• Banzai51
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    But bandwidth is only limited in points in time, not usage over a month. Makes sense to limit in times of congestion, but not outside that. That is the OP’s point.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      When limiting is required, because many people are using the same network, limiting those who have already used the most seems fair.

      • oo1@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        yes. And if i commit to modest contribution to the load, it’s nice for me to pay less - I dont want to pay for the extra modems for all the streamers who can’t afford DVDs. I’m saving my money for DVDs. I’d rather buy fast speed low quantity, rather than slow speed unlimited quantity.

        The regulator should focus on is the market competetive - at what levels, are profit magins reasonable (insofar as they can measure them).

        Not limiting choice unless it is obviously part of a price discrimination harming consumers overal (which means colluding to segment marget to drive up the profit margin. Even then the solution is not necessarily to homogenise the service, maybe just regulate prices, or regulate allowed total revenue as a fraction of regulated asset base/customer base.

        I’d rarely agree with anything calling itself “economist group” but this part seems reasonable to me. differentiation is not always abuse of market power. So long as the tarrifs on offer are broadly cost reflective.