Because it's
not how things technically works in real world.
Yeah prices will be cheaper, for example look at what that indian website says.
Do you understand how the example you gave technically works ? It don't provide full access to a site like you say about your "internet pack", it provide free access to this site, it's a completely different thing with a completely different intent behind it.
For an ISP, you are physically connected to its network. Every single time a single byte pass through internet to/from your home, it follow the exact same path from your computer to your ISP core network. The cable/fiber, then the same DSLAM (or similar), the same fiber and the same routers. Not only it's predictable, but also the minimal possible size is way higher than your needs and use. They'll not change the hardware because you suddenly decided to upgrade the offers you've subscribed to.
Each DSLAM have the same number of racks, and each rack the same number of slots. Each slot can handle the same maximal speed (higher than the maximal offer), while the rack itself is generally designed to handle at least 50% of ( slots X speed ). Whatever if a rack have only one slot used and at the minimal speed offer, or all of them used and at the maximal speed offer, the cost of this rack is identical. Same for everything between the DSLAM (included) and your ISP core network. Whatever if there's only one customer or if the DSLAM have all it's racks connected and they have all their slots used, the cost will be exactly the same.
When they put the last rack on the DSLAM, they know that they'll reach the maximal capability in "number of slots" customers. So plan an extension of the capability, add a DSLAM, potentially change the routers, and all will be good. In the worse case (they launched a mega attractive offer and everyone want it) they'll have one day to do this, in the average case they have a full month to do it.
In the end, your ISP know exactly what their maximal needs are, the cost is the same whatever they reached this maximal needs or not, and they can plan the extension of their network weeks in advance.
For a mobile phone operator, it's completely different. You aren't physically connected to the cell tower, so they have no way to know what their need will be. To simplify, lets say that the hardware architecture is identical.
With the help of existing equation, they know that, according to the population density, the fact that it's a town center, a commercial area, a rural small town, or whatever else, they'll have to face an average use of "this", with "that" average number of connection. So they put the right number of DSLAM, fill them with the right number of rack and connect the right number of slots. Then they use routers able to handle this traffic and finally the fiber which anyway will be able to handle so much more that it doesn't count.
But what if suddenly there's an event in town ? I don't talk about a festival or things like this. A simple wedding ceremony will increase the number of potential customers using this particular cell tower. Unlike physical access points, they can't go and add the hardware needed. The sudden usage increase will be finished long time before they have finished to install everything. Because of this, every single cell tower is over sized. The equation gave 100 customers in average ? The cell tower will be sized for 200. Not that the size must be twice the average use, it's a geometric progression, not an arithmetic one.
That's part of why the offers for mobile phone access are expressed in amount of data, while the offers for physical access are expressed in speed and without amount data limitations. When you exceed the average use with your mobile phone access, you pay for the cost of this over sizing because you are the reason it exist. But like the over sizing for physical access is not due to the usage, everybody pay for it as part of the offers.
And all this is why the offer you take as example is valid for mobile phone access but pure none sense for physical access. For a physical access it imply that now they'll have hardware underused. By like the cost is identical anyway, it change absolutely nothing for them. For a mobile phone access, it help to predict more precisely the traffic which will be generated.
The average traffic for a facebook use is know, same for netflix use and things like this. For streaming, they limit to a single site/operator because of the link exchange points and peer agreements, which limit their cost (1Gio of data amount will cost less with a peering agreement than passing through the wild), not because of the bandwidth use.
Like facebook is now free, you'll use less the other services because of a simple psychological effect. Now that you can access something for free, you'll hesitate more before paying to access something else. Do you really need to access it now ? Can't you wait to be at home where it will cost you nothing ? You don't think that way when you have to pay anyway.
In the end, creating this offer help them have better prediction on their need and it will limit the usage of their cell towers, so the cost of the over sizing. But once again it change nothing for physical access, because there's no over sizing in their case. It also change nothing for mobile phone access in the USA where only one state have an higher population density than India. It's around 270 inhabitants/km² for India, against around 290/km² for New Jersey. And there's only 8 states with more than 100 inhabitants/km². More than half of the GSM network in the USA is oversized just by putting the smallest possible hardware.
ISPs can be subsidized by the website owners to reduce the prices, which in return beneficial to the users.
None sense ! Wait... forget, what I said. ISP/sites pay twice to use link exchange points in the USA, my bad.
It make some sense once the traffic is outside of the ISP core network, because the bandwidth is overpriced even if they use direct peer links. But it still make few sense when the traffic is inside the ISP core network, because it should be sized to handle twice more traffic than it do. And finally it make no sense on the extended local loop (your home to the ISP network ; don't know the English equivalent) because this part is naturally way over sized and can't have a lower size.
It's true, if they end up using multiple website specific packages, it will cost more, but then it's their choice. I don't see why you are against when it does nothing to net neutrality.
I'm against it because it's the strict opposite to Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality imply that you don't care what your customer do and you don't try to limit them to a part of the network. Here it's the opposite. They'll ask what the customers want to do and they'll limit them to this part of the network, at least economically, at worse physically, anyway psychologically.
I'm also against it because it reinforce the monopoly ISP already have in your country. And in a way this also goes against Net Neutrality.
I think you are more like scared than being reasonable.
Scared by what ? I live in a country where :
- Net Neutrality is enforced by national and EU laws ;
- The equivalent of your FCC can't goes against the Law ;
- Internet access cost less for the same offer ;
- ISP goes more than once against the filtering rules wanted by the government (so enforced by themselves Net Neutrality) ;
- Link exchange points are free to enter in ;
- By laws ISP have the obligation to share their fiber networks with all the other ISP ;
For short, I live in a country with high privilege and freedom regarding Internet access. There's few countries with higher privilege and a tons of countries with way less. So no, I'm not scared. I'm just amazed to see how far the lobbying campaign Comcast made against Net Neutrality have been by spreading its bullshit.
A best solution for everything is making a win-win situation in which everyone is benefited somehow, if it's not, then someone is going to fight against it.
Then start fighting right now.
Obviously the specificities of the USA make things different. The country is way too big, so ISP need to have more than one core network and even more than one by state. The population density isn't homogeneous. This mean that there's part where the extended local loop cost is way two big ; you still need at least one DSLAM and one fiber even for 100 potential customers. It also mean that they'll have to deploy more cell towers, but they'll have a smaller size (in the network way of "size") which limit the costs.
But as counter part of this, the potential number of customers is way higher. With 500 millions US citizens, they can go up to an extend cost (due to the size of the country and population density) of 10 millions dollars by month without real need to report it on their offers. And up to 75 millions dollars of extend cost for less than $1 more on their offers.
Here, we can have fiber 1Gbps access with 100 TV channels and phone, for 30€. Taking in count the change, higher bandwidth cost, not free link exchange points, and country specificities, if you pay a 1Gbps fiber access (without the TV channels and phone) for more than $60, they lie to you. And at least one do it. According to google, Comcast ask three time this for four time less...
In the end, they (well at least Comcast) use their monopoly situation to overprice their offers. And now they go further. Because the average human don't understand how a computer works and think that internet is magic (rhetorically speaking), they enforce this lack of knowledge and abuse it.
hm? now there's a thought. i wonder how much this add-on setup (ublock origin + disconnect + cookie autodelete) i use with firefox affects that part of things. on top of the router being one of those that uses a dynamic IP number setup.
