I have a 186GB 5G monthly limit on my 10€ mobile subscription, then (supposedly) it drops to 4G speed. I’m ok with those kind of limits because they are not there to milk people.
Comment on FCC restores net neutrality rules that ban blocking and throttling in 3-2 vote
DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social 5 months agoI fucking hate data caps - no reason they should exist in this day and age.
Valmond@lemmy.world 5 months ago
JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I checked the carriers around here and all of them unsurprisingly offer the same thing. 50GB 5G for 50€ that drop to roughly 2G speeds once the limit is reached.
Almost 20x the cost of your subscription.
Supermariofan67@programming.dev 5 months ago
I think it should be limited data cap OR limited/guaranteed speed, but not both
Jarix@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Meanwhile in canada i have a plan from 2012 that was an unlimited plan they that geta throttled after 5gigs (it has been since upped to 20gigs now)
If its throttled its throttled to less than 200kbps
uis@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Try watching videos over I2P. 64 kbps average.
PiratePanPan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
186 GB
Oddly specific and insane limit that nobody is ever going to reach
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
You will if you hotspot your phone and connect your computer to it instead of paying for a home internet plan.
PiratePanPan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
Yeah, this is fair. I’m spoiled with gigabit so I forgot people still do that.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
the problem here is that it’s still there to milk people. It’s just not like, criminal.
aeharding@vger.social 5 months ago
Yep, I should be able to peg 600mbps 24/7
scoobford@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
No reason they should exist in any day and age.
Companies do not pay per packet. Paying more for more bandwidth or lower latency kind of makes sense because theoretically they may be prioritizing your traffic when the network is under too much load. But sending 16 petabytes costs exactly the same as 1kb in a month, assuming your connection is fast enough to handle 16 petabytes in a month.
Trollception@lemmy.world 5 months ago
True companies do not pay per packet but they do pay for the bandwidth. The more users that use more bandwidth consistently means the ISP needs to invest more money on throughput/links. If you have 100 users and they use 1 mbps on average you can get away with a 100mpbs link. If you have 5 users using 50mpbs on average now you need a gig link. So technically it’s not free but yeah bandwidth caps suck big time. My suggestion would be to pick a place to live near a city with a municipal broadband option.
uis@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The problem ISPs ask to pay BOTH for bandwidth and for packets. Which is double payment.
CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Kind of. They’re asking you to pay for maximum possible bandwidth but make no claims about how long you can use that max bandwidth. Packets are only a convenient way to measure a percentage of max bandwidth use over time.
scoobford@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
We were supposed to build one here, but AT&T basically owns our city government lol.
They announced the project wouldn’t be moving forward because they wouldn’t/couldn’t use imminent domain to lay fiber in peoples yards. They’ve used it to build 3 stadiums in the past 20 years, and knock down entire neighborhoods in the process. Literally bulldozed multiple square miles of city.
I fucking hate it here. We gave the stadium owners a bunch of money this week to renovate their stadium for some reason.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
it probably means that they would have to upgrade their little bunny hopping network technology that has about 300ms latency end to end, because god forbid you roll out a simple technology and have an easy time maintaining it.
Which is probably why they do it.
III@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Upgrade infrastructure?! No, no. That money needs to go to shareholders. There’s no way millions of people need decent internet speeds more than shareholders need their 12th yacht.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
you mean to tell me that rolling out fiber is cheap and that servicing it end to end is also cheap and that the latency and speeds it provides keeps customers happy meaning we have to spend less time dealing with them?
That’s cool, call me when i care.
sincerely, your local ISP.
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Right but if everyone sends 16 petabtyes a month the internet would collapse. Data caps do absolutely work to reduce bandwidth on a network scale. Bandwidth is measured in mbps. Limit the Mb and you reduce the necessary bandwidth.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
but if everyone sent 16PB a month they would have some bomb ass connections as well, and i would sure hope as hell that it would hold up.
I dont even want to calculate how fast a connection would need to be for that to be a datacap.
uis@lemmy.world 5 months ago
More than 6 gigabytes per second
uis@lemmy.world 5 months ago
For context 16 petabytes per month is about(slightly more than) 6 gigabytes per second. Also internet was designed during times when computers were super expensive and 100% utilization was norm.
scoobford@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
You already buy “up to” a certain speed. When the network is congested, you just deal with it.
Trying to make people budget their internet usage is stupid and pointless.