View Single Post
  #43 (permalink)  
Old January 26, 2011, 07:36 PM
headsh0t's Avatar
headsh0t headsh0t is offline
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,568

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FiXT View Post
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.
If your family is using internet for their TV service then obviously they will use more bandwidth and as such should upgrade their internet package for higher caps with the money you save not paying monthly for Cable/Satellite. I'm not really sure the CRTC is regulating Apple TV/Google TV either so Canadian programming gets the shaft that way as well. It seems like they might be regulating Netflix though, judging by their limited selection.

Other than that completely agree with everything else about peak hours, cause ya I was gonna mention that some ISPs in Europe will allow unlimited bandwidth from like 12am-6am and then have certain caps during the peak hours which would be great. Another point you mentioned was that, what happens in the future with our current caps when users need more bandwidth? You know every company is gonna milk it out until they absolutely have to raise caps. BTW you realize MONOpoly means a single enterprise/entity that has dominance in it's industry? :P

And LaughingCrow, I'd say the CRTC is more in bed with, well mostly just Bell, but i believe it also has some ex Telus employees as well as ex Bell employees. I don't think the same is true for ex Shaw or ex Rogers employees. Either way though, the CRTC seems to be doing things backwards by helping out the businesses rather than consumers.

Also, this thread has clearly turned into the same conversation as in the "Canadian Internet" thread
Reply With Quote