3 ms·

Couple of comments. First, this is caused by "unlimited", or other large plans (1GB+) plans. Unlimited can never mean unlimited, anymore than it does with ele

Couple of comments. First, this is caused by "unlimited", or other large plans (1GB+) plans. Unlimited can never mean unlimited, anymore than it does with electricity. Carriers are selling those plans to give people comfort around billshock. It's much, much easier to give people an unlimited plan than it is to try to get them to pay for a huge post-pay data bill. However, since this is about customer comfort, carriers are working on an average usage, and assuming an amount of "breakage". Breakage is the unused portion of a balance, and it is factored into the profit the carrier expects. It comes from calling card days, where there would be a balance at the end of the card that couldn't be used ($1 on the card, and 35c/minute). Unused prepaid balance at the end of the month? Breakage. We're atypical users, and even then I'm using <500MB/month. However, this is changing - people are frequently staying on mobile and not switching to wifi when it is available. That's why I hear about people complaining about mobile data coverage at home! Next, mobile carriers are doing anything and everything they can to avoid becoming a dumb bit-pipe. Mobile is more competitive than fixed line (no regional monopolies), so customers have more power. Personally, I think there is an insane amount of money to be made being a simple bit pipe, mostly through cost reductions. Finally, they're not only tracking this through separate APNs for tethered traffic, they're tracking the hop counts of packets and detecting packets who's hop count is unexpected for the device. So, running a VPN client on the laptop and tethering won't help, but running a VPN client on your phone and tethering traffic through _that_ connection might.

mikeash 13y ago
I agree about unlimited plans. I believe they're the cause of much woe in the internet world, and I don't understand why the tech community generally fights to keep them. Things would become much better if we paid for usage. But I don't understand why you lump 1GB+ plans in with unlimited. I'm currently paying for 4GB/month of data and I should be able to use it all for whatever I feel like.
- eli 13y ago
  Moreover it bugs me that people keep conflating net neutrality with all-you-can-eat data plans. There's nothing inherently wrong with charging consumers per-byte. I probably use a below average amount of data on my phone, it would be cool if I could pay less.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    To be fair, there is a net neutrality problem with pay-per-use with the multipurpose ISPs we often have for home connections. Specifically, if your ISP also offers on-demand TV service, the data usage of that service typically isn't counted against you, giving it an unfair advantage over third-party streaming services. Aside from that, you are of course correct. And even for those of us who would probably pay more under a metered plan, it would still be better in that you'd know where the limits are, and the ISP would have every incentive to support you. As it stands now, you get "unlimited" but you actually have an invisible line, and crossing it gets you a Talk.
    - eli 13y ago
      That's a good point. I kinda wish ISPs were just in the ISP business and didn't have other revenue lines to protect/favor. Otherwise, I'm not sure I get the big deal about metered data. It's gonna suck for people who use a ton of data, but aren't those people currently kinda being subsidized by the customers who pay the same rate but use a tiny fraction as much?
  - gergles 13y ago
    But you would never pay less. Have you ever seen ISP pricing? The onerous (5GB cap) TWC "Broadband Essentials" service gives you a $5 saving. $5 out of a $60 bill for going from 250 allowed GB to 5. The providers are never going to charge you less. What you're paying now for unlimited will be the absolute minimum fee, plus troll tolls on top of it.
    - eli 13y ago
      Hey, feel free to bitch about how much internet access costs in the first place -- I'm right there with you. But the definition of metered billing is that people who use less data will be charged less and people who use more will pay more. That's probably a good deal for people who use less than average and a bad deal for people who use more than average.
- jpollock 13y ago
  That's the breakage. When the average is under the maximum, the remainder is there as a comfort buffer for the customer. Think of it this way, "The expectation is that you will use 500MB/month, but you are allowed to burst to 5GB." Without that sort of buffer the carriers get a lot of negative press about bill shock - such as when people use their mobile phones on cruise ships.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    They don't really need a buffer, they just need reasonable overage charges. I pay $10/GB if I go over, and that's pretty reasonable. I've exceeded my plan in the past and the additional charges are entirely sane. No carrier is getting negative press because of a $10 overage charge, or even a $50 overage charge. They get negative press when they charge $10 for 30kB for roaming without warning the customer, and then the customer gets a bill for $15,000.
  - rpenm 13y ago
    Customers should be able to choose between overage fees and throttling when they exceed their monthly limit.
    - jpollock 13y ago
      That would be nice, and some locations do that. New Zealand fixed line broadband is a good example. The US market, for some reason, doesn't.

mikeash 13y ago

I agree about unlimited plans. I believe they're the cause of much woe in the internet world, and I don't understand why the tech community generally fights to keep them. Things would become much better if we paid for usage. But I don't understand why you lump 1GB+ plans in with unlimited. I'm currently paying for 4GB/month of data and I should be able to use it all for whatever I feel like.

eli 13y ago
Moreover it bugs me that people keep conflating net neutrality with all-you-can-eat data plans. There's nothing inherently wrong with charging consumers per-byte. I probably use a below average amount of data on my phone, it would be cool if I could pay less.
- mikeash 13y ago
  To be fair, there is a net neutrality problem with pay-per-use with the multipurpose ISPs we often have for home connections. Specifically, if your ISP also offers on-demand TV service, the data usage of that service typically isn't counted against you, giving it an unfair advantage over third-party streaming services. Aside from that, you are of course correct. And even for those of us who would probably pay more under a metered plan, it would still be better in that you'd know where the limits are, and the ISP would have every incentive to support you. As it stands now, you get "unlimited" but you actually have an invisible line, and crossing it gets you a Talk.
  - eli 13y ago
    That's a good point. I kinda wish ISPs were just in the ISP business and didn't have other revenue lines to protect/favor. Otherwise, I'm not sure I get the big deal about metered data. It's gonna suck for people who use a ton of data, but aren't those people currently kinda being subsidized by the customers who pay the same rate but use a tiny fraction as much?
- gergles 13y ago
  But you would never pay less. Have you ever seen ISP pricing? The onerous (5GB cap) TWC "Broadband Essentials" service gives you a $5 saving. $5 out of a $60 bill for going from 250 allowed GB to 5. The providers are never going to charge you less. What you're paying now for unlimited will be the absolute minimum fee, plus troll tolls on top of it.
  - eli 13y ago
    Hey, feel free to bitch about how much internet access costs in the first place -- I'm right there with you. But the definition of metered billing is that people who use less data will be charged less and people who use more will pay more. That's probably a good deal for people who use less than average and a bad deal for people who use more than average.
jpollock 13y ago
That's the breakage. When the average is under the maximum, the remainder is there as a comfort buffer for the customer. Think of it this way, "The expectation is that you will use 500MB/month, but you are allowed to burst to 5GB." Without that sort of buffer the carriers get a lot of negative press about bill shock - such as when people use their mobile phones on cruise ships.
- mikeash 13y ago
  They don't really need a buffer, they just need reasonable overage charges. I pay $10/GB if I go over, and that's pretty reasonable. I've exceeded my plan in the past and the additional charges are entirely sane. No carrier is getting negative press because of a $10 overage charge, or even a $50 overage charge. They get negative press when they charge $10 for 30kB for roaming without warning the customer, and then the customer gets a bill for $15,000.
- rpenm 13y ago
  Customers should be able to choose between overage fees and throttling when they exceed their monthly limit.
  - jpollock 13y ago
    That would be nice, and some locations do that. New Zealand fixed line broadband is a good example. The US market, for some reason, doesn't.