31–40 of 432 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, for the same reason that roads used by daily drivers are subsidized by remote workers.
Ironically roads should also have caps and/or tolls, so this take is strange. This is partly why gas and excise tax is a thing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, for the same reason that roads used by daily drivers are subsidized by remote workers.
Ironically roads should also have caps and/or tolls, so this take is strange. This is partly why gas and excise tax is a thing…
Honest question: at what point, with real life usage, is 1 Gbps actually necessary for home users? I find that latency rather than throughput is what determines my perceived quality of an Internet connection. But am curious how others think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, for the same reason that roads used by daily drivers are subsidized by remote workers.
Ironically roads should also have caps and/or tolls, so this take is strange. This is partly why gas and excise tax is a thing…
We'll set up electronic tolls on your cul-de-sac and every light and stop sign, or toll you by mile driven using an odometer beaconing out to the tax authorities per drive and registered to your tax ID number (US) or equivalent. And then cap you on the number of miles you're allowed to drive per year on all cars unless you pay an additional fee.
Older cars must be retrofit at the driver's expense.
Also the auditing and anti-fraud infrastructure must be instituted for all of this.
---
Or we can just do flat taxes and chill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn’t there be a cap? Bandwidth isn’t free. It’s sad seeing people on a forum called hacker news having no idea how networking infrastructure works.
once the infrastructure is there does each byte/gigabyte really have an intrinsic cost? isn't more about the bytes per second and not the bytes total ?
This is nice, but with increased speed, they should also require ISPs do not impose a data cap to be considered broadband.
So that someone's grandma who hardly uses her connection can subsidize your extreme over-consumption of digital media?
I imagine the 20 Mbps upload target is useless for most of us, even those on asymmetric cable, but there's a good chance that if the ISPs were forced to provide 20 Mbps up at their lowest broadband tiers, it would raise the ladder quite a bit. For example, on Comcast I get 800 / 20, but there's also a 400 / 10 tier (and maybe a low-cost tier below that?). If everyone was getting 20 up, maybe I'll get upgraded to 40 Mbps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, for the same reason that roads used by daily drivers are subsidized by remote workers.
Ironically roads should also have caps and/or tolls, so this take is strange. This is partly why gas and excise tax is a thing…
Similar thing probably goes for internet access.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
once the infrastructure is there does each byte/gigabyte really have an intrinsic cost? isn't more about the bytes per second and not the bytes total ?
There’s more to running an isp than simply plumbing electricity.
I had to live under an ISP that charged something on the order of $10+/GB after a certain amount and after they were forced to offer unlimited internet it was an actual breath of fresh air just to be able to use the internet and not worry about literally everything in the house, or if I could update my OS, or play this game, or watch this Netflix show, etc.
i'm honestly curious. why not a standard margin on your 'per second' allowances (100/100Mbps, etc) or other 'addon' services?
why should someone with a ring doorbell (or a homekit secure video whatever) be punished over someone who doesn't?