5 ms·
There should not be a cap at all.
by tomc1985 6y ago
There should not be a cap at all.
- eru 6y agoWhat sense of 'should' are you using? The same sense as in 'everyone should have a pony, alas we live in the real world'? Or the sense of 'no one shall offer anyone an internet connection unless they can satisfy these arbitrary requirements I just made up'? I can sign up for the former. The latter would just lead to fewer people getting into the business.
- tomc1985 6y agoNeither. As in, transfer costs are vastly overstated to laypeople in the interest of profits, and that bites consumers in the form of bandwidth caps among other things. Note that I never said payment models need to stick to a fixed monthly price. Metered connections (at a small multiple above cost) are an option. What if the power company cut you off or greatly reduced your electricity after your consumption hit top N% of users? Why should the internet be much different?
- eru 6y ago> What if the power company cut you off or greatly reduced your electricity after your consumption hit top N% of users? Why should the internet be much different? If the contract I entered with the power company allows them to do that (and I presumably got a cheaper deal on my electricity in return), that's all fair.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 6y agoThe power company is doing that in California right now for the same reason—excessive usage compared to network capacity.
- tomc1985 6y agoMaybe you live in a different part of the state but here they are arbitrarily choosing sectors to shut off during peak hours. For all they tell us they could be chosen at random.