this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2026
936 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

89678 readers
3887 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Necrifyre@piefed.blahaj.zone 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

ISPs doing dirty tactics, what else is new?

The same companies who display in the open "up to" on all of their plans. Their speeds are never guaranteed.

[–] cy888@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Up to includes zero.

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 81 points 1 day ago (16 children)

Artificial static throughput caps on modern networks are asinine and archaic, especially on shared mediums.

Network providers should permit shared best effort throughput, with a sliding temporal window which keeps a tally of usage and feeds into a ratcheting deprioritisation of slot allocations. This would permit short bursts of maximum throughput, which is more efficient and frees the channel quicker, and slots longer transfers into the remaining default channel space.

Differentiate service based on the dimensions of the monitored and enforced windows, not an arbitrary static sphincter.

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 60 points 1 day ago

Yeah but how are we going to exploit the poors with a system that works?

this infrastructure is for PROFIT, not efficient communication. damn commies don't understand anything.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] toxicbubble@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

what's funny is all these internet companies can just give everyone affordable high speed and still make a profit

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

In my country it is a normal practice that internet providers start fucking your connection up so you move to a different plan. Faking that the connection is failing, limiting downstream...

[–] 0verthi@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

greedy mf's, they don't give a shit about their customers

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

bigger they get, shadier they deal

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As a former subscriber to both T-Mobile's fixed wireless home internet and their subsidiary Mint Mobile's fixed wireless home internet, this explains a lot.

[–] bcgm3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oh, Mint Mobile, as in "for just $15 a month" Mint Mobile?

I'm irrationally angry about Mint Mobile. They lean so heavily on the message that they're cheaper than everybody else, and it is some of the most cynical, anti-consumer bullshit I've ever heard. You barely have to look into it at all before you see that offer is

  • only valid for the first three months, and
  • only for new users. On top of all that,
  • those first three months are gonna cost you more than the advertised $15 because of hidden fees.

Outside of those first 3 months, they're charging at least as much per month as most off-contract providers.

And I understand that none of the above is unique to Mint Mobile. I guess it's Ryan Reynolds' smarmy delivery in their ads that makes it seem so arrogant, like, "Yeah, I'm already rich, and I'm getting richer by lying to you about a cellphone contract, what are you gonna do about it? I'm Deadpool, just buy it, you idiots!"

Fuck Mint Mobile. And Ryan Reynolds, too.

[–] obvs@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm going to be completely serious here:

I signed up for Mint Mobile's fixed home wireless service because I'd had such a great experience with their phone service. I've used their phone service for a long time, and it's been rock solid.

It's really weird, but their mobile service is fantastic. Their fixed home wireles service was absolutely awful. There's literally no reason why it should have been bad, but I prepaid for three months of their fixed home wireless, and switched to a different provider very soon after signing up. Their mobile service is still very good, and absolutely worth it. It literally is $360 per year. One payment, once a year, unlimited. Works well.

I was completely baffled why their fixed wireless was so bad.

[–] mHtt@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

work your job all day to help some ass hole boss get rich, come home to relax and your internet gets secretly slowed down - so your bosses kids can also own you online in literally any multiplayer FPS.

[–] remon@ani.social 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Jesus just 50GB a month? That wouldn't last me a day ...

[–] Redjard@reddthat.com 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

4h at full speed. Uncapped is effectively an 8TB cap, so they delivered 0.6% of what they were supposed to.
My grandma has a plan like this and visiting her for less than a week detonates her (hidden) cap just from my phone backing up its apps.
My home internet sits at multiple TB a month despite backups etc. not even running through it since it syncs to my local nas on the same network.

On 50GB you coulnd't even install a large game.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today 10 points 1 day ago

T-Mobile: "Yeah. So? What are you gonna do about it? Uh huh. Nothing. That's what I thought, bitch."

[–] CoconutLove@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is a reason they call themselves the uncarrier

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›