I don't understand the people who argue that 1TB is a lot of data. Sure, yes it is right now. What about 5 years from now? 4K TVs and streaming are already starting to become mainstream. Many online VR experiences are going to be resource heavy. 1TB isn't even the size of a decent consumer HDD, for people that do online backups. This seems like a preemptive strike against online media consumption. I can't wait to have any viable alternative to Comcast.
This is the argument I use again people using the "it's fine for now" argument for Australia having replaced the gigabit fibre-to-the-home plan with an equally expensive 25Mbit Fibre-to-the-node plan to save a whopping one year on construction time.
Sure, most people can live with 25Mbit now, but what about in five years? Ten? Twenty?
> I don't understand the people who argue that 1TB is a lot of data. Sure, yes it is right now.
We don't need to argue. You just agreed with us.
Comcast haven't said they'll never change this policy or offer greater plans. They're offering plans that reflect the current marketplace, not doing so is bad business.
In addition to that, if you read the article you'll see you can still get 100% unlimited Internet for $200/mo. They're simply asking their high-demand customers to pay in such a way that reflects what it costs to provide for those customers.
I don't walk into a restaurant and expect a flat price for my meal that's the same as every one else... err, unless it's an all-you-can-eat... and they charge for drinks!
That's not what's going on. You're not paying a flat price. If you want more bandwidth, you pay for it. The currency for an ISP is bandwidth. The amount of data that's transferred does not matter. This is basically pure profit for Comcast and comes from an artificial excuse that last-mile ISPs have effectively made up.
But it does matter. ISPs simply don't have the means to provide capacity for every user to simultaneously max out their connection at once. That is not, and never has been how Internet infrastructure works. That'd be like building a 100 lane highway because on Christmas it gets congested.
You're paying for peak performance, not 24/7 performance.
You're paying for a rate, not an absolute amount. The internet infrastructure works on that rate (bandwidth). You don't buy a 10GB switch or router, you buy a 1gbps switch or router. ISPs peer based on bandwidth.
I do understand, though, that by having a data cap they're encouraging users to use less of that bandwidth. However, again, they're just passing on costs to the consumer instead of paying a fixed cost to upgrade their peering arrangements.
