[explaininjs]

As someone who does a ton of networking/routing at the link layer for a day job, I can definitely see why they’re taking measures to reduce bandwidth hogs - to the extent I might actually prefer to be on a network that has taken measures to reduce hogging vs one that has not.

When it really truly matters, like when I have a business need to download huge items in remote areas, the $10/GB+ justifies itself.

[Dylan16807]

Ironically, downloading huge items is easy to do without tethering.

And video streaming, probably most people's biggest bandwidth use, fits very well on phones.

Does anyone offer a tethering plan that's rate limited but not data limited?

[dwaite]

> Does anyone offer a tethering plan that's rate limited but not data limited?

T-Mobile in the US; they give you a set amount of high-speed tethering based on your plan, then it rate limits severely until the end of the billing cycle unless you upgrade your plan or buy a a pack of data.

[Dylan16807]

Okay, 600kbps is acceptable. Beats a lot of networks. Things are improving since I last checked.

Though with how happily and loudly they've made 1.5Mbps video excluded from data caps, it would be better if the throttled speed was at least 1.5Mbps.

[explaininjs]

Verizon after 60GB is 600kbps on 5G/4G but up to 3Mbps on UWB. Pretty reasonable IMO. It’s AT&T that’s the holdout, 128k regardless of plan, after 60GB.

[RulerOf]

> they’re taking measures to reduce bandwidth hogs

My problem with this is that it's the wrong measure.

There's no good technical reason to shape traffic to a specific rate irrespective of network conditions or capacity. All of the links in the chain support QoS.

Shaping a bandwidth hog to a tier below the rest of the users makes sense, but that's not what's going on.