> It's not unlimited since it's (by your own account) 15/3. That's a limitation right there, identical to your 150 amp service. And you can not exceed that limit period (you won't even get close to it, really). No need for a breaker.
It is one form of limitation, but it is not the most relevant.
The point is that Comcast has to pay for the transfer of data in and out of their network. So they have two choices:
* Meter your data transfer and charge a base fee for available bandwidth (just like commercial usage)
* Throttle your bandwidth so that you cannot exceed a set monthly transfer amount
Do you really want either? I don't. Assuming you want the later option, here's the breakdown:
250 GB -> 2,000 Gb (gigabits)
There are 2,678,400 seconds in a month.
2,000 Gb per 2,678,400 seconds
Reduced is: 0.0007467145 Gb per 1 second
Multiply by a factor of 1,048,576 (kilobits in a gigabit) and you get: 782.9868578256 kbps
To cap you at 250 GB per month (which their model is built around), you'd end up with an internet connection that is roughly the speed of an entry-level DSL connection (768 kbps DSL).
Does that make any sense to anyone? You can't simply wash away the cost of transferring the data in and out of their network with some government mandate.
The other option is to pay for metered bandwidth. This means the additional overhead of metering each customer, as well as the additional billing infrastructure. Not an impossible problem, but it's a lot of data to track, and the overhead is undeniable, so you'll end up getting more for less.
OR!
We could all cooperate and agree that there is a "typical" consumer use case with a soft ceiling of 250 GB of transfer per month. If can't operate within that ceiling, you should look in to a business-class connection where the pricing models fit your needs better.
All tier 1 ISPs have peering agreements where most pay nothing for traffic transfer. The real costs are the equipment, ISPs use statistical multiplexing to maximize the value of their lines and switches. Data caps only affect this indirectly, it is bandwidth that matters. If an ISPs' equipment can only handle 10Gb/s of bandwidth without degrading that is the real limit, the total amount of data a month is mostly immaterial. Simply put if everyone used up their data cap on the first day of the month the ISP could not handle it even though no one went over their cap.
I wonder how small ISPs like those in my country can afford to provide at least 500GB/month at 30Mbps for about $60. On the other hand, I do have about four other ISPs I can switch to, maybe that influences it?
> On the other hand, I do have about four other ISPs I can switch to, maybe that influences it?
Real competition, yes, that is the big influence. Sadly, in way to many locations in the US, one's broadband choices are limited to one or two providers.
If every location where Comcast operated broadband service there were four other equivalent providers of the same service, they would not ever think of cutting someone off for a year or limiting them to 250G/month of up+down transfers. These kinds of tactics are what monopolies do, simply because they can.
Please, if you're going to bury my comment, point out what I've misstated. If you're sitting there in your chair, disagreeing with me, but you can't figure out why, you're just lying to yourself.
If I've made a mathematical error, or misstated a fact, I'm happy to concede the point.
You say that metered, per-byte billing will impose a significant overhead. For ISPs that already have caps, they are already counting the bytes, so the only overhead would be in the variable billing. Half of the ISPs already do that for their non-IP services.
You also haven't said how much it costs a company like Comcast to pay for transit of their customers' data. You haven't given anyone reason to believe that transit actually is the dominant cost to a residential ISP.
You make a good point about already counting the bytes. That fact flew right past me when I was considering the overhead.
I can't answer the second question because I can't see Comcast's peering agreements. I do know that they're not always comfortable (see last year's Comcast/Level 3 dispute), but as the FCC pointed out, peering agreements are a private matter.
I'm playing devil's advocate here to some degree. I get that everyone wants to see an improvement in the availability and cost of broadband in the states. No question about it, but this article is about a person who used 250 GB of data in a month on a residential connection. I'd love too see a histogram that shows the distribution of data transfer usage per customer, but Comcast doesn't publish that information, so I'm left to assume that the fact that very few people encounter that limit is proof that it's pretty far above the norm. Feeding the sense of entitlement that this type of usage should be allowed is not how we'll make progress here.
It is one form of limitation, but it is not the most relevant.
The point is that Comcast has to pay for the transfer of data in and out of their network. So they have two choices:
* Meter your data transfer and charge a base fee for available bandwidth (just like commercial usage)
* Throttle your bandwidth so that you cannot exceed a set monthly transfer amount
Do you really want either? I don't. Assuming you want the later option, here's the breakdown:
250 GB -> 2,000 Gb (gigabits)
There are 2,678,400 seconds in a month.
2,000 Gb per 2,678,400 seconds
Reduced is: 0.0007467145 Gb per 1 second
Multiply by a factor of 1,048,576 (kilobits in a gigabit) and you get: 782.9868578256 kbps
To cap you at 250 GB per month (which their model is built around), you'd end up with an internet connection that is roughly the speed of an entry-level DSL connection (768 kbps DSL).
Does that make any sense to anyone? You can't simply wash away the cost of transferring the data in and out of their network with some government mandate.
The other option is to pay for metered bandwidth. This means the additional overhead of metering each customer, as well as the additional billing infrastructure. Not an impossible problem, but it's a lot of data to track, and the overhead is undeniable, so you'll end up getting more for less.
OR!
We could all cooperate and agree that there is a "typical" consumer use case with a soft ceiling of 250 GB of transfer per month. If can't operate within that ceiling, you should look in to a business-class connection where the pricing models fit your needs better.