Third largest American ISP takes away unlimited data from customers, sells it back for $50 extra - Sensationalist Headlines

meanwhile, in Australia and my town in which Telstra is literally the only feasible option where I live because they own all the underground cables and exchanges [t]http://i.imgur.com/D6WcvkN.png[/t]

Apparently Charter is not allowed to implement any datacaps for 7 years following their merger with Timewarner, though I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to get that part of the deal removed considering the current FCC.

[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;52591268]Are they liable to be sued for this, since they offered a service and I assume people were already paying for it but now they are charging for it?[/QUOTE] I have Mediacom, they put in Data caps. They also said everyone would be grandfathered in so if you don't have a cap now, you won't have a cap then. Then a week before it was implemented they changed their mind. Data caps for everyone How generous

Stuff like this makes me so happy Finland has several ISPs who are constantly in a fierce battle over customers causing amazing prices (my 100/100 is unlimited and 9,90€ a month) and extra stuff along with the connection.

More than likely this is their shit-bag way of dealing with people cutting the cord and switching to the online streaming services that Cox can't compete with, so they target people who are more likely to go over their data cap (streamers) which, obviously, will piss off [I]those[/I] people, but for the assumed majority of their users who may not stream they won't see it as a big deal so they won't hear complaints from their [I]entire[/I] customer base. Still a shitty thing to do, and a ridiculous charge to boot.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;52592719]My tablet regularly hits 500GB all I do with it is watch youtube and twitch.[/QUOTE] How? That's over 400 hours of streaming HD video from services like Netflix or Twitch. Even if you were only watching 1080p 60fps videos, at max bitrate, on Youtube, you could still watch 4.3 hours of video a day and be under 500 GB a month.

Why is it easier to get unlimited data on your phone than it is in your own fucking house? It's so bad I don't even bother using WiFi anymore.

[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;52592784]Why is it easier to get unlimited data on your phone than it is in your own fucking house? It's so bad I don't even bother using WiFi anymore.[/QUOTE] We can't get unlimited for our phones here for some reason. The most we can get is 100gb each month for $90. But home internet is really cheap and always unlimited, so it barely matters.

The idea of having a home data cap is just weird to me. I've lived in a few places and my internet has always been unlimited except on my phone which I barely use.

:s: Boy do I feel lucky to live where I do. I couldn't imagine data caps, that's some 3rd world shit to me.

I don't even know how much data I used, in Sweden we have never had to worry about it whatsoever unless you are talking about phones. Only in recent years did 4G internet show up for homes that carry a datacap and people switching over to it is just beyond me.

Also remember that the US is a big place. The LA area of southern California, where 10s of millions of people live, has like no data caps at all. I pay around $50/month for 100/20 speeds, and they are often higher.

I'm not really against data caps per se, in fact, I think charging based on usage is the superior model. It makes no sense why Grandma Mconlyusesfacebook should pay $45 a month for her 50 gb of usage, whereas Bearded Mr. Torrentman pays $70 (higher speed) for using like 15 tb. Although these monopsonic cunts are pretty much happily showing off that they're not doing it for their customers or network health, but because they CAN. At present, you can't really trust any of these companies with anything BUT unlimited because they're just so untrustworthy and people have very few options. If I were a lawmaker I'd probably be shilling very hard for WISPs for rural areas and municipal fiber for cities, just to have a kick in the dick for these companies, kind of like what google somewhat did. The way I would do the pricing is giving no basic data at all. Instead, you would pay about $10 for the privilege of being on the network. Every 500 GB you consume or so tacks $10 onto your bill. Obviously specific numbers would have to be changed around based on location and local economics, but you get what I mean. It basically makes the internet billed just like another utility, and I think it's pretty reasonable and fair.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52593285]Also remember that the US is a big place. The LA area of southern California, where 10s of millions of people live, has like no data caps at all. I pay around $50/month for 100/20 speeds, and they are often higher.[/QUOTE] Only because LA is mostly Spectrum's territory who at the moment is banned from implementing caps. [editline]20th August 2017[/editline] So basically you lucked out with your current ISP monopoly

[QUOTE=Levelog;52593304]Only because LA is mostly Spectrum's territory who at the moment is banned from implementing caps.[/QUOTE] They didn't have caps before spectrum came along. I've gone through dslextreme, Adelphia cable, Time Warner cable, and now Spectrum cable, and have never had a cap.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52593317]They didn't have caps before spectrum came along. I've gone through dslextreme, Adelphia cable, Time Warner cable, and now Spectrum cable, and have never had a cap.[/QUOTE] Yeah and over a brief time period Comcast, AT&T, and now Cox have all started enforcing caps. They're all seeing they can move that way but luckily Spectrum cannot do this for now.

My desktop used about 300GB this month, and it's been idle most of the time without me even using it, let alone what would happen if I would use it intensively every day. When I'm at work I leave my desktop running so I can quickly RDP into it when we have a break.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52593299]I'm not really against data caps per se, in fact, I think charging based on usage is the superior model. It makes no sense why Grandma Mconlyusesfacebook should pay $45 a month for her 50 gb of usage, whereas Bearded Mr. Torrentman pays $70 (higher speed) for using like 15 tb. Although these monopsonic cunts are pretty much happily showing off that they're not doing it for their customers or network health, but because they CAN. At present, you can't really trust any of these companies with anything BUT unlimited because they're just so untrustworthy and people have very few options. If I were a lawmaker I'd probably be shilling very hard for WISPs for rural areas and municipal fiber for cities, just to have a kick in the dick for these companies, kind of like what google somewhat did. The way I would do the pricing is giving no basic data at all. Instead, you would pay about $10 for the privilege of being on the network. Every 500 GB you consume or so tacks $10 onto your bill. Obviously specific numbers would have to be changed around based on location and local economics, but you get what I mean. It basically makes the internet billed just like another utility, and I think it's pretty reasonable and fair.[/QUOTE] I think charging for bandwidth is fairer than charging for data.

If you're one of the people saying "I don't see why this is so bad, how do you even use that much data a month?" you're part of the problem imo I'm blessed to have unlimited data standard. 4k TV in the living room, 3 desktop computers and 5 mobile devices, all constantly streaming easily hits 1tb. I don't have a way of viewing how much data is transferred a cycle, but i'm willing to bet it's probably over 1.5 tb easily. Data caps honestly are a thing of the past, it's so cheap for ISPs to transfer data yet they're upcharging so much on this shit. On my family's phone plan, 25gb a month on 5 phones (4 out of 5 paid off btw) is like 450 dollars. it's disgusting wouldn't be so shitty if these companies didn't have monopolies and got away with it because they've got their hands wanking off the government

Disgusting greedy bastards,they can rot in hell. This makes me grateful for my slow ass uncapped wifi.

[QUOTE=bananaslamma;52593369]I think charging for bandwidth is fairer than charging for data.[/QUOTE] It doesn't reflect what strain you are actually placing upon the network

It still blows my mind that the US doesn't have an executive organism in charge of looking at ISP abuses on a per-case basis and then applying sanctions or giving the companies the option of paying back/offering a compensation to the costumer. Such a simple, XXIth century reform that makes everyone better off, is lacking in the world's 1st biggest economy. Here in Argentina, if a company "se hace el vivo" (They screw you over slowly or outright deny something that was part of the plan you bought) you can sent the evidence to an organism which in turn will call the company -in case they did things wrong- to offer you free service for a X time or pay back all the money you gave them. If you can't have competition, you must have this. Otherwise companies have a free hand to do as they please with customers and no, that's wrong.

[QUOTE=SuperHoboMan;52591162]Comcast did this same exact thing, with the same "Only X% of customers even use this much!!!" excuse along with the option to buy unlimited or risk being charged for overages. Stupid, greedy, anti-consumer bullshit. Anyone that watches a lot of youtube or twitch streams above 360p will hit that 1TB [I]easy[/I].[/QUOTE] They keep trying this on us at our house. We just threaten to switch to at&t (they're somehow worse so it won't happen) but they've fucked off for the last couple of years.

[QUOTE=bananaslamma;52593369]I think charging for bandwidth is fairer than charging for data.[/QUOTE] Data = Bandwidth * Time

The problem with just charging for data is how big of a pipe do you give everyone? If you give people a gig connection and charge by gig or something your infrastructure is going to either be completely fucked during peak times or stupidly overbuilt for what you need the rest of the time and increase costs.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52593285]Also remember that the US is a big place. The LA area of southern California, where 10s of millions of people live, has like no data caps at all. I pay around $50/month for 100/20 speeds, and they are often higher.[/QUOTE] In Central US I pay $120/mo for "up to" 45/5 and it's frequently worse.

[QUOTE=ShimTaco;52593370] Data caps honestly are a thing of the past, it's so cheap for ISPs to transfer data yet they're upcharging so much on this shit. On my family's phone plan, 25gb a month on 5 phones (4 out of 5 paid off btw) is like 450 dollars. it's disgusting [/QUOTE] We need to separate cell data from landline data, since they have different technical implementations that impacts cost. For landline, bandwidth is actually pretty cheap, but consider the process of rolling out, or upgrading infrastructure; depending on the type of load is expected may be the difference between a $50,000 border router, or a $250,000 one, and might mean you have to bury more fiber. All of those are long-term investments, that take months to roll out, so consistent and predictable network load is a big issue.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52593673]We need to separate cell data from landline data, since they have different technical implementations that impacts cost. For landline, bandwidth is actually pretty cheap, but consider the process of rolling out, or upgrading infrastructure; depending on the type of load is expected may be the difference between a $50,000 border router, or a $250,000 one, and might mean you have to bury more fiber. All of those are long-term investments, that take months to roll out, so consistent and predictable network load is a big issue.[/QUOTE] It is separate already...?

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52593680]It is separate already...?[/QUOTE] I mean for the conversation, I can talk (and have) about cell data, but landline is more interesting to me, so I'm taking specifically about it. [editline]20th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Levelog;52593665]The problem with just charging for data is how big of a pipe do you give everyone? If you give people a gig connection and charge by gig or something your infrastructure is going to either be completely fucked during peak times or stupidly overbuilt for what you need the rest of the time and increase costs.[/QUOTE] I've mentioned it before, but I think charging people per megabit per second month (on 95th percentile) would be the best way. Perhaps with sustained usage discount. In general I believe customers should be working with their providers to optimize pricing so that customers can save money when the business does, you mentioned about having huge pipes to deal with giving everyone gigabit, perhaps have peak usage pricing and non-peak pricing. This lets everyone enjoy fast peak speeds, while TorrentyMcTorrent face gets cheap bandwidth on non-peak time. This is already how many power companies work.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52593687]I mean for the conversation, I can talk (and have) about cell data, but landline is more interesting to me, so I'm taking specifically about it. [editline]20th August 2017[/editline] I've mentioned it before, but I think charging people per megabit per second month (on 95th percentile) would be the best way. Perhaps with sustained usage discount. In general I believe customers should be working with their providers to optimize pricing so that customers can save money when the business does, you mentioned about having huge pipes to deal with giving everyone gigabit, perhaps have peak usage pricing and non-peak pricing. This lets everyone enjoy fast peak speeds, while TorrentyMcTorrent face gets cheap bandwidth on non-peak time. This is already how many power companies work.[/QUOTE] But there is no cost to data. There is only a cost to bandwidth. Using data doesn't physically deteriorate network equipment, or buried cable. The only issue is bandwidth exceeding capacity. Pushing 1 byte or 1 terabyte over a cable is completely indifferent so long as everyone has their allocated bandwidth.