Esq Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) I wonder how would people accept new highway taxes according to mileage. Higher price for gas if 30 litres a month was exceeded. dummy they don't give the first 30 litres for less. I'd like to be joking of course... don't give them ideas. Edited February 12, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 The entrance ticket to Disneyland (and Disney World) already includes unlimited rides.That was not always the case and in fact, Walt Disney has tried several different pricing schemes. (Note that food at Disneyland is not free.)My point is that Disneyland illustrates the problem well: it can charge one price for entry and another price for usage. It's a practical question how best to determine the two prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanyelss Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 I note from various news reports that the cap used by the largest internet providers in the US is 250gb per month. In Canada it's 75gb per month...... cheap wow gold,cartier necklaces,cartier pens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 I note from various news reports that the cap used by the largest internet providers in the US is 250gb per month. In Canada it's 75gb per month...... cheap wow gold,cartier necklaces,cartier pens Go shlep your crap somewhere else... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 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. Shrug, I've had Shaw, and could check on their site for years. And before that I had Rogers (before they moved out of the ISP business in BC) and could check on their site too. And for the last 2 years I've had Comcast and can check on their site. If Bell is having trouble with it that says a lot more about their incompetence than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Go shlep your crap somewhere else... dejavu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Someone help me out here. I went back to the Shaw link and did some math... Five plans available. Five Up/Download speeds. Five different cost/Gb regimes. Lite.......$35/month.....15Gb limit.....1Mbps/256Kbps.....$2.33/Gb High Speed.$47/month.....60Gb limit...7.5Mbps/512Kbps.....$0.78/Gb Extreme....$57/month....100Gb limit....15Mbps/1Mbps.......$0.57/Gb Warp......$107/month....175Gb limit....50Mbps/3Mbps.......$0.61/Gb Nitro.....$160/month....350Gb limit...100Mbps/5Mbps.......$0.29/Gb So how can Shaw say that their infrastructure can't handle the download traffic (up & down) without charging over the cap to pay for upgrades? In the area I live in, the lines were run back in 1999-2001. If the network can't handle all of us in the neighborhood downloading so much, why do they say it's okay for everyone to pay for the "Nitro" package which boosts the user to 350Gb at 100Mps D/L speed and that's fine? I thought they said the network couldn't handle it? Why do they "just have to" charge the guy with a 60Gb limit $2.00/Gb over the cap, unless of course he signs up to pay $113 more per month for the extra 290Gb. Notice the cost per Gb over the cap actually goes DOWN in that package. By the way, I called the other day to ask what would have to be done to upgrade my internet from High Speed to Nitro. Nothing. Just pay the bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I took the liberty of putting together the same outline for Rogers. I followed the same outline Hydraboss provided and omitted the number of email addresses provided. Most people use web-based email providers now because of their protability: Rogers: Ultra-Lite.......$27.99/month......2Gb limit....0.5Mbps/256Kbps.....$5.00/Gb Lite.............$35.99/month.....25Gb limit......3Mbps/256Kbps.....$2.50/Gb Express..........$46.99/month.....60Gb limit....10Mbps/1Mbps........$2.00/Gb Extreme..........$59.99/month.....95Gb limit....10Mbps/1Mbps........$1.50/Gb Extreme-Plus.....$69.99/month....125Gb limit....25Mbps/1Mbps........$1.25/Gb Ultimate.........$99.99/month....175Gb limit....70Mbps/2Mbps........$0.50/Gb I was going to do Bell, but I have some running around to do today. If anyone gets around to it, it would be interesting to see the pricing schemes of all the national providers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I went through Bell's site and I was trying to figure out the priciing for internet packages and I gave up. It occured to me that the pricing on the websites is special pricing for the first 6 or 12 months, but you only find that out after slogging through pages of fine print. Bell isn't exactly forthcoming with the overage charges either. It quite simply takes too much hunting to find out all the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Good information, guys. Thanks for doing that. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Bell Canada Essential Plus...$31.95/month....2Gb limit....2Mbps/800Kbps....$15.98/Gb Performance....$41.95/month...25Gb limit....6Mbps/1Mbps.......$1.68/Gb Fibe 6.............$41.95/month...25Gb limit....6Mbps/1Mbps.......$1.68/Gb Fibe 12...........$51.95/month...50Gb limit...12Mbps/1Mbps.......$1.04/Gb Fibe 16...........$61.95/month...75Gb limit...16Mbps/1Mbps.......$0.83/Gb Fibe 25...........$67.95/month...75Gb limit...25Mbps/7Mbps.......$0.91/Gb ***all plans - added usage $5/40Gb...$10/80Gb...$15/120Gb (do your own damn math). "Fibe" plans are only available if your area is serviced by fibre optic lines. If not, you're maxed at the "Performance" speeds. So the closest match to Shaw's Nitro at Bell would be: $102.95 for 355Gb ($0.29/Gb) BUT you would max out at 25Mbps download as opposed to Shaw's 100Mbps. These boys want to charge HOW MUCH per Gb over the cap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I took the liberty of putting together the same outline for Rogers. I followed the same outline Hydraboss provided and omitted the number of email addresses provided. Most people use web-based email providers now because of their protability: Rogers: Ultra-Lite.......$27.99/month......2Gb limit....0.5Mbps/256Kbps.....$14.00/Gb Lite.............$35.99/month.....25Gb limit......3Mbps/256Kbps.....$1.44/Gb Express..........$46.99/month.....60Gb limit....10Mbps/1Mbps........$0.78/Gb Extreme..........$59.99/month.....95Gb limit....10Mbps/1Mbps........$0.63/Gb Extreme-Plus.....$69.99/month....125Gb limit....25Mbps/1Mbps........$0.56/Gb Ultimate.........$99.99/month....175Gb limit....70Mbps/2Mbps........$0.57/Gb I was going to do Bell, but I have some running around to do today. If anyone gets around to it, it would be interesting to see the pricing schemes of all the national providers. Cyber, I corrected your cost/Gb numbers. Hope you don't mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Cyber, I corrected your cost/Gb numbers. Hope you don't mind. It's all good. I think I was looking at introductory membership costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 So my question for you is this: what resource is being depleted by allowing unlimited internet access versus a cap with UBB? UBB is fine. You can set a per GB cost to the internet and it would be just as fair as the package fees. The problem with UBB is the over-limit traps the ISP's are setting and how shadily that's being done. Network congestion isn't a completely made up issue, but the ISP's are definetely blowing it out of proportion. The real issue here isn't anything but our ISP's trying, any way they can, to rip us off. Our government has thus far done shit all to protect us and we have some of the worst internet on the planet for what we pay because of it. The Americans, who usually don't bother paying attention to us, are even weighing in on the fiasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) Cyber, I corrected your cost/Gb numbers. Hope you don't mind. I just realized where the difference is in our numbers. I was quoting how much the ISP charges per Gb OVER the limit. You were dividing the monthly limit by the price to come up with a per Gb price for the month, assuming one does not go over the limit. Moonbox, I completely agree with you, but still would like to see ISPs offer unlimited access at a reasonable price. Edited February 14, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Great stats above. Could you imagine if UBB came about in 1999, 2000 or 2001. Infact, I didn't get Broadband to my region until 2006. But if these companies benefited from a CRTC ruling in that era. What would UBB look like. 1 Meg was a huge file that took 10 to 15 minutes to download. So, lets Cap that at 15 Meg and then charge extra. OFcourse, bandwidth was much harder to come across back then. And there wasn't the huge adverstising revenue streams that Bell and Rogers could benefit from like they do today. But lets put that cap on. Then , two things may have occurred. 1) No progress to Broadband. 2) Huge rush to Broadband to make HUGE MONEY as people easily exceed the cap. So, while people can think this is a rediculous analogy, no one can tell me what the internet will look like in 10 years. Thus, if we made the decision in 1999 to base UBB on that technology, it sounds both rediculous,and it sounds like a huge windfall for the companies. Freezing a moment in time in 2011, how stupid will we look in 2021, when pipeing is 100 or 1000 times greater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Government overrules CRTC decision: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2011/02/14/bertrand-crtc-internet-usage.html?ref=rss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Hydroboss. In the early 90's Bell Canada DSL was advertised as being unlimited. Was it false advertising? I don't know. High speed costs about 1 cent a GB to the big companies but they charge us $2-4 per GB. That's a massive mark up and robbery. Well both Rogers and Bell, has had caps in their services for a very long time. It was never really enforced. And back in the day at a 1 mbps download connection, it was not very fast (by today's standards) so you'd have to work hard to go over the cap. And yes, it is robbery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) It is all about the bundling and content.... Why buy Shaw basic cable for $45/month plus blah Internet service for another $40/month when you can get Netflix at $8/month with better content, and a smaller ISP service for about $30/month? Services like Netflix and the huge amount of content now downloaded are a massive threat to telecom companies, exp[ecially since many have invested in traditional content production/ provision too.... Bell, Shaw, Rogers, Telus etc have all looked at what has happened to the music industry and given a collective shudder. They cannot give up on UBB. I expect those four companies to be no more than 2 within a few years, if any survive. Edited February 15, 2011 by fellowtraveller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Government overrules CRTC decision: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2011/02/14/bertrand-crtc-internet-usage.html?ref=rss Imagine, the President of the Federation of Quebec Chambers of Commerce (and former head of the CRTC) criticizing the government for trying to appease voters, rather than big business. Shocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Government overrules CRTC decision: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2011/02/14/bertrand-crtc-internet-usage.html?ref=rss Someone with a large stake in the Canadian telecom business is against consumer protection. Shocking. If people like her and her friend Conard had their way you'd still be paying $1.50/min+ for long distance in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Someone with a large stake in the Canadian telecom business is against consumer protection. Shocking. If people like her and her friend Conard had their way you'd still be paying $1.50/min+ for long distance in this country. Frankly, I'd say her opinion is irrelevant. The important part of the story is that the government overturned the CRTC's decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Expensive Telecommunication, a part of our heritage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I think the CRTC and the restof the Civil Service have forgotten its not their job to create policy but to enact te will of our elected officials. Glad to see the CRTC get slapped down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I think the CRTC and the restof the Civil Service have forgotten its not their job to create policy but to enact te will of our elected officials. Glad to see the CRTC get slapped down. Except that the CRTC is in a rather odd position in that one of its powers is to set policy. 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.