View Single Post
  #52 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 12:09 PM
DCCV44.2223 DCCV44.2223 is offline
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FiXT View Post
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.
That's where I stand too, but I very much doubt ISPs will want a properly implemented UBB system, e.g., $2/month modem rental, $5/Month subscription fee, and actual GB used at say $0.5/GB, so $22 + tax for 30GB in a month.

I don't know what the actual usage numbers are but I bet the 80-20 rule applies, so with proper UBB plans, 80% of users will likely pay less and the ISP will not be able to recoup that money from the 20% heavy users since most of them simply be priced out by the $1-2/GB surcharge rate.

I think that will also be a problem for the protest against the proposed "UBB" (which in effect is a usage surcharge) because 80% of the users will not be affected by it -- for now anyways and the average user will have no clue about their future needs if they were to use Netflix or similar services. It's hard to argue against charging extra when people go over cap when majority of users never exceed those caps, it gives CRTC and the ISPs easy PR points.

I've only done this for the Shaw packages so I don't know if other ISPs' offer similar packages but you don't need to be a techie to see that it's NOT usage based and not exactly fair -- the people who use less still pays more per GB, and there's a glass ceiling at 100GB.
Attached Images
 
__________________
iK
Reply With Quote