View Single Post
  #42 (permalink)  
Old January 26, 2011, 06:05 PM
FiXT's Avatar
FiXT FiXT is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GVRD
Posts: 3,343

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
As I have said before, I am completely for UBB but within limits.

Someone here mentioned that with Netflix's supposed 2GB / HD movie, a family would likely burn through their cap within a month. I beg to differ. Even if a movie was rented every second day, they'd hit 30GB per month. Most sensible internet packages I have seen offer 60-80 GB for a relatively reasonable price (under $60) and many also offer optional overage protection (on Bell it is $5/month for 40GB) and EVERY one offers easy, accessible monitoring tools.

My family, for whom I set up with an AppleTV, and who are also very non techsavvy, went through 19GB of streaming Netflix/iTunes content in 6 days this month. There is only 3 of them in the household.

That represents 1/3rd of their monthly cap.


I do agree with you that Usage Based Billing makes sense IF it is being implemented to properly shape consumers usage habits to keep capacities in check and deliver equal and reliable service to all customers. I do NOT if it is simply being done to generate more revenues for the company and keep a stronghold on monopolies, such is the case with the current predicament.

The current design that the CRTC has allowed has had absolutely zero effort in designing a system whereby ISPs can alleviate congestion of the networks - which, to the best of my knowledge, is what they complain big downloaders are doing.

Big Providers don't pay or have an alloted amount of "GB" they can deliver. There is no magic data pool we are sucking from. The upgrades they are required to make to their lines are required to deal with increased user capacity. I don't argue that heavy downloaders cost extra because they necessitate upgrades, but they are only a problem when the ISPs network is at its maximum and forces an upgrade to deliver proper service to everyone else.

When regular traffic is NOT at its peak and stretching the throughput limits, heavy downloaders have no impact on the internet delivery environment and do not require "extra costs" to host.

This is why many European teleco's have a system whereby users are charged UBB fee's during peak times where they go over a "reasonable amount" that is set for everyone.


The best anaology I've heard is that the Internet and "bandwidth delivery" is just like a water pipe. If you have a pipe that can handle 100ga / min, and during (peak) 8AM shower time "heavy users" force the the water requirements to 110ga / m, because of their excessive showers or 20 faucets on at once, then yes, they should be the ones to pay extra and bear the brunt of the costs to support them.

But when no one is taking a shower at midnight, and there is only a flow of 50 ga /min going through, the extra 50 ga /min capacity that the pipe is able to deliver, isn't costing the company anything in upgrades to handle.

If this was the case, then "heavy users" would be far less likely to clog the pipes during peak times, and thus, the 100 ga/m pipes are perfectly suitable, not extra costs for the company outside of what is routine.

Last edited by FiXT; January 26, 2011 at 06:11 PM.
Reply With Quote