Starlink Sets High-Speed Data Cap at 1TB per Month, Lowers Advertised Speeds | Hacker News Reader

Starlink Sets High-Speed Data Cap at 1TB per Month, Lowers Advertised Speeds

pcmag.com

85 pointsdrewrem11143 comments

ISP data caps are a complete scam.

Xfinity offers gigabit connectivity with a 1TB data cap. Which means that if someone was actually using the network at those speeds it would take them 2.2 hours to get through their allotted monthly usage.

I reject 'complete scam', though that example is obviously egregious.

My 50Mbps plan should be capped (1280GB in my case.) I don't know what the utilization factors are, but that would be a lot of traffic on what is not a high powered plan, and I appreciate the price I get. Even when I try to go for the cap, I've never even made it to 400GB (because I don't know how to use that much traffic, mostly.)

As with almost all these broadband provider problems, it's the barriers to new entrants that prevent sensible equilibrium.

The scam part is where the limits are all disclosed in the small print while the large print on their advertising material says "unlimited"; it takes serious pilpul to redefine that word.

AFAIK there's nowhere on Comcast's site that says unlimited bandwidth. I just went to sign up and they were pretty clear about data caps.

Right on "Xfinity"'s homepage I see them offering "Unlimited". Then in the fine print below it, in a much smaller font, it says they'll throttle your connection after only 20 GB.

Serious pilpul to call that "Unlimited".

If you’re seeing references to throttling and 20GB, you’ve accidentally gone to Xfinity Mobile, their phone service.

Whatever, it's advertised right on the front of Xfinity.com, and it's the same damn company. I have numerous emails from them telling me they'll me that I'm close to my monthly limit and they'll fine me if I go over. Comcast are snakes, just like the rest.

The practices of cable Internet and MVNOs have nothing to do with each other. They just share branding.

Same company, same leadership, same scummy business practices. I don't know why you're trying to hold water for Comcast of all companies. I guess Elon Musk is just so awful that he makes you think Comcast is good? I don't particularly like the guy either, but get real. Comcast are scum.

I don’t know what has given you this impression. Hopefully you’ll find it easier to navigate between their websites from now on.

Given me what impression? Should I not judge a company by the lies they put on their website?

>> I just went to sign up

To Comcast? For the love of God, why?

Indeed, and it's happening while cable providers push more offerings to IP-based services. Xfinity will hand you a free Xfinity Flex streaming box to watch free shows and content that all count against your monthly data cap.

My SO and I both work from home full time now, and we will easily hit 600-800GB/month. I can't imagine how homes with several kids streaming YouTube videos handles this without paying the extra monthly fee for the Xfinity modem just to remove their data cap.

So glad this just isn't a thing in the UK.

Yes, services are contended (1/32 on my FTTP), so if everyone goes full beans the whole time it would slow down, but I never have issues, even at busy times on my 900/100 plan. Turns out, most people's usage is bursty, and even every home streaming simultaneously at 4K is only using a fraction of the bandwidth available on the GPON circuit.

I've used multiple TB a month (when working from home full time during the lockdown, with kids remote learning and spouse working remotely as well) and didn't get so much as a peep from my ISP. Unlimited really is unlimited.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/fios-...

ISPs are buying long and selling short or whatever it is called. They buy transit at some higher priced and fixed (10 Gb/s or whatever) and resell it to users at advertised speeds that are a major fraction of whatever the local uplink is. If you buy at 10 Gb/s and sell at 1 Gb/s you obviously can't sell to more than 10 users without somehow limiting something.

So data caps are a way to isolate the harmful effects of those who use a lot of bandwidth from those who just use it rarely. It's standard market segmentation.

You can pay more and get more, or get a business account.

I mean, you could, but you very much thought you were buying that already because your provider put a lot of effort into leading you to believe that.

I'd only call it a scam when they advertise unlimited and still have caps. Otherwise you are just getting what you agreed and paid for. If you want to pay for a dedicated gigabit line not shared with anyone else, you can, it costs a lot.

It can actually be much cheaper than people might think, you just need to work it out with the business side (and they will correctly allocate for it). You're basically buying a loop to some exchange, and then transit at that exchange.

The reality is nobody is ACTUALLY pushing 1 Gb/s continuous so the expense ain't worth it (the people who are already have it setup).

Data caps existing to prevent network congestion is a myth. Otherwise Xfinity would go down on the 1st of every month when all their users had fresh data allotments and were using the service without any restrictions.

This model is simply an additional revenue stream for ISPs.

I think the cap is intended to drive heavy users to change their behavior or switch to other ISPs.

That would assume everyone hits the caps - I daresay they're high enough that 90% or so of users never hit them (I'm not capped so I don't know) - or they'd offer a good/better/best allocation.

In the end you're trying to find a fair algorithm for "sharing" and any one you pick is going to have some ways in which it's unfair.

> In the end you're trying to find a fair algorithm for "sharing" and any one you pick is going to have some ways in which it's unfair.

This is already done for almost every other wireless carrier with QoS (QCI in this context). No need to cap the heavy users, just de-prioritize them if the spots are too congested. [1][2] (QCI parameters may vary by carrier and region equipment vendor.) I spend most of my month at QCI 9 but I live in a semi-rural area with a high capacity cell pointed at me, so deprioritization doesn't matter for me, I'm harming literally nobody using >1TB/mo. If my town threw some festival and I bogged down, I have the choice of either switching to a deprioritized line or driving to a non-congested cell.

If they really have to hard cap it suggests they are either: 1. assholes or 2. built a poorly designed system that congests at more than the transponder spots.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/NoContract/comments/tn4733/qci_leve...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QoS_Class_Identifier

Oh you can bog down the uplinks for sure - even after you’re off the cell and on the landlines.

Interconnects are getting better and better so fewer and fewer people run into it (and how much video bandwidth never even leaves the carriers local network with Netflix cache servers, etc).

I forgot to mention but it is possible to saturate tower backhaul as well, this is the main secondary point of congestion. It usually sets the max physical throughput for the wireless spectrum on midband and mmwave deployments, however it is still a factor on some rural sites.

I provided consulting for a mobile carrier before. The reason why this doesn't happen is because once you do apply data caps, users often try to "not eat their entire allocation the first day" because otherwise they would lose internet halfway through the month.

The same reason as to why you don't use your entire paycheque at the beginning of each month when it drops.

Granted though, in terms of internet, this is not a detriment (at least not enough) to think you won't have internet by the end of the month. But that'd the thinking behind caps, that people would even out their usage through the month.

Verizon switched from low cap cellular plans (2 GB) to unlimited*. The network is much more congested now that people don't think twice about streaming video.

*The normal plan gets deprioritized after a threshold. The cheap plan is always low priority. The super duper plan is never deprioritized but video throughput is capped.

As a note that type of prioritization would have been prohibited by most net neutrality rules.

Maybe with the 22 billion in net income they raked in in 2021 they could upgrade their gear and give customers what they want.

Very little of the streaming video you describe is off-net for any of the carriers. They run caching servers within their network at major POPs. The network isn't congested because of said video because it's already downsampled content specifically for mobile streaming.

Video streaming on any of these carrier networks consumed by your phone or tablet is curated for mobile devices and doesn't impact their Internet connectivity at all. Very little of that traffic will ever egress the carrier's network. Ultimately the congestion is all oversubscription of the spectrum allocated to the tower you're connecting to.

While I agree with you. It's important to point out not every customer's plan starts at the 1st of the month.

That still doesn’t explain most ISP data caps which are often 0.1% or less of advertised bandwidth over a month.

Instead it’s simply a way to segment the market so ISP’s can charge business customers dramatically higher fees.

Demanding that a home ISP be able to satiate torrent junkies who peg their line 24/7 is not reasonable. That's like half the membership of a gym showing up on the same day and expecting that there be machines available without any delay. Or everyone withdrawing their savings from a bank at the same time without any issues. Or someone claiming on their home insurance every year. Consumer Internet access is shared. If ISPs had to guarantee 100% of line rate they would have to lower the advertised speeds or raise prices to MPLS/DIA prices ($$$ instead of $$).

This is a separate argument from whether some ISPs abuse their monopoly or duopoly position to convert consumer surplus into economic rent.

If you do 1:30th oversubscription the a monthly data cap of 1/30th of your hypothetical bandwidth is fine. That’s easily enough to catch torrent junkies and your network is likely only congested for a small fraction of the day.

However, a bandwidth cap of 1/10,000th or less the hypothetical monthly cap has got nothing to do with how congested your network is.

Isn't 30:1 over-subscription extremely aggressive? ISPs used to use 10:1 but Netflix after dinner became popular and now ratios like 3-5:1 are more typical.

Depends on speeds. People will peg a DSL line for hours watching video, but the vast majority of households don’t download more jumping from 200 Mbps to 1,000 Mbps.

Netflix pretty much solved that by colocating their caches at the ISPs. Netflix itself shouldn't be an issue for any reasonable size ISP these days. Edit: Just realised after writing this that it may actually be an issue for starlink - they're in a different position here. I wonder if satellite links will force multicast of some sort to make a return for customers.

Now I’m imaging satellites with Netflix caches shoved in them.

(I wonder if Netflix is even a majority of streaming anymore)

As speeds get higher oversubscription gets higher too, just from a practical standpoint. They dropped 1Gb/s fiber to the entire town and I doubt we have multiple terabits of uplink.

This is nothing but absolute bullshit. That's not how a network works and you know it.

-- sorry, sorry, impetuous. I'm simply tired of the bandwidth apologists. Data caps are 100% theft of service.

> They buy transit at some higher priced and fixed (10 Gb/s or whatever) and resell it to users at advertised speeds that are a major fraction of whatever the local uplink is.

Globally, downstream video makes up 57% of bandwidth usage:

* https://www.ncta.com/whats-new/new-study-examines-internet-t...

Given that most high bandwidth usage is for video, the cost of transit/uplink doesn't matter as long as you (a) have a Netflix CDN appliance (or three) on your network, and (b) you peer with Youtube/Google at your local IXP. And most IXPs also have most cloud providers peering as well, so a lot of online stuff will be caught by that.

Looking at TorIX, my local IXP in Toronto, Canada, and sorting by bandwidth of the connection, we have (selectively) Akamai, CloudFlare, Facebook, Fastly, Amazon, Blizzard, Google, Limelight, and Microsoft all with 100Gb/s or more (and often redundant):

* https://www.torix.ca/peers/

Transit is for reaching the wider Internet, which I think is the minority of traffic.

So as long as you have a dark fibre connection to your local IXP(s), which is a fixed cost, I don't think peering/transit costs matter that much.

Hardly makes it a "scam". Annoying and restricting perhaps.

It also isn't nearly as tight as your 2.2 hours suggests in practice. Gigabit is fast enough that most downloads take seconds so the chances of someone spending hours at full speed is pretty low.

Unlimited is definitely nicer

It is a scam when xfinity advertises unlimited when it is intact not.

I mean I could also roll up at a coffee shop with a tanker truck and demand they fill it up based on my $5 bottomless coffee purchase. But nobody sensible reads bottomless that way.

Also I don't think your reading of their offerings is right. 1.2TB allowance on the basic package and those that want more can purchase an unlimited package:

https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/exp-unlimited-data

Your analogy is too far off in scale to work. Constant coffee refills would take days to fill up a tanker truck. If a tanker truck is 1.2TB, then getting a coffee refill every few seconds isn't the equivalent of full speed downloading, it's the equivalent of streaming high quality video.

So the analogy you proposed would say that streaming video is abuse. The analogy is wrong.

Also, when talking about how "most downloads take seconds", video game (re)installs can be over 100GB. You could have two people each install two games and blow out half your data cap in an hour without doing anything remotely unreasonable.

Comcast, Time Warner, ATT, all the mobile providers have been doing this in the US for years. It makes sense to me to do this for something like Starlink that has actual limitations based on spectrum/physical availability of chunks of metal hurtling around the planet.

Just because there is a cartel that has been operating for decades on these terms, that does not mean that new competitors should use the same playbook.

In contrast, Google Fiber does not have data caps.

I think the parents point is that starlink has an actual reason to cap usage (because launching satellites into space is expensive), much more so than traditional providers anyway.

Congestion should be managed by throttling heavy users only at the point of congestion, during congested times. Applying a per-month cap is ridiculously coarse and is more about punishing users than discouraging behavior that the network cannot reasonably support.

I would much prefer an explicit data cap known ahead of time to random unexpected throttling.

Unfortunately, with the former, you still really get both, since everyone starts the month uncapped...

It's not a binary choice. The throttling at the point of congestion is unavoidable (though the ISP can choose to be more or less fair about this throttling). The monthly cap is optional.

Starlink is doing exactly what you want them to do.

During congestion they have no choice but to throttle everyone hence lower speed "at the point of congestion".

The new addition is not really a data cap. When you reach 1 TB they'll throttle you, but only when they have to. They won't throttle if there's enough bandwidth for you.

The cap basically identifies "heavy users".

So quite literally Starlink is doing exactly what you described as the ideal solution: during congestion they are throttling heavy users.

If that's the case, then they should advertise it as unlimited with throttling when you hit a certain threshold. That's at least consistent with how ATT/Verizon wireless internet use the term, etc...

It's honestly really a confusing way to state things, because it's shown as "1TB of priority access during peak access times". Which would seem to me to be a completely meaningless measure.

What are peak access times? How can I measure my priority access during peak access times? It seems overly complicated to me.

I'd rather they just say -- "We will throttle your access at peak congestion times, if necessary. During these times, your priority will be based on your monthly cumulative usage."

> What are peak access times? How can I measure my priority access during peak access times? It seems overly complicated to me.

Peak times is most of the day, it says so next to the chart showing the limits.

The starlink website has a data use graph you can look at.

It seems very uncomplicated to me.

Maybe if I adjust your explanation it'll make sense?

"When the network is congested, if you have used more than 1TB this month, you may be throttled. Data use between 11PM and 7AM will not count toward the limit."

The cap is exactly that, if I read correctly? After you hit it, you still get non-priority service without extra charge.

Comcast has that https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6057

You're definitely correct, and in the cities where Google Fiber operates, conveniently, other providers do not have data caps as well. The solution to this problem is to encourage more things like Google Fiber and break up the horrible monopolistic system we have now.

I just think, if anyone should get some understanding for the situation, it should be Starlink, based on the constraints of their tech.

Yeah and it's a total scam. When I moved into my new house, I called up Cox to see if I could get Fiber installed. They said, "Wow your area is the first in the region to get 2GBPS for $150/mo". I was excited and asked if there would be a data cap, and the rep said yeah 1TB/mo. So I could use up all the allotment in an hour or so I asked, and he said "yup, or you can pay an extra $75 to get unlimited bandwidth". No Thanks.

Got CenturyLink Quantum Fiber, 1GBPS at my house for a flat rate of $65.00/mo and no data caps.

Moved away from Denver up into the mountains and I really miss my 1Gbps $65/mo internet -_-

What a crock. Why are they rolling service out to RVs and planes when they don't even have capacity for existing residential users...

Because it has to get worse before it can ever get better. The current generation of satellites are too small to ever be profitable. So they have to get the next generation up there. That requires the rocket to be ready, and lots of money. So they need to get people signed up even though it will degrade everyone's performance, in order to pay for the upgrade that will hopefully enable better performance in the future.

Nice way to do business ? Scam people ?

What's the scam?

Start out advertising unlimited and then make it not unlimited once you’re invested as a customer

Or... Why roll out to residential users when there are RVs and planes still without service?

Anyway, any residential ISP advertising "unlimited" is almost certainly full of shit. They shouldn't be allowed to advertise with this sort of language when there are in fact limits imposed. Leading people to believe otherwise has always been unfair.

Because the initial selling point was “providing access to those living in rural areas without great alternatives” and then they tried to get a bunch of government funding for providing residential connectivity in those areas (And then failed at providing it)?

> (And then failed at providing it)?

Lol, a datacap of 1TB a month is hardly a failure for the very rural users who don't have the choice of signing up with the likes of Comcast (who pull this same sort of "unlimited*" bullshit too.)

I never met a residential ISP that I felt did business honestly, but to call Starlink a failure because of a 1TB limit is some serious mental gymnastics. Same old scummy ISP practices? Certainly. A failure? Give me a break.

That's not what I'm referring to.

Starlink was attempting to get almost $1B worth of grants from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, which exists to "bring high speed fixed broadband service to rural homes and small businesses that lack it".

They quite literally failed to prove that they could provide the service they claimed.

> The FCC has rejected the SpaceX unit's bid to receive $885.5 million in aid through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. The broadband provider "failed to demonstrate" that it could deliver the claimed service, according to a statement.

https://www.engadget.com/fcc-rejects-spacex-starlink-rural-b...

I appreciate you said "almost certainly". My cousin runs a WISP and when I asked him about someone maxing their bandwidth out 100% of the time, he said they'd make it work, not limit the customer.

An honest WISP is actually the exact sort of scenario I had in mind when I hedged that claim. In my experience, small businesses are sometimes honest but the big ones almost never are.

In what way are they lacking capacity?

Speeds are coming down. That clearly indicates capacity is declining.

$$$$ vs. $$$

Residential customers are a volume play, where the service may be competing with a local terrestrial service provider, and customers maybe price sensitive.

RV, boats and airplane customers will be more lucrative accounts to serve.

RV traffic is already de-prioritized compared to residential.

Planes are being charged way more money than residential.

$0.25 per GB... uh no thanks. I've generally been happy with Starlink but this throws somewhat of a wrench into things. I wonder if it will be US only or worldwide.

The vast majority of people probably pay much more per GB than that. My family's traffic averages maybe 200GB per month.

And even more if you look at your cellphone - compare data used last month with your bill and divide it out.

I don't consider them equivalent at all, though embarrassingly I don't know enough about wireless bandwidth and RF comms provisioning generally to be able to state conclusively that they're not.

Just that most people pay $100/mo for phone service and use 10-20gb or so (no idea) which is $10-5 a gig.

I pay 20 for 25GB in Austria. Why is it so expensive in the US? You have not even close to twice our GDP/capita. Nationwide cartel?

I’m talking (amount actually used)/(amount actually paid).

Many people have unlimited or some high limit but don’t use it all.

(It’s not entirely fair as the device can do things like text and phone calls, but if I consider my phone as a phone only I was paying $100 for about 5-10 minutes of talk time a month (used) so in a way I was spending $10 a minute. Of course the main thing people want is data. We’re probably a few years from phones with data only and no phone number at all

This is only for priority access i.e. during hours of peak usage, after you cross 1 TB a month, you can choose to pay to get priority (i.e. higher speeds) over people who didn't pay.

If you're ok with lower speeds during peak usage, you don't pay.

If there's no congestion, you don't pay.

Pray they do not alter the deal further.

If they do, you can easily cancel your service (no lock-in contract) and go with a competitor that offers a better deal.

Bit of a large up-front fee to swallow though for the equipment

Musk fans, see why this service wasn’t eligible for the rural bandwidth benefit?

I wonder if all the “it’s political retaliation” folks are gonna realize that starlink was effectively snakeoil in the scale they were talking about.

As I understand the situation, I would guess that they are bottlenecked by satellite bandwidth capacity. IIRC, they plan to launch ~4k units in 2023, which would double the current constellation. They will also switch over to version 2.0 units as soon as they can, and those are 9x larger and presumably come with considerable improvements.

For land based: 1. First thing to understand - bandwidth is cheap. 1MBps continuous is well under 25 cents for an ISP at this point. They do have to have the network to get it to your home however.

2. Over-subscription of the link is not only usual, it is standard practice. A passive splitter setup might have 32 or 64 or more customers on it - all of whom share 1, 1Gbps link on what is basically a fancy Ethernet switch. As this equipment gets upgraded, they will be able to share 10Gbps amongst 64 or 128 customers.

If there are data caps, they are there either to sell you something higher-priced later or else to cover up for their over-subscription.

For StarLink, it of course depends on their setup - is there enough public information to determine what their bandwidth really is between all the different parts of their network?

https://xkcd.com/1656/

Seriously, though, they are probably compensating for failure to get the "can" launching system (aka "starship") online that would enable lofting new higher bandwidth satellites. The cans would have more and, more importantly, bigger payload. If it takes too long to get the can going, they could probably shift to Falcon Heavy and a bigger shroud. But without the can, it costs too much to operate, steady-state.

Starlink is pretty severely limited on aggregate bandwidth. They could do a lot to mitigate this by coming up with ways to deliver the hottest realtime streams (e.g. World Cup) via a broadcast protocol, and to partner with Akamai etc. to cache a few hundred TB of other content aloft, to save on uplink bandwidth.

Capping is easier.

It’s really hard to cache content pre-emptively.

Netflix uses multiple Gbps per cache node during off hours to refresh content in order to get decent hit rates.

And Netflix is just one service with a limited content library.

The laser links between satellites may be much less burdened than the uplink from the ground hub station nearest to the subscriber.

SpaceX can upload content to the constellation via more-lightly loaded ground hubs, and propagate to the rest. They have the advantage that they can know what was being streamed in an area a satellite is about to enter, and can preload the parts it will need to downlink while there.

Of course all this requires intimate cooperation with the streaming service, because it is at a much higher level than packets.

Minor nitpick:

GPON is 2.5G/1G, not 1G/1G, and use 10G uplinks, but the basic point stands.

Also, when upgrading to 10G PON, split ratios aren’t usually increased, but kept at the same 1:32.

Wholesale bandwidth is less than 5 cents per Mbps, and that’s for bandwidth you have to pay for.

Settlement free peering and content caches (like Netflix uses) are free of usage fees. This can account for up to 80% of traffic.

The explicit 1 TB/month data cap is fairly generous for a satellite-based service. Speeds are more important/concerning.

I'd also claim that anyone who didn't see explicit data caps/throttling coming for a satellite-based ISP service needs a reality check. Ever since Starlink launched I saw a lot of arguments being thrown around about how SpaceX would just launch more satellites using 'their fantastically affortable' Falcon 9 launches as the customer base grew so that it wouldn't be a problem (e.g. in HN threads and particularly in r/spacex and r/starlink).

Falcon 9 isn't big enough to give Starlink the full constellation they've requested permission for. They first receieved permission for 12,000, and later requested an additional 30,000, or 42,000 total. Right now they have... less than 4,000, less than a tenth of what they want.

So it will just take a few more years of Falcon 9 launches, right? Well, probably not. Because these satellites have a limited lifespan, they need to be constantly launching new satellites to replace older satellites. I don't think they can launch and keep anywhere close to 42,000 satellites operational with Falcon 9. They only get a bit more than 50 satellites per Falcon 9 launch. Even though Falcon 9 is cheap, to launch the full constellation would require several times more Falcon 9 launches than all the launches for every customer in the past combined.

Long-term, Starlink is doomed to failure if SpaceX doesn't get Starship operational. FWIW, I also believe talk of Mars colonization is a recruiting scheme, and the true raison d'etre of Starship is to launch Starlink and similar large constellations. Solving this problem is what Starship is for, and without it they're toast.

SpaceX is on track to do 60 launches this year, and next year they'll probably hit 100 based on how much is already scheduled.

A full constellation would require about 180 launches per year.

Being stuck with Falcon 9 doesn't sound like doom to me.

The issue isn’t whether 1 TB is a reasonable data cap or not, but that Starlink did a bait and switch.

Top of the 1st inning, everyone. Let's not come to too many rash conclusions.

"Hi, I'm Jerry and I've been assigned as your guide to the internet. Here, people are...shall we say...a tad excitable."

I've been a Starlink user since March 2021 and this is a huge disappointment. My service quality took a nosedive in January 2022, it's clear they greatly oversold capacity and are congested. But all along they've been promising these great speeds and no caps. Now they aren't even going to pretend they might deliver that level of service. Still going to charge me the same though.

I’m also a Starlink user and I’m super disappointed in the monthly cap. I only use my dish when my regular internet connection is broken, which is usually a few weeks per year. So in 11 months I’ll use 0 bandwidth, then in one month I will need to use it for working (and whatever else the family wants after work). So I’m going to hit a cap the one month I really need to use it out of the year. It should be an annual cap instead.

Presumably others near you have a simultaneous alternate ISP outage; that being the case, it seems like having an annual cap would work against Starlink’s actual capacity constraint if a lot of customers do as you do.

Where do you live so that your regular connection breaks multiple weeks per year? Never heard of something like that

I think it varies greatly based on your location. Where are you?

My experience in Canada and remote Australia has been excellent. The service is many, many times better than the only alternative.

It does vary greatly on location. I'm in Grass Valley, CA which is a rural area but fairly densely populated, verging on suburban. The service was good until they added too many customers. It sounds like you're in an area that isn't overloaded; that's great!

(I'll still quibble with "excellent"; even when not congested I find latency is higher than advertised and highly variable. Also the service is not as reliable as I'd like, many 1-2 second outages.)

The service is about 10,000 times faster than what people can get in remote Australia or Canada, and I'd say a "Better" quality of service (less outages).

Remember, it's for people that have no access to any kind of coax or even 3G.

A few years ago my cable internet was capped at 250GB or 500GB depending on the plan. Installed 15y prior. I thought that was absurd… but a 1TB cap across “satellite” internet, I kinda get that. It will come down in price with competition

Seems fair to slow data after a certain amount (and 1TB seems pretty reasonable right now), but it's definitely shady to quietly add it to the terms and conditions and not actually tell customers.

I got an email as a customer. I would assume others did as well but no guarantee

It'll be interesting to see what deprioritized means.

Many mobile networks will throttle you to a given rate after your soft cap. Most everyone, last I checked, was 512kbps or under. It's hard to check! Xfinity Mobile was 768k down, but just checked again and it's 1.5Mbps down now. By compare I think Google Fi was 256kbps! Yikes! That has single handedly scared me off Fi.

> High-speed

> Data cap

Pick one

How about door #3: High price

Even Comcast let's you pay an extra fee for uncapped bandwidth, physical realities be damned.

Comcast has uncapped speeds like most other residential ISPs in states with stronger consumer protection laws

I've really only heard of it in areas that actually have a competitor

IIRC, they suspended to bandwidth caps around the beginning of the pando but a year or so ago reinstituted then.

Edit: Looks like Comcast threatened to reinstitute the restrictions, then rescinded the action temporarily, but only through the end of 2022 [0].

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/16/22840165/comcast-data-ca...

They must have capped some people in between "threatening to reinstitute" and "rescinding", because I suddenly started having to pay more for going over 1TB about a year ago, mid-pandemic.

They will still have caps somewhere because they have to protect against network abuse. It may be in some fine print that says something about abuse, or it may just be that "all customers in this area share a cap" - you can't make an upstream connection go faster than it can go.

Are you saying Comcast has neglected to keep their network infrastructure up-to-date? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

I have ATT fiber and they don't seem to mind of it running at 1Gbps both up and downstream continually 24/7.

It’s great right after a new tier is installed because they over provision at the beginning.

It’s hell at the end of the lifecycle because they reaallly don’t want to provision anything new.

Reminds me fiber just dropped maybe I should switch. But I love my tiny little ISP.

> I have ATT fiber and they don't seem to mind of it running at 1Gbps both up and downstream continually 24/7.

Would they still not mind if all the rest of their customers also were doing 1 Gbps continuously 24/7?

Depends how they architected the network.. maybe the design can scale and tolerate it up to a higher point compared to Comcast's ancient steaming pile.

Bandwidth hogs occur at a predictable rate.

It's amazing when a telco company actually delivers a product customers want. AT&T is somehow pulling it off despite their organizational dysfunction.

Somewhere at some point bandwidth runs out, though I suspect that it’s rarer now than it used to be (since capacities have increased but things to download really haven’t).

I see slowing down during peak hours as different from a data cap.

But if 2% of your users max out the connection all day every day, and you bundle a couple hundred users onto an upstream connection, it shouldn't be hard to keep the upstream from maxing out despite tons of oversubscription.

You have that option too with Starlink: pay 0.25 per GB during congestion if you go over 1 TB.

Oh really? That isn't too much more than the AWS egress fee per GB.

> High-speed Data cap Pick one

Only if you've been scammed by your service provider, which advertised services that they are not able to provide.

I don't recall the last ISP I subscribed to in the past decade which was not high-speed or imposed a data cap.

Unless in Europe, or Asia.

If you believe your ISP's data is "unlimited", then I've got an "all you can eat" buffet to take you to.

Well, if the data isn't "unlimited" I think they shouldn't advertise they provide "unlimited" data?

Correct.

Capped data makes sense - brings those few people running endless torrents and the like into line. I can easily imagine a few customers making up a very substantial chunk of starlink’s usage that way, and given inherent service limitations that probably have to address it :/

1TB is not a lot. Even my unlimited phone contract has a fair use clause for 5TB. My monthly home use for a 5 person household of which three are children is between 2 and 3TB from just streaming and home office.

Limit video to 720P and everything will be fine.

I don’t think most devices in this household have even controls for this, let alone that family members would use that. Particularly the kids. Since we have gigabit speeds every app happily picks highest bitrate and resolution.

Youtube does, but I don't know if you can force it to stick.

A "smart router" that slows down packets for video would be amusing, if not easy to setup.

I suppose that would just be the opposite of QoS. If you have fixed addresses it should be relatively easy too throttle all traffic from those devices.

720p video is unwatchable on a TV. There is a very sharp decline in quality fro 4k to 1080p but its tolerable. I would not want to watch 720p unless it was on a phone screen.

Unwatchable? That seems somewhat hyperbolic.

Mere 20 years ago, 720p was on the high end of typical content and perfectly watchable on wall-sized TVs and projection screens.

Though 20 years ago 720p wasn't the budget/data-saver edition. Today 720p is a mess of compression artifacts a lot of the time.

> I would not want to watch 720p unless it was on a phone screen.

This makes me feel very, very old. :)

Just wait until you're 50.

Kessler syndrome should kick in any year now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com