3 ms·

This just isn't true, though. The limit for a network provider is peak bandwidth usage. When they sell a 2gbps connection to a customer, that 2gbps connection i

This just isn't true, though. The limit for a network provider is peak bandwidth usage. When they sell a 2gbps connection to a customer, that 2gbps connection is not reserved entirely for that customer. It isn't like the total bandwidth an ISP has is 2gbps * N number of customers. They over-subscribe because they know not every customer is going to be using up that full 2gbps 24/7. Now, you can argue that an ISP SHOULD provision that way, with the expectation that their customers are going to be using the full connection 24/7, but that would raise the cost per customer a LOT, and I don't think people want to be paying for an ISP that provisions like that. It would be a lot more expensive per customer, and it would end up with a lot of the bandwidth going unused most of the time. If the average bandwidth used by customers goes up, it will require the ISP to pay for and maintain more circuits and cost more money. We can argue there are better, fairer, ways to limit usage, but it is simply not true that every customer downloading a lot more doesn't cost the ISP more money in the long run.

BigFnTelly 3y ago
would it be fair to say that bandwidth is just another product sold like plane tickets?
- johncolanduoni 3y ago
  With the crucial difference that the equivalent of 7/8ths of a a seat is still useful when it comes to bandwidth, especially for home internet.
- klabb3 3y ago
  Yes? But with orders of magnitude more difference. Let’s do a back of the napkin calculation: Say your ISP gives you 100mbit/s = 1.08TB/day ≈ 30TB/mo. On gigabit that’d be 300TB. While you do have some heavy torrenters they are outliers. Now I assume everything but TV/movie streaming is a rounding error for average Joe. Netflix says 1-7GB/h depending on quality. Average user watches ~3.2h/day (wtf is wrong with people!) but that’s ~100-700 GB/mo. Now that’s between 0.033%-2.3% of downstream bandwidth. Of course, people generally watch TV at the same time of day, so it gets more complicated to provision resources. But there’s also no question that pooling bandwidth (over-provisioning) makes sense to reduce costs. The question is more about how much congestion is acceptable, and I wouldn’t trust shitty monopolistic companies to behave. But if you can handle eg Super Bowl or a World Cup final without degradation you’re probably good the rest of the year?
musha68k 3y ago
ISPs face costs for peak usage / level of “playing with the numbers” yes, but economies of scale and exchange agreements reduce these costs significantly. Bandwidth caps not only have a weak financial justification but also run counter to net neutrality.
- cortesoft 3y ago
  How do bandwidth costs run counter to net neutrality? (Unless you are talking about certain types of traffic not counting against the caps)
  - musha68k 3y ago
    Zero-rating = skewing whole internet playing field, not just stifling small creators; subtly - or not so subtly - influences user behaviour, leading to a constrained experience. Users might feel financially pressured to use certain services, missing out on potentially superior or more diverse options, which goes against the original ethos of the open internet.
    - cortesoft 3y ago
      Ok, so yeah you are talking about some data not counting against the cap. I agree, that violates net neutrality. A pure cap that counts all traffic the same wouldn’t be, though.

BigFnTelly 3y ago

would it be fair to say that bandwidth is just another product sold like plane tickets?

johncolanduoni 3y ago
With the crucial difference that the equivalent of 7/8ths of a a seat is still useful when it comes to bandwidth, especially for home internet.
klabb3 3y ago
Yes? But with orders of magnitude more difference. Let’s do a back of the napkin calculation: Say your ISP gives you 100mbit/s = 1.08TB/day ≈ 30TB/mo. On gigabit that’d be 300TB. While you do have some heavy torrenters they are outliers. Now I assume everything but TV/movie streaming is a rounding error for average Joe. Netflix says 1-7GB/h depending on quality. Average user watches ~3.2h/day (wtf is wrong with people!) but that’s ~100-700 GB/mo. Now that’s between 0.033%-2.3% of downstream bandwidth. Of course, people generally watch TV at the same time of day, so it gets more complicated to provision resources. But there’s also no question that pooling bandwidth (over-provisioning) makes sense to reduce costs. The question is more about how much congestion is acceptable, and I wouldn’t trust shitty monopolistic companies to behave. But if you can handle eg Super Bowl or a World Cup final without degradation you’re probably good the rest of the year?

musha68k 3y ago

ISPs face costs for peak usage / level of “playing with the numbers” yes, but economies of scale and exchange agreements reduce these costs significantly. Bandwidth caps not only have a weak financial justification but also run counter to net neutrality.

cortesoft 3y ago
How do bandwidth costs run counter to net neutrality? (Unless you are talking about certain types of traffic not counting against the caps)
- musha68k 3y ago
  Zero-rating = skewing whole internet playing field, not just stifling small creators; subtly - or not so subtly - influences user behaviour, leading to a constrained experience. Users might feel financially pressured to use certain services, missing out on potentially superior or more diverse options, which goes against the original ethos of the open internet.
  - cortesoft 3y ago
    Ok, so yeah you are talking about some data not counting against the cap. I agree, that violates net neutrality. A pure cap that counts all traffic the same wouldn’t be, though.