Technology

None of this would be a problem if the government didn't sell us out for what we already paid for and allowed these vultures into the system. It should have be national from the start. It costs them about nothing to have data run through those lines. All those caps exist purely to garner profit.

Yeah sure, then why is it that my entire bare metal server leased from OVH costs less than my Internet connection, and is fully unmetered access too.

I pay for a data rate and I should be able to use the full amount as I please. If we paid for the amount of data then why are we advertising speeds and paying for speeds?

You have data caps on your broadband connections in the US? Does your phones have rotary dials too?

$190 bucks a month for a limitless connection is insane. I'm too cheap to pay 30€ a month for unlimited fibre connection so I use 4G router which gives me around 40Mbps unlimited connection and it costs me 10€ a month.

Every place with free coffee refills knows there's a reasonable upper limit to what one person can consume.

And if they exceed it, it's coffee. It's dirt cheap (just like landline data)

The pandemic exposed the lie that ISPs need to cap data because of infrastructure limitations. We all went to WFH with no issues on the infrastructure.

The internet is not a ~~truck~~ Waffle House carafe.

If there was a government-mandated monopoly on coffee and it was sold in L/s, we probably would.

What an ass backwards take

funny that nobody argued opposite: all the new services are primarily streaming/hosted and otherwise "not here". New crop of tech solutions requires crap-ton of bandwidth. So caps prevent those companies from doing ripping off customers in other areas. How un-Republican is that? They are getting in the way of enterprises making a living! So the most Republican thing to do would be to let foxes watch the henhouse. Ask ISPs to regulate themselves so that "everybody"'s (and I mean every enterprise) happy. In other words getting in the way of this proposal is very much just "polid'ticking" trying to undo what dems are doing regardless whether it's actually a conservative thing to do or not.

Data caps would be fine if they weren't colluding a monopoly.

Then everyone could freely switch to providers offering unlimited.

Dafuq?

Ironically, he picked a metaphor that doesn't support his point at all

If you go to a Starbucks, it's like you're buying a set amount of data. You don't expect unlimited refills, because that's not how the transaction works - you buy the coffee by volume. It's yours with no strings attached

If you go to a restaurant, you buy access to coffee. I do expect unlimited coffee, I would be livid if they charged by the cup. However, you do not get to expect to take any coffee with you - you're using their "infrastructure" to hold your coffee, and you don't get to walk out with the cup. You don't get to share it with the restaurant or the table - you're burying a personal "subscription" to coffee for the duration of your stay

Coffee, like data, is effectively free at a restaurant. They must pay for the infrastructure, but after that each additional pot only costs a few cents. They must make at least 1 pot a day, and a human can't safely drink more than a couple pots in a day (which is an obscene amount only the heaviest caffeine addicts could tolerate). You get it one small cup at a time, if you bought a second cup you could double the rate of coffee delivery... They might even just give it to you for free, because it costs them so little and they want you to come back

You purchase access to coffee for a time, or you purchase coffee by volume. They shouldn't be allowed to charge for both - maybe if you've drank 14 cups and others want coffee, they should be given priority during lunch rush as the rate of coffee production is limited by infrastructure

It's actually a pretty decent metaphor, it just doesn't support his argument at all