this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
798 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
86131 readers
3243 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Congestion pricing is the PC way to describe it.
Price gouging is the more honest term.
You can charge a fixed rate and ration bandwidth during peak use.
Or you can charge a variable rate in order to maximize revenue during peak demand.
One maximizes utility while the other maximizes profit.
Neither of those options would support everyone living in a high density urban area, bandwidth would drop to nothing and no one would want to buy it, and people generally hate inconsistent bandwidth, or random peak hour usage charges on their bill.
Edit: Their overall bandwidth per cell is just too low to be able to support everyone in high density areas like that.
That's why dense urban communities prefer using ground fiber and big routing stations to cellar satellite, sure.
But now we're talking about the real bandwidth capacities, not the pricing for connectivity.
I mean don't get me wrong, it's 100% pure capitalism to do something like, we can confidently service 1000 people per cell region and maintain our advertised service, but once we reach 950, we're going to charge super high fees to connect. They don't have to be doing what they're doing, but they saw a way to make money.
Edit: And this is all assuming the congestion is even real.
I don't doubt the congestion is real, as consumption - especially data consumption - rapidly expands to fill its container.
I might suggest that some of the early adopters and insiders are receiving subsidy rates in order to goose Elon's investor briefs on adoption. And the folks on the back end who are eating the exploding prices exist to pad Musk's proposed future revenue estimates.
"We added 10,000 people a day for the last 30 days, even as we raised rates from $10/day to $100/day!" tells a very attractive story to investors without tipping your hand and revealing what the next 30 days will look like. But it also becomes a kind-of self-fulfilling prophecy, when it results in banks giving you another hundred billion dollars in low-interest credit to expand your network.
They did exactly that with the new standby mode.
You used to be able to pause your service for free. Then they changed it to $5/m but you got unlimited 256kb/s bandwidth and the dish would always be up to date. Just before the IPO they doubled that to $10/m and removed the ability to use it while in motion.
I'd love to see how many people dropped the service after that 2nd price jump which wouldn't have been apparent until after the IPO. Both changes happened within a year.