Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > Networking

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old November 4, 2010, 06:00 PM
odis172's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 682

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
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.
Well Bell's cabling infrastructure was subsidized by the government, back in the day. So it's not fair for Bell to impose restrictions on the independent ISPs. I say stop making excuses that the network can't handle the load, and upgrade it.
__________________
Laptop: Lenovo T420 - Core i5 2520 - 8GB DDR3
Server: 2 xeon E5530 - Asus Z8N-D6 - 12GB DDR3 - 8x 500GB raid 50 - Perc 6/i - Compucase RA448A00
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old January 7, 2011, 10:36 PM
geokilla's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,615

My System Specs

Default

Bringing this back instead of using a new thread. 2 months has passed since we last discussed this and ISPs are putting UBB in effect. My stance on this has not changed one bit and will join in on the fight the best I can. However only UBB talk I've seen so far is on DSL Reports, here, and that's about it. It hasn't made much coverage on the news and newspapers as far as I can tell. I did see the Shaw clip on YouTube.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 02:54 AM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,026

My System Specs

Default

UBB is crap.

Canada deserves a unmetered, unrestricted access to the internet.

Too much bandwidth being used? Then only sell a product that if left running the whole time would still stay in the parameters. I don't care if it's 5mbit. Why are the speeds going up just to have the caps stay the same or lowered? Again, this kind of restriction isn't fair to businesses that use the internet for a backbone, like steam, netflix, etc.

It's pretty obvious that if someone has to buy the $50 block of bandwidth with Shaw because of netflix downloads then it makes Netflix's unlimited HD movies for $7.99 (or whatever it is) pretty damn uneconomical to do so. Perhaps these same people will just keep paying their Shaw cable bill and pay for movie channels then?

I want to pay for speed, and be unrestricted after that point, much like it's always been here with Shaw, Telus, etc. It's worked for years and years. UBB is a way for the telecom giants to keep their monolithic business practices current and does not help out the consumer in any way whatsoever, no matter if they are the customer that goes over in bandwidth or not.

It's shit.

Quote:
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.
What reasoning could ANYONE ever have for being in favor of UBB??? I've never been below 200GB. I would probably shut up and go away if they did $0.05 per GB, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
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.
Yes it is, stay out of my damn pockets. There are already enough hands in it, thanks. That steam game on sale isn't so great when UBB doubles it's price..... and for what?

Last edited by Perineum; January 8, 2011 at 03:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 07:26 AM
JD's Avatar
JD JD is offline
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 6,814

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geokilla View Post
Bringing this back instead of using a new thread. 2 months has passed since we last discussed this and ISPs are putting UBB in effect. My stance on this has not changed one bit and will join in on the fight the best I can. However only UBB talk I've seen so far is on DSL Reports, here, and that's about it. It hasn't made much coverage on the news and newspapers as far as I can tell. I did see the Shaw clip on YouTube.
I'd say it's because Bell and Rogers own the majority of news networks in Toronto at least. I'm guessing Shaw/Telus own them elsewhere.

The news is never unbiased, it simply isn't possible. Especially when a big corporation is behind it.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 08:12 AM
gingerbee's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Posts: 6,824

My System Specs

Default

greed is what drives it not the future. at one point everything will be through one line so why fight it if they wanted to charge me a little more then fine adn as long as this was going to upgrade all networks to make the future a better place for the web then i would be all for it but it's not it greed. period
__________________
Fav quote "One should strive to achieve; not sit in bitter regret." Ronin Harris
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 08:35 AM
sswilson's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 14,221

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perineum View Post


What reasoning could ANYONE ever have for being in favor of UBB??? I've never been below 200GB. I would probably shut up and go away if they did $0.05 per GB, however.


You answered your own question.

I typically do 30 a month, and in 2 1/2 years of use have never once been above 60. Why should I have to subsidize somebody who uses 10 times (or ofen 20 - 30 times) the amount of bandwidth I do?

As I stated earlier in this thread, I fully support tiered pricing, and don't believe that anything in this world should be offered without some form of cap (either structural though lower speeds, or financial through overage charges) as it encourages abuse, and discourages smart use of resources.

OTOH, as I've also stated in here... I do believe that we need some form of secure identifier for commercial bandwidth which would allow it to be treated differently WRT non-commercial bandwidth traffic. That doesn't necessarily mean that it should be free/unlimitted as that would just end up putting the burden of increasing capacity on providers who wouldn't be seeing any financial return. Without some form of control (financial incentive/disincentive), a company like Netflix could come out with a $10/month 1080p live streaming service without having to concern themselves with every household streaming "free bandwidth" 24/7 to the tune of 1TB/month when they're only paying for 10GB.


edit: Here's a thought... let's re-nationalize the transmission lines... I'm sure the government could provide you with lower rates, and better service...... ;)
__________________
EVGA X58 3X SLI / i7 980X / 3X 4G Mushkin Blackline Frostbite / XFX Pro 1000W / EVGA GTX 680 SC+ 2GB / Intel DC S3700 200G / WD 6401AALS / TT Lvl 10 GT
Swiftech MCP655 WC Pump / EK XT 240 Rad / 2X Scythe Ultra Kaze / EK Supreme HF / Primochill Myriad Dual Bay Res / Dell UltraSharp U2412M

Gigabyte C1007UN-D / 2X4G Gskill PC3-10700 / Pico PSU / 2.5" 750G Toshiba HDD / Mini-Box M350 / 1X 19" BenQ / 1X 17" HP
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 09:03 AM
geokilla's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,615

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sswilson View Post
You answered your own question.

I typically do 30 a month, and in 2 1/2 years of use have never once been above 60. Why should I have to subsidize somebody who uses 10 times (or ofen 20 - 30 times) the amount of bandwidth I do?

As I stated earlier in this thread, I fully support tiered pricing, and don't believe that anything in this world should be offered without some form of cap (either structural though lower speeds, or financial through overage charges) as it encourages abuse, and discourages smart use of resources.

OTOH, as I've also stated in here... I do believe that we need some form of secure identifier for commercial bandwidth which would allow it to be treated differently WRT non-commercial bandwidth traffic. That doesn't necessarily mean that it should be free/unlimitted as that would just end up putting the burden of increasing capacity on providers who wouldn't be seeing any financial return. Without some form of control (financial incentive/disincentive), a company like Netflix could come out with a $10/month 1080p live streaming service without having to concern themselves with every household streaming "free bandwidth" 24/7 to the tune of 1TB/month when they're only paying for 10GB.


edit: Here's a thought... let's re-nationalize the transmission lines... I'm sure the government could provide you with lower rates, and better service...... ;)
I'll answer his question. Multiple users in the house cause bandwidth usage to go up. I recently increased my bandwidth for Rogers Express to 60GB to 80GB and I'm still barely making it. Why? I got a PS3 so that eats up bandwidth. I watch drama and anime so that eats up anime. My sister watches the drama I watch along with korean drama (how she finds the time I don't know) and that eats up anime. We both game on our PC, whether it be Facebook games or SC2, so that eats up bandwidth. EVERYTHING eats up bandwidth.

I'm fine with tiered pricing as long as it's reasonable. As it's stated multiple times on DSL Reports, UBB is not. It costs more to provide bandwidth during peak hours than it does during non-peak. And that cost is not even close to the $1/GB or w/e they want to charge us.

Edit: Also UBB is a way for ISPs to reap in profit from people that cancel their TV service.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 09:13 AM
ipaine's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 2,035

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by odis172 View Post
Well Bell's cabling infrastructure was subsidized by the government, back in the day. So it's not fair for Bell to impose restrictions on the independent ISPs. I say stop making excuses that the network can't handle the load, and upgrade it.

See this is the issue. We all paid for the lines to get upgraded. Now take a look at west verus east. In the east there is Bell wanting to charge more and penalize customers for using the service they have been provided. Now in the west Telus has spent about 1.5 billion in Alberta alone on upgrades over the past 2 years and that is why they are not charging overages at all, they have no need. You see their network is capable of the traffic they are selling.

And to the people that are only using a little bit each month that is fine but you have to remember that more and more people are using it more and more without even knowing it. Netflix, skype, youtube, and the multitude of other HD content that is on web. Not to mention that just surfing the web now uses way more bandwidth than before. It will be easier and easier for people to meet and exceed lower limits.

The point is as someone else stated if they can not provide full use of the bandwidth they sell then either slow the speeds down or upgrade their equipment.
__________________
"Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong."


Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 09:28 AM
sswilson's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 14,221

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geokilla View Post
I'll answer his question. Multiple users in the house cause bandwidth usage to go up. I recently increased my bandwidth for Rogers Express to 60GB to 80GB and I'm still barely making it. Why? I got a PS3 so that eats up bandwidth. I watch drama and anime so that eats up anime. My sister watches the drama I watch along with korean drama (how she finds the time I don't know) and that eats up anime. We both game on our PC, whether it be Facebook games or SC2, so that eats up bandwidth. EVERYTHING eats up bandwidth.

I'm fine with tiered pricing as long as it's reasonable. As it's stated multiple times on DSL Reports, UBB is not. It costs more to provide bandwidth during peak hours than it does during non-peak. And that cost is not even close to the $1/GB or w/e they want to charge us.

Edit: Also UBB is a way for ISPs to reap in profit from people that cancel their TV service.
That's fair, but your argument is against the pricing being allowed by UBB not against UBB itself. Railing against the CRTC is the last thing you'd want to be doing as they're the only ones who'd realistically be able to step in with pricing unless the resellers want to start running their own infrastructure.

As it stands, your usage is a perfect example..... if you ran your PC games and your PS3 games along with standard internet usage (not streaming a lot of high def vids every day) you'd be hitting well under 60GB. My son games on Xbox360, and is on the internet with streaming webcam 12 hrs/day. I download a game or two a month, reload/download my steam account every 3 months or so, and have 4 PCs connected 24/7 and yet we hardly ever break 30GB a month.

It's the large "content" from outside sources that's taking up all of your bandwidth, and in your case you could easily pay an extra $10 - $20 / month to give you plenty of overhead for your current usage.

What it all boils down to in the end is that current ISPs with infrastructure shouldn't be held hostage by resellers who want to undercut them while not putting any money into the infrastructure to pay for higher bandwidth traffic. IMO forcing the big providers to allow resellers to use their transmission lines was never a good idea in the first place.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... when the resellers decide to put up their own infrastructure (and service it), they'll be free to set whatever prices they wish. Until then, the only thing the CRTC should be able to monitor is if the big providers are being un-competetive by not offering the ability of resellers to match the services they offer themselves. (i.e. selling bandwidth to resellers at a higher cost than what they sell to their own customers).
__________________
EVGA X58 3X SLI / i7 980X / 3X 4G Mushkin Blackline Frostbite / XFX Pro 1000W / EVGA GTX 680 SC+ 2GB / Intel DC S3700 200G / WD 6401AALS / TT Lvl 10 GT
Swiftech MCP655 WC Pump / EK XT 240 Rad / 2X Scythe Ultra Kaze / EK Supreme HF / Primochill Myriad Dual Bay Res / Dell UltraSharp U2412M

Gigabyte C1007UN-D / 2X4G Gskill PC3-10700 / Pico PSU / 2.5" 750G Toshiba HDD / Mini-Box M350 / 1X 19" BenQ / 1X 17" HP
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 10:17 AM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,026

My System Specs

Default

The issue is that I pay for nothing but internet. I refuse to pay for cable. It's crap and loaded full of advertisements. I would use cable but I get so angry trying to watch a TV program that it's a no go. My time is valuable, I'm not going to watch the same commercial over and over again repeatedly when I already fight for free time

I don't pay for phone either. Minimum price from Shaw and Telus is $30 a month, whereas I have my own service via voip.ms for $1.99/month.

In my case this isn't an issue of going through a reseller. I go through Shaw and Telus, who should be putting money back into the infrastructure they own. Telus claim they have, and aren't going to be charging overages.

Cranking prices is just a way for these companies to make other internet businesses (steam, voip.ms, netflix) suddenly become uncompetitive. I'm sure Shaw would rather I pay for and use their own expensive services, right?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Petition against Modern Warfare 2 for PC Polygon Gaming 59 October 22, 2009 05:09 PM