You should either guarantee a minimum speed with unlimited data or cap on maximum amount of data use can use. Throttling based on content means you were overselling. As an user I prefer to be in control of which applications get to use the Internet that I'm paying for.
But from a physics/technical standpoint, a radio only has so much capacity. How would you handle the situation, if you managed a provider, and 10 people at a bar started streaming an NBA game in HD? Somethings got to give.
The argument would go that if the radio has total capacity x and each user is allocated capacity y, then only x / y users should be allowed to join the service, otherwise it is "over selling".
It is a super straight forward model, but obviously much more expensive to provide. I imagine most users would be happy to pay 1/10 of the cost to get a service that might drop to 10% performance in the worst case, as long as it doesn't happen too frequently.
What you're asking for already exists. They are dedicated business circuits. I get where you're coming from, but there is a reason that the consumer advertisements always say "up to X mbps". If ISPs didn't oversell, consumer Internet would either be unbearably slow or obscenely expensive.
A guaranteed 1 gig circuit is on the order of thousands USD month. An oversubscribed consumer fiber provider like Google Fiber is an order of magnitude cheaper because they can oversubscribe based on consumer traffic models that cover 99% of users.
Also keep in mind that your model isn't really straightforward at all. The ISP can only provide you guarantees within the lines they control. There could be any number of choke points at IXPs that mean the user can't reach site X at their guaranteed rate. So ISPs never even offer hard guarantees on connections to the wider Internet. The most you will be able to buy is dedicated circuits to their core, an IXP, some branch office, etc.
Are you okay with gyms selling more unlimited memberships than the number of machines they have?
The monopoly is a “natural” one in that there is only so much spectrum to go around and two companies can’t share it.
Oversubscribing is a vastly preferable economic solution in this case. Everyone who can pay a small amount gets access to the network, and most of the time they get the bandwidth they need.
Selling a limited number of tickets at a massively increased price, or selling a massive number of tickets each with a dedicated data rate that was almost always idle are both strictly inferior solutions by very wide margins.
That throttling is essential to network management is undisputed. There were even carve outs in the old NN refs for it. The problem is if the “throttling” is not just limited video streams in general during peak times, but actually just limiting just certain services’ streams.
First, that’s not relevant to this particular thread, since there are several major wireless ISPs. Second, it’s besides the point. All gyms oversubscribe because that’s the only sensible model for consumer access. If you didn’t allow oversubscription, Google could sell only a 75/35 service (each GPON has 2.4G down /1.2G up shared by 16-32 users). Would that be better?
If cell providers advertises their services as "Always 100 Mbps guaranteed" that would be a problem, but do they really?
Because that is not how wireless communication works. E.g. in LTE the user is scheduled both in frequency and time. The operator has a certain frequency spectrum that gives a certain maximum transmission rate (one user getting all frequencies and time).
The scheduling happens based on (amongst other things) signal to noise ratio and priority of each user and their traffic types (voice, data, etc). The goal of the operator is to maximize the overall capacity of the network. This is beneficial for the user as well.
I think the problem in the US is the lack of competition. Not net neutrality issues. In places where this works well you just change operator if you are not happy with your current one. This way the provider is free to experiment with how to run their network and everyone benefits.
This is precisely correct, and well put. Advocates of Net Neutrality are trying to solve what is an antitrust issue, but not using antitrust law to do it.
I think it's because most NN advocates have a bias that regulation is a good thing, so of course regulating ISPs will be the right way to make the internet better.
However keep in mind that it is regulators who have granted the last mile monopolies to their crony firms and who have helped prevent last mile competition.
Notably one thing the FCC has done of late is to remove restrictions on reconfiguring wires on utility poles that benefitted incumbents. Now under the new rules, an ISP who is adding lines to existing utility poles is authorized to move/modify the equipment already on the pole when doing the installation.
Previously the rules allowed incumbent firms months to schedule a technician to go out to move the equipment around, which caused many delays for new firms trying to compete.
My internet service is pretty bad (XFinity) and Net Neutrality is not the solution, the solution is more ISPs to choose from. I'd much rather have three or four fiber providers to choose from than the (bad) choice between XFinity and AT&T. There are only two choices because of regulators, not in spite of them.
Also, video absolutely obliterates a wireless radio. Just to keep with the example you mentioned, a wireless radio doesn’t necessarily breakdown into 1/10 per user for 10 users. 2-3 users could flood the connection, the building interference can eat 20-30% off the top, different cell phone models may have stronger radios etc. Then throw in a bunch of 4K ultra hd streams and those contract terms stop making any sense.
And when you call up to get your internet connected and they tell you "sorry, we're at capacity. Try back next month"? What then? Would you rather have no connection or a variable speed connection?
The latter is a much better solution. You don't seem to appreciate the realities at play here.
I agree, definitely. It was an interesting experiment, and the realities of the then current wireless tech were so limiting, it was eye-opening to be on the provider side for once.
Then we shouldn't have done things like spend millions pushing 4G only to bait and switch with 4G LTE once everyone had upgraded. We shouldn't claim certain capabilities that simply aren't there. The worst thing you can do for a bad product is good marketing, and that's exactly what these ISPs are doing.
Curious, regarding monthly download caps, has anyone found a solution to using a 4G LTE connection for frequent Netflix consumption? It currently burns through too many gigs to be a cable internet replacement. I was looking for a solution for doing longer term domestic (US) travel.
Seconding T-mobile. Pretty much every major media provider is zero-rated and they welcome suggestions for new additions, so it's actually pretty fair as far as zero-rating goes. Just about the only thing you're out of luck on is if you A) use a VPN or B) stream from a private server.
Some providers, T-Mobile I know, offer to bypass the data cap for certain services. The drop the quality to 480p, but that's not a huge deal on my 5" screen.
All ISPs, as a rule, oversell. They oversell at a ratio of usage in part due to how networks are structured (8-10 times bottleneck bandwidth is seen as "good" service, source: I am in the industry). There are bottlenecks in almost every network. The problem is when they oversell at an unacceptable limit for regular usage. Bottlenecks can be mitigated but that costs money and like almost every rent seeking business there is no incentive to spend any money or invest until there is risk of a losing enough users to be unprofitable.
The economics of ISPs suck which means ISPs will suck pretty much as a rule.
And add that , if you are in a sparsely used area, you can achieve even better rates? In the end it's just easier to say that your video might be throttled
You don't have to guarantee a minimum speed but you have to advertise the relevant parameters that you can reach at least a certain percentage of the time. Saying just "up to" should only be allowed if you also use it for the pricing and the clients pay what they can. Saying "unlimited" should be allowed only with the dictionary definition. And all "limiting" conditions should be advertised the same way as the main offer, not small font on a buried page.
So the offer could look like this: "Up to 50Mbps, with 20Mbps offered at least 50% of the time between 06:00 and 22:00. Limited to 200GB/mo after which the speed is dropped to 1Mbps."
Also throttling and prioritizing types of traffic makes sense when you reach capacity. But if you suddenly find more capacity for someone paying extra by throttling others more or throttle indiscriminately and lift the limits for a price then you are not doing network management, you are are squeezing for money. And this should also be clearly stated when advertised and while doing the throttling.
As a customer paying the requested price I want some SLAs. I want to know what to expect for the service and be compensated for not getting it. I want to know realtime if my traffic or service is being throttled or not when I use it.
> You don't have to guarantee a minimum speed but you have to advertise the relevant parameters that you can reach at least a certain percentage of the time.
But this still suffers from exactly the same problem, just in a statistical way. i.e., what if someone's frequently in a place that has poor signal? How are you going to predict what percentage of the time they'll be in such a situation?
Then you compensate that person for not being able to provide the service. Just as you'd expect in any other case when a service is not delivered. And if we're being honest, that's not actually the reason most of us get throttled. Most of the time it's not even network management, it's just a money grab.
I don't intend to go into the technicalities because they're irrelevant. The point is they should offer a quality level at least "statistically".
Wireless ISPs don’t advertise any particular speed level. They sell “best effort” service and advertise it that way. What you’re asking for is an SLA (presumably for consumer level prices).
Unlimited - not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent.
Best effort is when your taxi driver tries to take you to the airport as fast as possible but traffic gets in the way and you're late. When he stops in a tunnel and requests more money because he has to drive through his lunch break, or else he'll just inch forward that's not best effort. That's what I said before: squeezing for money.
Reading the article helps: this is not network congestion, this is artificially limiting the speed.
Clearly a connection cannot be “unlimited” in reality, because there are many physical limits. That’s why you introduce the idea of “artificial limits,” but what are those? The number of cell towers in an area is also an “artificial” limit—the provider could build more. So even by your reasoning, you can’t take “unlimited” literally, and have to apply context. (And that is, in fact, the relevant legal consideration. Advertising must not be misleading, but that does not mean you resort to dictionary definitions and ignore context and history.)
And what is that context? Well, “unlimited” has always meant the opposite of time or usage limited service. I.e. you don’t pay extra for exceeding a certain usage. If you asked me in 1997 what "unlimited" means, I wouldn't have pulled out the dictionary and said "unlimited means 'not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent.'" I would've said "that means you don't have to pay extra for AOL after your 20 hours is up." All this supposed confusion seems entirely contrived to me.
And I'm perfectly OK with being allowed to hit physical limits. Unless you're arguing that 100GB of traffic is a physical limit of the network. Or that a software limiting the speed to something decided by management is also a physical limit. I'd love to see someone try to make that case.
As per the links posted above:
> Santa Clara Fire paid Verizon for "unlimited" data but suffered from heavy throttling until the department paid Verizon more.
I'm an engineer so maybe I have a different definition for what an artificial limitation means. If you can pay for it and instantly get it then maybe it was there all along, just artificially limited. Physical limitations don't get removed with when your payment is cleared. And I'm paying for access to a network which has some intrinsic parameters. One of them is the number of towers, not the potential number of towers. I care about the actual physical speed and capacity describing the actual network.
We also seem to have different definitions of what "misleading" means since you obviously believe saying nothing about the limitations or their true nature while selling an untouchable maximum and even a patently false claim of "unlimited" is in line with "not resorting to dictionary definitions and ignoring context and history". Your explanation above is nonsensical. Nothing else gets judged by 1997 standards. VW should get a free pass for pollution in the context of "this was clean in 1997". EVs can claim they have unlimited range. Can't ignore that history. Maybe you also accept to be paid in 1997 dollars so when you charge a customer $80.000 they can just give you $50.000 and call it even. And some day you might even buy a 50TB HDD that will only have 50GB and some lawyer on the internet will tell you that in '97 people were happy with 5GB and you can remove that "physical limitation" with a paid FW upgrade.
The reason "unlimited" takes different meanings in these cases is that some countries are actually lead by lobbyists and when they say "jump" you ask "how high?". Not because you can ever reasonably argue "unlimited" means 20 hours because 1997. The proof? In many civilized countries such claims are illegal.
And I will say it again: actually reading the article would help you make some important distinctions.
I'm curious what the win condition for this argument is. Obviously, no appeal to semantics is going to alter the business model of a wireless provider. Are you really just after them changing the word "unlimited" to something else?
The guidelines ask specifically to respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith - I can assure you what I'm saying is in good faith. "Unlimited" was just one of the misleading things that you can notice without peeking under the hood on the ISP. The throttling of data is another more pervasive one but harder to spot with the naked eye. And the way all this is presented when advertised is misleading at best, flat out lie more realistically. I made several mentions that were ignored in favor of the weaker interpretation of "semantics".
> saying nothing about the limitations or their true nature while selling an untouchable maximum and even a patently false claim of "unlimited"
> this is not network congestion, this is artificially limiting the speed
> they should offer a quality level at least "statistically"
> I want to know what to expect for the service and be compensated for not getting it. I want to know realtime if my traffic or service is being throttled or not when I use it.
> Informing the users properly is the the least they could do. Today they willingly mislead consumers
Changing the word "unlimited" is just one thing that would help clear up the confusion that you are getting unlimited data. That's one of many things they could be required to at least disclose (if not discontinue completely) in a clearer way especially since these usually involve multi-year contracts based on that misdirection. Basically exactly what's expected or required from most other companies' advertisements.
I honestly thought this would feel like common sense to anybody...
P.S. AT&T or Verizon have the following lines in their offers:
AT&T may temporarily slow data speeds when the network is congested
During times of congestion, your data may be temporarily slower than other traffic
This is disingenuous as it implies that they never do it unless the network is congested and that they don't carefully throttle only specific types of traffic from specific sources. That has been proven a false claim repeatedly.
I'm not responding to any particular interpretation of your argument. I'm asking an orthogonal question. I tried to fish an answer out of this comment, but couldn't find one. It's a simple question: do you expect a behavior change from the carriers, or a marketing change?
I'm not trying to justify what they're currently doing either. What I'm trying to explain is that making something that legally works the way we all want it to is a different and much tougher problem than merely being able to imagine a world in which the current practices don't exist.
