Would an ISP still be able to call their service "unlimited", by this definition, if some of their distribution nodes (cable optical nodes, wireless cell towers, whatever) are oversubscribed+saturated to the point of degraded service for the customers on that node?

If they could, then would they still be able to call the service "unlimited" if they enforced moment-by-moment QoS at the distribution node (so your neighbour's download will slow down to allow you to Skype, as if you were both connected through the same router in a building)?

And if that is allowed, then what is the difference if they're doing the QoSing by long-time-window statistical aggregation rather than packet-by-packet prioritization?

Decreasing the bandwidth available to a given link that has reached some monthly "quota" on a given oversubscribed node†, has exactly the same incentives as decreasing the bandwidth available to a given link for as long as someone else is trying to saturate the pipe with higher-priority traffic.

Either method disincentivizes everyone on the link from "wasting" their bandwidth unnecessarily (in a "you don't want your neighbour to do X, so you stop doing X and hope that they have empathy" way), such that the link becomes less saturated on a long-term basis. But only one is ever highlighted by the news as explicitly breaking the promise of "unlimited." Why is this?

---

† (...where that quota is the area-under-the-curve of the router's upstream bandwidth, divided by the number of users attached to the distribution point—in other words, the user's ration of the distribution node's available transit. If the quota is an arbitrary fixed number that isn't anywhere near this number, then that's just price-gouging.)

I would think so. Let's use "unlimited" in the context of public transport. You have paid for a Travelcard on the London Underground Zones 1 to 6, including peak hours. If there is congestion on the line, or it's a busy rush hour morning is your Travelcard no longer "unlimited"? I mean you're not paying an SLA in which you're guaranteed a seat and that trains will be delayed no longer then X minutes. I'm not defending AT&T in the slightest, but I think "unlimited usage", "100% availability" and "100% link rate" are not the same.

I would almost say that an oversubscribed+QoSed line is the modern definition of "residential service", while guaranteed bandwidth (equivalent in effect, but not necessarily in implementation, to the "dedicated circuits" of DSL terminology) is the modern definition of "business service."

So many people here obsessed with making some kind of technical disambiguation. I don't think the lawyers care for that at all.

Both intentionally throttling and not remotely providing the necessary infrastructure necessary to support use will get you into hot waters.

My question was more:

If an ISP usually has enough pipe for everyone on each of their distribution nodes (that is, has no oversubscription—or, more practically, only oversubscription for aggregations of customers with statistically-predictable usage such that the node should reasonably never be saturated, with some extra engineering tolerance for the rare occasions usage goes above statistical norms)—

but the ISP sometimes falls short when the introduction of a new service like VoIP or Netflix or Steam into the market, or lots of new denser construction in an area, makes demand outstrip their supply,

then should they get in trouble for enforcing QoSing (through whatever means) on their distribution nodes, temporarily, while they work on upgrading those nodes?

Because, if so, then ISPs should probably never use the word "unlimited" at all because they would still get in trouble for reasons (almost) completely out of their control.

(I say "almost" because they could just refuse to sell service in oversubscribed areas. But customers would like that even less, if the ISP has a local monopoly. Alternately, ISPs could change to "dynamic billing" where everyone in an oversubscribed area gets billed for non-unlimited service for as long as they're oversubscribed, and then goes back to being billed for unlimited service once the oversubscription is over. This would be cool, but seems like one of those nearly-impossible-with-the-hardware-we've-got sort of things, especially for wireless ISPs where you don't stay on the same distribution node so you're constantly moving between oversubscribed and undersubscribed nodes.)

If the technology cannot provide unlimited for customers who have paid for it, then unlimited service should not be sold. Simple as that. Anything else is inexcusable. If the technology stack can only handle all customers at 250 kBps, then that is the maximum service they should be selling.

"We can handle 20% of users at 5 Mbps, and the other 80% at 250 kBps. So we'll sell the 5 Mbps. But we won't restrict sales to 20% of customers, we'll sell to as many as want it and then throttle to handle overloads on the system." There is no way to make this situation acceptable. Don't sell what you can't provide. Pretty fucking simple.

but AT&T isn't in trouble for enforcing QoS, they're in trouble for throttling connections down to dial-up speed after a usage cap.

Even when read in the most beneficial light, no way can the word "unlimited" be interpreted to mean such a thing.

But the FCC Specifically said that companies have the right to employ reasonable network management. 56Kbit/s on the same network others are getting 30Mbit/s is not reasonable by anyone's stretch of the imagination.

"Would an ISP still be able to call their service "unlimited", by this definition, if some of their distribution nodes (cable optical nodes, wireless cell towers, whatever) are oversubscribed+saturated to the point of degraded service for the customers on that node?"

I actually complained to the FCC about this very issue. Where my office is, I can see the service degradation progress over the course of the day, peaking around 2PM when everyone's in the office. Should ATT really be allowed to advertise that they provide LTE service here, when every weekday the service provided is much, much slower, if usable at all?

What does it mean to sell wireless service 'where my office is'? Presumably you could drive somewhere inside their geographic service area and continue to get service. After all, its wireless.

Every service will be limited by local congestion. I'm not sure where this could be going? I get unlimited water from my local water company; but of course the pipes and the number of faucets at my house are practical limits.

If there's too much congestion to provide LTE speeds in a certain area, they shouldn't be able to advertise LTE speeds in that area. Or they should build more capacity to manage the congestion.

Maybe an office building is a little narrow for an 'area'?

I'm talking about the entire neighborhood. (Manhattan's Financial District)

> Would an ISP still be able to call their service "unlimited", by this definition, if some of their distribution nodes (cable optical nodes, wireless cell towers, whatever) are oversubscribed+saturated to the point of degraded service for the customers on that node?

That definition specifies "artificial" limits, which would - I'd think - exclude technological limitations like oversubscription/saturation.

Oversubscription is intentional (and in many scenarios can enable lower prices).

I doubt rules about advertising are going to change the market, the problem is that tens of millions of people are happy to pay for connectivity without really sweating the details of it.

Rules about advertising could just end up like it did in Portugal. ISPs were advertising unlimited data (on fiber/cable), but the small print stated that there was a limit, which was dependent on congestion/etc.

Essentially, in any given month, you could get throttled/yelled at for going over an arbitrary data cap, which could (and did) vary every month. Given, it was usually above 1 TB, but it was still there.

ISPs got a book thrown at them by the FCC equivalent, saying that if they advertise their product as unlimited, it must be truly unlimited. Literally the next day that decision came out, all ISPs changed their adverts from unlimited to "at will" data caps, which essentially conveys the same marketing message, but isn't a regulated term.

Welcome to the new world, same as the old world, except where we've replaced a word.

Yea, but that's a better world to live in, because people know what "unlimited" means and will glide right over it, thinking they get the speaker's intended message. I want people to see a new unfamiliar term like "at will" and think for 5 seconds about what the heck that actually means. AT&T would have avoided all the fines and public backlash if they had just made up some new term rather than underhandedly and intentionally misleading people.