Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Communications The Internet

FCC Chair To Investigate Exactly How Much Everyone Hates Data Caps (arstechnica.com) 67

Posted by msmash from the worthy-fights dept.
Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel wants the FCC to open a formal inquiry into how data caps harm Internet users and why broadband providers still impose the caps. The inquiry could eventually lead to the FCC regulating how Internet service providers such as Comcast impose limits on data usage. From a report: Rosenworcel yesterday announced that she asked fellow commissioners to support a Notice of Inquiry on the topic. Among other things, the Notice would seek comment from the public "to better understand why the use of data caps continues to persist despite increased broadband needs of consumers and providers' demonstrated technical ability to offer unlimited data plans."

The inquiry would also seek comment on "trends in consumer data usage... on the impact of data caps on consumers, consumers' experience with data caps, how consumers are informed about data caps on service offerings, and how data caps impact competition." Finally, Rosenworcel wants to seek comment about the FCC's "legal authority to take actions regarding data caps." "In particular, the agency would like to better understand the current state of data caps, their impact on consumers, and whether the Commission should consider taking action to ensure that data caps do not cause harm to competition or consumers' ability to access broadband Internet services," the press release said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Chair To Investigate Exactly How Much Everyone Hates Data Caps More

FCC Chair To Investigate Exactly How Much Everyone Hates Data Caps

Comments Filter:

  • Depends on who "Everyone" is (Score:3)

    by GlennC ( 96879 ) on Friday June 16, 2023 @02:27PM (#63608650)

    If it's the ISP's and Telco's then data caps are not bad at all.

    If it's the average American citizen....who are we kidding?

    Nobody in Congress has cared about the average American citizen in decades.

  • I don't have a problem with metered billing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Friday June 16, 2023 @02:35PM (#63608662) Homepage Journal

    I DO have a problem with abusing it though.

    If I pay $50 for 100Mbps with a 500GB/month "cap" I expect that if I use 999.999GB that month, I will pay no more than $100.

    Things get abusive when it's "oh we are going to cut you off or throttle you down, PERIOD" or "sure, you can pay more $ for more data, but at a higher per-GB-of-traffic rate" so what should be a $100 monthly bill turns into a $200 or even a $2000 bill.

    • I agree with this. But, I think it should just be $0.10 per gig all the way up. Maybe $25 for the 100mbps connection speed + $0.05 per gb consumed. I do think you would also get many people shocked by the bill at the end, but at least it "feels" fair. You can mitigate your own costs.

      • Re: I don't have a problem with metered billing (Score:4, Insightful)

        by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Friday June 16, 2023 @02:52PM (#63608714) Homepage

        Advertisers will hate that as people will realize they are paying for ads.

        • Advertisers will hate that as people will realize they are paying for ads.

          As it is, when you load a site (think any news site) you get the headlines, a bunch of excess fluff crap most users don't even know is there, tracking stuff for marketing, advertisements for clickbait (I'm looking at you, Fox), and worse. Autoplaying videos are not only annoying but suck up bandwidth.

          You have crap that loads so slowly that when you try to click on something it's moved and you wind up clicking on some ad. This is, of course, by design.

          The best thing that the browser publishers could do at

      • needs to be an state certified Meter at your home!
        Not one at the headend that counts data it's trying to send but does not make it due bad lines.
        Not one at the headend that counts data it's trying to send but does not make it due to there being no power at your home.
        Not one at the headend that does not have an live real time readout.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          needs to be an state certified Meter at your home!
          Not one at the headend that counts data it's trying to send but does not make it due bad lines.
          Not one at the headend that counts data it's trying to send but does not make it due to there being no power at your home.
          Not one at the headend that does not have an live real time readout.

          And it needs to be standardized.

          Lots of "data caps" are 10% lower because they include things like DOCSIS headers or other things that are mandatory as part of the medium but yo

    • force role over of unused add on buckets to start.
      as there can be cased of delayed readout on the website that says much you used leading to useing more then have leading to auto buying an add bucket just to use like 1-5% of the add on but still paying 100% of the cost.

  • Overly complex "plans" (Score:3)

    by smap77 ( 1022907 ) on Friday June 16, 2023 @02:44PM (#63608694)

    Maybe if the data cappers had plans that were forthright and easy to understand, and then they coupled the product they sold with simple and proactive usage feedback this could be avoided?

    Nah.

    It would be nice if they explicitly told you your "Gigabit" internet is not a license for 324 TB of data download per month, however.

  • because a) if I pay them another $60/mo on a consumer account they'll lift the cap and b) I bought business class internet years ago and it doesn't have a cap.

    They're just lying, and we're letting them do it because reasons.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by hjf ( 703092 )

      the worst part is the comments here. some are justifying the caps, others are rationalizing and bargaining to get a middle ground.

      there's no middle ground to be had. Data caps should not exist, period. There is no technical reason for them to exist.

      • the worst part is the comments here. some are justifying the caps, others are rationalizing and bargaining to get a middle ground.

        there's no middle ground to be had. Data caps should not exist, period. There is no technical reason for them to exist.

        No technical but a financial one. Tiered services let users decide how much data they need per month and buy a plan that meets their needs. Get rid of caps and I suspect prices will simply rise because "now you get unlimited data even if you don't need it."

        • You are expecting an unlimited consumption right to a service that has a cost. Bandwidth is a real thing. It costs more money to produce and maintain it. Like all other utilities, it should just be metered. Many of the comments above call for fair metering and I couldn't agree more. These gimmicks are only around to see who can get the most consumers to choose them, and obfuscate the costs of the network among the subscribers. But there are better ways.

          Metering bandwidth will encourage economies to beco

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by edwdig ( 47888 )

            You're forgetting that unlimited data is really only a thing at the residential and small business level. If you're a business with any significant bandwidth needs, you're paying for your usage.

            It makes far more sense to meter this stuff at the business end than the consumer end. Any business with significant bandwidth costs is going to have people on staff that understand the issues and can deal with it. The average person isn't going to be able to figure out why some shows they watch use more bandwidth th

          • You are expecting an unlimited consumption right to a service that has a cost.

            Actually, no I do not, as I pointed out with the tired comment. I suspect we are in more agreement than your comment suggests, if I read it correctly.

            Bandwidth is a real thing. It costs more money to produce and maintain it. Like all other utilities, it should just be metered. Many of the comments above call for fair metering and I couldn't agree more. These gimmicks are only around to see who can get the most consumers to choose them, and obfuscate the costs of the network among the subscribers. But there are better ways.

            Sure, and tiered pricing allows companies to recoup costs of higher usage while allowing customers to only buy what they use. Right now, tiered pricing primarily focuses on speed, which is somewhat of a proxy for data consumption, while data consumption is more of an overage charge. The reasonableness of such a pricing structure and the associated prices are

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by edwdig ( 47888 )

          No technical but a financial one. Tiered services let users decide how much data they need per month and buy a plan that meets their needs. Get rid of caps and I suspect prices will simply rise because "now you get unlimited data even if you don't need it."

          Data caps generally only exist in areas that don't have any competition among ISPs. Those areas tend to have high base prices, plus the data caps on top. They do it because they can get away with it. Get an area with two good options for an ISP and you won't get data caps, and they'll push each other's prices down.

          • No technical but a financial one. Tiered services let users decide how much data they need per month and buy a plan that meets their needs. Get rid of caps and I suspect prices will simply rise because "now you get unlimited data even if you don't need it."

            Data caps generally only exist in areas that don't have any competition among ISPs. Those areas tend to have high base prices, plus the data caps on top. They do it because they can get away with it. Get an area with two good options for an ISP and you won't get data caps, and they'll push each other's prices down.

            Exactly. Competition should help lower prices, especially if new entrants can use newer technology to lower their costs of service. 5G is promising, since new entrants don't need to use expensive fiber cable runs to get into the market. TMobile in the US offers 5G at a much lower price than the cable companies, no data caps, and a reasonable d/l speed. In Europe, I use a cell phone as my internet provider and the 5G pay as you go plans are pretty cheap as well with no data caps as long as I don't room to

  • Comcast changes more for when you don't rent! there hardware for unlimited

  • Data caps exist for two reasons - they used to make *technical* sense to impose as network resources were much rarer/more expensive than they are now and overwhelming majority of US citizens either don't know enough to challenge it or are too lazy to, and because of that it's an enormous cash cow. That's all. Limit corporate and high-level executive incomes, impose increasing tax rates for corporations and individuals earning over certain amounts, and offer people an alternative solution that doesn't make t

    • Data caps exist for two reasons - they used to make *technical* sense to impose as network resources were much rarer/more expensive than they are now and overwhelming majority of US citizens either don't know enough to challenge it or are too lazy to, and because of that it's an enormous cash cow.

      There's a third reason: to prevent bad actors. My guess is the vast majority of customers rarely hit their data caps (I think I may have hit my home data cap once, when I was seeding cloud backups of my home system and laptops). Some small number of users essentially set up server farms at home and use much more data than a typical home. That usage blows the statistical overprovisioning models out of the water. Data caps seem a quite reasonable way of dealing with that situation.

      If the FCC was going to actu

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hjf ( 703092 )

        That's what AUP are for. Anyone can look at statistics from average user and from the top 1%, and cut them off service because of an AUP violation.

        You don't need data caps.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday June 16, 2023 @02:53PM (#63608716)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Public Comments? Probably All Bot Responses (Score:3)

    by Zaraday ( 6285110 ) on Friday June 16, 2023 @02:59PM (#63608736)

    Unless they've radically changed how they solicit the public for comments, I foresee this ending about the same way as it did when they asked for public comments about net neutrality. Hopefully they learned their lesson from that, or at least know how to sort through the bogus responses to get an accurate picture of the actual prevailing public opinion.

  • I don't mind caps per se, as long as they are advertised honestly. As someone else said, caps are the reality of how networks are built and oversubscribed.

    But I do think it's complete dishonesty that ISPs and cell companies can say it's "unlimited data." Even though they don't cut off the connection when the initial cap is reached, at the throttled bandwidth rate there is a effective cap or limit on the data that can be transferred. As an example, Suppose they cut you back to 256 kbit/s after the first 50

    • Agreed. If someone sells me an 'unlimited' connection and I max out my bandwidth 24/7... so what? I'm using what I paid for.

      Disclaimers notwithstanding, any ISP that sells 'unlimited' and then cuts you off for going over their soft cap should be liable in court for fraud.

      Sell bandwidth, not transfer, or don't call it 'unlimited'. Tell me what the cap is that I'm paying for.

  • That this is nothing personal

    Next.

  • CenturyLink DSL, circa 2013-2018, 40Mbps Down / 5Mbps Up: CenturyLink counted upstream and downstream traffic together when computing bandwidth used relative to my cap. If I used 1/50th of the possible bandwidth available per month I was over my cap. Pegging a 1Mbps stream for a month sent me over my cap. I cackled when they sent me the termination letter. "So long, bitches! I'll give someone else my money!" Now I'm 60 linear feet away from a major north-south CenturyLink feeder in the west in of town

  • Data caps encourage artificial scarcity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday June 16, 2023 @04:01PM (#63608926)
    why build out enough capacity when you can charge extra for your now "limited" resource? Folks keep mentioning oversubscription, but if you pay them they'll give you unlimited bandwidth, which tells you it's easy enough for them to do it. And they've got trillions (with a "t") of dollars of our taxpayer money for building out infrastructure they promised and never delivered.

    Just make Internet a public utility already. There's too many perverse incentives when it's private, and they didn't build any of the infrastructure anyway. It was either handed to them or we paid them to make it and they got to keep it because reasons.

    • Just make Internet a public utility already. There's too many perverse incentives when it's private, and they didn't build any of the infrastructure anyway. It was either handed to them or we paid them to make it and they got to keep it because reasons.

      Have you ever seen any public utility do anything beneficial for it's ratepayers where the utility was not being bullied into action by Government and-or regulatory authority??

      Dial back the clock to the days when telephone service was regulated in more ways than you could imagine. There was little innovation in telephone technology for the consumer. Buy whatever phone you want? Nope, just a desk style or wall-mount style, but in a dozen colors. Attach any answering machine you want? No way in h3ll unless yo

      • Go look up what happened when Thatcher privatized the rail roads. Worse service, higher prices, absolute disaster. Her policies were so terrible she started a war to distract. It worked too. Years later Bush Jr did the same thing. Trump tried it with Iran, killing that General and such and there's leaked documents of him talking about starting a war for political gain, but the generals thought he was too crazy and unlike Iraq & Afghanistan Iran can fight back so they vetoed him.

    • ... they've got trillions (with a "t") of dollars of our taxpayer money for building out infrastructure they promised and never delivered.

      So how about having the government just enforce that delivery - under threat of clawing back the money if they don't perform?

  • As a consumer I have data caps on my mobile hotspots.

    As a user, I consume about 30 to 70 gigabytes a month.

    Since my internet company can provide that at $50 dollars for anyone, I suspect anything under 100 gigabytes is fine for most people and would be reasonably priced.

    As a consumer I fear and hate a datacap low enough to make it likely to be broken and then charged enormous fees for overages.

    But I get that SOME ABUSIVE CUSTOMERS will try to run a business or consume 20,000 gigabytes a month without caps.

    S

    • No, they're not. Somehow, my ISP manages to get by without.

      Even the mobile backup plan I have gives me 30/6 unlimited for 15 bucks a month.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by kobaz ( 107760 )

      That's not how backhaul data networks work at all. The 'business down the road using 20TB' does not have a direct bearing on overall network usage. It has to do with *simultaneous* usage. Carriers don't pay their interlinked networks per GB, and neither should you.

      What they DO have is say a 100Gbit pipe in your local area heading out to the 'internet' (really it's a bunch of interconnected networks and not just one connection). And then the carrier says ah, we can allocate X number of customers, using Y

  • If I've got a 500GB cap, it's really difficult to tell Netflix to throttle me down to 5Mbit/sec.

    Even if I did, there are those incessant video ads on websites that start adding up.

    Even if I ran an ad blocker, there are OS patches. Said patches used to be 5-10MB a pop, but Microsoft seems to think that re-downloading an entire OS twice a year is a worthwhile use of bandwidth.

    Even if I limited my OS patches, video games seem to be unable to conceive of modular design; I'm certain that it's possible for game p

  • Back around 2010 we were in a situation where the only viable option for general internet was wireless. We got a Verizon MiFi hotspot and thought it was great. We're frugal with our bandwidth, so the 5 Gb cap didn't really bother us. But one month we did need a bit more and we went over a bit. Going to just under 6 Gb doubled our bill. There was no meter or warning. I called the customer service and they "generously" canceled the charge "this time." I explained the situation and said that if it happe

    • Funny enough, I just did a weird switch. I cancelled my fiber (Verizon) and switched to TMobile 5g home internet. The fios was 85/85, I get 85-100/24 with the 5g. They claim no caps, and we used 400-500gb each of the last two months and weren't throttled.

      But what a breath of fresh air not having to deal with Verizon constantly. My plan price is locked in like my mobile price has been the last 8 years. No contacts. And about $15/mo cheaper.

  • What's those "data caps" you talk about? (Score:3)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Friday June 16, 2023 @05:34PM (#63609082)

    Wait a sec, in the US ISPs limit how much you can transfer per month?

    That wouldn't fly outside of prepaid phone plans over here in Europe.

    • Yes but here in the USA, we only care about businesses so it's pretty much inline with how we do things. It's been this way from the start.

    • In Japan I go through multiple terabytes every month for about $30. As a former Comcast cable installer, I can stay with authority that the company should not just be broken up, but also ground into a fine dust and buried at the bottom of a mine.

  • >"FCC Chair To Investigate Exactly How Much Everyone Hates Data Caps"

    It isn't that hard to understand. Most people don't like anything that costs them more money or places limits on what they do.

    As for caps... those few who use tons of data on congested systems can and will make life worse for others trying to use the services. So you can either limit them or not. If they need to up bandwidth, that requires more/faster nodes/towers/connectivity/etc and that costs more money. So they can charge EVERYO

  • Here in the UK and huge swathes of Europe data caps on fixed broadband aren't a thing and haven't been for years. It must be the early 2000s when I last had a ISP with a data cap. We have unlimited and without throttling, other than a bit of bandwidth management during peak times, and it's taken as a given that's what ISPs offer. It's pretty much only cellular and mobile data packages that have data caps over here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Close