>tfw you are the cancer causing data caps

>>58194023
>tfw you are the cancer causing data caps

Are you management in some ISP? How are you causing data caps?

>>58194042
yeah okay fair point.

>>58194042
hes uploading data to russians and chinese so that our ISPs cant afford to provide internet for regular people

its rule 17 in the Alt Right guidebook

>>58194023
hehe

>>58194070
>American believe this

Everyone here uploads several terabytes of data to russians and chinese every day. Everyone seeds and downloads from torrents every day. I only use about 1% of the shit I torrent.

ISPs have no problem with that and they have not even talked about data caps.

Anyone who thinks usage causes data caps are idiots. Even if every single American uploaded and downloaded 2-3 Tb every single day the ISPs would still have lots mor capacity. The cables can handle way more than that.

>ISPs cant afford to provide internet for regular people

In America ISPs usually get internet infrastructure free from the government paid with tax dollars. Same with Europe, but in Europe EVERY ISP is allowed to use internet infrastructure paid by the state, while in America it's exclusive to one company at a time.

How can 40 different ISPs provide services with the same equipment without a single one of them even talking about data caps while in America a single one can't handle just simple viewing on netflix? They are tricking you, they are like Enron who shut down powerplants in California to pretend that there was limited amount of electricity (to make the electricity more expensive and to get money from the state) it is not real.

>use more electricity
>get charged more
>use more water
>get charged more
>use more bandwidth
>what? i have to pay more? Oh vey it's annudah shoah!

One the fiber has been laid, the only thing you're paying for is to keep the power running and regular maintenance. The initial investment has already been made, throttling and data caps do nothing but add artificial barriers and allow the ISPs to charge you more.

>>58194023
The people causing data caps were downloading/uploading exponentially more

>>58194235
The problem is it would be like having a gas line that NEVER runs out of gas, once the gas line is built it flows forever as long as the pipeline doesn't break, so if you maintain the pipeline, you have gas until the day you die.

But now you're being told you can only use less than 500 units because that's what 90% of people use. The gas is still endless supply, never runs out as long as the pipe is connected, but you now are restricted in how much you can take, just cause.

Makes sense.

>>58194257
Except now you have everyone using gas 24/7 for literally no reason, might as well since it's free, and the lines can't handle the gas glow and the gas company needs to build more gas.

>>58194023
I was using about 2TB a month before Comcast implemented their 1TB cap here in November. I just set my torrent client ratio limit to 2.0 and went about my business. It's bullshit, but whining is futile.

>>58194276
But that isn't the case, how often do you find yourself being throttled by your ISP because of heavy traffic?

I have 150mbps, it NEVER drops below 150Mbps, even during peak primetime hours.

But hey, we need that data cap cause reasons.

>>58194221
Good point. There is no "supply" of internet data.

>>58194314
Now what if everyone used all of their 150Mbps during peak hours?

>>58194408
then maybe ISPs should invest in their infrastructure so they can provide what they say they can.

They don't even need to use their own money, they get paid by the government to do so anyways.

>>58194408
They wouldn't. It's not the market we live in. Not everyone wants to or has a use for such.

>>58194408
Then show me that's the issue and limit me to 1TB of data during the hours of 6pm and 11pm.

From 12am to 5pm should be unrestricted though.


I'm fine with SOME restrictions if they're based in reality and not charging $50 more per month to get no data cap for no other reason than the ISP has found a way to charge you AGAIN for the same service they've been providing the whole time.

File: my usage.jpg (25KB, 577x546px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 577x546px

this month has been kind of heavy too, still not done downloading stuff

>>58194435
And once Netflix implements download and watch later you think the normies aren't going to do the same thing?

>>58194447
...wut?

If download and save is available, they'll just download during the middle of the night when no one is using the bandwidth anyway, saving the ISP their precious primetime bandwidth for ppl who didn't pre-download things.

>>58194408
>Now what if everyone used all of their 150Mbps during peak hours?
Would not matter, the ISP still would have tons of capacity. Any slower internet is done artificially as a marketing ploy to excuse data caps. You don't see internet suddenly getting slow in Russia, Europe, China or Korea etc. it's mainly an American and Australian thing.

There isn't a limited supply of it. There is no technical reason why the 150Mbps limit exists, it's a BUSINESS reason why it's there. Which is why this is not a problem in places with government ISPs

>>58194023
3TB is not so much data
ISPs are fucking cucks

you can have 2TB/month from Aruba for 1EUR

again ISPs are fucking cucks

>>58194215
based

File: A very benevolent monarch.jpg (279KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1000x667px

>hoarding

>>58196782
I can easily hit 1TB traffic without saving anything.

File: 11696002_10207287463255020_2776582923222710032_n.jpg (37KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 640x640px

>>58194494
>>58194257
>>58194221
>Bandwidth usage is practically unlimited and caps are artificial schemes

Anyone have any good data or documents to support this? I don't doubt what you're saying is true, but I need hard proof.

>>58194023
>data caps
It this a thing? Slavlands got rid of them some 10 years ago.

>>58196915
>>58194221

Data caps dont exist, there isn't any internet bytes being hoarded somewhere that cost money to make, but the infrastructure does, and thats what an ISP is, infrastructure to get your information from your area around to other ISPs around the globe.

This is ofcourse not free and they lay cables and towers and these need to be maintained and payed for. The ISP's can probably afford to not have data caps but it seems like a cop-out to having dynamic cost on bandwidth usage. I think they do it so someone torrenting 3000 million files doesn't get charged the same as granny looking at weather on her mobile.

Could be wrong, because it doesn't explain why some countries don't use it.

holy fuck look at all the paid ISP shills in this thread defending this fucking bullshit. suck my fucking dick you comcast pieces of shit.

>>58196915
What proof do you need? The cost of the electricity to run the networking equipment is negligible at best i've seen figures quoting under $0.01 per GB transferred.

The pipeline providing internet has a capacity of a certain bandwidth, for my ISP they use 2.4gbps download and 1.2gbps upload per 32 households.
No matter what you do, that 2.4/1.2gbps bandwidth remains fixed at that rate, forever (unless upgrades are done).

It doesn't matter if it's 5am or 8pm, that bandwidth is still there. If there are SO many users concurrently using that bandwidth, I would see a reduction in my usable speed, but since I pay for 150/150mbps it would take a significant load to even come close to throttling my connection.

If you split the 2.4gbps evenly between all 32 houses you would get ~75mbps per house.

So in the WORST case scenario, I would be throttled to 75mbps, and all of this costs my ISP the same regardless, they already own the equipment, they already laid the fiber, the only thing they're paying for is the electricity and maintenance.


There is simply no defence for data caps, they don't make sense and anyone who knows anything about the industry is pretty much in agreement, the only one's who don't agree are the CEOs, shareholders, and tech-illiterates comparing it to electricity and similar services (which it isnt same)

>>58197040
Data caps are completely artificial. Everyone, fucking EVERYONE torrents in slavlands and still no caps despite terabytes of data torrented everyday.

>>58197098
you're doing that thing where everything you dislike sort of gets rolled into one big thing to be reeee'd at

maybe you could download a clue ;^)

>>58197040
Some countries don't have data caps because competition is an actual thing and they can't afford to show up with some 200GB cap when the other dudes offer uncapped 1Gbps fiber connections. There's no reason for caps to exist, worst case scenario if your ISP hits their actual bandwidth limit you would get throttled because their infrastructure can't actually handle more data. Data caps exist exclusively to fuck you up the ass.

>>58194235
Flawed analogy, familia

>>58197040
>>58197114
Hmm, ok. I just want to be able to push that argument here, so I want some solid numbers to work with. I'm sure I can look up documents on the cables use by these American ISPs and deduce total possible usage based on the infrastructure.

>>58197227
I forgot about the internet monopolies in america lol, woops.

File: sspp.png (6KB, 372x68px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 372x68px

This triggers the clapper.

File: 1469999833292.png (9KB, 154x172px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 154x172px

>talk about data caps
>suddenly some retard from a third-world cartel-run shithole uses the brief period that his mud hut has electricity to shriek about how his sad excuse for a nowhere country may not have roads, public education or clean water, but by gum he can download all the anime MKVs from IRC bots he wants!!, to watch in his bed of straw by the light of burning animal corpses and traitors to the glorious General's regime

>>58197040
>and they lay cables and towers and these need to be maintained and payed for.

In America this is usually paid by taxes even when a company get exclusive rights to it

>>58197115
There are caps in slavlands on at least half providers.
t. Slav

>>58196915
They admitted it themselves.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3002592/networking/comcast-data-caps-aren-t-about-congestion-leaked-memo-shows.html
>But perhaps the most interesting part of the memo is the admission that the data caps (or whatever Comcast wants to call them) are not about managing congestion. If asked to explain the new caps, representatives must say it’s about “Fairness and promoting a more flexible policy to our customers.” We’ve heard the “fairness” line from Comcast before, and the cable industry as a whole has acknowledged that caps and congestion aren’t related, but it’s rare to see Comcast admit directly that congestion has nothing to do with the new plans.

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Cable-Industry-Finally-Admits-Caps-Not-About-Congestion-122791
>National Cable and Telecommunications Association president Michael Powell told a Minority Media and Telecommunications Association audience that cable's interest in usage-based pricing was not principally about network congestion, but instead about pricing fairness...Asked by MMTC president David Honig to weigh in on data caps, Powell said that while a lot of people had tried to label the cable industry's interest in the issue as about congestion management. "That's wrong," he said. "Our principal purpose is how to fairly monetize a high fixed cost."

File: 11953113_1174105785940213_5747106310721235830_n.jpg (32KB, 500x415px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x415px

>>58199142
Praise be Anon

>>58199142
Essentially as more catch on to this, I believe they'll market it as more of a "pay to play" plan. i.e. persons who use the infrastructure more pay for it more.

Which, I think is harder to argue against, but such a shift in the dialogue would likely lead to at least a slight shift up in our shitty Mbps as part of our uncompetitive American monopolies. Definitely need our upload bandwidths increased. ISPs have been pressure for low Up speeds as part of anti-file sharing initiatives. Upload bandwidth is so low you may as well measure it in kbps.

>>58197475
god damn nigga what is your download speed?

>>58194307
Can't anyone file an anti-trust suit against Comcast and Time Warner? It seems painfully obvious that they're sharing the market and gouging customers with their duopoly.

>usage caps a still a thing

Most ISP's here have unlimited data with no throttling.

For example take a look at all the products listed under "unlimited" http://www.sky.com/shop/terms-conditions/broadband/network-management-policy/