> It has nothing to do with technical necessity, or even expenses of delivering a specific user's service.
Exactly my point. Therefore it's driven by greed, and is an indication of monopoly abuse. To repeat what I said. ISPs already have tired plans for _bandwidth_, and those who are heavier users can pay more for more bandwidth, which has technical necessity behind it. There is completely no need in caps.
> Your focus on that indicates you have no understanding of the market.
I understand it. The only reason this garbage like caps and violation of Net Neutrality happens is lack of competition, and crooks taking advantage of that fact in the context of insufficient regulations to prevent them.
No, it's not "driven by greed", it's "driven by basic math". There's nothing abusive about asking people using your service to pay more than the people who use it the least. And it has nothing to do with "monopoly abuse", we have four (five-ish) national carriers as well as plenty of regional offerings. Mobile providers are the least monopolistic telecoms in the industry right now.
The idea of paying for network speed is a poor one: It means the network is intentionally crippling their product when they can provide better, and they're under no obligation to even guarantee the speed you pay for. Paying for network speed is not good for the consumer.
Paying for usage is the ideal situation, because the provider and the customer have aligned interests. It's in the best interest of the provider to provide the fastest, highest quality service, so that users can consume the most data. And consumers get the best possible product, without being intentionally gimped or throttled.
> No, it's not "driven by greed", it's "driven by basic math".
Stop the demagoguery please. Calling greed "math" doesn't change it being greed.
> Paying for usage is the ideal situation
You sound like an ISP shill. Are you one? Paying for usage is horrendous, because ISPs who own media services disadvantage competing media services, by excluding their own from caps. This should be forbidden not just by Net Neutraility, but simply by antitrust law. But I suppose you think monopoly is ideal situation too, right? And you'd claim there is nothing wrong with "asking to pay more" because people have no choice but to use the abusive monopolist if they want service, and it's not greed but "basic math". Yeah, right.
Arguing with shills is pointless though, so I finished here. Everything was said above already anyway.
It literally has nothing to do with greed. I explained this, my link provided an example. But you seem hung up on T-Mobile's borderline fraudulent advertising scheme.
I have no business in the ISP space, accusing someone of being a shill because you disagree with them basically renders you useless in a discussion, and speaks to your inability to look at the argument objectively.
Exactly my point. Therefore it's driven by greed, and is an indication of monopoly abuse. To repeat what I said. ISPs already have tired plans for _bandwidth_, and those who are heavier users can pay more for more bandwidth, which has technical necessity behind it. There is completely no need in caps.
See https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Senator-Wyden-ATT-Merger...
> Your focus on that indicates you have no understanding of the market.
I understand it. The only reason this garbage like caps and violation of Net Neutrality happens is lack of competition, and crooks taking advantage of that fact in the context of insufficient regulations to prevent them.