The FCC wants to know why data caps are still a thing in 2023
The FCC wants to know why data caps are still a thing in 2023
Consumer data consumption has increased exponentially in a little over a decade. According to broadband insight reports from OpenVault, monthly household data usage has skyrocketed from an...
$$$ 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.
I mean hell, they could follow through with their promises for bringing back net neutrality.
They introduced a bill in 2022, but nothing much has happened with it since then. Probably because it would fail to pass the Republican dominated House of Representatives.
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
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".
Isn't there still a vacancy on the FCC? Wouldn't that also affect any new designations?
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 for' than those who enforce it?
Regulatory capture?
What's going to stop the forms being filled out by industry-controlled bots this time?^1 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.
I used to work in utilities. Electric, not telecom so different set of regulators. What they would do is yank you into and office and tell you something to the effect of: "[Name of Regulatory Body] is considering [issue]. You should really consider going on the public comment section of their website and voicing your [support/opposition depending on corporate stance] for it. It's not mandatory but you should really consider doing that. It's very important to our company."
It wasn't "mandatory" but they would repeatedly hound you until you either did it or told them to fuck off, at which point you would be branded a "troublemaker" and they would find ways to punish you.
True, but research showed up to 80% of the comments from the previous FCC public comment were made by bots.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/43a5kg/80-percent-net-neutrality-comments-bots-astroturfing
Damn, I forgot all about that. I think one was made under my name and some family, and it was all the same copy-paste letter.
Did anything ever come of that or did it just get swept under the rug?
Swept under the rug, thus my concerns here.
But they can claim it was done in an open and democratic way.
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
For real. We had a chance once upon a time to actually stop this nonsense, but the powers that be sat on their hands and did nothing.
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
fetchXfinity 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.
Nipple rubbing intensifies
It's ridiculous I have to pay Xfinity $110/mo for my speed and unlimited bandwidth
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.
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. :|
EDIT: This is for home internet, 1000 down/30 up, unlimited data
After probably 5 years of having fiber less than 5 miles from our house and having to pay Xfinity extra for no cap, both that company and our power company expanded into our neighborhood about a month ago. The power company has not gone "live" yet, but the other did.
Our bill went from $117 to $65 at least for the first 3 years. It'll go up after but we'll also have 3 choices. Xfinity was 800/12, the fiber is 1gb/500.
It was pretty satisfying cancelling Xfinity even though we had no issues with it as a service, just overpriced.
Because of corporate greed and a ridiculous lack of meaningful regulation.
I know the FCC thinks they’re helping, but don’t let them F’ this up too.
GREED. That has always been the answer.
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?
This is a rhetorical question right?
Get money out of as many facets of life as we can!! Free energy for the people! We are the energy!
soylent green is people!
Short answer? Because they can.
Because there is money to be made!
@Atemu. Money. Same reason they don't really wanna disclose all the little fees.
I mean, if you ask why a company is doing xyz the answer is pretty much universally money.
Money!
Oh fuck off FCC, you know exactly why and intentionally don't address it.
OH SAY CAN YOU SEE
It’s the same reason my complex can force me to pay $100 for Xfinity while my neighbor pays $30 for the exact same service (because they’re in a house).
Xfinity only charging $30? Where is this?
I'm in a house and the cheapest tier internet I can get is $55
Me too
I don't know if it's the same but here in France, fiber connection data is always unlimited but never (one exception) unlimited concerning data over 4G/5G.
I think it's a good thing in France because mobile connections are not expensive at all and people could use it as their main home connection.
The point is that mobile connections use more power and have a way higher carbon footprint so it's nice to prevent people from doing this.
Interesting…me too 🤔
The FCC still doesn’t have a leader. Biden nominated one but couldn’t get congress to approve one so they’ve sort of been stuck and unable to do anything.
The FCC is split evenly by Repubs and Dems, with the Commissioner being the tie breaker, nominated by the presiding president
This is something that has affected me recently. I've avoided paying extra for Comcast's unlimited data option since I was consistently using less than the 1.2TB cap for years. However, my son is home for the summer for the first time ever, and he pushed us over the cap this month. Luckily I have the courtesy month left so I won't get charge more, but it has made me realize I will have to make some decisions before next month that I never had to think about in the past.
Because...
Because MONEY and lack of choice in some markets.... easy.
Most internet service providers are quasi-monopolies with little competition. That's why.
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
They're behind the series of tubes.
Bandwidth isn't scarce. If it was, municipal ISPs wouldn't be handing out gigabit connectivity like candy.
This issue is 100% greed.