4 ms·

>To allay your complaints about unfairness, you could structure it so that the caps are looser in off hours like 3am, but then again, that wouldn’t benefit most

>To allay your complaints about unfairness, you could structure it so that the caps are looser in off hours like 3am, but then again, that wouldn’t benefit most people because they don’t use the internet at 3am. On the other hand, something like this might incentivize developers to take advantage of lower pricing during periods of lower congestion. Mobile OSes tend to provide the user a choice between downloading updates anytime or only when on WiFi, but if the pricing structure made this useful, there’s no reason they couldn’t download updates overnight too.

icebraining 8y ago
Back in the early 2000s, before most plans move to "unlimited", some ISPs in Portugal did exactly that: they had rather small caps, but then unlimited between 1am and 7am. And we did have developers take advantage of that; for example, there was a popular fork of eMule that had extra scheduling features, so it could automatically run just in that period.
- gcb0 8y ago
  then they realized they could get away without even that modicum of respect to the clients, because, well they run a legal monopoly. Either you only have one option (fiber, or even cable in some markets) or the 3 to 4 offerings have the same "deals" across the board. I try very hard to be civil on HN, but everyone defending artifical data caps are a bunch of idiots (in the true sense of the greek work: a person that can't live in society and should be voted to be ostracized).
  - hueving 8y ago
    >I try very hard to be civil on HN, but everyone defending artifical data caps are a bunch of idiots Not that hard I guess. Data caps are the only reason you have affordable consumer internet because they allow a significant amount of oversubscription which matches the mostly-idle bursty behavior of consumers. You can get leased lines from ISPs with no caps easily. You just won't like the real price that comes with guaranteeing a customer that kind of bandwidth.
    - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
      And why should content creators also be the ones who control the very last mile of the internet in the USA? You don't think there's something very wrong with that arrangement? Back in the day, we used to take a dim look at companies who amassed horizontal or vertical monopolies, and broke them up. Well, they're like the replicators from Stargate SG1 and have reassembled into something even uglier. And yet when we discuss this, you fall back on caps and justification by contention ratio... But why are their services zero rated, eh? Of course we know why - it's to kill the opposing services like Netflix, Hulu, or others... except for their services! Logically, the actual lines should belong to the people (government). The money We've(royal) paid has been above and beyond what it would have cost for a REMC-style internet-ification. I don't want the US or State govts being ISPs themselves, but muni style arrangements have worked out well in the past - except when Comcast and ATT haven't lobbied them out of existence.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        > And yet when we discuss this, you fall back on caps and justification by contention ratio... But why are their services zero rated, eh? Of course we know why - it's to kill the opposing services like Netflix, Hulu, or others... except for their services! I mean there is also the fact that TV and broadband run on entirey separate infrastructure that just happens to share a physical wire. On FiOS, for example, TV is a separate wavelength of laser and is a broadcast signal, not an IP signal.
        AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        How can it be entirely separate infrastructure if it uses the same physical wire? Using those wavelengths for that leaves less carrying capacity for internet data. It's in direct contention for the same resource.
        shmerl 8y ago
        They don't need to compete for the wire for this to be a problem, they just need to compete for the viewer, which they do.

icebraining 8y ago

Back in the early 2000s, before most plans move to "unlimited", some ISPs in Portugal did exactly that: they had rather small caps, but then unlimited between 1am and 7am. And we did have developers take advantage of that; for example, there was a popular fork of eMule that had extra scheduling features, so it could automatically run just in that period.

gcb0 8y ago
then they realized they could get away without even that modicum of respect to the clients, because, well they run a legal monopoly. Either you only have one option (fiber, or even cable in some markets) or the 3 to 4 offerings have the same "deals" across the board. I try very hard to be civil on HN, but everyone defending artifical data caps are a bunch of idiots (in the true sense of the greek work: a person that can't live in society and should be voted to be ostracized).
- hueving 8y ago
  >I try very hard to be civil on HN, but everyone defending artifical data caps are a bunch of idiots Not that hard I guess. Data caps are the only reason you have affordable consumer internet because they allow a significant amount of oversubscription which matches the mostly-idle bursty behavior of consumers. You can get leased lines from ISPs with no caps easily. You just won't like the real price that comes with guaranteeing a customer that kind of bandwidth.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    And why should content creators also be the ones who control the very last mile of the internet in the USA? You don't think there's something very wrong with that arrangement? Back in the day, we used to take a dim look at companies who amassed horizontal or vertical monopolies, and broke them up. Well, they're like the replicators from Stargate SG1 and have reassembled into something even uglier. And yet when we discuss this, you fall back on caps and justification by contention ratio... But why are their services zero rated, eh? Of course we know why - it's to kill the opposing services like Netflix, Hulu, or others... except for their services! Logically, the actual lines should belong to the people (government). The money We've(royal) paid has been above and beyond what it would have cost for a REMC-style internet-ification. I don't want the US or State govts being ISPs themselves, but muni style arrangements have worked out well in the past - except when Comcast and ATT haven't lobbied them out of existence.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > And yet when we discuss this, you fall back on caps and justification by contention ratio... But why are their services zero rated, eh? Of course we know why - it's to kill the opposing services like Netflix, Hulu, or others... except for their services! I mean there is also the fact that TV and broadband run on entirey separate infrastructure that just happens to share a physical wire. On FiOS, for example, TV is a separate wavelength of laser and is a broadcast signal, not an IP signal.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        How can it be entirely separate infrastructure if it uses the same physical wire? Using those wavelengths for that leaves less carrying capacity for internet data. It's in direct contention for the same resource.
        shmerl 8y ago
        They don't need to compete for the wire for this to be a problem, they just need to compete for the viewer, which they do.