FCC to propose a minimum 100mbps to qualify as broadband, future goal of 1gbps [pdf]

Re:FCC to propose a minimum 100mbps to qualify as broadband,... by paxys on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @04:51PM (#38105016)

I have a 500 Mbps connection with a 1TB data cap, both pretty standard numbers in the US. If I used the connection at its advertised speeds, I would exhaust my monthly limit in about 4 hours. So no, that relationship is non-existent. The data cap math instead is "99% of our users use < 1TB, so we will charge the rest more because we can".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC to propose a minimum 100mbps to qualify as broadband,... by endisneigh on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @04:57PM (#38105105)

Or more accurately, to disincentive excessive use. They don’t need a cap to simply charge you more money, they’ve been doing that just fine with or without caps.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC to propose a minimum 100mbps to qualify as broadband,... by mjrpes on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @05:20PM (#38105466)

If that was a big issue, why are smaller ISPs (like sonic.com) able to offer 10Gb ethernet at a flat rate with no caps?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC to propose a minimum 100mbps to qualify as broadband,... by paxys on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @05:01PM (#38105164)

That would be a valid argument if they defined "excessive" based on infrastructure limits rather than a demand curve and market research.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC to propose a minimum 100mbps to qualify as broadband,... by endisneigh on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @05:04PM (#38105217)

All prices are based on “demand curve and market research” so I’m not sure what your point is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC to propose a minimum 100mbps to qualify as broadband,... by paxys on Wednesday November 01, 2023 @05:37PM (#38105702)

My point from the start has been that ISPs put data caps and overage charges in place to make extra money, not to protect their infrastructure.

[ Parent | on HN ]