this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
160 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

34629 readers
362 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bemenaker@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

GREED. That has always been the answer.

[–] yarr@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Because MONEY and lack of choice in some markets.... easy.

[–] notexecutive@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago
[–] tal@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago (9 children)

The infrastructure over which that data travels isn't free. If you have a resource and it has any kind of scarcity, you want to tie consumption to the cost of producing more of it.

You can reduce the transaction cost -- reduce hassle for users using Internet service -- by not having a cap for them to worry about, but then you decouple the costs of consumption.

Soft caps, like throttling, are one way to help reduce transaction costs while still having some connection between consumption and price.

But point is, if one user is using a lot more of the infrastructure than any other is, you probably want to have that reflected in some way, else you're dumping Heavy User's costs on Light User.

[–] somedaysoon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You pay them for a certain throughput, that is your limit, if they can't provide that limit then they need to advertise and sell the actual limit they are comfortable providing.

[–] tal@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If they're advertising a guaranteed rate, sure -- and there are contracts that exist where one does buy guaranteed rates (usually over some period of time, though). Some businesses may buy that. But if you look at a typical consumer ISP, they usually aren't selling that. They'll have something saying that the speed isn't guaranteed, or "Internet speeds up to" or something along those lines.

Lemme grab Comcast, for an example.

googles

https://www.xfinity.com/learn/deals/internet#Pricing&otherinfo

Internet: Actual speeds vary and are not guaranteed.

The ISP I use (small, most people won't be using it) says "Up to X speed" next to each price on their pricing page.

Like, consumer ISPs are not going to generally sell guaranteed-rate service, and most customers aren't going to want to pay for what that would run. That's not just a function of some users using a lot more than others, but because they're also overselling the infrastructure. They maintain infrastructure sufficient to handle load if customers are only using a portion of that maximum -- that is, if every one of their customers decided to simultaneously saturate their line, even if those customers aren't particularly heavy users normally, they'd simply overwhelm what infrastructure is there.

Now, that being said, I do think that it might be legitimate to ask ISPs to disclose overselling ratio (or maybe there's some kind of better metric, like how percent often their internal infrastructure to an average customer is above N% utilization). Or to explicitly disclose soft caps or something. Those might be useful numbers in helping a customer compare ISPs. But they aren't presently selling and won't be providing guaranteed sustained rates -- that's just the reality of what kind of Internet service that can be provided at what consumer prices are.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Bandwidth isn't scarce. If it was, municipal ISPs wouldn't be handing out gigabit connectivity like candy.

This issue is 100% greed.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›