3 ms·

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-byt

by 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.

by eli 13y ago

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.