Charter tries to convince FCC that broadband customers want data caps

[axipher]

Charter Communications has claimed to the Federal Communications Commission that broadband users enjoy having Internet plans with data caps, in a filing arguing that Charter should be allowed to impose caps on its Spectrum Internet service starting next year.

 

Charter isn't currently allowed to impose data caps because of conditions the FCC placed on its 2016 purchase of Time Warner Cable. The data-cap condition is scheduled to expire on May 18, 2023, but Charter in June petitioned the FCC to let the condition expire two years early, in May 2021.

 

With consumer-advocacy groups and Internet users opposing the petition, Charter filed a response with the FCC last week, saying that plans with data caps are "popular."

 

 

Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ant-data-caps/

[ENTERPRISE]

I think this is one of those "lul wut" moments. Who "Enjoys" PAYING for a LIMITED services ? I would love to see their data on that one.

[axipher]

I think this is one of those "lul wut" moments. Who "Enjoys" PAYING for a LIMITED services ? I would love to see their data on that one.

 

Their argument is probably that people are paying for these plans that have data caps, even though their plans without caps are way more expensive and no one wants to pay for because of the cost.

[schuck6566]

 

Their argument is probably that people are paying for these plans that have data caps, even though their plans without caps are way more expensive and no one wants to pay for because of the cost.

 

OR plans with caps are popular because there aren't any other options in your area available. lol, Near where I am,the option for a friend to get internet was limited to Dial-up or Satellite.AT&T didn't offer dsl,& cable stopped down the road from him. This is in a city of 37,000+ people.Sometimes U take what's available even if it sucks.

[axipher]

 

OR plans with caps are popular because there aren't any other options in your area available. lol, Near where I am,the option for a friend to get internet was limited to Dial-up or Satellite.AT&T didn't offer dsl,& cable stopped down the road from him. This is in a city of 37,000+ people.Sometimes U take what's available even if it sucks.

 

Yep, even here, because it's all mostly overhead lines, with poles that were built too short to handle extra communication lines added, you have lots of red tape about adding new fibre lines on the poles alongside the phone lines since they are different companies and fibre is supposed to be separated from copper lines by at least 6 inches.

 

Then lots of the subdivisions built within the last 2 decades that have cable internet were all sub-terrain cabling with no provisions for fibre or the hardware necessary at each location, so you have these sub-divisions of 100+ homes that are all twice the value of the the average home in the area that are "stuck" with cable on a yearly contract while low income homes right outside their gate can get gigabit fibre on no contract.

[schuck6566]

exactly, and here,where the cable company pays an "access fee" to the city for use of the poles,ect.,they pass that along to the consumers in an added monthly charge.Also,the BIGGEST joke is passing along to the consumer the universal service fund fee. " The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from providers of telecommunications based of an assessment on their interstate and internation end-user revenues. Examples of entities that contribute to the Fund are telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service."

 

[axipher]

exactly, and here,where the cable company pays an "access fee" to the city for use of the poles,ect.,they pass that along to the consumers in an added monthly charge.Also,the BIGGEST joke is passing along to the consumer the universal service fund fee. " The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from providers of telecommunications based of an assessment on their interstate and internation end-user revenues. Examples of entities that contribute to the Fund are telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service."

 

I'm sure Starlink won't be a huge shake-up speeds and data-cap wise, but I'm really interesting to see how Musk plans to build the monthly/annual plans for Starlink to be competitive and how much of a mark-up shake-up that will provide as it won't be limited by any physical limits in the US aside from having power and a view of the sky.

 

Apartment building residents may unfairly not get access to Starlink depending on the physical building layout, but lots of current US residents stuck with no broadband source, or only a single will all of a sudden have access to a new option that might make lots of copper networks obsolete depending on Starlink's ability to work through clouds and storms.

 

 

 

I also haven't seen much about if Musk plans to create larger Starlink ground receivers that are powerful enough to pierce through cloud cover and act as nodes for entire communities via typical copper of fibre connections to customers or LTE/5G.

 

I can't see many things stopping Musk from just buying up some couple acre properties, erecting a small cell tower with LTE/5G and a large Starlink receiver and just provide LTE/5G modem/routers to customers who want internet where no copper or fibre infrastructure exists, or legal red-tape and physical pole construction is limited for adding new communication lines.

[ENTERPRISE]

 

Their argument is probably that people are paying for these plans that have data caps, even though their plans without caps are way more expensive and no one wants to pay for because of the cost.

 

True, but then their argument is awesomlely misleading and innaccurate lol. People only paying for those services because they can afford them, not because they WANT data caps lol. Seriously these companies and their spin make me angry. Still overall seems to be US companies that do this.

[schuck6566]

lol, Other countries have their own down sides compared to us... https://koditips.com/blocked-kodi-streams-uk/ or maybe.... https://www.broadbandgenie.co.uk/broadband/help/isp-web-blocking-filters

[schuck6566]

 

I'm sure Starlink won't be a huge shake-up speeds and data-cap wise, but I'm really interesting to see how Musk plans to build the monthly/annual plans for Starlink to be competitive and how much of a mark-up shake-up that will provide as it won't be limited by any physical limits in the US aside from having power and a view of the sky.

 

Apartment building residents may unfairly not get access to Starlink depending on the physical building layout, but lots of current US residents stuck with no broadband source, or only a single will all of a sudden have access to a new option that might make lots of copper networks obsolete depending on Starlink's ability to work through clouds and storms.

 

 

 

I also haven't seen much about if Musk plans to create larger Starlink ground receivers that are powerful enough to pierce through cloud cover and act as nodes for entire communities via typical copper of fibre connections to customers or LTE/5G.

 

I can't see many things stopping Musk from just buying up some couple acre properties, erecting a small cell tower with LTE/5G and a large Starlink receiver and just provide LTE/5G modem/routers to customers who want internet where no copper or fibre infrastructure exists, or legal red-tape and physical pole construction is limited for adding new communication lines.

 

I'd like to see him come up with something like the 5g modem setup you're talking about for apt's. that would be great for alot of city people and cause the cable internet providers to actually compete!

 

[ENTERPRISE]

 

True, but then their argument is awesomlely misleading and innaccurate lol. People only paying for those services because they can afford them, not because they WANT data caps lol. Seriously these companies and their spin make me angry. Still overall seems to be US companies that do this.

 

To be fair, Kodi has been a well known platform for piracy and illegal streaming, so this stance is not surprising. As for web filtering, this is new-ish and by default is enforced when you join an ISP here BUT you can just turn it off/configure it. The only thing which gets filtered by ISP DNS is things like piratebay etc which cannot be turned off. I mean obviously you have the choice of DNS alteration or VPN to get around such things.

[schuck6566]

 

To be fair, Kodi has been a well known platform for piracy and illegal streaming, so this stance is not surprising. As for web filtering, this is new-ish and by default is enforced when you join an ISP here BUT you can just turn it off/configure it. The only thing which gets filtered by ISP DNS is things like piratebay etc which cannot be turned off. I mean obviously you have the choice of DNS alteration or VPN to get around such things.

 

censorship is the same regardless of the reason. torrent sites are the main way illegal files are shared,but they are ALSO the way large LEGAL files are shared(linux mint OS as an example).So,Do we ban all torrent software because it can be used by some people to break the law? Kodi is legal,it's 3rd party addons that allow illegal streaming. Once you start censoring,it's too easy to block anything that doesn't conform to your view. legal files also get shared on pirate bay.