Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Networking (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/networking/)
-   -   UBB Petition (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/networking/37632-ubb-petition.html)

geokilla November 2, 2010 01:40 PM

UBB Petition
 
Seems that no one is talking about the CRTC's recent ruling for UBB. Anyways, here's a petition for you all to sign.

Stop UBB

SKYMTL November 2, 2010 01:56 PM

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.

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.

Should users have access to "unlimited" accounts? Sure, if they are willing to pay for it through a typically high-priced business account.

sswilson November 2, 2010 02:28 PM

Yeah, sorry, but if I've got this right, it's the complaint that bell wants to enforce bandwidth fees on the resellers? I don't see why Bell should be forced to allow resellers to offer services that bell doesn't offer themselves (as in unlimited bandwidth).

_dangtx_ November 2, 2010 02:28 PM

greedy bastards.signed

Inik November 2, 2010 02:39 PM

I'm also in favor a good implemented UBB.

I have a concern about legitimate streaming like netflix. It would cost a lot to stream a lot of HD no? I wish they can find a way to exonerate the legitimate streaming from the calculation, but considering the fact that the major ISP are also the TV provider.. they probably don't want the streaming to compete with their TV services.

SKYMTL November 2, 2010 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sswilson (Post 445373)
Yeah, sorry, but if I've got this right, it's the complaint that bell wants to enforce bandwidth fees on the resellers? I don't see why Bell should be forced to allow resellers to offer services that bell doesn't offer themselves (as in unlimited bandwidth).

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.

sswilson November 2, 2010 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL (Post 445388)
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.

I don't thing they should have the right to impose "whatever they want" on resellers as they would then just price the carriage fees beyond profitability in order to shut out the competition. OTOH, if all of Bell's offerings have some form of cap and/or price attached to bandwidth, there's no reason why they should be forced to offer the resellers a set connection price/subscriber which doesn't take actual bandwidth into account.

geokilla November 2, 2010 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL (Post 445361)
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.

And so Teksavvy didn't spend millions developing their own network and infrastructure? What we have here in the market are two major players, Rogers and Bell doing what they can to drive out competition. Take a look at the mobile industry. It's thanks to the newcomers such as WIND and Mobilicity do we see better plans from the Big 3. Well better retention plans anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL (Post 445361)
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.

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.

Should users have access to "unlimited" accounts? Sure, if they are willing to pay for it through a typically high-priced business account.

If UBB was charged on say something like:

$10 for 30GB of bandwidth
$20 for 60GB of bandwidth
$30 for 100GB of bandwidth
$50 for 250GB of bandwidth

then by all means, do it. But they won't. Bandwidth doesn't cost more than a couple cents/GB and yet look at how much Bhell is charging right now? Check out their latest overage fees, courtsy of DSL Reports forum. I've learned a lot about in the past couple weeks.

http://internet.comm.bell.ca/cgi-bin...427&z=34872958

And here is an interesting read a CRTC document.
Quote:

It is important to recognize that it is not the absolute volume of traffic generated by a user that matters from a cost perspective but rather the time period when the traffic is generated. For example, Bell's GAS customers' end users are currently limited to a maximum download speed of 5 Mbps. A client that downloads 5 Mbps steadily during the two busiest hours of the day for 20 days will transfer about 88 GB in a month. A second client that downloads 5 Mbps steadily, twenty hours per day for 30 days will transfer about 1,318 GB in a month. Despite the second client downloading 15 times as much data, both users cost the same to serve because both consume the same amount of facilities during the peak period. Essentially, the off peak usage of the second user costs the service provider nothing. But a simplistic UBB measure of GB transferred will penalize the second user severely relative to the first. This creates a significant and unnecessary disincentive with respect to Internet use. This is bad for Canada and Canadians from a policy perspective.

ipaine November 2, 2010 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKYMTL (Post 445361)
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.

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.

Should users have access to "unlimited" accounts? Sure, if they are willing to pay for it through a typically high-priced business account.


See the problem with your statement is that you seem to think that the fees aren't bad and they only do mild throttling. This is Bell we are talking about, hell any of the big 3, there is no way they will have just and fair fees.

You also mention that we should have unlimited accounts through a high-priced business accounts. You do realize that all of our internet in Canada is already grossly over priced.

There is only one reason that Bell wants to do this and that is because they see things like steam and netflix and see nothing but dollar signs. They just want to take the already over inflated prices and drive them up even higher. But they will advertise even lower prices and just have more and more overage fees, it is not like they will drop prices for anyone. This will only drive prices higher and higher.

Inik November 2, 2010 08:17 PM

I will laugh if they stop the throttling when they'll implement the UBB so they can get more money.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:18 AM.