Comcast to start charging fees based on how much you download...

[realibrad]

Yeah but why is that a problem? We have a multi-tiered system now and I don't see anyone complaining about a 'premium internet'. (or at least not many people)

Set up a basic standard for everyone and those who can afford better get better. Sounds good to me?

I will respond to you and BxgJ at the same time, because his question is in your post too.

You don't fight making tiers because you cant. Also, you most definitely see people complaining about tiers of service. Its the very foundation of the whole debate over net neutrality. For a typical person, I might think they would not know this, but you are a tech person on a tech forum. There is almost zero chance you did not know about the net neutrality debate.

In my opinion, you let the different tiers. But, that is going to mean that not everyone gets access because providing access to some will not be worth the cost. People need to learn to accept that some people will have better things.

People get pissy about the Titan being 1k and how its too expensive for what you get, and how wrong it is for Nvidia to charge that much. They think Nvidia is price gouging. Now, I would bet you do not feel that way, but I would bet that if not the majority, then damn close that feel that way on here. They feel its unfair for businesses to charge a premium for things.

 

[MtnMan]

While Charter's ads are saying "no cap"

 

[fskimospy]

I will respond to you and BxgJ at the same time, because his question is in your post too.

You don't fight making tiers because you cant. Also, you most definitely see people complaining about tiers of service. Its the very foundation of the whole debate over net neutrality. For a typical person, I might think they would not know this, but you are a tech person on a tech forum. There is almost zero chance you did not know about the net neutrality debate.

Net neutrality is about different speeds based on the website or the content a user is accessing, which allows ISPs to leverage their monopoly on the last mile in anti-competitive ways. I'm against that. I'm definitely not against people paying for whatever speed they want.

In my opinion, you let the different tiers. But, that is going to mean that not everyone gets access because providing access to some will not be worth the cost. People need to learn to accept that some people will have better things.

People do accept that, every day.

People get pissy about the Titan being 1k and how its too expensive for what you get, and how wrong it is for Nvidia to charge that much. They think Nvidia is price gouging. Now, I would bet you do not feel that way, but I would bet that if not the majority, then damn close that feel that way on here. They feel its unfair for businesses to charge a premium for things.

I agree that people tend to be somewhat myopic about things that directly affect them. In the case of a good video card, I imagine many an ardent free marketeer is very upset about NVIDIA's use of their dominant performance position.

You're right though, I don't really care. Then again the last high end video card I bought was the 6800GT so I might not be a great example for that, haha.

 

[realibrad]

Net neutrality is about different speeds based on the website or the content a user is accessing, which allows ISPs to leverage their monopoly on the last mile in anti-competitive ways. I'm against that. I'm definitely not against people paying for whatever speed they want.



People do accept that, every day.



I agree that people tend to be somewhat myopic about things that directly affect them. In the case of a good video card, I imagine many an ardent free marketeer is very upset about NVIDIA's use of their dominant performance position.

You're right though, I don't really care. Then again the last high end video card I bought was the 6800GT so I might not be a great example for that, haha.

I know your position is a lot more free market than many on this forum, and you accept competition. Many people that the internet should treat everyone equally in speed and access. You do not believe that, but many do.

As a gamer, it would suck having to pay for my traffic to have lower latency, but it would be very possible.

 

[BxgJ]

I will respond to you and BxgJ at the same time, because his question is in your post too.

You don't fight making tiers because you cant. Also, you most definitely see people complaining about tiers of service. Its the very foundation of the whole debate over net neutrality. For a typical person, I might think they would not know this, but you are a tech person on a tech forum. There is almost zero chance you did not know about the net neutrality debate.

In my opinion, you let the different tiers. But, that is going to mean that not everyone gets access because providing access to some will not be worth the cost. People need to learn to accept that some people will have better things.

People get pissy about the Titan being 1k and how its too expensive for what you get, and how wrong it is for Nvidia to charge that much. They think Nvidia is price gouging. Now, I would bet you do not feel that way, but I would bet that if not the majority, then damn close that feel that way on here. They feel its unfair for businesses to charge a premium for things.

Ok, I just asked because the only way to stop it is with regulation, or making isp's into utilities. As I said I am ok with tiers, heck I don't know why the lightest users even bother with another internet service than their cell. Getting access to landline internet (or some close variant, such as fixed wireless) is more of an issue imho.

I'm ok with them charging more for better service, I just want the price to be based on what is actually driving their cost.

Some debate about data caps -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-reshape-the-economics-of-the-internet-again/

To go back to the bandwidth argument, if congestion is driving up the cost, again that is a bandwidth issue (peak time usage), not a total data usage issue. So bill on what's driving the cost. Also, the effect on competitor's video services is obvious. It's a way to fight cord-cutting.

 

[realibrad]

Ok, I just asked because the only way to stop it is with regulation, or making isp's into utilities. As I said I am ok with tiers, heck I don't know why the lightest users even bother with another internet service than their cell. Getting access to landline internet (or some close variant, such as fixed wireless) is more of an issue imho.

I'm ok with them charging more for better service, I just want the price to be based on what is actually driving their cost.

Some debate about data caps -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-reshape-the-economics-of-the-internet-again/

To go back to the bandwidth argument, if congestion is driving up the cost, again that is a bandwidth issue (peak time usage), not a total data usage issue. So bill on what's driving the cost. Also, the effect on competitor's video services is obvious. It's a way to fight cord-cutting.

There is also a 3rd option of allowing competition.

 

[BxgJ]

There is also a 3rd option of allowing competition.

I agree, many areas are severely lacking in isp competition as of now. Even in my new town of 20k, there is a cable provider offering up to 100/10, and the next is horrible at&t dsl at maybe 3mbps. It usually wasn't near that before we got cable. Light users may be fine with the dsl, but for most it's effectively a cable monopoly.

 

[cubby1223]

I think you're missing the point, it's precisely because those costs are relatively constant that billing based on usage regardless of the time makes no sense. What makes far more sense is for people to pay based on guaranteed minimum/maximum speeds, which is basically how things work now.

The only reason why it "makes no sense" is because you arbitrarily declared it to be so.

Only need to check email? Pay for 20kb/s. Want to watch 4k movies? Pay for 100MB/s or whatever. That way people pay for the amount of network resources their usage actually demands.

Doesn't that make more sense?

That plan makes as much sense as the above that you arbitrarily declared "makes no sense." To me, this second plan makes less sense. What we pay for is not guaranteed service. Sure you can achieve max speeds probably 95+% of the time, but that's only because your neighbors are not all maxing their connection. The ISP cannot charge for guaranteed rates because the ISP cannot guarantee those rates.

What will likely happen next is peak data usage charges. That's the logical solution.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I think you're missing the point, it's precisely because those costs are relatively constant that billing based on usage regardless of the time makes no sense. What makes far more sense is for people to pay based on guaranteed minimum/maximum speeds, which is basically how things work now.

Only need to check email? Pay for 20kb/s. Want to watch 4k movies? Pay for 100MB/s or whatever. That way people pay for the amount of network resources their usage actually demands.

Doesn't that make more sense?

I pay for service of a given speed NOW but do not get that speed during peak times of the day. The amount of data being sent over the network is increasing significantly and the timing of that use is not even. I pay for a given service but growth in demand doesn't permit me the service I paid for at those times.

And again, you insist on pretending that there is no connection between data use and bandwidth -- how is that even possible? You then said it cost less to send data during off-peak and I pointed out that you couldn't be more wrong.

If many users with low speed service stream audio 24/7 it doesn't much matter that the per user data rate is relatively small the aggregate effect will be to kill the network. What part of this do you not understand?


Brian

 

[KK]

what I don't like is they cant give you a detailed report of your usage. For awhile
I've been averaging 150-200gb a month then all of a sudden we've be going over the 300gb limit. my router showed considerably less and I chatted with their support and they couldn't give me a usage report. I'm not saying I didn't use that much, as it is possible, but I would like to know when the usage was happening. I may eventually fix the router to give me a more detailed report that way I will have ammunition to battle if need be, whether its my kids or comcast.

 

[BxgJ]

I pay for service of a given speed NOW but do not get that speed during peak times of the day. The amount of data being sent over the network is increasing significantly and the timing of that use is not even. I pay for a given service but growth in demand doesn't permit me the service I paid for at those times.

And again, you insist on pretending that there is no connection between data use and bandwidth -- how is that even possible? You then said it cost less to send data during off-peak and I pointed out that you couldn't be more wrong.

If many users with low speed service stream audio 24/7 it doesn't much matter that the per user data rate is relatively small the aggregate effect will be to kill the network. What part of this do you not understand?


Brian

If isp's are paying for bandwidth, then they are paying for it whether it's used or not at all points in the day for the month. The only thing that makes the cost go up is the peak bandwidth. Note that they can throttle to keep this at the level they want. Data at off peak costs not less, but almost nothing, because it does not affect the cost for the ISP.

Another thing to note - I am going on the conclusion that isp's pay for bandwidth based on a certain type of model, something like a 95/5 (where the 5% outlier usage is discarded). If anyone has more information on this please let me know, this stuff doesn't seem to be easy to find details on.

So I'll use an example. Say I move into a neighborhood and get internet service, 50/5 for example. The ISP had a cost of X before I move in. Now I begin to use the service, but only at 12am to 6am. So not peak times. Say for some reason I max my connection during these times for the month. A quick calc gives me over 4Tb of usage. But what is the increased cost for the ISP? Very little if they are paying for a peak bandwidth at all times for the month. My connection will not approach the bandwidth they are paying for, so they don't pay more that way. The equipment runs regardless of whether I use it, so no more expense that way. It may cost a bit more in electricity to run the routers....

So if there is almost no increase in cost for that extreme example, why bill for total usage?

What are we billing for? Bandwidth, because its the only variable that directly increases cost. And that really is just a way to bill for a larger expense - the infrastructure. That's why the idea that someone who only emails has almost no cost to the ISP is wrong. You are paying for the service to be available, whether you use it or not.

TV is similar. They don't care how much you watch TV, you just pay for it to be available.

The infrastructure detail is important. If that wasn't a large driver of cost then we wouldn't see large areas without decent service.

Sorry if this looks bad, typed this on my phone.

 

[Brian Stirling]

If isp's are paying for bandwidth, then they are paying for it whether it's used or not at all points in the day for the month. The only thing that makes the cost go up is the peak bandwidth. Note that they can throttle to keep this at the level they want. Data at off peak costs not less, but almost nothing, because it does not affect the cost for the ISP.

Another thing to note - I am going on the conclusion that isp's pay for bandwidth based on a certain type of model, something like a 95/5 (where the 5% outlier usage is discarded). If anyone has more information on this please let me know, this stuff doesn't seem to be easy to find details on.

So I'll use an example. Say I move into a neighborhood and get internet service, 50/5 for example. The ISP had a cost of X before I move in. Now I begin to use the service, but only at 12am to 6am. So not peak times. Say for some reason I max my connection during these times for the month. A quick calc gives me over 4Tb of usage. But what is the increased cost for the ISP? Very little if they are paying for a peak bandwidth at all times for the month. My connection will not approach the bandwidth they are paying for, so they don't pay more that way. The equipment runs regardless of whether I use it, so no more expense that way. It may cost a bit more in electricity to run the routers....

So if there is almost no increase in cost for that extreme example, why bill for total usage?

What are we billing for? Bandwidth, because its the only variable that directly increases cost. And that really is just a way to bill for a larger expense - the infrastructure. That's why the idea that someone who only emails has almost no cost to the ISP is wrong. You are paying for the service to be available, whether you use it or not.

TV is similar. They don't care how much you watch TV, you just pay for it to be available.

The infrastructure detail is important. If that wasn't a large driver of cost then we wouldn't see large areas without decent service.

Sorry if this looks bad, typed this on my phone.

Assuming a tier plan with the following: 1Mbps, 10Mbps and 100Mbps. If you are a light user but occasionally view an HD movie or a 4K movie you're probably not going to be able to live with the lowest speed service even though your monthly RATE is less than 10GB.

The reason bandwidth demand is increasing is because data use is increasing. So, if you charge by data use you can more easily control total data usage and therefore lower bandwidth requirements. Again, the idea that data usage and bandwidth are unrelated is utter nonsense -- always has been ... always will be.

It cost just about the same to operate a network at 8PM as it does at 4AM so the cost per byte to send data at 4AM is more expensive than at 8PM. (data per hour / operating cost per hour). Yes, the real driver of network capital expenditure is to handle peak times but the peak demand is being driven by ever increasing data usage.

If you stream 50 hours of video per month and that video is HD quality then when you move to 4K video that same 50 hours of video will be a shit ton more data AND increase the bandwidth needed -- that's what this is all about and wishing it were otherwise won't change that.


Brian

 

[BxgJ]

My example that showed that data usage off-peak did not affect the cost for the ISP was not addressed.

The question of how to pay for infrastructure was not answered.

Another example. A neighborhood is built, and an isp spends a lot of money providing service. For some reason the people who move in only do email and light browsing. Metered billing will not pay for the cost to provide service. That is the point. Most of the cost is to run the lines to the house along with various other equipment. The cost to upgrade for more usage is less than people think. Heck remember all the drama over streaming video being horrible on connections that should be able to handle many times the bandwidth? FCC passes some new regulations, the interlinks just magically clear up.

There are methods of dealing with those who abuse the system. It is not necessary to change everything to deal with them.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I'd take tiered pricing with actual market competition (which would drive down prices similar to what you see in the cell phone market) any day of the week. Yet this is not what is happening.

We got a hollow political "victory" on "net neutrality". However anyone with a brain should of realized that all this just meant was that data caps would then be on the table with government backed ISP monopolies like Comcast (which are a completely different beast from cellular providers) and the consumer would have no way of avoiding these data cap related price increases in many marketplaces with ZERO actual tangible competition.

So the same people who are upset about Comcast's move actual blew the chance to re-shape the conversation away from "net neutrality" and back to the real issue, i.e.a lack of competition in many markets where only 1 or 2 viable broadband competitors exist.

 

[Brian Stirling]

My example that showed that data usage off-peak did not affect the cost for the ISP was not addressed.

The question of how to pay for infrastructure was not answered.

Another example. A neighborhood is built, and an isp spends a lot of money providing service. For some reason the people who move in only do email and light browsing. Metered billing will not pay for the cost to provide service. That is the point. Most of the cost is to run the lines to the house along with various other equipment. The cost to upgrade for more usage is less than people think. Heck remember all the drama over streaming video being horrible on connections that should be able to handle many times the bandwidth? FCC passes some new regulations, the interlinks just magically clear up.

There are methods of dealing with those who abuse the system. It is not necessary to change everything to deal with them.

Almost all the metered billing plans have a set fixed charge for access that addresses that issue and then you're billed an additional amount for what you use. So, infrastructure cost is covered in the fixed charge. It should be pointed out that it's unfair to charge a light user the same for fixed costs as a heavy user as heavy users drive much higher infrastructure costs, but typically those fixed costs charge a light user the same as a heavy user.

And what the heck are saying about it not costing the ISP for off-peak usage -- where in hell did you come up with that idea? If it cost the ISP nothing during off-peak then it would cost nothing when the network was being operated at 99.999% of capacity. Your notion is not correct!


Brian

 

[BxgJ]

Almost all the metered billing plans have a set fixed charge for access that addresses that issue and then you're billed an additional amount for what you use. So, infrastructure cost is covered in the fixed charge. It should be pointed out that it's unfair to charge a light user the same for fixed costs as a heavy user as heavy users drive much higher infrastructure costs, but typically those fixed costs charge a light user the same as a heavy user.

And what the heck are saying about it not costing the ISP for off-peak usage -- where in hell did you come up with that idea? If it cost the ISP nothing during off-peak then it would cost nothing when the network was being operated at 99.999% of capacity. Your notion is not correct!


Brian

Second part first - I'm not saying it costs nothing for off-peak, just that it is essentially a fixed cost that the usage does not affect substantially. Of course it costs to keep the equipment running. So it does not cost them extra.

I'll address the first part in a bit after some more coffee.

 

[fskimospy]

I pay for service of a given speed NOW but do not get that speed during peak times of the day. The amount of data being sent over the network is increasing significantly and the timing of that use is not even. I pay for a given service but growth in demand doesn't permit me the service I paid for at those times.

And again, you insist on pretending that there is no connection between data use and bandwidth -- how is that even possible? You then said it cost less to send data during off-peak and I pointed out that you couldn't be more wrong.

No, it's completely correct. I don't think you are understanding the issue. I'll try it one more time: investment in infrastructure is based on peak demand, not the total amount of data sent. That means data sent when the system is underutilized is functionally 'free', because your investment was happening regardless. The idea that data is more expensive to send at off peak times is badly wrong, and comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of why the infrastructure is there to begin with.

It's a lot like hotels offering discounts in off peak seasons. Technically they could be offered at prices that are below the average price necessary to recoup investment, but does that mean the hotel is losing money by renting them? Of course not, because otherwise that capacity was unused.

Does that make more sense?

If many users with low speed service stream audio 24/7 it doesn't much matter that the per user data rate is relatively small the aggregate effect will be to kill the network. What part of this do you not understand?

Brian

I don't see the point here. You have been unable to find a coherent argument as to why data amount based billing is a better way to account for usage. This is because it does not conserve the resource that we are trying to conserve: peak bandwidth. There's really no way around this.

What's funny is that not even the ISPs themselves in the wired business have tried to make the claim this is for network management purposes. They freely admit it's to make more money.

 

[BxgJ]

No, it's completely correct. I don't think you are understanding the issue. I'll try it one more time: investment in infrastructure is based on peak demand, not the total amount of data sent. That means data sent when the system is underutilized is functionally 'free', because your investment was happening regardless. The idea that data is more expensive to send at off peak times is badly wrong, and comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of why the infrastructure is there to begin with.

It's a lot like hotels offering discounts in off peak seasons. Technically they could be offered at prices that are below the average price necessary to recoup investment, but does that mean the hotel is losing money by renting them? Of course not, because otherwise that capacity was unused.

Does that make more sense?



I don't see the point here. You have been unable to find a coherent argument as to why data amount based billing is a better way to account for usage. This is because it does not conserve the resource that we are trying to conserve: peak bandwidth. There's really no way around this.

What's funny is that not even the ISPs themselves in the wired business have tried to make the claim this is for network management purposes. They freely admit it's to make more money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burstable_billing

Would this graph help? Just to get the gist of what we are saying about bandwidth vs data usage.

 

[fskimospy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burstable_billing

Would this graph help? Just to get the gist of what we are saying about bandwidth vs data usage.

I'm not sure. I'm genuinely baffled that people would argue that off peak data is more expensive to send than peak data. I would think it would be self evident that wasn't the case.

 

[BxgJ]

I'm not sure. I'm genuinely baffled that people would argue that off peak data is more expensive to send than peak data. I would think it would be self evident that wasn't the case.

Well if we use this example in the graph, the isp is paying for bandwidth at the red line. That is what they are paying for, period. Anything that does not move up the red line does not increase cost, and the only thing that does move it up is usage at peak times. So you can fill in more green under that red line as long as you don't move it up, with no extra cost to the isp.

 

[fskimospy]

Well if we use this example in the graph, the isp is paying for bandwidth at the red line. That is what they are paying for, period. Anything that does not move up the red line does not increase cost, and the only thing that does move it up is usage at peak times. So you can fill in more green under that red line as long as you don't move it up, with no extra cost to the isp.

I guess we will find out! Thanks for providing it.

I still like my hotel analogy, because it makes me want to go on vacation. Haha.

 

[yottabit]

Um, no...
...when you take into account the fact that others are also using the same pipe...

https://youtu.be/f99PcP0aFNE?t=1m36s

 

[who?]

If nobody is using the internet in the middle of the night they can put the systems into standby mode.They're doing this with the digital cable TV signals. The only time a lot of the channels are put into the cable is when a cable box or cable card requests them. They may not be saving as much as they would like to because of evening shift workers who turn their TVs and computers on at midnight. Therefore it may cost more to use the internet at 1am because they're having to keep the system powered up for a lower volume of users.

 

[Brian Stirling]

No, it's completely correct. I don't think you are understanding the issue. I'll try it one more time: investment in infrastructure is based on peak demand, not the total amount of data sent. That means data sent when the system is underutilized is functionally 'free', because your investment was happening regardless. The idea that data is more expensive to send at off peak times is badly wrong, and comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of why the infrastructure is there to begin with.

It's a lot like hotels offering discounts in off peak seasons. Technically they could be offered at prices that are below the average price necessary to recoup investment, but does that mean the hotel is losing money by renting them? Of course not, because otherwise that capacity was unused.

Does that make more sense?



I don't see the point here. You have been unable to find a coherent argument as to why data amount based billing is a better way to account for usage. This is because it does not conserve the resource that we are trying to conserve: peak bandwidth. There's really no way around this.

What's funny is that not even the ISPs themselves in the wired business have tried to make the claim this is for network management purposes. They freely admit it's to make more money.

Investment in infrastructure IS based on peak demand -- never argued otherwise and have in fact stated that fact repeatedly. What you and other are arguing is that peak demand and total data use are unrelated -- they are not. I'll repeat my example of someone the streams 50 hours of video per month. When they move from watching 50 hours of standard def video to 50 hours of HD video per month there total data usage tends to go up AND there bandwidth use goes up -- particularly at peak times! You need to ponder that fact for a minute -- an hour.

The fact is data use is increasing and when 4K video becomes more common and that same customer that switched from 50 hours of SD video to 50 hours of HD video then switches to 50 hours of UHD video that persons use profile has changed little in that they're still watching 50 hours of video, but the data use AND bandwidth increase enormously.

The bandwidth that an ISP like Comcast has is limited by there current infrastructure and when the same number of users increase there data usage AND bandwidth requirements it should come as no surprise that service experience tends to decline.

A given modern internet pipe, be it fiber or coax, will have a maximum data rate and even though almost no individual user will strain the network it is a fact that when many people are using the network at the same time they can over demand even when there individual demand is well below the capacity of the pipe.

ISP's over subscribe and count on the fact that not every user is online at any moment in time. As the average user moves to more data intensive activities like video streaming the demand, both for total data and bandwidth increase.

The problem with a singular focus on bandwidth or data rate is that different activities have a shorter or longer demand for that data rate. When browsing the internet you want fast speed to prevent delays in painting pages, but that data use comes in short bursts that is in great contrast to the sustained date use of video streaming. If you mostly browse the internet you want a fast connection to provide browser responsiveness but your monthly data use might be a small fraction of a Netflix user who's instantaneous date rate requirement might well be less than the browser but is SUSTAINED!

The effect that a Netflix user has on the network is far greater than that of the browser even though the bandwidth required is less!

Let me repeat that.

The effect that a Netflix user has on the network is far greater than that of the browser even though the bandwidth required is less!


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

Investment in infrastructure IS based on peak demand -- never argued otherwise and have in fact stated that fact repeatedly. What you and other are arguing is that peak demand and total data use are unrelated -- they are not. I'll repeat my example of someone the streams 50 hours of video per month. When they move from watching 50 hours of standard def video to 50 hours of HD video per month there total data usage tends to go up AND there bandwidth use goes up -- particularly at peak times! You need to ponder that fact for a minute -- an hour.

The fact is data use is increasing and when 4K video becomes more common and that same customer that switched from 50 hours of SD video to 50 hours of HD video then switches to 50 hours of UHD video that persons use profile has changed little in that they're still watching 50 hours of video, but the data use AND bandwidth increase enormously.

The bandwidth that an ISP like Comcast has is limited by there current infrastructure and when the same number of users increase there data usage AND bandwidth requirements it should come as no surprise that service experience tends to decline.

A given modern internet pipe, be it fiber or coax, will have a maximum data rate and even though almost no individual user will strain the network it is a fact that when many people are using the network at the same time they can over demand even when there individual demand is well below the capacity of the pipe.

ISP's over subscribe and count on the fact that not every user is online at any moment in time. As the average user moves to more data intensive activities like video streaming the demand, both for total data and bandwidth increase.

The problem with a singular focus on bandwidth or data rate is that different activities have a shorter or longer demand for that data rate. When browsing the internet you want fast speed to prevent delays in painting pages, but that data use comes in short bursts that is in great contrast to the sustained date use of video streaming. If you mostly browse the internet you want a fast connection to provide browser responsiveness but your monthly data use might be a small fraction of a Netflix user who's instantaneous date rate requirement might well be less than the browser but is SUSTAINED!

The effect that a Netflix user has on the network is far greater than that of the browser even though the bandwidth required is less!

Let me repeat that.

The effect that a Netflix user has on the network is far greater than that of the browser even though the bandwidth required is less!


Brian

Nobody said that peak throughout and data use are totally unrelated, just that measuring total data use is a bad way of accounting for it.