4 ms·

But that doesn't apply to this case, because Verizon was previously being neutral. Verizon didn't cut off the fire department because of the type of data the fi

by Buge 8y ago

But that doesn't apply to this case, because Verizon was previously being neutral. Verizon didn't cut off the fire department because of the type of data the fire department was using. Verizon shut off the fire department because the fire department hit the cap in the internet plan they signed up for. Verizon is now treating the fire department different from everyone else, so now that Verizon removed the fire department's cap, Verizon could be argued to be no longer neutral.

shmerl 8y ago
I answered in general, not specifically about this case. Data caps are unnecessary anyway, they are an artificial way to force uses to pay more.
- Buge 8y ago
  tooltalk was expressing confusion about how Net Neutrality relates to this case. How are data caps artificial? Verizon needs to pay money to have capacity in its cell towers. If more people use more data, that means Verizon needs to build more powerful cell towers. By limiting people's data, Verizon doesn't need as many towers. If people pay more, that funds Verizon to build more towers.
  - shmerl 8y ago
    Caps don't manage capacity. Capacity is saturated by simultaneous usage. That's managed by limiting bandwidth, not by setting a monthly data cap. In practice caps are simply a rip off, masked under the need to manage the network.
    - Buge 8y ago
      One way of thinking about a data cap is just a bandwidth limitation measured over a long period. Bandwidth cannot be measured instantaneously, it has to be measured over some period of time. I'm not sure what the normal period ISPs use is, but maybe it's 0.1 seconds. Then if someone has a 100 Mbps download connection and a 1 TB monthly download data cap, that person effectively has 2 bandwidth limits: a limit of 100Mbps when measured over 0.1 seconds, and a limit of 3.086Mbps when measured over 1 month. Or you could say it's a 3.086Mbps connection that allows bursting up to 100Mbps as long as the bursts are paid back with downtime.
    - usrusr 8y ago
      Data caps incentivize conservative use of a shared resource. They don't prevent congestion (only surge pricing could do that, but nobody wants to check market rates before sending a packet), but they make congestion a much rarer occurrence.
      - shmerl 8y ago
        > They don't prevent congestion Q.E.D. So these claims that caps are a network management tools are false. They don't even make congestion a more rare occurrence. If network can't cope with simultaneous usage, no amount of monthly caps will fix it. The only way to do it is to build it up. What caps do, is forcing users to pay for more expensive plan with less caps. Or disadvantage competitors against ISP's own services that are excluded from those caps. It's a rip off scheme.
        usrusr 8y ago
        > They don't even make congestion a more rare occurrence. Because if everybody uses more data there won't be more congestion? Sorry, that does not even qualify as wishful thinking. What caps do is force people who use the network more than others to contribute roughly proportionally more to its investment and maintenance. If you really expect guaranteed uncontested bandwidth, anytime, anywhere, then your network could only ever sell you as much as you'd get if every one of their customers would gather in a single cell and fire up their radios at once. You would dream of modem speeds - and not be willing to pay even a cent for that tiny amount of service.
        shmerl 8y ago
        Because congestion is not caused by using more data, it's caused by more people using connection simultaneously. As I said above, monthly caps don't help for that at all. I.e. let's say now is the time when all caps are reset (beginning of the month). Everyone starts using the network - boom! You have congestion even if amount of data they consumed is small. To make the analogy more easy to digest. Let's say you have a highway that's commonly overloaded. Instead of adding more lanes or limiting the number of cars per hour, you start limiting the distance that cars can go. How is that going to help? It will still get congested. So ISPs should stop pretending already that caps are a network management tool - it's not. It's a user fleecing and anti-competitive tool they use to increase their profits.

by Buge 8y ago

shmerl 8y ago

I answered in general, not specifically about this case. Data caps are unnecessary anyway, they are an artificial way to force uses to pay more.

Buge 8y ago
tooltalk was expressing confusion about how Net Neutrality relates to this case. How are data caps artificial? Verizon needs to pay money to have capacity in its cell towers. If more people use more data, that means Verizon needs to build more powerful cell towers. By limiting people's data, Verizon doesn't need as many towers. If people pay more, that funds Verizon to build more towers.
- shmerl 8y ago
  Caps don't manage capacity. Capacity is saturated by simultaneous usage. That's managed by limiting bandwidth, not by setting a monthly data cap. In practice caps are simply a rip off, masked under the need to manage the network.
  - Buge 8y ago
    One way of thinking about a data cap is just a bandwidth limitation measured over a long period. Bandwidth cannot be measured instantaneously, it has to be measured over some period of time. I'm not sure what the normal period ISPs use is, but maybe it's 0.1 seconds. Then if someone has a 100 Mbps download connection and a 1 TB monthly download data cap, that person effectively has 2 bandwidth limits: a limit of 100Mbps when measured over 0.1 seconds, and a limit of 3.086Mbps when measured over 1 month. Or you could say it's a 3.086Mbps connection that allows bursting up to 100Mbps as long as the bursts are paid back with downtime.
  - usrusr 8y ago
    Data caps incentivize conservative use of a shared resource. They don't prevent congestion (only surge pricing could do that, but nobody wants to check market rates before sending a packet), but they make congestion a much rarer occurrence.
    - shmerl 8y ago
      > They don't prevent congestion Q.E.D. So these claims that caps are a network management tools are false. They don't even make congestion a more rare occurrence. If network can't cope with simultaneous usage, no amount of monthly caps will fix it. The only way to do it is to build it up. What caps do, is forcing users to pay for more expensive plan with less caps. Or disadvantage competitors against ISP's own services that are excluded from those caps. It's a rip off scheme.
      - usrusr 8y ago
        > They don't even make congestion a more rare occurrence. Because if everybody uses more data there won't be more congestion? Sorry, that does not even qualify as wishful thinking. What caps do is force people who use the network more than others to contribute roughly proportionally more to its investment and maintenance. If you really expect guaranteed uncontested bandwidth, anytime, anywhere, then your network could only ever sell you as much as you'd get if every one of their customers would gather in a single cell and fire up their radios at once. You would dream of modem speeds - and not be willing to pay even a cent for that tiny amount of service.
        shmerl 8y ago
        Because congestion is not caused by using more data, it's caused by more people using connection simultaneously. As I said above, monthly caps don't help for that at all. I.e. let's say now is the time when all caps are reset (beginning of the month). Everyone starts using the network - boom! You have congestion even if amount of data they consumed is small. To make the analogy more easy to digest. Let's say you have a highway that's commonly overloaded. Instead of adding more lanes or limiting the number of cars per hour, you start limiting the distance that cars can go. How is that going to help? It will still get congested. So ISPs should stop pretending already that caps are a network management tool - it's not. It's a user fleecing and anti-competitive tool they use to increase their profits.