Battletoads Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Some good point on dispelling the myths around Usage Based Billing, from industry insider Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of tekksavvy http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/02/07/internet-usage-debate-the-real-myths/ Some of the more interesting points: "Light users subsidize heavy users. If this were the case, you would think there would be a similar response around the world, not just in Canada. Yet only Canada seeks to impose a usage-based billing system on the wholesale Internet market to combat this supposed inequity. The CRTC itself acknowledged that all costs associated with the provision of Internet services are recouped by the flat-rate component of the service. This myth is equivalent to arguing that apartment rents should be based on the number of people living in a unit, because the rent of the person living alone subsidizes the cost of an apartment occupied by two people. UBB is a punitive measure because the marginal cost of higher use is miniscule once the network is in place. It has been acknowledged as such. This makes Canada seem like one of the few countries in the world that want to discourage access to the Internet." Not many people are heavy users of bandwidth. And with UBB as proposed, not many will be. That would be a shame because Canada will lag the world in that regard, and become a communications backwater. In any event, Mr. Bibic presents questionable, backward-looking data as the basis on which to form forward-looking public policy. Virtually every study from Sandvine to Berkman to the OECD predicts exponential growth in Internet-based video consumption, whether by movie lovers, students, businesses or grandmothers enjoying their grandchildren from afar. The answer to future growth is not to stifle it by imposing punitive pricing but to encourage it, accommodate it, and make more money on greater volume consumed at lower prices with more efficient infrastructure. That is how it is done elsewhere in the world and how it ought to be done here. And if it takes regulation of Canada’s telecommunications regional duopolies to achieve it, the CRTC and the government should do so, with an emphasis on the interests of Canadian consumers, not the duopoly. "Wholesale operators ride on the Bell network. This is a strange way to treat a valuable customer. TekSavvy has paid tens of millions of dollars to Bell, based on tariffs determined by the CRTC in a regulated framework no different from those applicable to gas or long distance services. TekSavvy “rides” on Bell’s system no more than do independent long distance providers. And that is frankly a comparison worth remembering. When the incumbent telcos controlled long distance, customers paid $1.50 per minute. With the entrance of competitors, customers now pay mere pennies. What Bell is trying to do with UBB is the equivalent to charging $1.50 per minute for long distance. Instead of caps and artificially high fees, the incumbent telcos should establish the real cost for bits, if material, and negotiate a fair “cost plus” tariff for those bits." Edited February 9, 2011 by Battletoads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 I can't for the life of me understand why an ISP doesn't provide completely unlimited access way cheaper than the others and just clean house with all the customers switching over. The same goes for cellphone. Why doesn't someone offer completely unlimited access (voice, data, text, etc.) for something like $50/month and reap the benefits of everyone switching over? Oh. That's right. The problem is contracts lock customers in. This means that anyone who offers a more competitive model will not immediately reap the benefits of their more competitive pricing because people cannot immediately switch. Free and open market? Perfect competition? Not in telecommunications apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) How would unlimited access eat into those profits? At what bandwidth rate? It may be more of a quality of service issue for providers like rogers. They only have so much bandwidth at any given moment. The more people using it.. the slower it gets. Then streaming is a no go.. you get all chopped up.. then you have to d/l the thing in chunks.. etc.. It really depends on the price of the unlimited package. you don't want excess bandwidth charges just cut it off when the bandwidth limit is reached. You pay for 20 you get no more than 20. How much does a movie cost to buy new? $20 $10 -- how much is it to download with bandwidth. I'm so anti IP its not funny but I also understand the industry. People just like getting free stuff even if people are loosing money as a result. Its like having free donuts in Tim Hortons --- you can take them or pay for them. If you have the choice between the two what are you going to do? Sure people may not get paid at Timmies, but people won't complain about the free donuts, unless their pay check depends on it. Its not the same --- it is free to distribute... there are lots of free videos... I personally would be hard pressed to use up 20gb in one month. How many movies can you watch in a month 5? 6? How productive are you being with your time? I'm all for free market. Like I said, if the government can deliver a cheaper model - then make a crown corp to provide internet services to the public at a reduced rate, it is that simple. Edited February 9, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) At what bandwidth rate? It may be more of a quality of service issue for providers like rogers. They only have so much bandwidth at any given moment. The more people using it.. the slower it gets. Then streaming is a no go.. you get all chopped up.. then you have to d/l the thing in chunks.. etc.. It really depends on the price of the unlimited package. you don't want excess bandwidth charges just cut it off when the bandwidth limit is reached. You pay for 20 you get no more than 20. How much does a movie cost to buy new? $20 $10 -- how much is it to download with bandwidth. I'm so anti IP its not funny but I also understand the industry. People just like getting free stuff even if people are loosing money as a result. Its like having free donuts in Tim Hortons --- you can take them or pay for them. If you have the choice between the two what are you going to do? Sure people may not get paid at Timmies, but people won't complain about the free donuts, unless their pay check depends on it. Its not the same --- it is free to distribute... there are lots of free videos... I personally would be hard pressed to use up 20gb in one month. How many movies can you watch in a month 5? 6? How productive are you being with your time? I'm all for free market. Like I said, if the government can deliver a cheaper model - then make a crown corp to provide internet services to the public at a reduced rate, it is that simple. I'm confused how the network being saturated and bandwidth use have anything to do with each other. A net work can only be saturated when too many users are connected to it, seeing as individual users have a limited download/upload speed. and I don't see the why youhave the need to call those who want resonable bandwidth caps unproductive. Edited February 9, 2011 by Battletoads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 At what bandwidth rate? It may be more of a quality of service issue for providers like rogers. They only have so much bandwidth at any given moment. ISP's limit you to a specific maximum bandwidth - around 15 mps on Shaw high speed. This is taken into account when they determine how many contracts they can put on a specific network line. Funny, if I want 20 mps all I have to do is pay twice as much... The more people using it.. the slower it gets. Then streaming is a no go.. you get all chopped up.. then you have to d/l the thing in chunks.. etc.. Every ISP has to conform to a Quality of Service limitation. ADSL has a specific line for each user (but normally at slower maximum speeds than broadband), but broadband (cable) does slow when more users are on line. This is why they pick a specific physical carrier when they add a new residential or commercial construction area (or refit it). It really depends on the price of the unlimited package. you don't want excess bandwidth charges just cut it off when the bandwidth limit is reached. Just like cell phone plans, the day they give customers an accurate tool for measuring it then they can move ahead with telling people to shut it down when the cap is reached. You pay for 20 you get no more than 20. Great. Where are you EXACTLY in your monthly usage right now? Come on. We'll wait. I wouldn't have a problem paying extra because I use extra, but instead of a cost of say 10 cents a Gb over the cap, they want to charge me 20 times that. This is the equivalent of charging you $3.00 a minute over your minutes on your cell phone plan - without the ability to know when your allotted time is up. Wouldn't THAT be a nice surprise at the end of the month - an extra $500 in cell charges! How much does a movie cost to buy new? $20 $10 -- how much is it to download with bandwidth. If the video store is about $6.00 and PPV is about $6.00, then why would they force a customer (who happens to be over the cap) to pay $20.00? (over the cap with Shaw is $2.00/Gb and an "HD" movie is usually around 10Gb or more). This has nothing to do with network "capacity"; it has everything to do with the big ISP's losing their high revenue "cream" services to online companies like NetFlix. I'm so anti IP its not funny but I also understand the industry. People just like getting free stuff even if people are loosing money as a result. Its like having free donuts in Tim Hortons --- you can take them or pay for them. If you have the choice between the two what are you going to do? Sure people may not get paid at Timmies, but people won't complain about the free donuts, unless their pay check depends on it. Its not the same --- it is free to distribute... there are lots of free videos... I personally would be hard pressed to use up 20gb in one month. How many movies can you watch in a month 5? 6? How productive are you being with your time? My kids can use almost 20Gb a month on Facebook and flash-gaming. I can easily download 20+ movies a month (long story there), and my kid got World of Warcraft for his birthday - constant streaming when he's playing (mostly because the company doesn't want the graphics to look like Pong). I'm all for free market. Like I said, if the government can deliver a cheaper model - then make a crown corp to provide internet services to the public at a reduced rate, it is that simple. Yep it is that simple. Want a service fucked up? Make it a crown corp. Are you about to sign up for the Canadian Federal Cellular Plan? I'm sure it will be a quality service where the "rich" subsidize the "poor" with plan minutes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Good new for Shaw users. Shaw has said it will stay with unlimited after their e-mails and phone were tied up by consumers. By going this route, Shaw may come out the winner of these compaies. IF the meter usage does go through and the other companies go with it and Shaw doesn't, it will probably pick up more customers OR other companies won't charge extra, to keep their own customers from switching to Shaw. My own has said its a 2 months wait but if you use their DSL, it won't affect me. http://www.vancouversun.com/Shaw+backs+away+from+usage+based+Internet+billing/4246226/story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 Good new for Shaw users. Shaw has said it will stay with unlimited after their e-mails and phone were tied up by consumers. By going this route, Shaw may come out the winner of these compaies. IF the meter usage does go through and the other companies go with it and Shaw doesn't, it will probably pick up more customers OR other companies won't charge extra, to keep their own customers from switching to Shaw. My own has said its a 2 months wait but if you use their DSL, it won't affect me. http://www.vancouversun.com/Shaw+backs+away+from+usage+based+Internet+billing/4246226/story.html Shaw never was unlimited. Shaw info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) ISP's limit you to a specific maximum bandwidth - around 15 mps on Shaw high speed. This is taken into account when they determine how many contracts they can put on a specific network line. Funny, if I want 20 mps all I have to do is pay twice as much...Every ISP has to conform to a Quality of Service limitation. ADSL has a specific line for each user (but normally at slower maximum speeds than broadband), but broadband (cable) does slow when more users are on line. This is why they pick a specific physical carrier when they add a new residential or commercial construction area (or refit it). Just like cell phone plans, the day they give customers an accurate tool for measuring it then they can move ahead with telling people to shut it down when the cap is reached. That is basically it right there, you don't want to use their line at their rate, pay for another one. Start your own company if you can provide a lower rate and provide quality of service. Great. Where are you EXACTLY in your monthly usage right now? My source is from an academic institution - I think they have their own network connection. I'm not sure - there is a soft cap of a 2GB bandwidth, for shared used. The u/l d/l rate can be as fast as 100mbps per person. I'm really not all too familiar. I actually use only public internet or friends or families internet - I don't have internet at my home - which is my retreat more or less. I actually even went without water or electricity for around a month last summer. Come on. We'll wait. I wouldn't have a problem paying extra because I use extra, but instead of a cost of say 10 cents a Gb over the cap, they want to charge me 20 times that. This is the equivalent of charging you $3.00 a minute over your minutes on your cell phone plan - without the ability to know when your allotted time is up. Wouldn't THAT be a nice surprise at the end of the month - an extra $500 in cell charges! So start your own company. If the video store is about $6.00 and PPV is about $6.00, then why would they force a customer (who happens to be over the cap) to pay $20.00? (over the cap with Shaw is $2.00/Gb and an "HD" movie is usually around 10Gb or more). This has nothing to do with network "capacity"; it has everything to do with the big ISP's losing their high revenue "cream" services to online companies like NetFlix. Upcharging - buy the higher package. Do you use that much every month - wouldn't it be better to pay for the premium plan? That is it right there. Is this a business line? What exactly are you doing that requires 60+GB of data or 2GB per day? My kids can use almost 20Gb a month on Facebook and flash-gaming. I can easily download 20+ movies a month (long story there), and my kid got World of Warcraft for his birthday - constant streaming when he's playing (mostly because the company doesn't want the graphics to look like Pong). OK, so pick the plan that suits your use. Is the entertainment worth that much? If not, maybe you should have a little bit of pong too.. who sets that value? What is the internet worth? How much is a ring worth, or a car, who sets that value - is it only as much as it costs to make? Who is suppose to set the overhead on that? Yep it is that simple. Want a service fucked up? Make it a crown corp. Are you about to sign up for the Canadian Federal Cellular Plan? I'm sure it will be a quality service where the "rich" subsidize the "poor" with plan minutes... Well effectively that is what you are doing when you are trying to regulate the bandwidth costs with UBB. Same stuff different pile. The government might be able to manage such a plan, can you? Edited February 10, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Start your own company if you can provide a lower rate and provide quality of service. Sure! Where do I sign up for my no strings attached government subsidies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) Sure! Where do I sign up for my no strings attached government subsidies? I think they are called operating expenses. ----- WHat exactly are you looking for subsidies for? If 400,000 people can sign a petition why can they pitch the $1000 each to build the half billion in infrastructure? It is tax deductable right? How much do you pay in taxes that could be written off as venture capital? Or operating costs in a partnership? Oh but who would do that. Well there it is right there. YOu can't have it both ways so you'd rather just bully around the odd company you can get away with bullying cause you are too lazy to allow free market capitalism to function the way it is suppose to. Then you dis my crown corp, then you say no, the free market doesn't allow capital to be pooled to deter duopoly. I'm just saying you arn't willing to do it. Which one is it, do you support socialism or capitalism? "A satellite costs $300 million to build, launch and operate" http://www.satsig.net/ivsatcos.htm start reading.. there are plenty of options... in which way you go. Edited February 10, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarg Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) I think they are called operating expenses. ----- WHat exactly are you looking for subsidies for? If 400,000 people can sign a petition why can they pitch the $1000 each to build the half billion in infrastructure? It is tax deductable right? How much do you pay in taxes that could be written off as venture capital? Or operating costs in a partnership? Oh but who would do that. Well there it is right there. YOu can't have it both ways so you'd rather just bully around the odd company you can get away with bullying cause you are too lazy to allow free market capitalism to function the way it is suppose to. Then you dis my crown corp, then you say no, the free market doesn't allow capital to be pooled to deter duopoly. I'm just saying you arn't willing to do it. Which one is it, do you support socialism or capitalism? "A satellite costs $300 million to build, launch and operate" http://www.satsig.net/ivsatcos.htm start reading.. there are plenty of options... in which way you go. Do you believe the hosreshit you write? You actually believe that we have a free market? So tell me, why is it that 15 years ago we had only a couple of options in phone service providers? Why is it that now we have dozens and the cost of long distance is a mere fraction of what it was when the cost of everything else in the world has gone up? It sure as hell wasn't because bell wanted it this way, the governement forced them into allowing other companies to use thier lines, monopoloies are bad for consumers. We have nearly the same situation now, o but wait, secondary isp's are allowed to resell bandwidth to consumers at less than monopolistic rates, this allows consumers to utilize the internet for things that may, heaven forbid, compete with the primary isp's other businesses. Well they can't have that now can they, so, they go to the crtc, make up a problem of bandwidth, which at this point doesn't exist, and the crtc buys it, handing out a ruling that effectively reverts the free market to what it was when bell was the only show in town for phone service, yea, thats the FREE market all right. It has been said many times here and elsewhere for anyone with the tiniest bit of intelligence to read and understand, Canada has poor internet services relative to our economic standing and some of the highest prices in the world for our communication services. A service that was heavily subsidized by government no less, but you think that we should pay 10's of times, in some cases 30 or 40 times the actual price of data delivery just so bell doesn't have to compete with netflix. I am absolutely fine with UBB, so long as it works the same way that long distance does now, in fact seeing as a lot of my long distance is free for a flat rate of about 20 bucks a month I would even take 20 dollar for 20 gigs and then pay a 300% markup of 10 cents per gig to bell, seems like a fair price. That would give me 120 gigs for 30 bucks, which is about half the price and double the cap i have now, effectively cutting my bill by about 75%, which ironically is similiar to what a lot of secondary ip's charge. Im a pretty conservative person on some issues, breaking this argument down to a socialism vs capitalism argument is pathetic, this isn't socialism, its highway robbery, legalised for now. Edited February 10, 2011 by yarg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Do you believe the hosreshit you write? You actually believe that we have a free market? So tell me, why is it that 15 years ago we had only a couple of options in phone service providers? Why is it that now we have dozens and the cost of long distance is a mere fraction of what it was when the cost of everything else in the world has gone up? It sure as hell wasn't because bell wanted it this way, the governement forced them into allowing other companies to use thier lines, monopoloies are bad for consumers. We have nearly the same situation now, o but wait, secondary isp's are allowed to resell bandwidth to consumers at less than monopolistic rates, this allows consumers to utilize the internet for things that may, heaven forbid, compete with the primary isp's other businesses. Well they can't have that now can they, so, they go to the crtc, make up a problem of bandwidth, which at this point doesn't exist, and the crtc buys it, handing out a ruling that effectively reverts the free market to what it was when bell was the only show in town for phone service, yea, thats the FREE market all right. It has been said many times here and elsewhere for anyone with the tiniest bit of intelligence to read and understand, Canada has poor internet services relative to our economic standing and some of the highest prices in the world for our communication services. A service that was heavily subsidized by government no less, but you think that we should pay 10's of times, in some cases 30 or 40 times the actual price of data delivery just so bell doesn't have to compete with netflix. I am absolutely fine with UBB, so long as it works the same way that long distance does now, in fact seeing as a lot of my long distance is free for a flat rate of about 20 bucks a month I would even take 20 dollar for 20 gigs and then pay a 300% markup of 10 cents per gig to bell, seems like a fair price. That would give me 120 gigs for 30 bucks, which is about half the price and double the cap i have now, effectively cutting my bill by about 75%, which ironically is similiar to what a lot of secondary ip's charge. Im a pretty conservative person on some issues, breaking this argument down to a socialism vs capitalism argument is pathetic, this isn't socialism, its highway robbery, legalised for now. Bravo sir. I'd just like to add that if Conrad Von-head-in-ass (the CRTC head pushing for UBB) wants to claim bandwidth should be billed like a utility I don't see why anyone should pay a flat rate, everything should be done by UBB. Since it's a utility the government (provincial or federal) should step in and regulate rates as it does with every other utility in Canada to insure the utility provider provides a fair rate. Of course Bell, and their friend Conrad have no interest in a fair pricing scheme... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Shaw never was unlimited. Shaw info Sure they were. The limits are a fairly recent thing. I have no cap on my Shaw account, no limits was one of the basic features of Shaw's cable internet system when I signed on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) DP Edited February 10, 2011 by Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 The problem, Kimmy, is that any network requires a huge fixed cost. You may use that network rarely, but having access to it is useful to you. I have always liked the following comparison: how much would you pay to get into Disneyland, and how much would you pay for each ride once you're there? IOW, there's a fixed cost merely to be a member of the club, and there's another charge for how much you use the club's services. It is not obvious at all how to set these two very different rates. Well, I believe that if you go to Disneyland you can pay an entry fee and buy rides one at a time, or you can buy a day pass that includes entry plus unlimited rides. You might even be able to buy a pass that's good for several days. (if Disneyland were run like Canada's wired internet providers, they would sell you a day pass with unlimited rides until 2pm, then charge an exorbitant rate for each ride after 2pm. if Disneyland were run like Canada's cellular service providers, they would charge you for a day pass that only includes 1 ride, and criminal rates for each ride afterward.) If you're flying to Disneyland, you can get cheaper fares by flying at a time when fewer people travel. If you're a student or an old-person, you can probably get cheaper fares yet if you're flying at off-peak times. Why? Because the airlines have noticed that empty seats don't generate any revenue for them. Selling those seats at a discount makes sense because getting *some* money from people who might not be able to afford to fly at all is better than letting the seats go empty. If you're eating out, there are restaurant options for almost every budget. Lots of restaurants have kids or seniors menus, because they've figured out that the cost of feeding grandma and the kids might be a barrier that keeps some people from eating out at all. If there was real competition in Canada, there would be all kinds of different answers to the question "how much to get into the park, and how much to go on the rides?" If there were real competition in the cellular biz, somebody would have already produced a data service plan that would get me to part with some of my money. I won't spend a cent on a data plan for my cell phone, because none of the providers in my area have an option that I consider a reasonable value. That's no great loss to them, because the amount of money they can make gouging suckers more than makes up for the pittance they'd make selling cheaper plans to cheapskates like me. But there's a market that they're ignoring. And the fact that smaller independent services can make money by buying bandwidth from the major carriers and reselling it under different pricing plans proves that there's a profit to be made by offering a broader assortment of plans. It's unfortunate that these smaller services only seem to be available to customers in the biggest urban areas. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) I have always liked the following comparison: how much would you pay to get into Disneyland, and how much would you pay for each ride once you're there? IOW, there's a fixed cost merely to be a member of the club, and there's another charge for how much you use the club's services. The entrance ticket to Disneyland (and Disney World) already includes unlimited rides. Edited February 10, 2011 by Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Do you believe the hosreshit you write? You actually believe that we have a free market? How would you describe it? Are people somehow barred by law from starting a communications company? I'm not aware they are. So in this respect, sure, there is a free market. So tell me, why is it that 15 years ago we had only a couple of options in phone service providers? Because they were willing to operate. Where is an example of a phone company that tried to set up shop and wasn't allowed to back then? Why is it that now we have dozens and the cost of long distance is a mere fraction of what it was when the cost of everything else in the world has gone up? Mobile phones? It sure as hell wasn't because bell wanted it this way, the governement forced them into allowing other companies to use thier lines, monopoloies are bad for consumers. We have nearly the same situation now, o but wait, secondary isp's are allowed to resell bandwidth to consumers at less than monopolistic rates, this allows consumers to utilize the internet for things that may, heaven forbid, compete with the primary isp's other businesses. Well they can't have that now can they, so, they go to the crtc, make up a problem of bandwidth, which at this point doesn't exist, and the crtc buys it, handing out a ruling that effectively reverts the free market to what it was when bell was the only show in town for phone service, yea, thats the FREE market all right. So why don't all those secondary ISP's get together and build their own secondary ISP backbone and loose bell or cable providers as their source? Then go back to their unlimited cap ways of life? It has been said many times here and elsewhere for anyone with the tiniest bit of intelligence to read and understand, Canada has poor internet services relative to our economic standing and some of the highest prices in the world for our communication services. A service that was heavily subsidized by government no less, but you think that we should pay 10's of times, in some cases 30 or 40 times the actual price of data delivery just so bell doesn't have to compete with netflix. I am absolutely fine with UBB, so long as it works the same way that long distance does now, in fact seeing as a lot of my long distance is free for a flat rate of about 20 bucks a month I would even take 20 dollar for 20 gigs and then pay a 300% markup of 10 cents per gig to bell, seems like a fair price. That would give me 120 gigs for 30 bucks, which is about half the price and double the cap i have now, effectively cutting my bill by about 75%, which ironically is similiar to what a lot of secondary ip's charge. What's missing? People have their internet? What is so poor about Canada's internet. Where are you getting this from? If you don't want to pay don't pay. Its not your god given right to have unlimited access to the internet. Im a pretty conservative person on some issues, breaking this argument down to a socialism vs capitalism argument is pathetic, this isn't socialism, its highway robbery, legalised for now. You just don't want to pay so you want the government to force them to keep their rates down because you are too lazy to start your own company and give lower prices. There is no blockage as to make this a monopoly, no one wants to risk the capital to compete, that is all there is to it. And you are purporting socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 I won't spend a cent on a data plan for my cell phone, because none of the providers in my area have an option that I consider a reasonable value. That's no great loss to them, because the amount of money they can make gouging suckers more than makes up for the pittance they'd make selling cheaper plans to cheapskates like me. -k It's good to see that I"m not the only preson that falls into this category. By looking around me at the number of people with smart phones, upon which they use Twitter, Facebook and even watch YouTube videos, I thought I was some sort of neo-luddite by not feeding into the providers' ridiculous pricing schemes. I can't tell you how glad I am that there are actually other people out there doing the same thing for the same reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Last night, a spokeman for BCE was on TVO and they were talking and BCE kept saying that is wasn't fair for heavy users to not be charge for their use and he made it sound like they were losing money if they didn't. I found online an article that BCE is still making profit, don't forget the corporate tax cut they get, and they are about to buy CTV for 1.3 BILLION. It hard to feel sorry for a company that Canadians know IS doing well. The BIG guys should leave the little guys alone and become more competitive. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/02/10/bce-earnings-profits.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I wonder how would people accept new highway taxes according to mileage. Higher price for gas if 30 litres a month was exceeded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I wonder how would people accept new highway taxes according to mileage. Higher price for gas if 30 litres a month was exceeded. The real issue isn't usage based billing. USB is a fact of life for most things we buy. We pay for how much we eat. We pay for how much water, gas, electricy etc that we use. That makes sense. It's fair. It would be fair for internet as well. Where it becomes completely unfair and downright dishonest, however, is how our telecom companies set us up with monthly fees for various internet packages, up to a certain limit, and then charge us INSANE penalties for exceeding those limits. They WANT us to exceed those limits. That's how they make the most money. They sell us a service at a fixed limit. They give us no easy way to track our usage of that service. They make us GUESS at how much we use it and then they smile and they heavily penalize us when we inevitably go over it. The banks do the same thing, but to a much lesser extent usually. If the ISP's want USB, they shouldn't be setting usage traps for us. It's dishonest, it's unfair and it shouldn't be allowed to continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Where it becomes completely unfair and downright dishonest, however, is how our telecom companies set us up with monthly fees for various internet packages, up to a certain limit, and then charge us INSANE penalties for exceeding those limits. They WANT us to exceed those limits. That's how they make the most money. They sell us a service at a fixed limit. They give us no easy way to track our usage of that service. They make us GUESS at how much we use it and then they smile and they heavily penalize us when we inevitably go over it. Umm, every ISP I've ever used, if you go to their website and log in to your account, there's a link that shows you how much data you've downloaded/uploaded that month. Right now I'm at 59,213,231,414 bytes for February. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Umm, every ISP I've ever used, if you go to their website and log in to your account, there's a link that shows you how much data you've downloaded/uploaded that month. Right now I'm at 59,213,231,414 bytes for February. Considering how the technology that allows isps to track individual usage has not been widespread for more than a year or two I'd say you're a liar. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2011/02/09/technology-bell-internet-usage.html?ref=rss Bell still can't get it right, leading to massive overage charges on customers who haven't gone over their cap. Edited February 11, 2011 by Battletoads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 Umm, every ISP I've ever used, if you go to their website and log in to your account, there's a link that shows you how much data you've downloaded/uploaded that month. Right now I'm at 59,213,231,414 bytes for February. I didn't say you couldn't do it. I said it wasn't easy. They don't advertise that you can check your useage. They don't have a meter or anything that's convenient to check. They try very hard to ensure that you're not always aware of how much you're using. What other business, aside from cellphones (the same companies lol) conduct this sort of shady business??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 The real issue isn't usage based billing. USB is a fact of life for most things we buy. We pay for how much we eat. We pay for how much water, gas, electricy etc that we use. That makes sense. It's fair. It would be fair for internet as well.There's only a limited amount of clean water, natural gas and electricity one can use. You're depleting resources by using those things and as such you should pay based on the amount you use. Hence, the more time you spend on your computer, the higher your electricity bill for depleting that resource (coal, nuclear, hydro-electric reserves, etc). So my question for you is this: what resource is being depleted by allowing unlimited internet access versus a cap with UBB?The problem boils down to two interests losing out. The recording industry wants something done about piracy, so they coerced the ISPs in to implementing these caps. Secondly, the television and movie industries don't want people to be able to freely stream shows and movies because they lose revenues. Implementing these caps makes it more worthwhile for someone to rent or purchase a DVD or Blu-Ray and pay a monthly fee for cable or satellite, rather than stream or download movies and shows online. Thus, the resource that's being depleted, to answer the question I posed to you, is the wallets of corporations already making billions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.