Thread: UBB Petition
View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old November 2, 2010, 05:12 PM
geokilla's Avatar
geokilla geokilla is offline
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,762

My System Specs


Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
Agreed. Bell has every right to impose whatever they want on their resellers. It IS Bell's network which they have spent billions developing.

If TekSavvy et all want to bitch and whine, let them develop their own network. Oh wait, too expensive? TOO BAD!

Welcome to a free market economy.
And so Teksavvy didn't spend millions developing their own network and infrastructure? What we have here in the market are two major players, Rogers and Bell doing what they can to drive out competition. Take a look at the mobile industry. It's thanks to the newcomers such as WIND and Mobilicity do we see better plans from the Big 3. Well better retention plans anyways.

Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
I'm actually in favour of UBB as long as the fees are within certain limits and as long as throttling of legitimate files stays at a minimum. Say between $0.35 to $0.40 / GB in addition to an "access fee". Anyone wanting to download 200GB per month should be more than willing to pay $80 IMO.

And don't start with "well what about GAMES!?". At 2-10 GB per, adding $1 - $4 to the cost isn't that big of a deal IMO.

Should users have access to "unlimited" accounts? Sure, if they are willing to pay for it through a typically high-priced business account.
If UBB was charged on say something like:

$10 for 30GB of bandwidth
$20 for 60GB of bandwidth
$30 for 100GB of bandwidth
$50 for 250GB of bandwidth

then by all means, do it. But they won't. Bandwidth doesn't cost more than a couple cents/GB and yet look at how much Bhell is charging right now? Check out their latest overage fees, courtsy of DSL Reports forum. I've learned a lot about in the past couple weeks.

And here is an interesting read a CRTC document.
It is important to recognize that it is not the absolute volume of traffic generated by a user that matters from a cost perspective but rather the time period when the traffic is generated. For example, Bell's GAS customers' end users are currently limited to a maximum download speed of 5 Mbps. A client that downloads 5 Mbps steadily during the two busiest hours of the day for 20 days will transfer about 88 GB in a month. A second client that downloads 5 Mbps steadily, twenty hours per day for 30 days will transfer about 1,318 GB in a month. Despite the second client downloading 15 times as much data, both users cost the same to serve because both consume the same amount of facilities during the peak period. Essentially, the off peak usage of the second user costs the service provider nothing. But a simplistic UBB measure of GB transferred will penalize the second user severely relative to the first. This creates a significant and unnecessary disincentive with respect to Internet use. This is bad for Canada and Canadians from a policy perspective.
Reply With Quote