3 ms·

I see their zero-rating as a much smaller issue than the data caps. "It's ridiculous that in this day and age, people have to worry about their internet usage

I see their zero-rating as a much smaller issue than the data caps. "It's ridiculous that in this day and age, people have to worry about their internet usage like it's some kind of limited resource." The caps are driving additional zero-rating services.

rtpg 11y ago
Well "internet usage" is a limited resource, you need better/more equipment to support more usage. "Unlimited Internet" was always a bit of a misnomer, at least now they're being honest about it
- phicoh 11y ago
  1 Mbit/s sustained translates into a bit above 300 Gbyte per month. So they can easily get back to fair use by limiting speeds to a couple of megabits. Of course that would kill streaming tv. Another way of looking at it, you can listen to audio 24x7 and not go over quota. Watching tv all day every day is not going to work.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    But most people aren't streaming 24 hours a day, but only in a specific period. So if the plan is 300 GB/month, then having higher speeds is more interesting than having slower speeds (especially if a slower speed doesn't let you actually use all your data)
    - phicoh 11y ago
      That's sort of where it went wrong. You offer video streaming rates and now people think, cool, tv, let's turn it on all day. If you offer data rates where you can afford to offer fair use, then each year you can offer higher data rates. Which is what people like. Where I live, I see this problem mostly on mobile. You see telcos offer insanely high 4G data rates and a data limit that is low enough that you can burn through that in a couple of minutes. The net result is that nobody cares anymore. In general, people don't want to keep track of their uses. It makes for a poor experience.
- izacus 11y ago
  The beneficial solution to the customers and the country as whole is to kick the providers to upgrade the infrastructure, not to let them suppress the marked by sitting on obsolete infrastructure and killing the competition.

rtpg 11y ago

Well "internet usage" is a limited resource, you need better/more equipment to support more usage. "Unlimited Internet" was always a bit of a misnomer, at least now they're being honest about it

phicoh 11y ago
1 Mbit/s sustained translates into a bit above 300 Gbyte per month. So they can easily get back to fair use by limiting speeds to a couple of megabits. Of course that would kill streaming tv. Another way of looking at it, you can listen to audio 24x7 and not go over quota. Watching tv all day every day is not going to work.
- rtpg 11y ago
  But most people aren't streaming 24 hours a day, but only in a specific period. So if the plan is 300 GB/month, then having higher speeds is more interesting than having slower speeds (especially if a slower speed doesn't let you actually use all your data)
  - phicoh 11y ago
    That's sort of where it went wrong. You offer video streaming rates and now people think, cool, tv, let's turn it on all day. If you offer data rates where you can afford to offer fair use, then each year you can offer higher data rates. Which is what people like. Where I live, I see this problem mostly on mobile. You see telcos offer insanely high 4G data rates and a data limit that is low enough that you can burn through that in a couple of minutes. The net result is that nobody cares anymore. In general, people don't want to keep track of their uses. It makes for a poor experience.
izacus 11y ago
The beneficial solution to the customers and the country as whole is to kick the providers to upgrade the infrastructure, not to let them suppress the marked by sitting on obsolete infrastructure and killing the competition.