3 ms·

> If I'm leased a 1 gigabit pipe, I want to be able to use the entire gigabit pipe for as long as I want. Limiting this with data caps is at best misleading to

> If I'm leased a 1 gigabit pipe, I want to be able to use the entire gigabit pipe for as long as I want. Limiting this with data caps is at best misleading to customers and at worse a scummy business practice. You must understand that they can only sell you a 1gig pipe because they know not everyone will use it at the same time. EVERY ISP in the world operates by oversubscribing their capacity. EVERY. ONE. You want 1gig and removed data caps by law? Ok, get ready to be introduced to “boosted” bandwidth. You’ll get 1gig for the first 30 seconds of a connection then they will throttle you back. Already exists in some places including mine.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
Okay? So they have to actually provide what they advertise, and holding them to it means they have to be honest up front. That doesn't strike me as a bad thing.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  I don’t think you’re getting it. I’m telling you that literally not one ISP out there can actually provide the service to all customers that they are advertising concurrently. Every. One. Over. Subscribes. Your wish to not only not make that so. But also to increase the rating per customer is beyond unrealistic. You aren’t asking for a 10-20% bump, you’re asking for 150-170%. The economic model is not there, no one will pay it for what will appear to them to be a 10-20% bump or the same thing they have now but cap-less.
  - Naac 6y ago
    >> Every. One. Over. Subscribes. The post you're referring to is getting it. As per their reply: "So they have to actually provide what they advertise"
    - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      Do you think they do that to be jerks? It makes sense. Financial, practical, environmental. They aren’t going to stop it, because it’s literally the right thing to do. If you think you are being charged too much for too little now, what do you think would happen if the ISP had to guarantee you bandwidth they know will never fully saturate?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    I admit I may have phrased that poorly. My intended point was that I object to them lying about their service. I'm perfectly happy for the end result to be that they admit the real level of service they can provide and don't actually alter their offerings at all.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago

Okay? So they have to actually provide what they advertise, and holding them to it means they have to be honest up front. That doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
I don’t think you’re getting it. I’m telling you that literally not one ISP out there can actually provide the service to all customers that they are advertising concurrently. Every. One. Over. Subscribes. Your wish to not only not make that so. But also to increase the rating per customer is beyond unrealistic. You aren’t asking for a 10-20% bump, you’re asking for 150-170%. The economic model is not there, no one will pay it for what will appear to them to be a 10-20% bump or the same thing they have now but cap-less.
- Naac 6y ago
  >> Every. One. Over. Subscribes. The post you're referring to is getting it. As per their reply: "So they have to actually provide what they advertise"
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    Do you think they do that to be jerks? It makes sense. Financial, practical, environmental. They aren’t going to stop it, because it’s literally the right thing to do. If you think you are being charged too much for too little now, what do you think would happen if the ISP had to guarantee you bandwidth they know will never fully saturate?
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  I admit I may have phrased that poorly. My intended point was that I object to them lying about their service. I'm perfectly happy for the end result to be that they admit the real level of service they can provide and don't actually alter their offerings at all.