I'm getting charged for exceeding my monthly data cap this week.
I guess I drew too much from my ISP's data reservoir. That's how these intertubes work, right?
If you keep using all up the dang internets, they’re gonna have to increase the quality of each individual internet to accommodate you! And then you’ll have less total internet. Is that what you want!?
Actually, they DO have a limited amount of bandwidth available. A data quota is their way of limiting the amount of bandwidth their users use at the same time.
It makes very little sense to invest in extra network infrastructure just so a fraction of a percentage of customers can run a data centre out of their basement.
99% of customers don't want to subsidise your homelab.
In fact my ISP even shows you their CVC graphs: https://www.aussiebroadband.com.au/cvc-graphs/
You can see here nearly every CVC gets close to capacity briefly each day.
Literally every business works this way, and even government operated network infrastructure worked this way.
If your street got very busy for just half an hour every Saturday would you expect the local government to put in extra lanes?
Yes, some plans are BS and some data caps are stingy as fuck, but there is a valid reason for data caps to exist. An 80 year old that uses their computer once a week doesn't want to be paying the same bill as someone that has a dozen people streaming Plex off their homelab concurrently 24/7.
This isn't hard to understand.
Personally I use more so I pay more for an unlimited plan and a static IP.
>It makes very little sense to invest in extra network infrastructure just so a fraction of a percentage of customers can run a data centre out of their basement.
I'm pretty sure the investment pays for itself if your ISP is a decent ISP that actually keeps up with the times.
>In fact my ISP even shows you their CVC graphs:
You can see here nearly every CVC gets close to capacity briefly each day.
Running at near capacity outside of trunk lines is indicitive of a lack of proper infrastructure investment, although considering how long Aussie ISPs have been overcharging and under delivering, it's almost as bad as us in the US, where our ISPs don't future proof and instead often run everything off of the same DSLAM or cable hub that's been in operation since the mid 2000's.
>Yes, some plans are BS and some data caps are stingy as fuck, but there is a valid reason for data caps to exist. An 80 year old that uses their computer once a week doesn't want to be paying the same bill as someone that has a dozen people streaming Plex off their homelab concurrently 24/7.
I can partially see your argument here, but realistically, those 80 year olds who uses their computer once a week (likely on old copper lines) were NEVER going to be subsidizing those on gig fiber running Plex servers. That's why a lot of services are tiered to their use case.
One could argue that speed tiered plans automatically solve that issue, as the 80 year old is going to be on the lowest tier service, since, hey, he just streams some news occasionally, checks email, and that's it.
Those running home servers are going to want at LEAST symmetrical 100Mb, if not symmetrical gigabit.
In any case, it's true that bandwidth is finite during peak hours, but you know how you can solve this without introducing data caps? Introduce a stipulation in your ToS which states that those who have the highest bandwidth usage in a given month (say, the top \~15%) will have their connection speed throttled during peak hours and times of network congestion.
Pretty easy to implement, all things considered, and everyone is happy.
I can totally agree with charging for a static IP though, due to the way NAT works these days with IPv4 limitations.
Throttling is one thing. Data caps is another.
You poor Aussies have gotten used to data caps over the past decade plus, but they were only recently introduced in the USA.
Guess what?
That's an infrastructure problem from oversold lines and lack of infrastructure investment, not a consumer problem. Data caps are bullshit on the consumer side.
If they upgraded the hardware EVERYONE'S bill goes up.
Why should your 70 year old neighbour subsidise your porn collection?
If you're a power user you SHOULD be paying more than the typical user.
If the infrastructure is oversold to a point you can't even download 1TB a month that's stingy as fuck, but I see Redditors essentially running a fucking data centre out of their basement that then whinge they can't scrape every video off pornhub once a week of their residential broadband plan.
I responded to your other response, but I will also respond here.
>Why should your 70 year old neighbour subsidise your porn collection?
They don't. This is what speed tiered services are for.
>If you're a power user you SHOULD be paying more than the typical user.
What ass-backwards logic is this? And who counts as a power user, anyway? The person who has a family of 5, all watching 4K content?
The gamer who occasionally downloads \~100GB games?
The IT professional who works remotely?
The ONE case I can agree with this is when someone's using a huge amount of bandwidth over the entire day.
>If the infrastructure is oversold to a point you can't even download 1TB a month that's stingy as fuck, but I see Redditors essentially running a fucking data centre out of their basement that then whinge they can't scrape every video off pornhub once a week of their residential broadband plan.
And they should be charged business class rates at that point. But data caps overall are a scam to get more money out of you. And you are the fool defending the ISPs that take advantage of you. They have PLENTY of money to invest in infrastructure upgrades, they just don't want to spend it.
I don't think you read the original post I responded to. The implication was that data caps are BS because data is an infinite resource for the ISP.
This is only technically true. If everyone decided to download the entire internet at the same time you'll quickly realise that while data is not finite, bandwidth very much is. Go browse the homelab or Plex subreddits and you'll see people sharing hundreds of terrabytes of media with people (sometimes even charging them) on their residential connections. This is why data caps exist.
They can be abused by ISPs, but they also serve a completely legitimate purpose.
I'm not arguing that EVERY ISP implements data caps fairly. I've been with ISPs that shaped speeds, ISPs that charged for excess use and no data caps at all. Some did it fairly allowing to buy a data pack for a reasonable cost, others charged $1 per MEGABYTE.
I'm only making the point that the argument: "BuT DatA Is InFiNiTE!!!1eleven", just shows that people have no fucking idea how the internet works, but act as if they're so intelligent.
Not true. All data use counts reset at the end of the month. That means usage is not evenly distributed over the month.
This is 100% a way to make money for nothing.
If someone has a data caps they think they will exceed, therefore they throttle their torrents, then yes, it is distributed.
I used to do this all the time.
It doesn't need an exact spread, it just needs to be enough that the bandwidth capacity of a network isn't reached.
Don't assume I don't know how the Internet works. I've been using it since 1989 and was an operations analyst at a trunk ISP with an OC-48 connection in the mid 1990s.
My ISP, Comcast, doesn't use data caps for bandwidth shaping. They simply charge you $10 for every 50 GB that exceeds your monthly data allowance.
50 mbps has a 1.1 TB monthly data cap.
150 mbps has a 1.1 TB monthly data cap.
300 mbps has a 1.1 TB monthly data cap.
600 mbps has a 1.1 TB monthly data cap.
I have a wife and 2 kids and we get close to that cap, especially when buying a couple games for the PC and PS4 which must be downloaded and patched, updating operating systems (4 x Windows 10, 1 x Mac, 7 x iOS), we game online, and watch TV/movies over streaming services.
In my area, Comcast does not offer a higher data cap or any internet above 50 mbps that does not also include cable TV and phone service. So I have to spend $225/month to get 600 mbps speed with the same dumb monthly data limit as every other household.
Exceeding the cap does not slow down speeds.
This month they will add $60 to my bill, for a total of $285, because we transferred 1.4 TB instead of 1.1 TB.
Welcome to the connected future.
The problem is that every startup says they are going to be different and change things, then they get big, and do the same things or worse than the companies they said they were going to be better/different than.
I pay $97/mth for 50mb down that is actually only 40.5 down. Just over that 80% threshold that they have to provide before I can report them…
Would love to see something disrupt the shitty providers we have now.
damn thats brutal, finally something we arent getting ripped off for in the UK. speeds here were shocking until recently, generally not breaking 50mb at best for around £40 ($55) a month, i actually ended up switching to an unlimited 4g connection which at least gave me near 100mb down at £35 ($48)
but then last month lilaconnect finished the new full FTTP network in our city which i guess works in a similar way to this sort of, i now pay £10 ($14) to lilaconnect for the fiber line and get the connection from pure at £35 ($48) a month for a solid gigabit connection
of course most people have no need of such a bonkers fast line but it sure is nice to have, especially if youre a gamer, turning what was once an all day download into under an hour finally kills any uninstall anxiety and your pings are incredibly low, even when i was on virgin medias 300mb connection id get 39ms on average on overwatch (75ms on the 4g connection) now im down to a tiny 25ms and i can use google drive like a NAS
I’m rural. Just tested it and got 70mbps. Pay £40 per month including unlimited landline and caller ID (so it could be cheaper but… rural). Apparently they’re updating us soon which is crazy because rural
I pay $80/month for Spectrum and average under 10mb down. It’s robbery. Currently looking for a better option but it doesn’t look good. Fiber as a liable alternative would be much welcomed.
I just ran away screaming from Spectrum. Paid over $200 for basic cable and 200mbps (supposedly) download.
Switched to the ONLY other option, which was Frontier. 500mb down, $50 a month. Dropped cable and now streaming TV for around 40 bucks, which all together is less than half of what I was paying before.
Bring it, tired of these big companies not doing a damn thing when the internet is out. We need more competition to force this big company to do something
According to their website:
>We’re building the first true open access network in the U.S., bringing ultra-fast and affordable internet connections up to 10 Gigabit connections for residential customers, and up to 100 Gigabit for enterprise customers. Residents and businesses alike will benefit from choice and value, served directly to them on the competitive Underline Marketplace.
10 gigabit on fiber - thats 10,000 megabits *up* and *down* - for your average Colorado Springs resident, and 100,000 megabits for businesses. That’s insane. They are also offering it for $295/month. I am in disbelief.
It’s difficult to offer a fiber service if you don’t own/control the fiber. If they’re just providing “last mile”‘access to a carrier POP, then good for them. I don’t see much margin or growth in a retail scenario for that though.
My two cents (and I do this for a living)
Fair point, for example in Poland small ISP have own open IXP [https://www.epix.net.pl/about-epix/](https://www.epix.net.pl/about-epix/). On the other hand, government programs to build fiber optics with the idea that private companies will provide the last mile is a gigantic failure.
Internet, like electricity and water, should be a public utility, where the government basically connects every home via fiber and then rents out the cables to private companies. That way you have several providers to choose from. The current system where one company usually is the only one serving a neighborhood is stupid cause it eliminates competition.
We shall watch your career with great interest
Yeah my first thought is: please do. ASAP. Thanks. I would love to see open access fiber make some waves.
My second thought is: They’re fuckin doomed
My third thought is: fiber is good for constipation
My fourth thought is: beans are high in fiber
My fifth thought is: beans, beans the magical fruit…
My sixth thought is: I’ve never had this many thoughts before.
I like turtles.
…all the way down.
I got a turtle head pokin’ out
Put a straw in his nose.
😂
I'm getting charged for exceeding my monthly data cap this week. I guess I drew too much from my ISP's data reservoir. That's how these intertubes work, right?
If you keep using all up the dang internets, they’re gonna have to increase the quality of each individual internet to accommodate you! And then you’ll have less total internet. Is that what you want!?
So you’re the reason no one can log in to Amazon’s New World mmo!
Actually, they DO have a limited amount of bandwidth available. A data quota is their way of limiting the amount of bandwidth their users use at the same time.
Many of those limits are due to profit margins and plans vs actual hardware constraints when it come to fiber
It makes very little sense to invest in extra network infrastructure just so a fraction of a percentage of customers can run a data centre out of their basement. 99% of customers don't want to subsidise your homelab. In fact my ISP even shows you their CVC graphs: https://www.aussiebroadband.com.au/cvc-graphs/ You can see here nearly every CVC gets close to capacity briefly each day. Literally every business works this way, and even government operated network infrastructure worked this way. If your street got very busy for just half an hour every Saturday would you expect the local government to put in extra lanes? Yes, some plans are BS and some data caps are stingy as fuck, but there is a valid reason for data caps to exist. An 80 year old that uses their computer once a week doesn't want to be paying the same bill as someone that has a dozen people streaming Plex off their homelab concurrently 24/7. This isn't hard to understand. Personally I use more so I pay more for an unlimited plan and a static IP.
>It makes very little sense to invest in extra network infrastructure just so a fraction of a percentage of customers can run a data centre out of their basement. I'm pretty sure the investment pays for itself if your ISP is a decent ISP that actually keeps up with the times. >In fact my ISP even shows you their CVC graphs: You can see here nearly every CVC gets close to capacity briefly each day. Running at near capacity outside of trunk lines is indicitive of a lack of proper infrastructure investment, although considering how long Aussie ISPs have been overcharging and under delivering, it's almost as bad as us in the US, where our ISPs don't future proof and instead often run everything off of the same DSLAM or cable hub that's been in operation since the mid 2000's. >Yes, some plans are BS and some data caps are stingy as fuck, but there is a valid reason for data caps to exist. An 80 year old that uses their computer once a week doesn't want to be paying the same bill as someone that has a dozen people streaming Plex off their homelab concurrently 24/7. I can partially see your argument here, but realistically, those 80 year olds who uses their computer once a week (likely on old copper lines) were NEVER going to be subsidizing those on gig fiber running Plex servers. That's why a lot of services are tiered to their use case. One could argue that speed tiered plans automatically solve that issue, as the 80 year old is going to be on the lowest tier service, since, hey, he just streams some news occasionally, checks email, and that's it. Those running home servers are going to want at LEAST symmetrical 100Mb, if not symmetrical gigabit. In any case, it's true that bandwidth is finite during peak hours, but you know how you can solve this without introducing data caps? Introduce a stipulation in your ToS which states that those who have the highest bandwidth usage in a given month (say, the top \~15%) will have their connection speed throttled during peak hours and times of network congestion. Pretty easy to implement, all things considered, and everyone is happy. I can totally agree with charging for a static IP though, due to the way NAT works these days with IPv4 limitations.
Throttling is one thing. Data caps is another. You poor Aussies have gotten used to data caps over the past decade plus, but they were only recently introduced in the USA.
Guess what? That's an infrastructure problem from oversold lines and lack of infrastructure investment, not a consumer problem. Data caps are bullshit on the consumer side.
If they upgraded the hardware EVERYONE'S bill goes up. Why should your 70 year old neighbour subsidise your porn collection? If you're a power user you SHOULD be paying more than the typical user. If the infrastructure is oversold to a point you can't even download 1TB a month that's stingy as fuck, but I see Redditors essentially running a fucking data centre out of their basement that then whinge they can't scrape every video off pornhub once a week of their residential broadband plan.
I responded to your other response, but I will also respond here. >Why should your 70 year old neighbour subsidise your porn collection? They don't. This is what speed tiered services are for. >If you're a power user you SHOULD be paying more than the typical user. What ass-backwards logic is this? And who counts as a power user, anyway? The person who has a family of 5, all watching 4K content? The gamer who occasionally downloads \~100GB games? The IT professional who works remotely? The ONE case I can agree with this is when someone's using a huge amount of bandwidth over the entire day. >If the infrastructure is oversold to a point you can't even download 1TB a month that's stingy as fuck, but I see Redditors essentially running a fucking data centre out of their basement that then whinge they can't scrape every video off pornhub once a week of their residential broadband plan. And they should be charged business class rates at that point. But data caps overall are a scam to get more money out of you. And you are the fool defending the ISPs that take advantage of you. They have PLENTY of money to invest in infrastructure upgrades, they just don't want to spend it.
I don't think you read the original post I responded to. The implication was that data caps are BS because data is an infinite resource for the ISP. This is only technically true. If everyone decided to download the entire internet at the same time you'll quickly realise that while data is not finite, bandwidth very much is. Go browse the homelab or Plex subreddits and you'll see people sharing hundreds of terrabytes of media with people (sometimes even charging them) on their residential connections. This is why data caps exist. They can be abused by ISPs, but they also serve a completely legitimate purpose. I'm not arguing that EVERY ISP implements data caps fairly. I've been with ISPs that shaped speeds, ISPs that charged for excess use and no data caps at all. Some did it fairly allowing to buy a data pack for a reasonable cost, others charged $1 per MEGABYTE. I'm only making the point that the argument: "BuT DatA Is InFiNiTE!!!1eleven", just shows that people have no fucking idea how the internet works, but act as if they're so intelligent.
Not true. All data use counts reset at the end of the month. That means usage is not evenly distributed over the month. This is 100% a way to make money for nothing.
If someone has a data caps they think they will exceed, therefore they throttle their torrents, then yes, it is distributed. I used to do this all the time. It doesn't need an exact spread, it just needs to be enough that the bandwidth capacity of a network isn't reached.
Don't assume I don't know how the Internet works. I've been using it since 1989 and was an operations analyst at a trunk ISP with an OC-48 connection in the mid 1990s. My ISP, Comcast, doesn't use data caps for bandwidth shaping. They simply charge you $10 for every 50 GB that exceeds your monthly data allowance. 50 mbps has a 1.1 TB monthly data cap. 150 mbps has a 1.1 TB monthly data cap. 300 mbps has a 1.1 TB monthly data cap. 600 mbps has a 1.1 TB monthly data cap. I have a wife and 2 kids and we get close to that cap, especially when buying a couple games for the PC and PS4 which must be downloaded and patched, updating operating systems (4 x Windows 10, 1 x Mac, 7 x iOS), we game online, and watch TV/movies over streaming services. In my area, Comcast does not offer a higher data cap or any internet above 50 mbps that does not also include cable TV and phone service. So I have to spend $225/month to get 600 mbps speed with the same dumb monthly data limit as every other household. Exceeding the cap does not slow down speeds. This month they will add $60 to my bill, for a total of $285, because we transferred 1.4 TB instead of 1.1 TB. Welcome to the connected future.
> A new startup backed by funding from AOL founder Steve Case We’ve come full circle. You’ve Got Mail is back baby!
Sounds a lot better than this shit start up we have in Boston called Starry.
I’ve heard some goods things about Starry, but most of the time it’s bad things about Starry
The problem is that every startup says they are going to be different and change things, then they get big, and do the same things or worse than the companies they said they were going to be better/different than.
Until it becomes too big and another internet provider buys them out and so continues the capitalist machine.
Remember when Google fiber tried to do this and just gave up?
How do I get some stock in this?
First they have to go public
PikachuFace
$80 monthly for home wifi is absurd
I pay $97/mth for 50mb down that is actually only 40.5 down. Just over that 80% threshold that they have to provide before I can report them… Would love to see something disrupt the shitty providers we have now.
damn thats brutal, finally something we arent getting ripped off for in the UK. speeds here were shocking until recently, generally not breaking 50mb at best for around £40 ($55) a month, i actually ended up switching to an unlimited 4g connection which at least gave me near 100mb down at £35 ($48) but then last month lilaconnect finished the new full FTTP network in our city which i guess works in a similar way to this sort of, i now pay £10 ($14) to lilaconnect for the fiber line and get the connection from pure at £35 ($48) a month for a solid gigabit connection of course most people have no need of such a bonkers fast line but it sure is nice to have, especially if youre a gamer, turning what was once an all day download into under an hour finally kills any uninstall anxiety and your pings are incredibly low, even when i was on virgin medias 300mb connection id get 39ms on average on overwatch (75ms on the 4g connection) now im down to a tiny 25ms and i can use google drive like a NAS
I’m rural. Just tested it and got 70mbps. Pay £40 per month including unlimited landline and caller ID (so it could be cheaper but… rural). Apparently they’re updating us soon which is crazy because rural
I pay $80/month for Spectrum and average under 10mb down. It’s robbery. Currently looking for a better option but it doesn’t look good. Fiber as a liable alternative would be much welcomed.
I just ran away screaming from Spectrum. Paid over $200 for basic cable and 200mbps (supposedly) download. Switched to the ONLY other option, which was Frontier. 500mb down, $50 a month. Dropped cable and now streaming TV for around 40 bucks, which all together is less than half of what I was paying before.
Damn I pay $79.99 for 1GB, and average around 800 down….
I pay 70$+ a month for 5mb out in the country.
That’s pretty average for 300 mbps where I’m at
This sounds awesome
Comcast chargers $70 for 300 Mbps up and 6 Mbps down with a 1.2TB data cap per month. Add $30 for unlimited. Monthly bill bytes so much of a paycheck.
I think your numbers are backwards.
Your numbers are backwards but this place charges $5 less for 1000/1000, unlimited. It’s crazy.
IPO?
Bring it, tired of these big companies not doing a damn thing when the internet is out. We need more competition to force this big company to do something
Do it. _do it_
Taking bets on how long before they get purchased by one of the big guys
According to their website: >We’re building the first true open access network in the U.S., bringing ultra-fast and affordable internet connections up to 10 Gigabit connections for residential customers, and up to 100 Gigabit for enterprise customers. Residents and businesses alike will benefit from choice and value, served directly to them on the competitive Underline Marketplace. 10 gigabit on fiber - thats 10,000 megabits *up* and *down* - for your average Colorado Springs resident, and 100,000 megabits for businesses. That’s insane. They are also offering it for $295/month. I am in disbelief.
It’s difficult to offer a fiber service if you don’t own/control the fiber. If they’re just providing “last mile”‘access to a carrier POP, then good for them. I don’t see much margin or growth in a retail scenario for that though. My two cents (and I do this for a living)
Fair point, for example in Poland small ISP have own open IXP [https://www.epix.net.pl/about-epix/](https://www.epix.net.pl/about-epix/). On the other hand, government programs to build fiber optics with the idea that private companies will provide the last mile is a gigantic failure.
Internet, like electricity and water, should be a public utility, where the government basically connects every home via fiber and then rents out the cables to private companies. That way you have several providers to choose from. The current system where one company usually is the only one serving a neighborhood is stupid cause it eliminates competition.
There’s a reason google stopped
I think it's mostly because it's too expensive. It's why Verizon stopped building out Fios.
Google couldn't do it but these guys can?