and other corporate professionals before they ever leave school. That's the underlying problem. The FCC can't fix that; they can only introduce a new law. Corporations will seek to "legally" evade the law, or they'll simply seek to get the law changed through lobbying efforts because our politicians and regulatory officials often harbor the same moral depravity.

The cause of issues like this one are rooted so deeply in modern society that I doubt they'll ever be truly fixed.
Edited by Mookster - 9/26/16 at 9:51am
Trash Box
(15 items)
 
 
G73JH-A1
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 980x @ 4.4GHz Asus P6X58D-E Gigabyte 8GB GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 24GB Corsair Dominators 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveMonitorKeyboard
2x256GB C300's R0 1TB Samsung 850 Pro ASUS MG279Q, Catleap Q270 G19 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair AX1200 Silverstone RV-02 G9x 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 965BE 125W Asus M4A77D Asus 5770 Cucore 4GB Kingston 800MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSKeyboard
2x750GB Seagates 22x LG DVD-RW w7 Ultimate 64-bit  G15 
PowerCase
Antec Earthwatts 430W 80+ Antec New Solution NSK6580B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
720QM AsusTek Mobility HD5870 8GB Kingston 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB C300/500GB Seagate Bluray Combo w7 Ultimate 64-bit 17'' 1080P 
Case
G73JH-A1 
  hide details  
Trash Box
(15 items)
 
 
G73JH-A1
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 980x @ 4.4GHz Asus P6X58D-E Gigabyte 8GB GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 24GB Corsair Dominators 1600MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveMonitorKeyboard
2x256GB C300's R0 1TB Samsung 850 Pro ASUS MG279Q, Catleap Q270 G19 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair AX1200 Silverstone RV-02 G9x 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 965BE 125W Asus M4A77D Asus 5770 Cucore 4GB Kingston 800MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSKeyboard
2x750GB Seagates 22x LG DVD-RW w7 Ultimate 64-bit  G15 
PowerCase
Antec Earthwatts 430W 80+ Antec New Solution NSK6580B 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
720QM AsusTek Mobility HD5870 8GB Kingston 1600MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
256GB C300/500GB Seagate Bluray Combo w7 Ultimate 64-bit 17'' 1080P 
Case
G73JH-A1 
  hide details  
post #40 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by tp4tissue View Post

You want to do this .. FINE..

Block ALL ads traffic, and give me PRECISELY what I want to see.. if you can do that.. I will pay you per Cat-Gif I view..

^This! If i buy 4 oreos and someone else is eating half of em against my will who are you to tell me i shouldnt get 2 more to compensate.
New beginning
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700 Msi x370 Titanium  Aorus 1080 TI waterforce wb Gskill tridentZ 3200 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
WD blue m.2 SSD Intel 370 SSD custom loop W10 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
asus 24" Corsair RMx 850 gold Custom Define S cube Logitech G502 
Mouse Pad
Corsair mm300 
  hide details  
New beginning
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 1700 Msi x370 Titanium  Aorus 1080 TI waterforce wb Gskill tridentZ 3200 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
WD blue m.2 SSD Intel 370 SSD custom loop W10 
MonitorPowerCaseMouse
asus 24" Corsair RMx 850 gold Custom Define S cube Logitech G502 
Mouse Pad
Corsair mm300 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [ARSTechnica] ISP explains data caps to FCC: Using the Internet is like eating Oreos