Go Back   Hardware Canucks > SOFTWARE > Networking

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 10:59 AM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,040

My System Specs

Default

Competition between ISPs fosters competition elsewhere

87. With every speed increase, the Internet's disruptive impact has widened its reach. Underground services such Napster sewed the seeds that would make iTunes the world's largest music store in just 9 years. Once internet speeds higher than 5mbps appeared, legacy television distribution became a target.

88. The internet is a bastion of free enterprise, innovation and competition. Entrepreneurs will find ways to use the internet's efficient distribution to challenge any/all legacy businesses.

89. Pure play Internet Service Providers have not complained about rising internet usage and welcome the challenge of serving customers with increased needs. And because internet transit is a competitive arena, costs are driven down, so ISPs have no problems purchasing extra capacity.

90. However, incumbents are quite different because they have monopoly in last mile and have vested interests in legacy television distribution (even more now that they also own broadcast networks) and know that the internet could do to their TV business what iTunes did to brick and mortar music stores.

91. An Incumbent retail ISP business is in a conflict of interest against its entertainment business. New competitors such as Netflix, Apple TV, Google TV and ZIP.CA in Canada are emerging. When a customer rents a movie from iTunes or Netflix, this is one less pay per view revenue for the BDU (cable/satellite company).

92. ITMPs such as UBB are a means to curb, delay or even prevent the adoption of these new services, protecting incumbent's legacy TV distribution revenues. Incumbents know that once an application has expanded beyond early adopters, it is unstoppable. YouTube is a good example. So the goal is to nip the TV competition in the bud before it is too late. To this end, the incumbents are using their market power to ensure that no ISP gives the market the choice between incumbent's walled garden legacy TV distribution and innovative Internet-based entertainment.

93. From a competition point of view, the solution which supports the Policy Direction is quite simple: give the market the choice. This means preventing one company from imposing retail restrictions such as UBB and behavioural throttling onto another (or worse: all others). This allows some ISPs to hinder certain new applications while other ISPs will welcome their adoption and the market will then decide which is best.

Where should the money go ?

101. Why should a government reward incumbents who charge punitive rates in order to curb growth and delay/reduce its capacity investments ? Since they claim that the sole reason for UBB is to act as an ITMP, then the collected money does not need to go to the incumbent, especially since they refuse any cost justification for those rates. Therefore, all UBB revenues should go to a broadband fund that would help develop competitive facilities.

102. Perhaps incumbents would change their rethoric on UBB if they were faced with the prospect of getting the reduced usage from ITMPs but not their revenues.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 11:09 AM
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
  #53 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 12:28 PM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perineum View Post
And what about the people that don't get a choice on their internet provider because of where they live?
You can't talk high rural internet access prices and limited choices while negatively comparing our market to the US model. Across the board, regardless of country (US, parts of Europe, etc) customers in rural areas pay an absolute fortune for internet access. They live in the sticks and unfortunately pay more for everything...


Quote:
People who live in rural areas already pay twice the amount for their shitastic internet connection, at least here in BC. Then allowing these companies that have a monopoly in areas to enforce a UBB as well?
Again, it is a self-created monopoly or nothing. Without that lone company providing access and spending the money for the infrastructure to bring access to the rural users, they would have no internet access at all.

UBB isn't going away and I am happy for that. What I don't like is the completely idiotic limits some ISPs like Videotron put upon it. To me, putting a 60GB cap on an ultra fast connection is counter-intuitive and runs against changing market realities. If someone wants more bandwidth, charge them appropriately for it in blocks of preset amounts and I am sure the money will start flowing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 02:07 PM
geokilla's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,626

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
Again, it is a self-created monopoly or nothing. Without that lone company providing access and spending the money for the infrastructure to bring access to the rural users, they would have no internet access at all.

UBB isn't going away and I am happy for that. What I don't like is the completely idiotic limits some ISPs like Videotron put upon it. To me, putting a 60GB cap on an ultra fast connection is counter-intuitive and runs against changing market realities. If someone wants more bandwidth, charge them appropriately for it in blocks of preset amounts and I am sure the money will start flowing.
I'll probably get a warning or maybe even ban for this, but I'm going to say it anyways. You're an idiot for approving of UBB TODAY. I can understand the conversation we had a few months ago in my own UBB Petition thread. Back then, nothing was concrete and we didn't know what the caps were so a lot of the discussion and thing we had and on the Interweb was mainly speculation. However small ISPs such as Primus and Yak has shown what UBB is supposed to do: Raise prices while providing customers with crappier service that's comparable to what Bell retail customers get.

I suggest you read this and then rethink whether you want to support UBB or not.

http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1621527~7113613720f25003c7128aa38c32efe5/CRTC-2010-802-Vaxination-Petition.pdf

As for Videotron, I'm not sure what's going on in Quebec, but I'm pretty sure that there aren't any major ISP providers in Quebec besides Videotron, making them a monopoly which in turn makes them free to do what they want. As for other major Canadian cities, what we got is an oligopoly. If one ISP follows suit, the others will surely follow as well.

Take a look at the wireless infrastructure of Canada. Before, receiving text messages were free and you only got charged for text messages that we were sent out. Then, one of the big 3 which I believe was Bell (see a trend?) introduced a 15 cent per text message received fee, then soon everyone else followed suit. What we have here is in my opinion, the following:

If one of the big companies, whether they're ISP or wireless providers, introduce a cash grab such as UBB or pay to receive text messages and it gets implemented successfully because no one tried to stop it, then everyone else will follow suit. Their goal is to make profit, not serve consumers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 06:47 PM
ipaine's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 2,061

My System Specs

Default

As far as I'm concerned there should be a change in the way we are charged but not based on usage. Call me crazy but they should not be selling you a certain speed without the ability to use it. As an example if they are advertising a 20Mb/s connection then theoretically you could download (upload left out of total for simplicities sake):

20Mb x 8 = 2.5MB/s
2.5MB/s x 86400 = 216GB/day
216 x 30 = 6480GB Monthly

So on a 20Mb/s connection you could at full speed download 6480GB in 30 days. Now do I think you should be allowed to do that much no, but there should be just a simple percentage, about say 25%. That would leave your limit at 1620GB/month. Now that is only using the connection you are paying for at full speed 1/4 of the time. Hell even 12.5% would still be 810GB a month. This is showing how much we are getting ripped off for the product we are purchasing. As it is right now most ISPs would have a cap of roughly 100GB/month, well that equates to only 1.5%. Even going to a measly 5% would still get you 324GB/month which at least is a little better.

How can anyone think it is ok to only allow you to use 1.5% of the connection you are paying for? If the CRTC wants to do anything useful then use this as a base for caps and force the companies to do at least say 10% and if they say their network can't handle that then they need to upgrade their network or not offer such speeds.

So again, at a simple 10% of an actual connection these are the monthly caps you would have to deal with:

5Mb/s = 162GB
10Mb/s = 324GB
15Mb/s = 486GB
20Mb/s = 648GB
25Mb/s = 810GB
50Mb/s = 1620GB
100Mb/s = 3240GB

But of course this would mean actually providing customers with the ability to use their connections and we all know it would not generate more profit and therefore won't happen.
__________________
"Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong."


Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old January 27, 2011, 07:00 PM
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 659

My System Specs

Default

CBC News - Technology & Science - CRTC's internet billing decision appealed
__________________
QuadZilla & The Four Horsemen

Have an A-1 day!
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old January 28, 2011, 02:39 AM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,040

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipaine View Post

So again, at a simple 10% of an actual connection these are the monthly caps you would have to deal with:

5Mb/s = 162GB
10Mb/s = 324GB
15Mb/s = 486GB
20Mb/s = 648GB
25Mb/s = 810GB
50Mb/s = 1620GB
100Mb/s = 3240GB

But of course this would mean actually providing customers with the ability to use their connections and we all know it would not generate more profit and therefore won't happen.
ipaine > CRTC

I couldn't agree more. This setup would actually make sense.

I'd rather download slower than worry about bandwidth limits.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old January 28, 2011, 02:45 AM
Perineum's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Surrey, B.C.
Posts: 4,040

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
UBB isn't going away and I am happy for that.
Uhhh..... why? There is absolutely nothing for you to be happy about. It's not going to impact you in any positive way whatsoever.

Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old January 28, 2011, 03:54 AM
sswilson's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 14,564

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipaine View Post
As far as I'm concerned there should be a change in the way we are charged but not based on usage. Call me crazy but they should not be selling you a certain speed without the ability to use it. As an example if they are advertising a 20Mb/s connection then theoretically you could download (upload left out of total for simplicities sake):

20Mb x 8 = 2.5MB/s
2.5MB/s x 86400 = 216GB/day
216 x 30 = 6480GB Monthly

So on a 20Mb/s connection you could at full speed download 6480GB in 30 days. Now do I think you should be allowed to do that much no, but there should be just a simple percentage, about say 25%. That would leave your limit at 1620GB/month. Now that is only using the connection you are paying for at full speed 1/4 of the time. Hell even 12.5% would still be 810GB a month. This is showing how much we are getting ripped off for the product we are purchasing. As it is right now most ISPs would have a cap of roughly 100GB/month, well that equates to only 1.5%. Even going to a measly 5% would still get you 324GB/month which at least is a little better.

How can anyone think it is ok to only allow you to use 1.5% of the connection you are paying for? If the CRTC wants to do anything useful then use this as a base for caps and force the companies to do at least say 10% and if they say their network can't handle that then they need to upgrade their network or not offer such speeds.

So again, at a simple 10% of an actual connection these are the monthly caps you would have to deal with:

5Mb/s = 162GB
10Mb/s = 324GB
15Mb/s = 486GB
20Mb/s = 648GB
25Mb/s = 810GB
50Mb/s = 1620GB
100Mb/s = 3240GB

But of course this would mean actually providing customers with the ability to use their connections and we all know it would not generate more profit and therefore won't happen.
I could get behind the idea of a fairly low percentage cap, although from the numbers you've thrown out, 10% is probably too high. Cut that in half and we might have what I would consider a reasonable compromise.

That said, your initial premise is flawed WRT offering high speeds with low(er) caps. I rarely go over 40G / month, but I still want the highest speed I can possibly get because I want to be able to get those 40G downloaded without having to wait overnight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perineum View Post
Uhhh..... why? There is absolutely nothing for you to be happy about. It's not going to impact you in any positive way whatsoever.

There is plenty for low(er) bandwidth users (like myself) to be happy about when it comes to putting a price on usage. Without a price on usage, folks like myself who don't even have a torrent program installed will end up paying more than our fair share for the upgrades required to service the 24/7 high bandwidth users.

The basic assumption of folks who want unlimitted bandwidth is that the big ISPs will just accept the lower profits.... not going to happen. If they're currently getting a 10% return, they'll continue to get a 10% return, but those costs will end up being spread out amongst all users regardless of actual use.

Why should I want to pay the same price for my 40G usage as somebody who uses 2T / month downloading pirated copyrighted content?
__________________
MSI Z87I Gaming AC / i5 4670K / 2X 4G Gskill 1866 DDR3 / XFX XTR 750 / EVGA GTX 680 SC+ 2GB / Intel DC S3700 200G / random 160G Sata HDD
Inwin 904 / Swiftech MCP655-b / Alphacool NexXxos XT45 120 Rad / 2X Scythe GT AP-15 / EK Supreme HF / Dell UltraSharp U2412M

Asrock AM1H-ITX / AM1 Athlon 5350 / 2X4G Gskill PC3-14900 / Intel 6235 Wi-Fi / 90W Targus Power Brick / 320G Seagate Momentus / Mini-Box M350 / 1X 22" Dell IPS / 1X 22" HP
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old January 28, 2011, 06:08 AM
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 659

My System Specs

Default

I dont think the low bandwidth users (even on small packages/bundles) realize just how much they are being screwed. Those that are the high volume doanloaders have taken the pre-UBB prices and averaged them out over much more data making it a decent price/gb return. 40gb/mo is being royaly screwed but, if the majority is fine with it we then get the companies pushing further and further resulting with what we have today.

Oh well, pay to play. My 5gb/mo costs me $65 but thats wireless over the cell network with an aircard, tell me thats not being screwed over, especially when their "new" product comes with twice the bandwidth for $5 less per month, boy do I feel like a prized cow roaming the pastures waiting to be milked by Telus :)
__________________
QuadZilla & The Four Horsemen

Have an A-1 day!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shaw or Telus in AB? Silvgearx Off Topic 14 February 26, 2010 08:36 AM
Telus vs. Shaw Polygon Off Topic 18 October 18, 2009 04:56 PM
Shaw HD Unknownm Off Topic 20 September 25, 2009 05:20 PM
Good News and Bad News. need some advice. arekieh Troubleshooting 7 November 23, 2008 09:24 AM
AMD: Want the good news or the bad news first? Cheator CPU's and Motherboards 7 July 20, 2008 08:03 PM