Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Bill Aimed At ISP Data Caps Introduced In US Senate
New submitter Likes Microsoft writes "Yesterday, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) introduced a Net Neutrality bill aimed at ISPs using data caps soley for profiteering purposes, rather than the 'traffic management' purpose they often claim. The text of the bill is available at Wyden's Senate page. It would require ISPs to be certified by the FCC before implementing data caps. It says, in part, 'The [FCC] shall evaluate a data cap proposed by an Internet service provider to determine whether the data cap functions to reasonably limit network congestion in a manner that does not unnecessarily discourage use of the Internet.' In a statement, Wyden said, 'Americans are increasingly tethered to the Internet and connecting more devices to it, but they don’t really have the tools to effectively manage data consumption across their networks. Data caps create challenges for consumers and run the risk of undermining innovation in the digital economy if they are imposed bluntly and not designed to truly manage network congestion.'"
Dear Senator Wyden,
Thank you for actually being a good Senator, that introduces good bills that create or change laws that help out the average US Citizen. I'm glad I voted for you the last time you were on the ballot, and if I still lived in Oregon I'd vote for you again.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Well, no, the FCC does not have the authority to do this. This story is about a bill that would grant the FCC such authority.
It won't pass though, because there is a lot more money against than there is in favor.
or simply the end of us putting up with corporate bullshit. Must feel like the end of the world for the greedy...
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
the FCC would have the authority IF the law gives it to them. they've run into trouble before when implementing policy or rules without a law to back it up.
The law is created in the bill. The FCC is the enforcer or "over watch" of the law.
Much like when you contact the FCC for a spectrum use violation.
Does the FCC actually have the authority to do this? Won't they be slapped down again?
The FCC is part of the Executive. If explicitly directed to do so by Congress, it's in their purview. They got "slapped down" before, because the court said there was no law authorizing the previous effort.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
We start approaching our monthly ISP imposed data cap of 150 GB just from watching Netflix. One room mate nearly busted us through when she started watching the new Dr. Who series, beginning from the first David Tennant episode on up.
If I remember right, Netflix currently accounts for about one third of all total Internet data usage.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
This is a great idea in theory. In practice, it will give ISPs incentive to actually allow service to degrade to the point where "data cap functions to reasonably limit network congestion". This will result in an overall lower quality of service and even more profits for the cable guys. After all, who are you going to switch to?
How about congress actually pass a LAW on this, after all, they are supposed to be the legislators, eh?
I know most people don't bother reading the stories here, but did you bother to even read the summary (which actually does a decent job of summarizing the story)?
This is a bill. Bills become laws if they are approved by Congress.
This isn't the FCC doing something, its a member of Congress proposing a law directing the FCC to do it. If they pass the law, then the FCC will, ipso facto, have authority to do it (assuming, of course, that Congress has Constitutional authority to pass the law.)
That's exactly what Senator Wyden is proposing: Congress passing a LAW that would ISPs from imposing data caps without prior approval of the specific cap meeting specific requirements from the FCC.
Couldn't this serve to discourage ISPs from improving their infrastructure? If they let their infrastructure age, they'd be spending nothing on improvement, and would eventually be allowed to put data caps in place as bandwidth usage increases.
Disclaimer: Didn't RTFA.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
An alternative to this would be to finally break the monopoly faced by many Americans on their broadband cable services.
I live in an area served by both FIOS and Cablevision, and neither have caps, and have played them against each other to get discounts on my service bills.
Let's cut to the chase. In the modern political arena our money faces no obstacles whatsoever. It is up to you whether that money supports you in your next run for office or pours into your precious state decimating not only your own campaign but every other congress critter down-ticket along party lines. Not that we enjoy threatening our investment opportunities, far from it. Its just business.
Hugs and Kisses,
ISPs
Poor Bill.
This guy is seriously the number one reason I have and will ever have for wanting to move to Oregon. I am tired of writing letters to my representatives and senators telling them to be more like him, and tired of writing him letters thanking him for fighting for MY rights even though I can't vote for him.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Did /. just get spammed by an ad from someone who's anti-ad? Oh, the irony...
While this law sounds reasonable on the surface and seems well enough intentioned, looking at the past history of government regulations, I can't help but assume that even if this were to pass, the law will be twisted and manipulated to the point that it actually hurts the end users or stifles competition. Perhaps the requirements for compliance with the law will be so onerous that small ISPs cannot compete, leaving only the big players and a high barrier to entry, or it will prevent new innovative business models and force us to stick with the status quo even if a better alternative is found.
For example, the regulations for bidding for government contracts were intended to level the playing field, reduce corruption, and lower costs. But as the regulations became more and more complicated (trying to plug the loopholes), only the biggest contractors with government bidding officers and on-staff lawyers can actually get through all the red tape. The result is that small players cannot compete and costs go up. The regulations ended up doing exactly the opposite of what was intended.
When did monopolies official become not only OK, but pretty much government enforced.
Back in the day the government was used to prevent monopolies and ensure that reasonable alternatives existed who did not all work together to fix prices. Now all the government seems interested in doing is ensuring that monopolies exist and survive, and placing ineffective restrictions on them.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
You forgot the third option: slapped down because the law giving them authorization was unconstitutional.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I've heard talk, from a few different Execs at a few different ISPs in private meetings that the new thing they are getting ready to test is data caps that only count up during prime time. Kind of like how cellphones has "unlimited nights and weekends" but it would be more the opposite... you'd get unlimited from 12am to 4pm or so... Then have strict caps during prime time.
Not so great for Netflix users... but those are the real problem for the ISPs. File sharing users could schedule their downloads outside of those hours and free up a lot of bandwidth, and they'd not be losing file sharing customers to other, un-regulated, but slower services.
Which is a good law. Of all proposals, I really like the framework of this one. Caps are not out of the question if they're substantial infrastructure reasons to justify them. But the idea of using caps to shake more money out of people's pocket is absurd. In a free market, we would never have to worry about this kinda of racket going on. But I think we've all established that the ISP industry is anything but a 'free market' for all sorts of reasons.
My only concern is that the FCC might go too far in making an ISP lose too much profit in that the infrastructure doesn't get upgraded anyways. Or, industry players start dropping out much like doctors leaving healthcare. Once you start making deals with the Devil (Government), there are always repercussions. Always!
Life is not for the lazy.
The problem isn't the "cap," it's the excessive charge for overages or incremental units.
$30 for "up to" a fixed amount of data use plus many times that $much for double-the-fixed-amount usage is ridiculous.
If the $30 buys me 150GB (typical land-line) or 3GB (wireless), twice that amount (everything else being equal) should be no more than $60. It should actually be less because the "fixed costs" of providing service should be in that first $30.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I recommend Senator Wyden should stay off small planes, lest he suffer the same kind of 'accident' as Senator Paul Wellstone (D).
Just from the broad strokes painted in the summary, this seems like a good idea and a good piece of legislation for Americans. Seems to even include the sorely lacking bit of common sense, which is so often absent in legislation these days.
Given the amount of common sense and overall good it would do, my guess is this bill will never pass.
this would put an end to bait-and-switch service contracts, such as "unlimited service" which cuts you off after 4 gigs a month, and insure you compare apples to apples when you buy data services. however, I would like to see spelled out as a national benchmark a solid disclosure of when caps are placed. "to protect network" does not mean a damn thing. "we will cap the top 1/2 percent of users and/or anybody who is utilizing over X gigabits of data per day" tells you what you need to know. nobody does that at present.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I wonder if this would apply to the wireless (cell phone) carriers as well. I mean, recently I watched one hour of a movie on my smartphone (and yes, I watched it using my data plan because the nearest free wi-fi wasn't capable of handling the kind of bandwidth required for streaming video -- that's something that's got to change, too), and that one time of viewing ate up close to 1 GB of my 4 GB plan. Sure, in this case it was entertainment, and I could have used more discretion, but what if it was an instructional video I had to see in the field for my job, and there was no [fast, reliable] wi-fi around? What's the point of moving forward in technology with the ability to stream video to mobile devices if the data plans are all severely limited in that respect? What, so people are always expected to wait until they're in a spot with [again, fast and reliable] wi-fi, which is usually indoors, to be able to see any kind of video on their mobile devices? What a crock! The wireless carriers need to get it together and get back to unlimited data plans with a ton more bandwidth. We pay a hell of a lot of money for these plans (and are often locked into them for two years); the least they can do is upgrade their networks to fit the times -- not only with fancy bell-and-whistle features like 4G LTE (and I do appreciate the faster speeds, mind you!), but also more BANDWIDTH so they don't have to impose these ridiculously low data caps for tons of $$$. We Americans pay some of the highest rates for cellular service in the civilized world.
How about: ISPs are freely allowed to impose data caps, but if they do, all their monopolistic franchise agreements are null and void.
Many if not most ISPs have too-cozy relationships with "non-Internet" data providers such as voice-telephone, text, and video-services (i.e. cable tv, satellite).
This cozy relationship is an obvious conflict of interest in favor of discouraging people from using the Internet as a substitute for other services. If a cable company charges a "metered" rate of, say, $30 for 150GB, then the "TV" data should count towards that 150GB as well. Since people won't tolerate a sudden increase in their combined TV+Internet bill, this will necessarily mean either a drastic cutting of the "TV" part of the bill or a lowering of the "per GB" cost on the "Internet" side.
Let's say the cable company chooses the 1st route, and your "Internet" bill is $30 per 150 but the average household's Internet bill is $50 due to how much TV they watch, but their "TV" bill drops from $50 to $30, leaving the total bill the same. The customer is also a subscriber to NetFlix or a similar service. For every hour they are watching NetFlix, they are probably giving up an hour of Cable TV. Their "Internet + CableTV + NetFlix" bill remains pretty stable.
With today's setup, those ISPs who no longer "all you can eat" plans put customers in the awkward position of getting all the Cable-TV they want for no "per GB" cost, but having to pay per GB for NetFlix.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
as long as the bribes are taxable.
jr
One very good reason why land-based telecommunications is a monopoly is that laying new wires is disruptive to other infrastructure.
About the only way to have a competitive land-based Internet is to "split the baby" and have a local regulated monopoly own and manage "the last mile(s)" and have independent companies provide "Internet service" at a co-location or point-of-presence site.
In other words, do to Internet services what a federal judge did to Ma Bell in the early 1980s.
By the way, in some parts of the United States about 10-15 years ago, DSL services were "split" in this way. You got "bare DSL" from your local regulated telephone company and you got "Internet" services from one of many companies that had "co-located" equipment at your local telephone switching office. For reasons that would likely make conspiracy theorists proud, many areas that used to operate this way no longer do so.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If your going to legislate anything how about opening up the last mile cable monopolies to competition as was done with the telephone network for DSL?
You will never solve anything if your answer to side effects of lack of effective competition is legislation. Most of our pricing and service issues can can be traced back to effects of prior decade of nonstop consolidation in the ISP market to the point where in too many areas there is no other ISP to choose from.
I have a feeling if you pass such legislation the ISP will just drop your speed for the rest of the month to work around the inconvience... see your not capped..wink wink..... good luck with that netflix video.
With few exceptions caps in USA have some analogy to electricity usage and rush hour in that peak usage is all that matters. While you could argue pricing structures more closely matching the cost of production are better..another argument could be made that caps are easier for the user to understand, minimizes cost of any metering infustructure and puts least mental constraints on natural tendancies of users.
There is also the idea that any legislation benefits large ISPs who have staff, power and money to get their way disadvantaging the smaller ones we ought to be doing everything possible to promote to increase competition and systematically reign in fat, lazy, selfish tendancies that accompany being a monopoly.
This is clear and makes sense, is a necessary anti-predatory regulation, and exactly the kind of thing that the FCC was created for. Unfortunately, because of those things, it doesn't have a shot in hell in the House right now...
If the ISPs would just act rationally, we wouldn't be in this mess. As much as I'd like to be able to move an unlimited number of bytes for a fixed price, nothing else in life works that way. The more electricity I use, the more I pay and the electric company is not going to cut me off for using more than some arbitrary amount of electricity. I just give them more money. Same with water and gas. The cable company is the only one that's ever threatened to disconnect me and refuse to provide future service if I use too much of their product and provides no way for me to pay more money to move more data.
Fortunately, they've temporarily lifted the cap. For now.
This has been needed since netflix type video services started getting popular. You cant use internet video streaming without hitting a bandwidth cap pretty fast unless your ok with gameboy resolution in your stream. Movies simply dont look that good unless you view them at full resolution, and netflix at HD resolution is up to 2GB/hour. Leaving your internet tv streaming during the day will eat up most any bandwidth cap.
http://interserver.net/
Fine idea, but I'd think unlikely to pass, given the relationship between Comcast, Verizon, etc. and Congress.
I propose that the FTC do their job and regulate advertising. ISPs must state what caps they might impose, in very simple terms, along with EVERY advertisement—that is, any mention, of their service. Then trust us well-informed citizens to make decisions, make noise, whatever. Oh yeah, and there's going to have to be some reasonable competition to decide among. Oops.
While the big ISPs are crooked enough that they'll almost certainly abuse data caps to keep profits rising while their networks languish, rather than funding infrastructure and increasing the caps to keep pace with technology, that's entirely separate from the double or triple-billing scams which they propose which net neutrality is needed to prevent.
If you had any idea how Oregon politics works, you would know that being replaced isn't going to happen. Senator Wyden won't face a primary challenger who is also a Democrat, because the Democratic Party is still pretty happy with his voting record. In a general election against a Republican, Wyden will only have to carry 4 or 5 counties in order to win re-election, and he'll carry them by ~77% of the vote because Portland and Eugene are wildly liberal, and unless a major political shift happens, they won't vote Republican for anything.
This is Wyden's seat until he retires, pisses off the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, or decides to officially move to New York. This is both good and bad - he's politically secure to "do the right thing" or "do whatever pays the most." So far, he's done the right thing.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
A mobile network operator with coverage in multiple states engages in "commerce [...] among the several States", which the Constitution grants the Congress power to regulate.
If they're going to happen then I'd much rather have the FCC determine what "data caps" should be, than have the ISPs doing it. The decision to use data caps or not and how high they can be are two important societal decisions best not exposed to massive conflicts of interest for no reason. The FCC can easily do it, and at least the government is in theory supposed to be acting in our best interests when it makes these decisions, not transparently out for themselves and only having to put on a show for suckers. A Mad-Max-style freedom for corporations to serve their privatized 1984 telescreen services up to individuals is all that this "big government" kvetching amounts to.
This is retarded, it's based on a complete lack of understanding of the practicalities of running an ISP.
While I'm sure some service providers are royally screwing their customers, this approach WILL NOT BE PRACTICAL.
I'm not sure about excess usage charges in the US of A, but here in Down Undah Land 2x or 3x is fairly typical. The idea being that if you often go into excess you *really* should be buying a larger amount of included usage.
BY FAR the BIGGEST issue in the US of A is NOT data-caps (and the pricing thereof) but rather the lack of competition, many people HAVE NO CHOICE of provider, and it is THIS which then leads to customer-getting-screwed.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Don't "haul down" as much, & certainly (adbanners) what you don't REALLY need, via this tool I created:
---
APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
---
Not only does it block out those adbanners which suck up your bandwidth YOU PAY FOR MONTHLY OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET, but it saves you CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O adbanners 'suck up'!
Adbanners which also HAVE been infested many times with malicious code over the years now lately, so, it also protects you vs. KNOWN malicious sites/servers/hosts-domains that host malwares &/or malicious script code
I also produced CONSIDERABLE numbers of evidences of that here before in this post -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700
Which some trolls (advertiser, malware-maker, or webmaster) downmodded my last post like this one, here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3332993&cid=42361917
(Albeit - With NO valid computing-technical critique behind it, today - just "hit & run" downmods... "Gee, wonder why?" (lol, NOT! They can't disprove my points & they KNOW it...)).
It's also NOT owned by advertisers like GHOSTERY &/or ADBLOCK are!
NOW... talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse"... you'd have to be a real "cluck" to use those, now, @ least (imo, because of that fact)!
See list in my 'p.s.' below too!
(As it enumerates what this program's data outputs (a custom hosts file) can do that's good, for you, the end-user of them).
It has a 32-bit model, + a 64-bit one in the distro itself, & is 100% free, & can be installed anywhere!
(I'd go as far as saying it's a "portable" app, since it has no configuration storage necessary really, but I am not sure if it meets ALL the requirements for that!)
---
QUESTION:
What I would like to know, & perhaps you /.'ers can answer it for me with some documented proofs, is:
What percentage of websites in general IS adbanner related material vs. the pages they are loaded on, in general/on average, & from a fairly reliable study from a reputable site...
Thanks in advance for an answer!
APK
P.S.=> So... What's it do for ME, or anyone else that uses custom hosts files?
---
1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites.
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware.
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use.
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content.
6.) Blocking out known spammers &/or phishers.
7.) Blocking out TRACKERS.
8.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
10.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!).
13.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
14.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browser
No, seriously. WHO THE FUCK CARES whether the senator represents party 1, party 2 or party ..oh, wait, American voters can't count to three.
Is the proposed legislation good, or bad.
If it's good, support it.
If it's bad, seek to prevent it.
Either way, look to improve it and find appropriate compromises between the inevitable multiple views.
Stop worrying about whether the senator wears the same colour socks as you.
There was a lot more money against President Obama too.
"Angry, with long memories, which even the market cannot understand -> revenge botches all calculations"
hehe, i stuck with my old SLOW 3rd party DSL for over 12 YEARS .. and.. resisted ordering cable TV. All because they sold me 'lightning fast' internet service that was slower than dial-up at 6pm. Neglected to tell me that 'lightning fast' (1.5M at the time vs 640k DSL max) only applied between 2-6 AM :/ I had the 1998 CAP dsl line (and same modem!) up until 2 years ago or so!
Least it was easy to get out of with it that ad phrase. 28K may be 'upto' 1500K but they put up a billboard 1/2 block away for 'lightning fast' internet... they didn't seem willing to find out if that was false advertisment.
Only went to cable internet when the inevitable happened, albeit years after i expected. My Dsl stopping working and the 2 companies just pointed their finger at the other. 4th day down with no ETA or why it's broken I ordered cable...what did they expect me to do. Fixed on the 5th day of course, but, neither company told me it ws fixed, nor why it broke or who to blame. Sorry, your both gone then i guess.
Still considering cable TV....
Predict that for marketing ...sending me hundreds of advertisements and promos wasn't going to do anything ;P
I don't think he even read the headline. Particularly amusing given his sig.
The tragedy of the commons is the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, which dates back to grazing cows on common land causing degradation. It applies equally well to the internet where backhaul is shared.
People need to consider if data caps or faster speeds are more important to them. If ISPs are not permitted to impose data caps then they have very little incentive to upgrade the network speed. Currently an average ADSL2+ connection is around 10Mbps and cable is 100Mbps. That means in an non-congested network 10 times more data could be downloaded. With fibre that increases to 1Gbps and 324TB/month. It is doubtful that customers are prepared to pay sufficiently increased prices to deliver an adequate return on investment to the ISP.
Data caps provide a way for ISPs to invest in upgrading speeds and deliver those speeds to everyone while recouping the costs from those who make the most use of the network by downloading more. In the same way it is possible for a person to ration their usage of water or electricity, the time of data usage can be selected by the end user, but I'm not aware of ISPs that offer instant speed changes. This leads to the situation where a person cannot video conference with family once a month because they cannot justify the higher speeds just for 30 minutes. This is much more socially unjust than someone having to wait until next month to download a file. Some ISPs with quotas also permit customers to buy extra quota during a month.
For me personally, I would much prefer 1Gbps with 100GB quota, than 12Mbps with no quota.
Here is a simple and effective way for deciding if a data cap and extra charges are for profit, or for network congestion:
Enforce a cutoff upon reaching a limit. Let the customer decide if they want to continue to get internet at a higher price, or if, upon reaching their cap, if they choose to be prevented from further Internet action, and wait for it to reset at the end of the billing period.
Had a sibling get a bill for internet access via their iPad for $4,000 in one month. I'm sorry, there simply isn't a legitimate way for a iPad to consume $4,000 of internet bandwidth over wireless in 90 days, much less than 30 days in any universe where Internet access is provided at a free market rate.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
The way it works with other countries is that data speeds are capped. For example in Australia after exceeding your quota, speeds are typically capped to between 64Kbps to 256Kbps. Some ISPs also offer the ability to purchase data blocks if you exceed your quota to restore full speed. There are a couple of ISPs who offer 500MB quotas and then charge 10c/MB. Way to easy to rack up huge bills.
The slow speed enable people to send/receive emails and browse facebook but not consume video or use P2P that effectively. A bit like cutting the flow of water so you could pour a glass of water, but not fill the swimming pool in any reasonable period of time.
The Commerce Clause hasn't been limited to transactions that cross state lines for a long time.
Back when voice actually mattered, many companies charged by the "fraction of a minute."
10 calls of 61-seconds each would cost the same as 20 calls of 59 seconds each.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if some carriers started billing the minute the phone started ringing at the other end. That's similar to your "overhead" cost.
Wait, did I say "back when they mattered?" Some cell phone plans still charge by the minute.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Another computing technically unjustifiable downmod of my post I just replied to &, days later of course!
Just like my original post was downmodded -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3332993&cid=42361917
Why? Well, I use FACTS & undeniable technical evidences to back me up... & my work as well!
(After all - I don't see ANY counterpoints that disprove points I wrote in my original post or the one I replied to now, merely proving my points)
Thanks trolls - For proving what I wrote is TRULY, unassailable (via VALID counter facts/points... lol!)
* :)
Yes - Predictable, hence why I watched this post for it, & like clockwork? "Same old, same old" troll-tricks, nothing more - See above...
APK
P.S.=> LMAO - Yes, folks: It's ALL THE TROLLS KNOW HOW TO DO, to *try* to "hide truths &/or facts" that they cannot disprove, every single time...
... apk
I think you're wrong in several ways.
1. Analogy to water or electricity is flawed. Water and electricity are limited resources--but data is neverending. The only limit here is bandwidth--the size of the pipes--while water and electricity have both bandwidth and resource limits. ISPs love it when people compare to water or electricity, because it supports their non-competitive, greedy practices.
2. "People need to consider if data caps or faster speeds are more important to them." This is a false dichotomy. Past a certain point, more speed is irrelevant, but when you hit the data cap, your speed drops to zero (or your bill goes up in a way that is biased unfairly toward the ISP).
3. "With fibre that increases to 1Gbps and 324TB/month." You're arguing from the presupposition that users will max out their connection 24/7. That is silly.
4. "Data caps provide a way for ISPs to invest in upgrading speeds and deliver those speeds to everyone while recouping the costs from those who make the most use of the network by downloading more." No, that is what they want you to think (or are you one of them?). Data caps unfairly punish customers who use their connection. A customer who uses 10% of his data cap pays x, but a customer who uses 101% of his data cap pays 1.2x. The 90% of unused bandwidth more than makes up for the extra 1% used by the other customer. On top of that, the extra 32% of bandwidth paid for by the customer, who used 101% and was forced to buy an entire 33% more, goes unused and doesn't roll over to the next month--the customer pays for data he doesn't even use (or even get to use, depending on how late in the cycle the overage occurred). Bottom line: it's all gravy for the ISP. Customers who barely use it cost them very little, and customers who barely exceed the cap pay for service they end up not using. When there's little to no competition in a market, the ISP can set the caps and overages to whatever they want, and the customer has two choices: awful service at awful rates, or no service at all. For me, after 4 years, AT&T decreased my service by instituting caps and overages, and increased the monthly fees. I have no feasible alternative.
5. "This leads to the situation where a person cannot video conference with family once a month because they cannot justify the higher speeds just for 30 minutes. This is much more socially unjust than someone having to wait until next month to download a file." What a farce! Socially unjust?! Your contrived scenario is internally flawed, as well: what if the file the "someone" has to wait a month(!) to download is media from a family member overseas? a recorded video, photos...? Who made you judge of what is more justly important to random people?
6. "Some ISPs with quotas also permit customers to buy extra quota during a month." Yeah, my ISP (AT&T) is kind enough to "permit" me to buy an extra 50 GB of data automatically by charging me an extra 33% whether I use 100 MB or 50 GB of that extra 50 GB. But, of course, if I subscribe to their (more expensive) uVerse package and use them for TV (which I don't even want), I get an extra 100 GB of data cap while paying less for the Internet access--but much more overall. How generous of them!
7. "For me personally, I would much prefer 1Gbps with 100GB quota, than 12Mbps with no quota." That's a terrible example. What can you NOT do with a 12 Mbps download rate? You can watch any online streaming video you want, do any video conferencing, download any files quickly enough... But having a 1 Gbps connection will not make a 3 Mbps Netflix stream look any better, and it won't make your Skype calls any better, but having a 100 GB cap most definitely will bite you over and over again if you actually do any of the things you mentioned.
In conclusion, you're deluded or lying, a fool or a shill.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."