Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > Networking

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 10:56 AM
sswilson's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 14,227

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perineum View Post
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?
I agree that's part of it, but again... at what point do the non-isp content/service providers factor in the bandwidth they're using for their service? I agree that pricing / GB might need a tweak, but why should third party content producers get a free ride? This is where caps come in, and where the CRTC has a say in how much ISPs can charge resellers, and in how they can structure the way they sell it.

It's not like you'd expect the hydro company to cover the cost of extra electricity you use for a new device/service, why would you expect an ISP to do that?

Like it or not, extra bandwidth takes resources and somebody has to pay the piper whether it's the User, content producer, and/or government (if they decided to nationalize the transmission lines). Expecting a private company to accept lower profits after you've forced them to give up a competetive advantage (transmission line access) is just plain nonsense.
__________________
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
  #32 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 01:02 PM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,026

My System Specs

Default

Well my insurance rates need to drop. I hardly use my car right now and other people drive 100's of KMs per day, and I pay for them, apparently. Everyone else should not be getting a free ride while I get gouged then.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 01:16 PM
sswilson's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 14,227

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perineum View Post
Well my insurance rates need to drop. I hardly use my car right now and other people drive 100's of KMs per day, and I pay for them, apparently. Everyone else should not be getting a free ride while I get gouged then.
Actually, that's already covered. When you apply for insurance they ask you how much milage you put on per anum, as well as if you take your car to work every day and how far. If you quoted them low mileage, you're already getting a discount over and above what folks who put extra mileage on pay.
__________________
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
  #34 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 02:56 PM
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,410

My System Specs

Default

If usage was a real problem for ISPs they would be adjusting the speed tiers more. Low bandwidth caps are just a cash grab and allows the ISP to deter internet usage so they don't have to upgrade. I have no real problem with caps, but 25GB on Bell or 60GB on Rogers is absurd. The internet is slowly replacing tv with media shifting to online, yet our prices/caps are shifting the other way? We used to have no caps, then a small overage charge, then it doubled back in March, and now there will be no upper limit.

UBB wouldn't be so bad if the caps were reasonable

Express -> 150GB
Extreme -> 200GB
Extreme Plus -> 300GB
Ultimate -> 500GB

BW caps should be relative to peak speed. Since a GB of bandwidth costs an ISP a few pennies max, our overages and monthly charges should reflect that. We already have some of the highest prices in the world...sigh.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 05:50 PM
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 242
Default

I have no problem paying for additional bandwidth either, but we are already paying much higher prices for our boardband than other developed countries -- many of them don't have caps. This is just going to make it more expensive especially for people who are switching to the net for the delivery of their entertainment content.

Chart here put together using OECD Broadband data from 2009

__________________
iK
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 06:30 PM
ipaine's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 2,036

My System Specs

Default

I think this is more telling if you ask me. Again from the same OECD stats

__________________
"Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong."


Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 07:24 PM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,026

My System Specs

Default

Prices on everything keep going up, but yet wages are at a standstill.....

More and more each day it's a case of the rich get more spending cash and the middle class get to figure out new inventive ways to pay the bills.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old January 8, 2011, 10:42 PM
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
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).
Paying $47 a month for up to 10/512kb service with only a 60GB cap is not right, no matter how you look at it. Only getting 30% off from retentions made it more bearable for us. It was on the news the other day, and we're paying $10 more compared to the US, and 2X more than European countries. I'm not even going to compare how much we pay for our service to the ones in Asia, such as Korea, Japan, and HK. And please don't say that it's because those places are over 9000 times smaller than Canada. The majority of Canadians live in the major cities. I'm sure if the big companies tried, they can provide service maybe half as good as these Asian countries in the major cities, while leaving the lines as is in the more rural areas where the population is less dense.

Thanks ipaine and DCCV for that information.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old January 9, 2011, 03:10 AM
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,410

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geokilla View Post
Paying $47 a month for up to 10/512kb service with only a 60GB cap is not right, no matter how you look at it. Only getting 30% off from retentions made it more bearable for us. It was on the news the other day, and we're paying $10 more compared to the US, and 2X more than European countries. I'm not even going to compare how much we pay for our service to the ones in Asia, such as Korea, Japan, and HK. And please don't say that it's because those places are over 9000 times smaller than Canada. The majority of Canadians live in the major cities. I'm sure if the big companies tried, they can provide service maybe half as good as these Asian countries in the major cities, while leaving the lines as is in the more rural areas where the population is less dense.

Thanks ipaine and DCCV for that information.
You're damn right they can provide it. Rogers and Teksavvy both make money off of someone getting teksavvy plans and using 200+GB. Roger's makes money off the subscription base and so does teksavvy. With that being said, look at the markup Roger's has on top of that! Profit margins on these telecoms is evidence of the gouging going on.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old January 9, 2011, 09:58 PM
Top Prospect
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 242
Default

This just occurred to me (OK, I know I'm a bit slow) but why is everyone calling this pricing scheme "UBB"?

This is definitely NOT Usage Based Billing from where I stand since if I only use 10GB a month I'll have to pay the same amount of money to Shaw as if I've used 20, 30 or 50 GB.

So maybe we should start calling it what it is, Usage Surcharge or Bandwidth Surcharge..?
__________________
iK
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