• spoonbill@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    If there is no reason for caps, why wouldn’t one of these companies simply remove them, giving them a competitive advantage, and making them more money? Why would one company reject making more?

    Maybe capless actually costs them more due to bad infrastructure, and they don’t see consumer demand for it? Forcing them to go capless would in that case result in higher prices.

    Maybe they form a cartel and have collectively decided to keep caps. But why, if it doesn’t actually cost them more to remove the caps? And if it does, then prices would again rise if forced to go capless.

    • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Around here they charge for going over your cap, so easy profit with no regulation would be the likely culprit. Also, you keep talking about competition, but there are 2 whole broadband companies in my area, and one does not have fiber/gigabit in my area. That is not what anybody would call healthy competition.

      • spoonbill@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Indeed two companies is not really competition. So why not focus on that, instead of reducing choice, which may lead to even less competition by making differentiation harder?

        • Vodulas [they/them]@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          You act like I work at the FCC. The reality is the city has tried focusing on that in the past and failed because the contracts set up with the ISPs were renewed by the centrist city government. I think you are thinking of an ideal situation where one does not exist.