# Stop the meter on internet use!



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use | OpenMedia.ca

There was discussion about this here the other day.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Funkynassau said:


> Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use | OpenMedia.ca
> 
> There was discussion about this here the other day.


I hope this isn't too late b/c this was rumbling some time ago and we let it go, but I'm going to post it around for folks.

I also helped by cancelling every service I have with Bell yesterday. The guy asked why, I specifically said this and told him to put that as the 100% sole reason.

$200/month, on avg, gone from Bell's coffers. Part of that decision is we simply don't watch TV very often.


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

My ISP is an independent phone co., and not part of Bell. So far there's no cap on our internet service, options are limited where I live.

I posted the link on my facebook page. Good for you to tell the Bell rep why you did what you did!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Can someone explain to be rationally and logically why there shouldn't be usage based pricing to access the net?

Why should someone who uses 20G a month pay the same as another person using 200G per month?

There is a cost involved in accessing the net and the more bandwidth someone uses the higher to cost. 
I'm not saying it's a linear relationship but it's certainly not a flat curve (cost vs bandwidth).


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

There are ISPs who offer prices for those who use little internet, and then they offer unlimited access for people like me who are on here a lot, as are plenty of other people. Why should our unlimited access be taken away or the cost jacked up significantly? I think it's just another scam to get more money out of us.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Funkynassau said:


> There are ISPs who offer prices for those who use little internet, and then they offer unlimited access for people like me who are on here a lot, as are plenty of other people. Why should our unlimited access be taken away or the cost jacked up significantly?


Because in the end somebody has to pay for your usage.
Right now it looks as if the people who use the net very little subsidize those who are on there constantly.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

krs said:


> Because in the end somebody has to pay for your usage.
> Right now it looks as if the people who use the net very little subsidize those who are on there constantly.


If there was a legitimate case to be made for the increased costs, not nearly as many people would be outraged.

As for a the masses subsidizing the few... that happens in every monthly subscription service, everywhere. Cell phones, gym memberships, etc.


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

I was going to say exactly what the poster above me just said! The ones who use little of any service pay the most, doesnt matter what the service is.

Why should I or any other person who pays for unlimited use have to suddenly start paying more so that fat cats like Bell can get even fatter? It's competition that keeps things moving and prices down. I've had unlimited use for close to 15 years now, and I've paid plenty of money in that time for that service and to be nickeled and dimed by Bell or any other ISP would p*ss me off incredibly. 

There are many ISPs who offer various levels of access at various prices so there's something for everyones' needs. I resent another possible intrusion in my life by some company that just wants my money and gives me less in return.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

For my two cents, I think the billing is a scam. Let's look at how Bell charges for land line phones, I don't recall any usage billing on those, outside of long distance.....and you can even buy phone cards for a penny a minute. So what's the difference between land line and the internet...............wait for it................."us"....we flock like lemmings to the ISPs and eagerly await being signed up. When it was just surfing and e-mail, then it was okay...but now that the "net" is the path way to TV, movies and such they see an opportunity to introduce a logic which, on the surface makes sense....but this has become the cash cow for them so they are ramping up the billing. Why is it that we don't get billed on the land lines the same way we are getting billed for the internet...because no one asked that question at the tribunal hearing......


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

Here's an email I got from a friend after I sent her the petition info to sign. I dont know what all the abbreviations mean tho.
***

the company I work for is representing the ISP's on this. CAIP (Canadian Association of Internet Providers) is a division of our company. Here is a message the chairman sent to members today: 


As previously discussed this week, UBB will come into effect on March 1,
2011. I have just received confirmation from the CRTC that the initial
threshold at which Bell will be able to bill wholesale customers will be
60GB as approved in Telecom Decision 2010-255. That was the Decision in
which the Commission initially approved Bell's UBB.

However, Bell has sought a change to the threshold to 25 GB for its Ontario
GAS users on 14 December 2010 under Bell Aliant TN 349 & Bell Canada 7293.
This TN is currently before the CRTC and the record closed on Monday. It is
possible that the Commission will dispose of this TN before 1 March 2011, in
which case it is possible that the current 60 GB threshold gets lowered to
25GB.

Each of you will have to make a decision in the coming days as to what
threshold you will implement with your own UBB on residential service.
Consumer protection legislation generally requires that customers are
provided with a minimum 30 day notice of changes to their service. The
implementation of UBB will probably require you to notify your clients this
week if you have not already done so. If/when the Commission approves the
Bell companies' Tariff Notices you will be required to notify your customers
again of the change from 60GB to 25GB should you choose to start at the 60GB
level.

I hope this brings some clarity to the UBB threshold issue.

Cheers,


----------



## Asherek (Aug 30, 2009)

krs said:


> Because in the end somebody has to pay for your usage.
> Right now it looks as if the people who use the net very little subsidize those who are on there constantly.


That's not necessarily true. There are already lower tier options for folks who don't use the Internet much.

I think the issue in general is that whole thing just feels like a giant money grab. Bell has reported profits all of last year. How much more is "enough"?

Instead of improving the connections and installing more routers, they just want to bleed off customers who use more data. 

How is this going to help advances in technology based on the Internet? Services like Netflix and others are going to suffer heavily as a result of this. Who in their right mind would stream movies from Netflix (legitimate use) and pay unearthly fees for the bandwidth associated?

Fact of the matter is our connections are already slow compared to other countries in the world and we pay MORE than these other countries.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Asherek said:


> That's not necessarily true. There are already lower tier options for folks who don't use the Internet much.
> 
> I think the issue in general is that whole thing just feels like a giant money grab. Bell has reported profits all of last year. How much more is "enough"?
> 
> ...


and that is the only reason, imho, why Bell is doing this - they know that more ppl are going to get their content over the net as opposed to TV.

Anyhoo, let's hope we're not too late for this dance.

krs raises a good point about others paying for usage, but it's true that there are lower tiered options.

for the record, I don't normally use more than 25 GBs. I might depending on if I use Netflix or download more from itunes, but now, if this goes through, I'm going to be paying more b/c of Bell's push to bend the CRTC over the table.

Yes, watching more is my choice,but whether or not I want to pay more for a higher bandwidth might NOT become my choice. That's what ticks me off. We have a great lifestyle here in Canada, but sometimes I think we sit back just a little too much and get bent over the proverbial table. I'm personally tired of it. I'd like a little more control by having other viable options than just 2 bigger companies who have our short curlies in their hand


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I still haven't seen any rationale why there should be no usage based pricing on the net.

Some people are upset because they may have to pay more in the future, that's understandable, but it's no justification or argument that the price of internet access shouldn't be tied to the amount of usage.

I just took a look at Teksavvy's plans since they are often recommended when the question of ISP's comes up here.
They have one plan with a 200G limit and two others called "unlimited".
Do people really think these were "unlimited" - that is just marketing positioning.

The way I understand the change is that there is a cap on the monthly download for a fixed price, not that you suddenly get cut off if you go over the 60 G or 25 G or whatever. 
Cellphone plans work in the same general manner and are even more restrictive. Compared to cellphone charges and what you get out of those plans, internet access is dirt cheap.

I don't restrict myself on the net, upload and download as required - I actually spend much more time on the net than I should and my usage isn't anywhere near 300 GB or even 60 GB. 

There is actually no reason why Techsavvy or any other ISP needs to place a 25 or 60 GB cap on any account. They have all the usage data of their customers to keep the existing plan structure and just adjust the pricing accordingly.
Back to "pay for what you use" - my original point/question.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

krs said:


> I just took a look at Teksavvy's plans since they are often recommended when the question of ISP's comes up here.
> They have one plan with a 200G limit and two others called "unlimited".
> Do people really think these were "unlimited" - that is just marketing positioning.


TekSavvy actually *is* unlimited. There are people that use 2+ terabytes/month, and have had no issues.

I use about 800GB-1TB/month, and have never had any complaints.

There are still some honest companies out there - when TekSavvy says unlimited, they mean it.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

John Clay said:


> TekSavvy actually *is* unlimited. There are people that use 2+ terabytes/month, and have had no issues.
> 
> I use about 800GB-1TB/month, and have never had any complaints.


Wow - I'm obviously a babe in the woods here.

There are three of us sharing the internet connection here (four computers) and last month we used 18.5 Gigs. Two of the users are in their early twenties and they use the net constantly.

Can you give me some idea what would bring the usage of one account up to over a TB each month?
My ISP, KOS, has had a 60 GB cap on their "Mega" plan for years - if I used a TB each month I would be broke by now.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

krs said:


> Can someone explain to be rationally and logically why there shouldn't be usage based pricing to access the net?
> 
> Why should someone who uses 20G a month pay the same as another person using 200G per month?
> 
> ...


Because you agree to a contract with the service provider to give you access to up to a certain amount of data transfer per month. If you use less, that's your choice. But it is not fair to suddenly change the max amounts and nullify the contract unless the customer agrees to it. Otherwise, what's the point of a contract?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> Because you agree to a contract with the service provider to give you access to up to a certain amount of data transfer per month. If you use less, that's your choice. *But it is not fair to suddenly change the max amounts and nullify the contract unless the customer agrees to it. Otherwise, what's the point of a contract?*


This doesn't address the rationale of usage-based pricing...or not...but it is an excellent point.

I actually got into a hassle with one of my cell phone providers when my monthly minutes were suddenly reduced half way through my 3-year contract. 

However, do people actually sign a longer term contract with an ISP? 
I don't think so, at least I don't believe I did.
My ISP never came back to me after "x" number of years to tell me my contract was about to expire and would I sign up for another "x" years.
There needs to be a notification period for any changes, 30 days was mentioned earlier in this thread, but that's it I believe.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

krs said:


> Wow - I'm obviously a babe in the woods here.
> 
> There are three of us sharing the internet connection here (four computers) and last month we used 18.5 Gigs. Two of the users are in their early twenties and they use the net constantly.
> 
> ...


Streaming HD video from sources like Netflix, running my own email server, and doing a lot of work from home adds up very quickly.


----------



## Asherek (Aug 30, 2009)

krs said:


> I still haven't seen any rationale why there should be no usage based pricing on the net.


Simply because it will stifle any forward advancement of technology unnecessarily. The issue is also the way these companies are going to be charging for the usage. It's just too expensive the way it is setup now, without any _reasonable_ justification from THEIR end why it needs to cost this much. Bell and Rogers have come up with arbitrary values that they are charging per usage of data. There is no real rationale (at least ones they will share with us) why each gig costs $1 extra.

Just look at the way the Internet has progressed. 10-12 years ago, the Internet was not as media-rich and content intensive as it is today. I'd like to see this progression continue to go forward, not get stifled by companies like Bell because they do not want to spend money to improve their networks and instead just want to extract every dollar they can out of us.

We're already paying one of the highest rates in the world for our Internet usage for substandard bandwidth. Throwing in a usage based billing on top of this just seems like a giant farce to me. 

I'm not necessarily 100% against the concept of usage based billing itself if it were actually reasonable. The problem? It's not even close to being reasonable the way it is going to be implemented by Bell (and Rogers to follow suit, for sure).


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Asherek said:


> Simply because it will stifle any forward advancement of technology unnecessarily.


How does usage-based pricing stifle the advancement of technology?
Cellphones pretty much use that pricing model - you sign up for a plan with a cap on minutes (or none for big bucks) - if you go over, they really ding you per minute.......and the cell phone technology has virtually exploded over the last few years



> The issue is also the way these companies are going to be charging for the usage. It's just too expensive the way it is setup now, without any _reasonable_ justification from THEIR end why it needs to cost this much. Bell and Rogers have come up with arbitrary values that they are charging per usage of data. There is no real rationale (at least ones they will share with us) why each gig costs $1 extra.


Bell used to have to justify all their pricing before interconnect, when the company was regulated.
There was also a very tight limit on their profit margin.
All that went out the window when people demanded interconnect in Canada and eventually got it.
When is the last time you told a merchant that the price he was charging was too high and would he please justify the price? That just doesn't happen in a "free market" environment, why should this be any different. In a way I don't even understand why CRTC has anything to say about the pricing of internet service.



> Just look at the way the Internet has progressed. 10-12 years ago, the Internet was not as media-rich and content intensive as it is today. I'd like to see this progression continue to go forward, not get stifled by companies like Bell because they do not want to spend money to improve their networks and instead just want to extract every dollar they can out of us.


The progression will continue to go forward as long as every one pays their fair share of existing services. Where do you think the money is going to come from to improve the networks or even maintain what exists today - from you and me, the consumers.
Getting back to Teksavvy - I find their pricing model rather unrealistic.
$32.- with a 200G cap and only $8.- more per month for unlimited (which as earlier posted means at least 2 TB, maybe more).
So one gets at least ten times the cap with only a 25% increase in monthly fees.



> We're already paying one of the highest rates in the world for our Internet usage for substandard bandwidth.


Any thing credible to substantiate this?
From what I saw so far, most countries charge more with a few isolated exceptions - Japan is always the one example people bring up, however their population density is so totally different from ours that one can't really use that as an example.



> I'm not necessarily 100% against the concept of usage based billing itself if it were actually reasonable. The problem? It's not even close to being reasonable the way it is going to be implemented by Bell (and Rogers to follow suit, for sure).


So what do you think would be reasonable?


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

krs said:


> Getting back to Teksavvy - I find their pricing model rather unrealistic.
> $32.- with a 200G cap and only $8.- more per month for unlimited (which as earlier posted means at least 2 TB, maybe more).
> So one gets at least ten times the cap with only a 25% increase in monthly fees.


Transit costs next to nothing at wholesale prices. This is why people are outraged at usage based billing as it's been presented.

TekSavvy's costs are primarily the Bell circuit (About $23.xx/month), additional Bell connections, human support, and transit - once the first 3 parts are paid for, by the regular rate, the rest is peanuts.


----------



## Cliffy (Apr 18, 2005)

John, don't forget to tell people that the UBB on ISPs like Teksavvy is on data _already_ paid for by them. These companies already pay Bell to deliver the data their customers use in dedicated circuits. 

Now the government is allowing them to double bill (how many other companies are allowed to do that?) on this data transit. Bell went to the CRTC and said that they couldn't deliver all this data without affecting their customers, yet they are still selling more transit to these other ISPs for not a cheap amount either. Starting in March, Bell gets to bill not only that, but also bill again for the amount used. Even though that is already paid for. Bell doesn't have to deliver on that completely either with throttling slowing that link for some traffic.

I don't use a lot of data, but between podcasts, Netflix and some online gaming I have been hitting between 25-30 GB of traffic the past few months. I guess I might be paying extra. Oh, and if I have to cancel Netflix I will be sure to let them know exactly why.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

JC -

I was talking about prices and pricing structures, not costs.
Pricing typically only tracks costs in a regulated market - not too much of that left now-a-days.

I assume everyone is fully aware that the internet was never designed for the use it gets today and certainly not where consumers are taking it in the future.
Here is a interesting and recent article:
Streaming video could strain Internet?s capacity


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Cliffy said:


> John, don't forget to tell people that the UBB on ISPs like Teksavvy is on data _already_ paid for by them. These companies already pay Bell to deliver the data their customers use in dedicated circuits.
> 
> Now the government is allowing them to double bill (how many other companies are allowed to do that?) on this data transit...........


Wow - double billing!!!!!
Really - what is this world coming to....................

This is becoming a pretty emotional subject.


----------



## makuribu (Oct 26, 2005)

krs said:


> From what I saw so far, most countries charge more with a few isolated exceptions - Japan is always the one example people bring up, however their population density is so totally different from ours that one can't really use that as an example.
> So what do you think would be reasonable?


Under the new CRTC ruling, I get 25 Gigs per month from Primus before I have to pay extra.

My brother in law pays about the same as I do per month to Comcast in the U.S. and has a cap of 250 Gigs a month.


----------



## greydoggie (Apr 21, 2009)

I fully agree with krs. I don't have an issue with a cap as long as they are within reason. Our house has never gotten near the limits they are talking about. If someone is going all out with their downloads and running a server that generates traffic they should be paying more then the majority of us who use the internet normally. If it means having more expensive plans for people that need the extra bandwidth they can do that too. If I was into downloading movies and using netflix or some other service for tv and movies I would have no problem putting the money saved from cable bills towards internet use.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> How does usage-based pricing stifle the advancement of technology?
> Cellphones pretty much use that pricing model - you sign up for a plan with a cap on minutes (or none for big bucks) - if you go over, they really ding you per minute.......and the cell phone technology has virtually exploded over the last few years


talk about comparing apples to oranges. You can not reasonably compare the medium of the internet to the service of cell phones. The internet is becoming a vehicle for streaming data (audio, and of course video). If the rest of the world is using this technology and canadians can't because it becomes cost restrictive we most definitely will be left behind. 

The problem with UBB is it's always skewed towards the corporaations interests. If i use 30gb *below* my limit, do you think Bell will refund me the difference on my monthly bill? They want to have their cake and charge everybody for eating it too.

Also the idea that usage based billing is implemented in every other aspect of our services is wrong. If i watch 1 hour of TV a day i don't get charged less then the family who watches TV for 10 hours. If i talk for 15 mins a day on my home phone line i don't get charged less than someone who uses that phone line for 5 hours. The idea that internet traffic is dramatically more expensive to run is false. The majority of the cost is in the network, not the data that travels through it. Canadians are already getting shafted on internet costs (about twice as much as the US) UBB will skew that even further.

Internet Speeds and Costs Around the World, Shown Visually


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

I think it all boils down to bell and rogers having virtual monopolies on dsl and cable internet. We all saw it coming, but no one said anything; let alone id anything. And what else do you expect from these big companies. They are designed to make more money, not to be your sympathetic buddy who cares about you. As long as we keep paying them, they'll be more than happy to keep charging us more.


----------



## BlackViper (Mar 2, 2008)

My problem with UBB is that it complicates the existing pricing structures. Many complaints are more appropriately directed at the price plans available rather than UBB in general. I would have no problem paying "by the byte" in theory, but the actual practice concerns me. Bell, for example charges a different rate depending on whether data is ordered in advance of the month, or after the fact. Sometimes one is charged based on available bandwidth, then again on actual use. In some situations the price/GB rises as use increases; or small fluctuations in usage lead to large fluctuations in price. I would hope that free-market ideals lead to consumer-friendly services but oligarchies rarely work that way.


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

hahaha!


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

krs said:


> Wow - I'm obviously a babe in the woods here.
> 
> There are three of us sharing the internet connection here (four computers) and last month we used 18.5 Gigs. Two of the users are in their early twenties and they use the net constantly.
> 
> ...


Netflix, Apple TV, even iTunes or any other streaming service. But its ok that rogers will not charge you if you use their on demand service and order movies from them. Hmmm. It is also funny how rogers lowered their cap limits around the time Netflix launched.

Don't be fooled by them that it costs more for more bandwidth. The infrastructure is already there they just want to rake in the money.

If no one went over their limits and everyone purchased the lite versions of their service they would start crying. This is just a way to stop people from leaving to go to unlimited ISP's.


----------



## Asherek (Aug 30, 2009)

Sorry for the late reply, but seems like others have gotten to this before me.



krs said:


> How does usage-based pricing stifle the advancement of technology?
> Cellphones pretty much use that pricing model - you sign up for a plan with a cap on minutes (or none for big bucks) - if you go over, they really ding you per minute.......and the cell phone technology has virtually exploded over the last few years


As someone else pointed out already, you're comparing apples and oranges. Cellphone technology has exploded in _spite_ of the voice plan caps (which are ridiculous, by the way) due to the way _data_ works (even though voice IS data!). Imagine if you had to use your minutes to download apps for your iPhone? The technology wouldn't have progressed far due to noone wanting to pay absurd fees to use a data system that used your minutes. 

Yes, there are data caps for mobile plans, but they're at least somewhat reasonable (not great either, many other countries get data for much cheaper than we do from Rogers/Bell/Telus). I just don't have the time right now to dig up the proof you require to be convinced of this, but you're welcome to google it up if you wish.



> Bell used to have to justify all their pricing before interconnect, when the company was regulated.
> There was also a very tight limit on their profit margin.
> All that went out the window when people demanded interconnect in Canada and eventually got it.
> When is the last time you told a merchant that the price he was charging was too high and would he please justify the price? That just doesn't happen in a "free market" environment, why should this be any different. In a way I don't even understand why CRTC has anything to say about the pricing of internet service.


Well, that's just my point. Usage based billing, in its current form, is ridiculous because we're trying to have a free market economy while it is being strictly dictated by the CRTC, which makes almost zero sense. There is no free market here, which is why Bell needs to justify their prices. There is no competition here. This is a ruling by the CRTC, which shouldn't be happening in the first place, and probably the biggest reason why I don't like this usage based billing issue.



> The progression will continue to go forward as long as every one pays their fair share of existing services. Where do you think the money is going to come from to improve the networks or even maintain what exists today - from you and me, the consumers.
> Getting back to Teksavvy - I find their pricing model rather unrealistic.
> $32.- with a 200G cap and only $8.- more per month for unlimited (which as earlier posted means at least 2 TB, maybe more).
> So one gets at least ten times the cap with only a 25% increase in monthly fees.


It doesn't work quite like that. If they want to increase the prices, they have to also be willing to upgrade their networks, which I severely doubt is going to happen. As someone else also pointed out, Bell wants their cake and wants to eat it too. Their pricing structure is not going make much sense. Someone who only uses 12 GB of their 25 GB is not going to pay less than someone who uses 24G out of their 25GB cap. 



> Any thing credible to substantiate this?
> From what I saw so far, most countries charge more with a few isolated exceptions - Japan is always the one example people bring up, however their population density is so totally different from ours that one can't really use that as an example.


There was a link to a post showing rates across the world. It's a pretty accurate description of some of the countries in the world. And no, it's not just Japan as is used frequently. We really do pay quite a bit for substandard Internet here.



> So what do you think would be reasonable?


A proper tier structure that starts at reasonable levels. Start with packages of 10GB/month going up either linearly or logarithmically upwards. There's plenty of other countries this pricing structure works well in. Start with a very low base fee and actually charge people for their usage correctly if they want to go down this route. This current pricing scheme is just cash-grab greedy.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

steviewhy said:


> How about for you to unplug your computer from the internet and quit being a shill for Bell.beejacon It costs about a cent for each gig of bandwidth do the math on the markup.


I don't even use Bell for internet service here....but....why is there so much emphasis on *cost*?
We are talking about usage-based-*pricing*.

A price is not determine by the cost of a product or service and some magic mark-up.

Go back and take Marketing 101 again.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Joker Eh said:


> Netflix, Apple TV, even iTunes or any other streaming service. But its ok that rogers will not charge you if you use their on demand service and order movies from them. Hmmm. It is also funny how rogers lowered their cap limits around the time Netflix launched.
> 
> Don't be fooled by them that it costs more for more bandwidth. The infrastructure is already there they just want to rake in the money.
> 
> If no one went over their limits and everyone purchased the lite versions of their service they would start crying. This is just a way to stop people from leaving to go to unlimited ISP's.


You're on the cost bandwagon as well.
But what I want to comment on is this:


> The infrastructure is already there they just want to rake in the money.


Yeah, the infrastructure is there today to handle *traditional* internet use - oh, and a small percentage of users using streaming media, that fine too. But streaming video uses many times the bandwidth of emails, web browsing, even torrent traffic (which was the hot button previously) and as more and more people are doing that, today's infrastructure won't handle that.
So more money needs to be invested to increase the overall bandwidth infrastructure and I think it's only right that those funds should come from the people who are using that extra bandwidth.
There was some website which I can't find right now that monitored internet traffic globally and last time I looked (last year), we were at antwhere between 75 and 90% capacity depending on the country and time of day.
It's not that the internet is loafing along at 5% capacity as some people might think.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I'll bow out - just haven't the time to discuss this any more.

However, one final comment re



> There was a link to a post showing rates across the world. It's a pretty accurate description of some of the countries in the world. And no, it's not just Japan as is used frequently. We really do pay quite a bit for substandard Internet here.


I assume you mean this site:











If you read the comments that people around the world posted you will see that a good percentage disagree with the information shown for their own countries.


----------



## Asherek (Aug 30, 2009)

krs said:


> If you read the comments that people around the world posted you will see that a good percentage disagree with the information shown for their own countries.


I skimmed through most of the comments. There are some people who disagree with the actual numbers, but most of the time agree with the general consensus in terms of ordering. Particularly where Canada sits with the rest of the world. We're definitely not the worst place (and I never said we were), but we really do pay quite a bit for fairly slow speeds here.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> I don't even use Bell for internet service here....but....why is there so much emphasis on *cost*?
> We are talking about usage-based-*pricing*.
> 
> A price is not determine by the cost of a product or service and some magic mark-up.
> ...


as has already been stated, Bell is not really offering or proposing *true* UBB with reasonable mark ups. If Bell had a base network access fee (say $15-$20) and then charged a reasonable amount per GB (10 cents per....which is still a very large mark up) then no one would be complaining.

Even if they don't want to use that system people wouldn't be in an uproar.

The problem is they're forcing their direct competitors to charge for everything over 25GB. and not because that extra traffic is destroying their networks, but because they want to set the rates and kill their competition.

The picture you're trying to paint is that this extra bandwidth is going to bring Bell to it's knees is false. they are not a company in need of protection from the CRTC. the last time i checked Bell's profits were up *84% in back to back years* FFS.


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

Over 73K people have signed the online petition 

It's all about money and greed, just like most of the rest of the things we use in this world.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Funkynassau said:


> Over 73K people have signed the online petition


Hmmmmm...........

I was involved in working on a major petition to the Canadian Federal Government a few months ago (totally different subject) and at that time we were told that on-line petitions are not even looked at or considered.
Makes sense since people can just make up names and email addresses with this petition - pretty much the same as spam.

We ended up having hundreds of volunteers collect signatures all over Canada and presented those to the PM and Minister of Finance.

Having people fill in 'whatever' on this form and sending an automated email to the three or four MPs isn't going to get anywhere.


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

Ah, dont be so negative! People have a need to have their thoughts known and to be able to protest in any way they can. I dont believe much of what the govt. says anyway.

A solution to this could be to leave the 60 gig caps alone and create a newer level higher than that at a higher price, for those power users out there who are heavy into Netflix etc. But that wont fly because then Bell etc cant screw us out of our money as easily.


----------



## doglips (Feb 28, 2001)

Usage Based Internet Billing: What can you do? : Hugh Thompson's Digital Home


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Funkynassau said:


> Ah, dont be so negative! People have a need to have their thoughts known...............


Did you sign the on-line petition?

Your comment brought two thoughts to my mind -

a. There was no opportunity with this petition to include my own comments - so much for letting "my thoughts to be known", and

b- I have no clue what the email actually said that was sent on my behalf with my name to the various ministers - no wonder they won't look at on-line petitions.

I got this garbage back from the site:



> Thank you for signing the petition! Your name has been added.
> The more people that join this campaign, the more powerful our call will be. Please help spread the word -- tweet or email the following link, and share it on Facebook. Tell your family, friends, co-workers, and random acquaintances to join the force against usage-based billing and a metered Internet:
> 
> URL to email: Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use | OpenMedia.ca
> ...


Pretty much the first thing is a request for a donation and then a bunch of non-sensical dribble.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> b- I have no clue what the email actually said that was sent on my behalf with my name to the various ministers - no wonder they won't look at on-line petitions.



It states exactly what the petition says above where you fill in your information :



> Subject: Stop Usage-Based Billing
> 
> I call on Canadian decision makers to stop big telecom companies from forcing usage-based Internet billing on Canadians. Please stand up for consumer choice and competition in the Internet service market. I want affordable access to the Internet.
> Attn: Industry Minister Tony Clement
> ...


not sure how anyone could actually miss that....



krs said:


> Pretty much the first thing is a request for a donation and then a bunch of non-sensical dribble.


It may seem "nonsensical" to you because you don't have a grasp of the issue(s) involved.


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

You betcha I signed the online petition. I used my real name and signed it just once, I didnt "stuff the ballot box".

You let your thoughts be known by signing the petition. If you think it's a good idea to have these caps and raise rates then you dont sign it. Seems kinda simple to me. Just because you cant launch into a speech about the issue doesnt mean you cant have an opinion or sign it.

I also posted the link on my facebook page and sent it to friends as well. I'm trying to do my part as I think this whole idea sucks bigtime. That's why I posted it here too, so people can read it if they want and act accordingly. I'm glad it's been a hot topic here.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> It states exactly what the petition says above where you fill in your information :
> not sure how anyone could actually miss that....


I didn't miss that but what makes you think that is what was actually sent in the email?
Educated guess I suppose.

Normally - when I fill out a contact or email form on the web, I get an email back for my records with what I sent - here I got nothing back exept an appeal for a donation and the same stuff that is on their web site already.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Funkynassau said:


> If you think it's a good idea to have these caps and raise rates then you dont sign it.


I like to save money as much as the next guy but I also try to be reasonable about it.

I think usage-based pricing is fair and it's the norm pretty much everywhere.
And where it isn't, it's being implemented more and more - why shouldn't people pay based on their usage.
Very little in this world is truly free - everything else we may think is free is actually paid for by someone.
We just introduced garbage tags in our area which caused a huge uproar initially - people objected to now having to pay for their previously "free" garbage pick-up.
Well, I can guarantee you that the garbage people didn't work for free, the truck didn't run on love and good words and the guys operating the dump didn't do that as a community service.

Do people honestly think Bell (or any other company) is just pocketing the money they collect? Bell isn't owned by one individual or even a small group of people who are going to line their pockets - most of the profits will be invested in new infrastructure including the Canadian portion of the internet, the rest flows as dividends to shareholders.


----------



## Puccasaurus (Dec 28, 2003)

krs said:


> I like to save money as much as the next guy but I also try to be reasonable about it.
> 
> I think usage-based pricing is fair and it's the norm pretty much everywhere.
> And where it isn't, it's being implemented more and more - why shouldn't people pay based on their usage.
> ...


1) The norm pretty much everywhere? Not in truly advanced countries like Korea, Japan, Sweden, France where you can get much better value for your money and speeds that we can only drool over here in Canada.

2) No one is saying Internet should be free. I don't object to UBB in principle but the way this has been handled is outrageous. Let's take your garbage example and run with it for a minute:

You pay $40/month to have the Bagsavvy Garbage Co. to collect up to 6 bags a week of garbage. You're happy with that, they're happy with that, and the Bell Garbage Truck Co. is happy because Bagsavvy rents trucks from them.

But then Bell gets greedy and says to Bagsavvy they can only collect 3 bags a week and anything more will cost $1000/bag, payable to Bell. Oh, and the rent you pay for those trucks? Well, keep that coming too.

Here's where the analogy breaks down. The truth is much worse. Not only is Bell double-dipping, but they are using their position to impose arbitrary and punitive measures on indie ISPs. Do you really think it's a coincidence that Rogers and Bell dropped their caps when Netflix was launched? Or that the proposed 25GB/month is in anyway reasonable for the Internet in 2011? Of course it's 60GB in Quebec because there is real competition there in the form of Videotron.

And let's keep following your logic in another direction. If I'm supposed to pay for what I get, then how about this? Will granny get a bill for only $10/month because she only uses 500megs/month to check email? That'd be fair, wouldn't it? And if I'm now pulling my weight by paying for my usage then why is Bell still throttling my connection? I paid for those bytes, didn't I? Someone is going to say "congestion control", so let me talk about that next.

No one has actually proven in public that Bell's network is congested. We are just supposed to take their word for it and it's hardly a disinterested opinion. Network congestion is an excuse and nothing more. If they are so badly congested why are they advertising even faster speeds (Fibe)? Why are they launching online video services when their network is allegedly falling to pieces thanks to all those nasty "heavy" users? And let's assume it is a problem -- why throttle with such a heavy hand? Surely the geniuses at Bell can figure out a way to dynamically throttle as needed and not every single day during peak hours. 

Or maybe they don't really give a damn about "invest[ing] in new infrastructure" with all that cash as long as suckers keep coughing up the money for their horrible service. Why would they? 

Here's how UBB could work (and be truly fair):

$5/month connection fee + 10cents/GB to your ISP. Most estimates for wholesale usage I've read range from "free" (thanks to peering agreements) to 1-3 cents/GB (according to Netflix's shareholder letter). That's plenty of profit for the indie ISP and Bell/Rogers. Hell, make it 15 cents. Or $10 connection charge. But let's not pretend that getting shafted by Bell with some vague, implied promise of "future investment" and "fairness" is good for Canadians.

Next you'll tell me that you think charging 15 cents per text message to both the sender and receiver is "fair" too.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that the CRTC ruling allows Bell to waive the UBB for "promotional" offers...and there's no limit on how long those promotions can run. Indie ISPs cannot waive the UBB at all. Do you see why people are screaming bloody murder?


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

Here's what bugs me. For however long, Bell customers have had a 60 gig cap for $X per month, now that is being taken away from them. So they will get less than half of what they got before, for the same money. That sucks. Why should they have to lose what they had? Why not create caps at a higher point than the 60 gigs? With the popularity of online movies etc., Bell stands to make a pile more money, but it just doesnt seem to be enough for them. So they take away what people had previously enjoyed yet the price doesnt come down. 

It's the same idea as many items in the grocery store that have shrunk in size, like toothpaste and shampoo and cookies, to name 3. The price remains the same, but the quantity is less than it had been. That sucks.

KRS you may be a really nice person at heart, but you seem to want to keep on arguing and you just dont seem to get it.


----------



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

http://www.dslreports.com/r0/downlo...c32efe5/CRTC-2010-802-Vaxination-Petition.pdf


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

krs said:


> I don't even use Bell for internet service here....but....why is there so much emphasis on *cost*?
> We are talking about usage-based-*pricing*.
> 
> A price is not determine by the cost of a product or service and some magic mark-up.
> ...


If you are calling this usage based pricing, then I should be refunded an amount for every GB that I dont use from my 25GB cap. If I am in a sense paying up front for an amount of data, why shouldn't I be credited for what I don't use? If I use 24GB this month and 26GB next month, I am still penalized even though the ISP has not provided me anything more than I have already paid for.

I have no problem with setting a reasonable cap. 60GB is reasonable, but when my old "Ultra Lite" service went from unlimited to 5GB a month, I was forced in to the next tier. Rogers indicated that my usage was a pretty steady 12GB per month at that time. Since then I have exceeded 25GB more often than not, with no real change in usage. Can ROgers or Bell be trusted to keep an accurate tally? 

Usually I get a warning that I have hit 75% of my cap, then 2 days later an email saying that I have exceeded it. How can that be? I certainly didn't use 6GB in two days. Obviously their accounting system is less than perfect, so how can they be allowed to use it as a meter for billing?


----------



## ChilBear (Mar 20, 2005)

One thing I have recently noted is when we all open a new web page and the heading is a self loading video clip, that clip continues to download even if you scroll past it. You must stop the video or move to another web page to stop the loading.

I have been combing over our usage (we bump 96gb per month and once have exceeded it) and discovered this just recently. Since we have Rogers Extreme, our kids watch lots of Youtube video and the whole video is usually downloaded in seconds while they decide to continue watching the video usually after 5-10 seconds. this is where I believe all our "phantom" usage is occurring. I have found no way to stop it in a preference setting.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

andreww said:


> If you are calling this usage based pricing, then I should be refunded an amount for every GB that I dont use from my 25GB cap. If I am in a sense paying up front for an amount of data, why shouldn't I be credited for what I don't use? If I use 24GB this month and 26GB next month, I am still penalized even though the ISP has not provided me anything more than I have already paid for.


This is what offends me about cell phone pricing.

I have a 500 minute plan & when it's a slow month & I burn off only 200 minutes I certainly don't get a credit for the balance. However, go over by 35 minutes & expect to be nailed for it on the next bill.

The whole business model, whether internet or cell phone, sucks for the consumer.


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

I have DSL thru my phone line. Is the meter ticking for me even when I have walked away from the computer? Since the connection is always on when the computer is on, is it sucking up bandwidth when in theory "I" am not doing anything on it?


----------



## harzack86 (Jan 30, 2005)

I have no issue with usage based pricing. As long as it's fair.
With Rogers and Bell, we have a huge conflict of interest, as previously highlighted, as they are both providing the pipe and the content. Therefore, its in their interest to make sure you pay for THEIR content, not others, thus it is in their interest that you are not encouraged to use third parties like Netflix or iTunes to access the content...
Again, I have no issue with paying based on my usage, but it has to be fair, with reasonable competition. This is not the case in Canada.


----------



## Asherek (Aug 30, 2009)

krs said:


> I like to save money as much as the next guy but I also try to be reasonable about it.
> 
> I think usage-based pricing is fair and it's the norm pretty much everywhere.
> And where it isn't, it's being implemented more and more - why shouldn't people pay based on their usage.
> ...


You're completely missing the point again on 3 major levels:

1. This is NOT the norm in the rest of the world like you claim. I would like you to actually find me examples where the pricing structure is as asinine as it is at Bell.

2. Usage based billing is fair in theory if it's actually implemented as usage based billing. I don't see why you're not grasping how absolutely ludicrious Bell's pricing structure is. Usage-based should actually be usage based. We should paying a moderate fee for having the connection and billed at a reasonable rate for our usage. Someone who doesn't use the connection much shouldn't be billed much. That's not the case currently.

3. Do you really believe that Bell isn't trying to line their coffers? And by Bell, I mean the board of directors/upper management? Are you that entranced by capitalism that you just don't see what's going on here, especially with the CRTC having a hand in this? You are advocating for a free market; if anything, the way things are unfolding this is turning into the opposite. Less competition, less differentiation. How is this going to benefit anyone aside from those who are getting rich from this?


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

I called up my ISP today (Wightman Telecom - Residential) to ask how much I use in a month and they dont keep records, they have no idea. I said I was concerned about Bell and their new caps on usage and they assured me they do not plan to do that to us, they have discussed it at length in their meetings, and it's not going to happen. I felt better at the end of our chat, but I do know to never say never.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Just wanted to update that I've been called 3 times since i cancelled....2 days ago!
This time, the internet lady offered me $35 - down from the $50 and she guaranteed my cap wouldn't go down.

I said gee thanks, but where were you years ago and why wait until now to drop your pants? Oh and the cap not going down reinforces I made the right decision b/c it just proves my point further that you want the CRTC to impose this limit to screw all the other ISPs and not cap your current customers, therefore creating an unfair advantage by enticing me.

She was trying hard - next asked if I signed a contract which I didn't, and offered to give me a $50 credit to come back (to pay for the non-refundable fee I signed with them). Told her no thanks. Then she tried to get me to leave the account on hold 'in case the next provider isn't satisfactory - to which I responded, then I won't be going back to Bell either. I'll go to Rogers or someone else.

Thanked her for doing her job, but I won't be coming back and put a note on my acct to not call back.

The point of me telling you all of this: I believe, with 3 phone calls in 2 days, that I'm not the only one bailing on them right now. I could be completely wrong - maybe this is normal, but it seems fishy to me.

4 other people I've spoken with are doing the same thing. I'm not sure if Bell will get the message, but it would be interesting to post a poll and find out how many people are leaving Bell and/or Rogers. Trickle, more than a trickle or in droves? Makes me wonder.

As I mentioned before, I never use more than 25 GBs....this is principle as far as I'm concerned and also, I'm still saving money in the end which is a factor.

I sure hope they don't call again b/c I'm a fairly calm guy, but I might just go ballistic if they do...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

^awesome! good for you!


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

I signed and sent away my petition. Not only am I severely outrage by this obvious money grabbing scam, but the larger companies are notoriously known for crappy billing. I don't know how many times in a year I had to call Bell to correct something when I was with them. If this does go through, at least I trust Teksavvy to do accurate billing.


----------



## RiceBoy (Aug 1, 2009)

I am seriously thinking of switching from Rogers to TekSavvy, as TekSavvy cable is available in my area. My 2 concerns are if TekSavvy will have to increase their prices significanty, based on the UBB ruling, and how much of a hassle Rogers would cause to make things difficult in the switch over to TekSavvy. I would still be keeping Rogers cable TV. I'm still on analog cable TV, and staying with it (and the cheaper price + 20% "loyalty" discount) until the mandatory switch over to digital.


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

I agree, good for you to stand up to the Bell lady and tell her no and why you are telling her no. I bet Bell is scrambling, there's no way you are the only one to switch to another company.

83.260 people have signed that online petition as of right now, and there's no way every one of them has signed more than once with a fake name, as was suggested earlier. I wonder how many of that 83,260 have switched or are going to switch.

Indeed it is the principle of the matter, they offer you something, you take it, and then they yank it away from you. That is just wrong and stinks to high heaven.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

RiceBoy said:


> I am seriously thinking of switching from Rogers to TekSavvy, as TekSavvy cable is available in my area. My 2 concerns are if TekSavvy will have to increase their prices significanty, based on the UBB ruling, and how much of a hassle Rogers would cause to make things difficult in the switch over to TekSavvy. I would still be keeping Rogers cable TV. I'm still on analog cable TV, and staying with it (and the cheaper price + 20% "loyalty" discount) until the mandatory switch over to digital.


Again the CRTC ruling at present has nothing to do with Rogers it is only applicable to Bell and their wholesale customers.


----------



## Asherek (Aug 30, 2009)

screature said:


> Again the CRTC ruling at present has nothing to do with Rogers it is only applicable to Bell and their wholesale customers.


For sure, but you know it's only a matter of time before the same kind of ruling will be passed for cable based Internet.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Asherek said:


> For sure, but you know it's only a matter of time before the same kind of ruling will be passed for cable based Internet.


There is a process and each situation will be different. Clearly the Bell decision has set a precedent. It is my understanding Rogers has filed an application for UBB as well... we shall have to wait and see...

The point that I was trying to make to RiceBoy is that jumping off of Rogers because of the Bell ruling is premature at this time.


----------



## Felixtrio (Mar 25, 2007)

I support the metering. Why should I subsidize heavy users with my fees.

If I go to a restaruant and purchase a meal, I don't expect to pay for the group beside me. 

Pay for what you use!


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

Your last sentence was pay for what you use. What about people who use only a portion of the amount of gigs they are allowed per month? Do you think they should get a rebate for unused service? It'd be nice if they did, but they dont.

I am so glad to not be a Bell customer or I'd be searching for a new ISP. What bugs me most is these people signed up for 60 gigs of use per month and it's being yanked away from them,, to less than half of that, for the same money. That is just wrong. Bell would be better off, customer happiness wise, to institute new rates above the 60 gig ceiling and let the power uses pay that rate, rather than nailing everyone else to the proverbial cross with their greed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Felixtrio said:


> I support the metering. Why should I subsidize heavy users with my fees.
> 
> If I go to a restaruant and purchase a meal, I don't expect to pay for the group beside me.
> 
> Pay for what you use!


But you are as it is now... but as a package. It is the same sort of billing you get now with cable TV. Right now your bill doesn't vary depening on how much television you watch, it varies depending on the package you have. Same sort of deal.

However, I have to agree with your sentiment and I think krs' as well. But it is all dependant upon the "unit" price. It should be set such that the current high bandwidth users are paying no more than they are currently.

This way the high bandwidth users (who drive the Internet's development) won't pay anything more than they are now on a per unit basis and light users should have significant savings, relatively speaking. The mid use user may experience savings or slight increases depending on their use... but how does this differ from our taxation system. 

This would be fair to the end users but would probably result in an overall net reduction in revenue to the provider so it will probably never see the light of day as a billing model.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Felixtrio said:


> I support the metering. Why should I subsidize heavy users with my fees.
> 
> If I go to a restaruant and purchase a meal, I don't expect to pay for the group beside me.
> 
> Pay for what you use!


most people wouldn't take issue with UBB if it was implemented fairly and reasonably. but it won't be, and never will be if the current situation is left as is. The problem is Bell/Rogers shouldn't be allowed to own the infrastructure which carries the data while also being the ones who sell the content/service for that data. There is an obvious conflict of interest as they vie for the same business that they're selling to the various wholesalers (not to mention the other various sectors that there is vested interests that work into the equation).

In Germany and other european countries the government has decided to split the companies, so telecoms can not own both. Canada should look at that.

The other option would be for the government to buy the infrastructure from Bell/Rogers and make it a public utility to sell to all ISPs.

Those are the only 2 ways that there can be fair competition for ISP rates.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

just received this message from Teksavvy. You can buy additional 'blocks' of data above the 25 GB in ON and 60 GB in PQ.

For me, if i chose the extra $5, i'll still be cheaper than Bell and my money's not going to those idiots.

ear TekSavvy Customer,

There are a lot of things going on at TekSavvy that we want to be sure you know about, including the introduction of some exciting new services, and changes to some existing ones.

TEKSAVVY VOIP SERVICE On its way!

The TekSavvy voice over Internet (VoIP) service finish line is in sight! We will soon be launching our hot new VoIP service, aggressively priced to allow our customers to save even more with TekSavvy while you benefit from the cutting edge "technology savvy" options you've come to expect from us! Great pricing with great features, coming soon!

Usage Based Billing-UBB

As some of you know, the CRTC recently rendered a decision forcing all independent DSL and Cable Internet providers to substantially match incumbent (like Bell) usage rate caps. This will influence all of our internet service packages eventually, but DSL residential customers in Ontario and Quebec first, as of March 1. Along with you, we are not pleased with this, and our view is more fully expressed in our press release which you can find here: TekSavvy News

From March 1 on, users of the up to 5 Mbps packages in Ontario can expect a usage cap of 25GB (60GB in Quebec), substantially down from the 200GB or unlimited deals TekSavvy was able to offer before the CRTC's decision to impose usage based billing. Users who were on unlimited package rates will be returned to $31.95 capped rates although larger blocks of bandwidth can be purchased.*

In order to facilitate this transition we have constructed a new easy-to-navigate portal at https://myworld.teksavvy.com where our customers can choose from the amended and new packages.
The details of our new rate plans and charges can be found there. You will be able to register using the account information found at the end of this email. More on the portal below. In addition, in order to accommodate these changes, we have amended our Terms of Service, primarily regarding implementation. The amended Terms form part of your Agreement with TekSavvy and can be viewed at https://secure.teksavvy.com/en/termspolicies.asp.

Please note if you do not choose a new service before March 1, 2011, your existing package will be transitioned into an amended package. Existing packages and the ones they will be replaced with in each case can be found at http://teksavvy.com/en/faq-ubb_on.asp for Ontario and http://teksavvy.com/en/faq-ubb_qc.asp for Quebec.

Content and data like Netflix, YouTube, IPTV, large file downloads or other streaming services can consume large amounts of bandwidth and place your cap limits in jeopardy very quickly. We encourage you to monitor your usage carefully, as the CRTC has imposed a very high overage rate, above your new monthly limit, of $1.90 per gigabyte ($2.35 per gigabyte in Quebec). 

The CRTC did however provide an option for insurance usage blocks at $4.75 per 40GB block per month, which can be purchased if you want to reduce your cost for use above 25GB (60GB in Quebec).

Ontario and Quebec up to 5 Mbps users with a monthly limit of 25GB and 60GB respectively:

Insurance Blocks Offered:

* $4.75 - 40GB extra usage
* $9.50 - 80GB extra usage
* $14.25 - 120GB extra usage (maximum 3 blocks)
* $55.00 - 275GB extra usage (maximum 240GB extra usage in Quebec)

To select a new package please visit https://myworld.teksavvy.com
You will be able to register using the account information found at the end of this email.

Unhappy With the UBB Decision? So Are We!-Join Us!

The CRTC decision to impose UBB on the whole market is a big win for Bell and other major carriers, but a big hit to everyone else. To view the CRTC decision, go to:

Telecom Decision CRTC 2011-44

Like our customers, and Canadian internet users everywhere, we are not happy with this new development. We will continue our efforts to fight the imposition of exorbitant bandwidth charges on usage with virtually no incremental cost to Bell and other UBB carriers, and we will develop strategies to restore the usage levels and costs our customers have come to expect. But we need your support to succeed, and get back to the cost structure we have a right to expect.

If like us you are disappointed with the CRTC's decision, make your views known on UBB and what it means to you (and Canada frankly) by going to Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use | OpenMedia.ca, where you will find a petition against UBB. Sign it, get involved, and together we will make a difference! Let everyone you know understand that Canada is about to become the most expensive internet market in the industrialized world!

We will keep you informed of our efforts, and look to you for your help.

If you would like to get more involved go to these links to make your thoughts known and join this battle:

* Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use | OpenMedia.ca - signing the petition will now automatically send our Minister of Industry, Tony Clement, the person politically responsible for the CRTC, an email.
* Join the twitter campaign at Tony Clement: stop usage-based billing! #cdnpoli
* Join the Facebook campaign Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use | Facebook

TEKSAVVY CABLE Internet Expansion

The cable Internet roll-out continues vigorously! We now have Cable Internet, at higher speeds than DSL, across much of the Greater Toronto Area, including Richmond Hill and Mississauga. Many more high speed locations are expected soon!

TEKSAVVY CUSTOMER PORTAL

After months of testing and tweaking we're pleased to announce the launch of our new customer portal, where you will be able to view your customer details, Internet usage and if needed pre-purchase additional usage blocks. Go to https://myworld.teksavvy.com to receive your online access information.


----------



## ApplePie (Feb 28, 2007)

I had 200GB a month from Teksavvy. Soon to be 25GB a month. Almost 90% less. Cost stays the same. I never went over 200GB and never had to think about it. Bell is cash grabbing and gearing up for the loss of TV one day. Teksavvy could make money on 200GB on me, and still can. It is Bell who is pocketing the difference and it is BIG. It is clear what this is about.


----------



## ApplePie (Feb 28, 2007)

Mr. ehMac... could you remove some ads from your website or I will be forced to stop checking in here at all. I am not going to pay Bell so you can advertise to me. Macrumors will be all I can shell out for. lol.

If I don't buy $5 "insurance" (Bell/CRTC scam) for an extra 40GB I would have to pay $2 a GB for a bit of overage instead. The math is pretty clear what this really is. So if I might go over by 3GB I would be a fool not to pay for the "insurance". A ~90% reduction is quite telling.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

200GB to 25GB: Canada gets first, bitter dose of metered Internet


----------



## ApplePie (Feb 28, 2007)

^^^ Good post i-rui.
Cents per GB and falling, not $2 per GB. lol
Mr ehMac why have an ad for netflix of all things? Guess you are going to need to find another sponsor!


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

screature said:


> Again the CRTC ruling at present has nothing to do with Rogers it is only applicable to Bell and their wholesale customers.





Asherek said:


> For sure, but you know it's only a matter of time before the same kind of ruling will be passed for cable based Internet.


No, the CRTC ruling includes Cable too. Rogers has already filed with the CRTC and will be charing UBB starting July 1st 2011.

Bell was just more on the ball (aka, more ready to stick it to their customers).

[Cable] Rogers to implement UBB in july - TekSavvy | DSLReports Forums


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Depends on which ruling one is talking about:

Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-802

_Ottawa, 28 October 2010
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership and Bell Canada – Application to review and vary Telecom Decision 2010-255 concerning usage-based billing for Gateway Access Services

File number: 8662-B54-201009051

In this decision, the Commission approves the Bell companies’ request to review and vary Telecom Decision 2010-255 with respect to the implementation of usage-based billing for their Gateway Access Services (GAS) customers and with respect to equivalent treatment as it relates to promotions. The Commission also approves the Bell companies’ request regarding the level of rates for the GAS UBB component and excessive usage charge, and initiates a proceeding to examine whether the rates for the UBB components of GAS and of third-party Internet access service should be lower than the comparable retail UBB rates. Finally, the Commission denies the Bell companies’ request to readjust the costs used to determine the flat-fee component of GAS._

Is Bell specific.

The most recent one relating to the UBB discount is relative to all wholesale providers:

Telecom Decision CRTC 2011-44

_Route reference: Telecom Notice of Consultation 2010-803

Ottawa, 25 January 2011
Usage-based billing for Gateway Access Services and third-party Internet access services

File number: 8661-C12-201015975

In this decision, the Commission determines that usage-based billing rates for an incumbent telephone carrier’s wholesale residential Gateway Access Services or equivalent services, and for an incumbent cable carrier’s third-party Internet access services, are to be established at a discount of 15 percent from the carrier’s comparable usage-based billing rates for its retail Internet services._

There is no CRTC ruling as yet on the Rogers application.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

liberal party has thrown their hat into the ring

Liberals, NDP urge rethink of CRTC's Internet usage-based billing decision


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Seems Clement may be looking at throwing the decision back to the CRTC:

Ottawa enters dispute over higher Internet fees



> In an interview, Mr. Clement acknowledged the strong reaction. “I am hearing from a lot of people who feel this will damage our economy,” he said. “I have to be fair on these things – but I am hearing from people that they are worried this will stifle innovation because the cost of using Internet services will be prohibitively high.”
> 
> The minister said he will study the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission decision to see how it squares with the government’s commitment to encourage competition and consumer choice. He’ll then make a recommendation to cabinet on how to proceed.





> Mr. Clement, who referred to himself last year as the “consumer minister” in an interview with The Globe and Mail, has been involved in such decisions before. In 2009, the Harper cabinet overturned a CRTC ruling that had blocked Globalive Communications from launching wireless service in Canada because of foreign ownership rules. (Globalive’s major investor is an Egyptian company.)
> 
> *In the Internet ruling, one option would be for cabinet to throw the decision back to the regulator. “We can refer it back to the commission and say ‘We’d like you to look further at this through government policy on competition, on innovation, on consumer choice,’ ” Mr. Clement said. *


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

[email protected] and [email protected] both got emails from me this afternoon

everyone should email the clement email address.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

broad said:


> [email protected] and [email protected] both got emails from me this afternoon
> 
> everyone should email the clement email address.


thanks!

will do.

i think they were on email list from openmedia.ca.
i was on there yesterday and it said b/c i had signed the petition, i just had to confirm some details and they were going to send emails to a bunch of involved ppl with my previously entered email address.

Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use | OpenMedia.ca


----------



## Izzy (Apr 14, 2008)

I think some of the arguments in this thread are missing a few things. 

1. The cost of delivering more data to any given customer is next to nothing once the infrastructure is installed. From Netflix:



> "Wired ISPs have large fixed costs of building and maintaining their last mile network of residential cable and fiber. The ISPs’ costs, however, to deliver a marginal gigabyte, which is about an hour of viewing, from one of our regional interchange points over their last mile wired network to the consumer is less than a penny, and falling, so there is no reason that pay-per-gigabyte is economically necessary. Moreover, at $1 per gigabyte over wired networks, it would be grossly overpriced."


2. The communications industry in Canada is not purely competitive. It is an oligopoly. The companies compete but not enough to rock the boat. The big banks work the same way. The industry is heavily regulated which gives the advantage to the established players. Completely free and open competition would drive prices down.

Charging for traffic on the internet is bad for the consumer and it is bad for the entrepreneur. What happens when they start charging the source of the traffic for movement across the internet? Google can likely pay the tolls but some garage based startup won't be able to.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

> Completely free and open competition would drive prices down.


i dont know if we'll ever see that though. we don't see it from ISPs, we don't see it from cell phones (at least not historically, we have started to in the last year and look at the amazing things that have happened in the canadian cell market, price-wise) we certainly don't see it from airlines, etc etc etc..


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

*Feds To Review CRTC Decision!!!!!!!!*

_The federal government will decide by March 1 whether to reject a CRTC decision on internet billing that has outraged Canadian internet users.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has requested a review of the decision, Harper's communications director, Dimitri Soudas, confirmed Tuesday.

He added that the government was very concerned about the CRTC's decision on usage-based billing and its impact on consumers.

Industry Minister Tony Clement said the government will decide by March 1 whether to accept the decision, send it back for review, or reject it.

_

Read more: CBC News - Technology & Science - CRTC's internet billing decision to be reviewed


CBC News - Technology & Science - CRTC's internet billing decision to be reviewed


----------



## SnowX (Feb 16, 2010)

The new internet? http://www.thepaltrysapien.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/LJCKv.png


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

249,787 people have signed the petition as of right now


----------



## jrichardson (Mar 9, 2007)

So, what's next? lets cap our electricity usage, heating material usage (gas/oil) and water usage! Sorry, you've reached your cap, pay more or go without!


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Excellent article on the subject :

Michael Geist - Unpacking The Policy Issues Behind Bandwidth Caps & Usage Based Billing


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

jrichardson said:


> So, what's next? lets cap our electricity usage, heating material usage (gas/oil) and water usage! Sorry, you've reached your cap, pay more or go without!


That isn't a logical analogy. The difference is that those things require more production of something to supply them. More internet usage, doesn't consume anything more or less.It requires an initial cost to be able to supply so much, but after that it doesn't anything.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I find this confusing.. isn't it already usage based? I mean, just about every ISP caps usage at a certain amount for each package, and then charges fees for going over that limit. So how is what is being proposed different from that?

I think it sucks in any case. Bandwidth 'usage' is a fallacy created by the ISPs to fleece us for more money. They're not running out of bandwidth any time soon.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

jrichardson said:


> So, what's next? lets cap our electricity usage, heating material usage (gas/oil) and water usage! Sorry, you've reached your cap, pay more or go without!





Adrian. said:


> That isn't a logical analogy. The difference is that those things require more production of something to supply them. More internet usage, doesn't consume anything more or less.It requires an initial cost to be able to supply so much, but after that it doesn't anything.


NBPower is asking us to do this right now. 
CBC News - New Brunswick - NB Power asks consumers to cut electricity use

Sure it's voluntary, and not the you get X amount a month type, but it's the same principle. Company promises something, realizes it isn't possible to deliver, so decides to charge more for "overage', customers protest on the internet, but guess what: no one at the company knows what the internet is and proceeds with rate hike and arbitrary tiers. Under normal circumstances, customers just leave that company. But when there's only one or two companies to choose from and they BOTH do this, the only option is to move to Japan or something.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Adrian. said:


> That isn't a logical analogy. The difference is that those things require more production of something to supply them. More internet usage, doesn't consume anything more or less.It requires an initial cost to be able to supply so much, but after that it doesn't anything.


Internet requires electricity, facilities and technicians not to mention equipment (and a pipeline). Are you suggesting that increase of traffic is simply nothing to worry about?


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

What has made people angry is Bell used to give people 60 gigs of usage a month for a certain price. Now it's being scaled back to 25 gigs. They gave people something and yanked it away. That's very different than your hydro bill which was always based on the amount you used in a month.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

Funkynassau said:


> What has made people angry is Bell used to give people 60 gigs of usage a month for a certain price. Now it's being scaled back to 25 gigs. They gave people something and yanked it away. That's very different than your hydro bill which was always based on the amount you used in a month.


Actually Bell used to give you UNLIMITED a month. I left Rogers for Bell for that very reason only 2 years ago.


----------



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

I’m one of those who are ‘Grandfathered’ on the ‘Unlimited Plan’. Unfortunately, I just received another $5 increase to my monthly bill. Yesterday I used the Bell website to send a complaint. I received an email last night concerning the matter. Here are a couple of paragraphs from that message.

There have been questions raised as to the authenticity of the message that have been raised by members at DSLReports.

************************* 


With reference to your mail I would like to assist you with the bill 
charges. Please be informed that *your account is registered with our 
DSL* High speed services in a *no contract term for a price plan of 
$59.90 per month + taxes that has a unlimited bandwidth activity per 
month.

Also there will be a $5 increase will be in effect from January 2011 and
this is applicable for all DSL clients and hence your account is charged
for $64.90 per month + taxes.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

kloan said:


> I find this confusing.. isn't it already usage based? I mean, just about every ISP caps usage at a certain amount for each package, and then charges fees for going over that limit. So how is what is being proposed different from that?
> 
> I think it sucks in any case. Bandwidth 'usage' is a fallacy created by the ISPs to fleece us for more money. They're not running out of bandwidth any time soon.


HI Kloan,

The difference is that they are lowering the usage caps to 25 GB. This hasn't existed before. Different ISPs have different packages ie. up to 200 GBs, unlimited etc... But now the CRTC is saying no to any plan above 25 GBs.

Therefore, the 200 GB plan I just signed up for with Teksavvy is now in severe jeopardy of being reduced to 25 GBs and anything over will be surcharged.

It's basically a rip off.

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

keebler27 said:


> HI Kloan,
> 
> The difference is that they are lowering the usage caps to 25 GB. This hasn't existed before. Different ISPs have different packages ie. up to 200 GBs, unlimited etc... *But now the CRTC is saying no to any plan above 25 GBs.*


That is not true.

I just got an email from my ISP regarding this.

Here is part of it:



> This will serve as your 30 day notice that your account will change at Kingston Online Services in the following ways:
> If you are a current customer that pays $39.95 per month (excluding modem rental) and has 60GB of included transfer per month, your monthly allotment of transfer as of March 1, 2011 will be 25 GB. Additional bandwidth will be available at a cost of $1.95 per GigaByte. Alternatively, customers may purchase (in advance) a 40GB block for $5.00.
> 
> *If you would like to upgrade your existing Mega account to 65GB per month, an additional cost of $5.00 per month will apply.* Please contact our office by e-mail or phone to ensure that your account does not default to 25GB of transfer allotment.


This clearly states I can buy a 65 GB plan for $5.- more than than what the current 60 GB plan costs today.
Sure, it's a price increase, but plans over 25 GB can be made available, it's the ISP's choice to do that or not.

It's also a fallacy that the use of additional bandwidth is "free", if that were true there shouldn't be any multi-tier pricing and we have all been ripped off by the ISPs over the years.

And the net doesn't have unlimited bandwidth either as some seem to think. Especially video streaming and VoIP is gobbling bandwidth up at a much faster rate than originally planned - those two services also require real time connectivity which places an additional burdon on the net.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Good 'ol Canada... where others are moving forward, we continue to move backwards. Cell plans, internet, oil sands.... Oh Canada.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

to clear up a few things :




krs said:


> This clearly states I can buy a 65 GB plan for $5.- more than than what the current 60 GB plan costs today.
> Sure, it's a price increase, but plans over 25 GB can be made available, it's the ISP's choice to do that or not.


The plan still has a 25gb cap. with that $5 you're purchasing a 40gb block of "insurance". I think you can actually buy 3 blocks to extend the max amount of bandwidth you're covered for. This is something the smaller ISPs were able to negotiate from the CRTC.

Officially the cap is 25gb. A small ISP can't offer a larger cap, which you can then purchase those extra blocks for. They're having their business model shaped by Bell.



krs said:


> It's also a fallacy that the use of additional bandwidth is "free", if that were true there shouldn't be any multi-tier pricing and we have all been ripped off by the ISPs over the years.


bandwidth isn't free. but it's virtually next to being free. as has already been stated it costs Bell around 1cent for a GB of data. no one would have a problem with them recouping their cost at a *reasonable* mark up. $2.50 is *not* a reasonable mark up.



krs said:


> we have all been ripped off by the ISPs over the years.


we have been. why can't you understand this?



krs said:


> And the net doesn't have unlimited bandwidth either as some seem to think. Especially video streaming and VoIP is gobbling bandwidth up at a much faster rate than originally planned - those two services also require real time connectivity which places an additional burdon on the net.


If the picture of a congested network is so accurate ask yourself why Bell is trying to switch more customers to it's Fibe TV & "on demand" content? You do understand these services use bandwidth?


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

krs said:


> That is not true.
> 
> I just got an email from my ISP regarding this.
> 
> ...


sorry - I meant you can't buy a plan greater than 25 GBs up front, without paying more. The extra GBs packs supplement the 25 GB plan yes. I had the same email from Teksavvy (it's on a page or 2 previous to this one).


----------



## ApplePie (Feb 28, 2007)

krs said:


> That is not true.


As in your sentence? Then yes you are correct.  If you like it a little more clear... it is YOU who is wrong.

I have 200GB right now if UBB goes though I will get 25GB. My service provider (Teksavvy) wants me to have 200GB not 25GB. I phoned them and asked. It is Bell trying to kill them, take excessive profits, set-up for the future loss of tv etc... - plain and simple. 

I use ~40GB a month. And no! you are not subsidizing me. I am paying my own way and no company would offer a plan at a loss. If they do it is their problem. I also have unlimited long distance. And not everyone is stealing. But I would love to do business with you sometime and give you ~85% less for the same price after a while...


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

Does anyone else feel like krs is here solely for the purpose of having something to argue about? I don't think you get the issue, this is a major blow to indie ISPs and more importantly, Canadian consumers. UBB benefits no one but Rogers and Bell. UBB will allow them to kill off indie ISPs, reduce their costs while increasing their revenue, and squash internet video forcing consumers to pay for their cable/satellite packages. You seem to be alright with paying more for less, I'm pretty sure most others aren't.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i think it's just a misunderstanding.

some people who haven't come close to their bandwidth cap think that they shouldn't have to subsidize for heavier users..... but what they don't understand is that with UBB they're actually just subsidizing the big telecoms.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

This is absolutely disgraceful. Rogers, Bell, and Telus are setting us up for the biggest slap in the face. I'm certain they are going to cry bankruptcy and hold a gun to our heads for a government bail out in 5 years, once they've saturated the market and have long since forgotten how to run a business. Their practices are unsustainable, they are slow to evolve and quick to squash any competition that keeps them dynamic and they have the regulators so squarely in their pocket that they've gotten them to set an arbitrary limit that I haven't found any research to substantiate.

I'm so sick of this...


----------



## Puccasaurus (Dec 28, 2003)

krs said:


> if that were true there shouldn't be any multi-tier pricing and we have all been ripped off by the ISPs over the years.


The irony is strong here


----------



## WestWeb (Jul 11, 2009)

pcronin said:


> ...the only option is to move to Japan or something.


Well you don't need to go that far. There are rural areas in Canada, such as the area I live, where the telecoms simply don't have the technology in place to track our internet usage. I was even speculating there might be a good business opportunity for opening a chain of rural coffee shops that offer unlimited downloading. :lmao: 

Seriously though, that is a totally bogus decision implemented by the CRTC, and I find it hard to believe ANYONE would support these large companies trying to limit our, the peoples, access to information, education, jobs, entertainment, and the many other resources the internet provides our desperate economy in this time of need. All just so the telecoms can make MORE money too. 

The implications of this decision on our society are massive! Think for awhile about the many lower class(and other) people in our country that learn, educate, work, and entertain themselves online. They are going to suddenly find themselves with very limited access to all of these things, and there aren't any affordable alternatives for them either. It is inevitable in these tough economic times that a number of people will turn to crime for an easy living, and to fill the large hole left in their lives by this decision. We taxpayers are the ones that end up paying for the effect higher crime levels will have on our society, and this is just one small piece of the big picture that seems to elude some folks, but I better end the rant here. Thanks for reading.


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Mrsam said:


> Does anyone else feel like krs is here solely for the purpose of having something to argue about? I don't think you get the issue, this is a major blow to indie ISPs and more importantly, Canadian consumers. UBB benefits no one but Rogers and Bell. UBB will allow them to kill off indie ISPs, reduce their costs while increasing their revenue, and squash internet video forcing consumers to pay for their cable/satellite packages. You seem to be alright with paying more for less, I'm pretty sure most others aren't.


No I don't think krs is here just to argue. I'm sure he has better things to do. There are some ppl whom might agree with his thinking and hey, we live in a free country where ppl are allowed to form thee own opinions

Ironic bc it's not really a democracy with what bell and the crtc are trying to do. Lol


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

Mrsam I said several msgs. back that I thought krs just wanted to argue and didnt get what this is really all about. I'm glad to see I am not alone with that thought.


----------



## Puccasaurus (Dec 28, 2003)

George Burger was awesome. Teksavvy scored big time when they hired him. The Bell drone looked like all liars do on TV -- evasive, vague, repetitive. Burger blew him (and that idiot Leary) out of the water.


----------



## MacUnited (Nov 1, 2009)

What an idiot Leary was!!! I'm not sure what was going into his head, but he's got the basis of free and efficient all mixed up, calling small ISPs parasite? I loved it when Burger told him that he doesn't care about him as a shareholder! hehe
I am however, a shareholder of Bell, so I'm kinda conflicted!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

keebler27 said:


> No I don't think krs is here just to argue. I'm sure *he *has better things to do. There are some ppl whom might agree with his thinking and hey, we live in a free country where ppl are allowed to form thee own opinions
> 
> Ironic bc it's not really a democracy with what bell and the crtc are trying to do. Lol


krs is dude!?  Who knew.


----------



## OldeBullDust (Aug 22, 2010)

*An excellent review of the situation*

I expect most of the members here are aware of Michael Geist, but you may not have read his latest comments about UBB, the CRTC, and Canada's internet.

It's a good read and explains things far better than most.

Michael Geist - Unpacking The Policy Issues Behind Bandwidth Caps & Usage Based Billing


----------



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

Think Wrongly, If You Please - But In All Cases, Think For Yourself.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

O'Leary was shut down. 

What I think should have been addressed is that the TelCos are doing this in anticipation of the amount of high-usage Canadians to increase. My parents, for example, never went over a few gigs a month. After I got them an AppleTV for Christmas, they hit 38GB in January from YouTube, Podcasts and renting movies on their AppleTV.

The Bell guy was saying that it is only a fraction of the users who actually use this much data, but everyone knows that the future of content delivery is via the web and they want to cash in on it. Maybe if they hadn't been ripping us off since day one we wouldn't be so pissed, but it is a consistent monopolistic behaviour and they turn to the CRTC to reinforce and support them.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

O'Leary is such a douchebag.


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

From my friend who works in an office associated with the govt., in Ottawa:
*****

latest message from the chairman of Canadian Assoc of Internet Providers

Good morning everyone:

It seems there has been two Armageddons in eastern Canada in the last 18
hours. Some of us are digging out from the "Snowmageddon" while others have
helped launch a storm of another type, namely the fight against UBB.

"UBBmageddon" put CAIP and the industry on/in many Canadian media
sites/publications and has caused a storm of public protest. This was
exemplified by the response to OpenMedia.ca's online petition which, as of
last evening, has sent more than 265,000 "signatures" to Industry Minister
Clement.

The political response to "UBBmageddon" has been unprecedented. Late
yesterday Prime Minister Harper weighed in and tweeted, "We're very
concerned about CRTC's decision on usage-based billing and its impact on
consumers. I've asked for a review of the decision."

I can recall no other time in Internet history where a Canadian Prime
Minister has spoken out publicly in relation to a CRTC decision and ordered
a review.

While it is certainly too early to guess what the outcome will be, I believe
it will be very difficult for the CRTC and Industry Minister to ignore both
the public outcry and the Prime Minister's directive. I would expect a swift
reaction from the CRTC in setting timelines for a review and, hopefully,
staying the current decision.

We have been consulting with other groups as to the best course of action
from a regulatory/political standpoint. Now that there will be a formal
review of the decision we will continue to monitor opportunities for
intervention as they materialize. Once we have established possible options
I'll be asking for input and assistance from CAIP members.

We need to continue to exert pressure on this issue. If you haven't done so
already you can direct your clients to the OpenMedia.ca petition at
Stop The Meter On Your Internet Use | OpenMedia.ca . With the possibility of a spring election,
pressure from voters will help Internet Service Providers across the
country.

Keep up the good fight!


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

screature said:


> krs is dude!?  Who knew.


lol...i could be wrong of course


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

ApplePie said:


> I have 200GB right now if UBB goes though I will get 25GB. My service provider (Teksavvy) wants me to have 200GB not 25GB. I phoned them and asked. It is Bell trying to kill them, take excessive profits, set-up for the future loss of tv etc... - plain and simple.


This is pretty much true. You don't have to ask Teksavvy to realise this. Not everyone knows this, but Bell owns CTV now. Have any of you noticed how they repeatedly mention watching shows on ctv.ca? Once they noticed how many people were actually doing this, the light went on....ding! ding! ding!... and dollar signs filled their eyes. :greedy:


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

keebler27 said:


> lol...i could be wrong of course


Some people look good in drag. Lady Gaga for instance. Or Eddie Izzard.


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> Some people look good in drag. Lady Gaga for instance. Or Eddie Izzard.


Tim Curry in Rocky Horror...
What's her name in Boys Don't Cry...


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

By the way, it's not just the UBB, its the Throttle too. New services could be killed by UBB, but throttling will also make buying a AppleTV, or a network enabled TV a waste of money! Don't let them forget Throttling!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I support the meter, because it doesn't affect me. I estimate I go through 60GB a month, well within my 125GB/mo plan, mostly thanks to Netflix and iTunes, why should I spend the same amount of money as someone who goes through 300GB a month on illegal torrents, at the same time straining resources and slowing down the internet for the rest of us, or forcing internet companies to upgrade service which certainly costs them money.

To put things in perspective, I'm about to take a new job where I'm probably going to go through 6,000km/mo in a pickup, if there were some unlimited gas plan where I could drive however I want for the cost of a Corolla driver who drives 1,000km/mo (that's ~$75/mo), wouldn't that be unfair? And if I whine when some regulatory agency rules to take away that unlimited gas plan and I'm faced with paying $550+/mo, a lot of you would roll your eyes right? 

I rest my case.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

It might not affect you now, but the way the internet is going with higher quality you tube videos and infiltrating advertising, not to mention higher quality email attachments, it could very well in the future. And that's when you're going to get upset.

I use on average 18GB per month, and that's watching tv shows I've missed on the stations websites, email, you tube, and basic web browsing, so it doesn't affect me either. Luckily, I live in QC so the limit was actually changed to 60GB here, as opposed to the 25GB ON got, which makes even more bells (no pun intended) go off in my head. The thing is though, you don't own your internet provider, so you're only paying for the service. If they run out of juice, that's their business to deal with it, not yours, that's not the deal. So, when it's costing Bell 1¢ per GB to provide us with the service, we are not paying for the actual cost for the juice, just the service, so the gas analogy does not hold here.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

bgw said:


> By the way, it's not just the UBB, its the Throttle too. New services could be killed by UBB, but throttling will also make buying a AppleTV, or a network enabled TV a waste of money! Don't let them forget Throttling!


That's why I switched to Teksavvy. they have been fighting this war too for us.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

I heard on the radio this morning that Tony Clement is asking the CRTC to reverse its decision. Just cant find a link to any article.



EDIT: Ottawa to reverse CRTC Internet billing decision - Moneyville.ca


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

dona83 said:


> I support the meter, because it doesn't affect me. I estimate I go through 60GB a month, well within my 125GB/mo plan, mostly thanks to Netflix and iTunes, why should I spend the same amount of money as someone who goes through 300GB a month on illegal torrents, at the same time straining resources and slowing down the internet for the rest of us, or forcing internet companies to upgrade service which certainly costs them money.
> 
> To put things in perspective, I'm about to take a new job where I'm probably going to go through 6,000km/mo in a pickup, if there were some unlimited gas plan where I could drive however I want for the cost of a Corolla driver who drives 1,000km/mo (that's ~$75/mo), wouldn't that be unfair? And if I whine when some regulatory agency rules to take away that unlimited gas plan and I'm faced with paying $550+/mo, a lot of you would roll your eyes right?
> 
> I rest my case.


Ah, but you're mixing up your oranges and apples! It's not the UBB, it's the price. If the CRTC mandated UUB at 5 cents a GB we'ed all be happy, but they mandated at approximately $1.00 to $2.00 a GB, when wholesale it costs less than 3 cents a GB. Being in favour of the proposed UBB is like being in favour of the Government suddenly mandating gas prices to being set at $10 a litre, when it was $1 last week.

Maybe your happy with your plan; but are you happy that the markup on the data sent to you is somewhere between 100 and 1000 times? Are you happy paying about 50X more for service then in some other parts of the world. Are you happy that AppleTV, NetFix and other services will never take off here? You'd be pretty pissed to find something you bought in Canada cost 10X, a 100X more then one bought outside of the country, and had a specially restricted feature set.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

For anyone interested, the the chairman of the CRTC is going to be before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology today, to justify their decision. It'll be broadcast live on CPAC, and available online:
CPAC - Watch Now


----------



## makuribu (Oct 26, 2005)

*Thank heavens for knee jerk populist minority governments!*

I don't mind paying my way on Primus. They get their bandwidth from Bell as mandated by the CRTC, and Bell should be compensated. It's the ridiculously low cap and high cost that bugs me. 

This Baron von Doofenschmirtz in charge of the CRTC is a dud. He gives Bell carte blanche to slow down traffic they don't approve of (ie don't make extra money off), and allows them to vertically integrate and stream CTV/Comedy/Globe and Mail content while making Netflix prohibitively expensive. 

Somehow Bell has convinced him that Netflix traffic and Ubuntu torrents cause more congestion than Daily Show reruns, while Bell has been doing diddly to upgrade their infrastructure.

Bell has had fibre optic trunk lines for 30 years, and hasn't managed to upgrade the last mile because it would be prohibitively expensive? Give me a break! Remember what long distance rates were like in the 1980s?

Give me 250 Gigs per month for a reasonable price and I won't bitch.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

dona83 said:


> To put things in perspective, I'm about to take a new job where I'm probably going to go through 6,000km/mo in a pickup, if there were some unlimited gas plan where I could drive however I want for the cost of a Corolla driver who drives 1,000km/mo (that's ~$75/mo), wouldn't that be unfair? And if I whine when some regulatory agency rules to take away that unlimited gas plan and I'm faced with paying $550+/mo, a lot of you would roll your eyes right?
> 
> I rest my case.


Let's put it in a way that makes more sense, your analogy doesn't, this is not just "unlimited" internet we're talking about.

Let's use your example but change things up a bit. You're starting this new job where you have to drive 6,000 km/month. To do this let's say you use up to 200 litres of fuel per month. You make an arrangement with a gas station for a gas card and pre-pay for that fuel, so you just swipe the card and go at the stations and you can have up to 200 litres of fuel per month with no hassles and no extra cost to you. For the sake of this example let's say also that this is the ONLY way you can buy fuel for this vehicle.

Now ... a year into your "arrangement" the company that supplies the actual fuel to the retailer you are buying from decides that because they only offer gas cards with a max of 25 litres per month that everyone who buys fuel from them, even at the wholesale level, can now only sell gas cards that give you 25 litres per month. They lobby a government agency and get backed up on this, and because of previous arrangements that have been made and had legislation passed on it the end resellers of the gas can't sell their cards for any lower of a price .. they have to be a minimum price. So now your gas card only gets you 25 litres per month instead of the 200 that you paid for and need, and no matter which fuel seller you go to you find out that the it's the same everywhere. No more 200 litre gas cards are allowed, only 25 litre cards and it's all done in the name of targeting the gas hogs that drive too much and take up valuable highway space.

So with your "new" gas card, if you use more than 25 litres in that month, and you assuredly will, then you either pay by the litre @ 100 times the actual cost -- or you can buy some 'gas insurance' where if you know you're going to be over the limit you can pre-buy more fuel at a 'discounted' rate, which is only 20 times the actual cost.

Lastly, you could convert your truck to use diesel instead of gasoline because you can get a 200 litre per month diesel card still, but ... the diesel companies are getting ready to do the same thing, so while it may solve the problem for a while in a few months you'll have paid to convert to diesel and you'll STILL have the same issues.

That is a more apt analogy.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

John Clay said:


> For anyone interested, the the chairman of the CRTC is going to be before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology today, to justify their decision. It'll be broadcast live on CPAC, and available online:
> CPAC - Watch Now


You don't happen to know which plugin is required for this do you? When I load up that page it just says "plugin missing" in the video area for me. Their "help" page is not much help, it tells me to install windows media player or flip4mac (I have flip4mac and perian installed and it still doesn't work).


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

mguertin said:


> You don't happen to know which plugin is required for this do you? When I load up that page it just says "plugin missing" in the video area for me. Their "help" page is not much help, it tells me to install windows media player or flip4mac (I have flip4mac and perian installed and it still doesn't work).


After some digging in the code ... you can open this URL in VLC and play the live stream: 

CPAC 3 English

Not sure that there's an OSX plugin that's going to handle the MPlayer (windows media player) object or not ... but the stream plays well in VLC.


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

mguertin, I liked your analogy. It should help those who currently have not been understanding what this is all about. Thanks.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

mguertin said:


> Let's put it in a way that makes more sense, your analogy doesn't, this is not just "unlimited" internet we're talking about....


I like that. It brings another perspective to the debate. 

We could also add to the debate the issue of throttling, etc. If you didn't buy your gas from the prime gas supplier you can only drive your car up to 30 km/h! Or, in the near future, if you sign up with the prime supplier you can go 100 km/hr to our destinations, but only 35 km/h to other destinations. For example, if you buy Bell's service you can download video from Bell for 5 cents a GB at 10 Mbps, but if you're downloading from Apple's, Netflix, or any other video service it will be $2.00 a GB with a download rate of 0.15 Mbps. 

All these crazy plans and competition blocking techniques must be stopped. And the CRTC's mandate isn't to promote, prop up, enhance or ensure the profits of the legacy media, data providing companies.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

mguertin said:


> That is a more apt analogy.


Agreed.

However, to extend the analogy, wanna bet that the price of crude goes up in the next few months (ie, higher base prices across the board) because they were unable to push this through?


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

FeXL said:


> Agreed.
> 
> However, to extend the analogy, wanna bet that the price of crude goes up in the next few months (ie, higher base prices across the board) because they were unable to push this through?


Yep that's what I worry about too. The politicians are saying that they "need to re-evaluate" which means that they have to find another way to shaft us. They just need to figure out a nicer way to wrap it all up. Sadly I just think it's a matter of time even if they are forced to rescind this current mandate :/


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

mguertin said:


> Let's put it in a way that makes more sense, your analogy doesn't, this is not just "unlimited" internet we're talking about.
> 
> Let's use your example but change things up a bit. You're starting this new job where you have to drive 6,000 km/month. To do this let's say you use up to 200 litres of fuel per month. You make an arrangement with a gas station for a gas card and pre-pay for that fuel, so you just swipe the card and go at the stations and you can have up to 200 litres of fuel per month with no hassles and no extra cost to you. For the sake of this example let's say also that this is the ONLY way you can buy fuel for this vehicle.
> 
> ...


That's not a reasonable analogy at all and I love to know where you pull these "cost" numbers out of the air.
If we paid 100 times actual cost as you claim, or even just 20 times actual cost, the profit level of these companies would be astronomical.

But back to the analogy - 

What we had before was the following (taking Teksavvy as an example):

200 liter gas card at $31.95 per month
Unlimited liter gas card at $39.95 per month

OK, lets multiply the price of the gas card by 5 just so it's a bit more realistic
We now get
200 liter gas card at $159.75 per month
Unlimited liter gas card at $199.75 per month

Does that make any sense?
For just $40.- more each month you can now use 400 liters or 800 liters or 10000 liters.

The new rates with Teksavvy (also multiplied by 5 to relate it to litres):
25 liter gas card at $159.75 per month base price
65 liter gas card add $23.75 per month to the base price
105 liter gas card add $47.50 per month to the base price
145 liter gas card add $71.25 per month to the base price
300 liter gas card at $275.00 per month
Unlimited liter gas card no longer available

Offering "unlimited" bandwidth use of the net never made any sense from a resource use point of view especially if the rate was only a fraction over the 200 GB per month rate.
That was strictly a marketing ploy to attract customers and was bound to go sour sooner or later.
It's no different than many web hosts offering "unlimited" storage as if storage is "free".

Sure, the effective price hikes for users who exceed 25 GB per month are very hefty - don't know off hand if they are unreasonable or not, I'm sure a lot more thought and study went into that than any of us have done in this forum
If you calculate the cost per GB for the various pricing levels Teksavvy offers you get the following: 1.28, 0.56, 0.39, 0.32, 0.18 so the high bandwidth users still get a heck of a break even with the new rates.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

krs said:


> That's not a reasonable analogy at all and I love to know where you pull these "cost" numbers out of the air.
> If we paid 100 times actual cost as you claim, or even just 20 times actual cost, the profit level of these companies would be astronomical.


I wasn't comparing the previous retail to the current retail, I'm comparing the actual cost of Bell providing that 1GB of bandwidth to the current retail, which many credible sites have reported as anywhere from less than a penny to a couple of pennies per GB. Given those numbers my numbers in the analogy were low 

Also not sure where you're pulling THOSE numbers from, multiplying by 5 arbitrarily? Talk about pulling numbers out of the air. You could, if you chose, do actual calculations on using 200G of bandwidth per month with the extortion rates (i.e. bandwidth insurance) or the overage charges. In fact please go ahead and do so if it makes you feel better. You might be surprised at the numbers, especially if you don't buy the "insurance" ahead of time.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2011)

krs said:


> If you calculate the cost per GB for the various pricing levels Teksavvy offers you get the following: 1.28, 0.56, 0.39, 0.32, 0.18 so the high bandwidth users still get a heck of a break even with the new rates.


Ok .. so then if you take those numbers (not sure if you really did the math on them or not) and using the 1 cent per GB cost that many sites have quoted over the last little bit ... then you're paying anywhere from 18x to 128x the cost for the overage bandwidth ... so my numbers don't seem so far off after all ...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> If we paid 100 times actual cost as you claim, or even just 20 times actual cost, the profit level of these companies would be astronomical.


Bell's profit levels ARE astronomical. 

They posted an 84% increase from last years profits. That's on top on the year before where they also saw an 80+% increase from the year before that. I haven't bothered looking back further, but i expect it's more of the same.

I actually pointed this out to you earlier, but apparently you only read what you want to .


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

If we paid 100 times actual cost as you claim, or even just 20 times actual cost, the profit level of these companies would be astronomical.

****
krs:
Applying your thought to Bell, they already make astronomical profits, do you really think they need more? Is there ever a limit to greed? Doesnt seem like it.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

i-rui said:


> Bell's profit levels ARE astronomical.
> 
> They posted an 84% increase from last years profits. That's on top on the year before where they also saw an 80+% increase from the year before that. I haven't bothered looking back further, but i expect it's more of the same.
> 
> I actually pointed this out to you earlier, but apparently you only read what you want to .


I believe those profits come at the detriment of Canadian Society as a whole. If they invested even a minor portion of those profits in Internet infrastructure we probably not be debating this, while using one of the world's fastest and cheapest Internet services, instead of one of the worlds slowest and most expensive. Here is a little information about their profits. First thing I picked up from Google that had numbers.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

> In 2009, BCE reported *net earnings of $1.738 billion, up 84 per cent from $943 million in 2008.* Revenues for 2009 were $17.735 billion, up 0.4 per cent from $17.661 billion in 2008.


http://www.itworldcanada.com/blogs/nw-watch/2010/02/04/bce-inc-profits-up-84-per-cent/52826/

Bell Canada's Profit Doubles - Without the need for usage-based billing | DSLReports.com, ISP Information

Oh yeah. Poor, poor Bell. 

As for TekSavvy's rates, they are not on a sliding scale.

The overage cost without "insurance" is $1.90/GB. The cost of "insurance" is $4.75 per 40GB block - it doesn't get cheaper if you get more. In fact, if you get the biggest block (275 GB) it costs MORE per GB at $0.20/GB instead of $0.118/GB.

See: UBB Notice - TekSavvy | DSLReports Forums

Clearly, at almost 20X the cost per GB for overage not covered by "insurance," someone is making money hand over fist, since it does not cost any more to provide that extra GB to someone without the insurance! The whole thing smells.

Don't know if anyone has referenced this discussion of costs, but it's interesting:

ISP Economics: Just what does a gigabyte cost? - Canadian Broadband | DSLReports Forums


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

We're paying more for less. Isn't it great?


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

> In 2009, BCE reported net earnings of $1.738 billion, up 84 per cent from $943 million in 2008. Revenues for 2009 were $17.735 billion, up 0.4 per cent from $17.661 billion in 2008.


So you're telling me that Bell made 1.738E9 / 33.74E6 = $51.51 (lets say $50) for each Canadian! Wow! And, to boot, they don't serve a large part of Canada.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Analogies just don't apply to this situation… pick your flavour that suits your stance. Cabs cost to sit in them regardless if you move or not. Is that fair? How much gas does a car really consume whilst idling?

I think the issue is that people love the convenience of digital downloads but don't want to suffer for that convenience. Otherwise, what's the point? Right? Why pay a premium on 1s and 0s? But running an ISP has its costs.

I'm kind of on the fence (although I did sign the petition, because I'd personally like to see my caps go away or at the very least get a nice healthy bump). But I'm frankly tired of hearing about people downloading 100s of Gigs of pirated files… I'm a big proponent of supporting the artistic endeavors (music, movies, games, etc.) and have a hypothesis that this was actually intended to reduce piracy (albeit an ass-backwards way since content producers weren't seeing a penny either way).

I don't believe ISPs should have the right to hose customers when they use an infrastructure that was paid, in part, by taxpayers. But the notion that the average person _needs_ 250-500Gb Gb per month is disingenuous.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*But...*



kloan said:


> We're paying more for less. Isn't it great?


... their support service is awesome!


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

An email back from Michael Ignatieff



> It’s another step towards an open and competitive internet in Canada, and it's thanks to you.
> 
> Late last night, news broke that Tony Clement will ask the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to reverse their decision on usage-based internet billing – a decision that allows internet service providers to impose download limits and new fees.
> 
> ...


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

> Cabs cost to sit in them regardless if you move or not. Is that fair? How much gas does a car really consume whilst idling?


while you're sitting in the cab though, even if its not moving the cab driver can't be out picking up other passengers and making money, ergo you are on the clock.

this doesn't really apply to bandwidth though, as its already been proven ad nauseum that the cost per GB is negligible.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> Bell's profit levels ARE astronomical.
> 
> They posted an 84% increase from last years profits. That's on top on the year before where they also saw an 80+% increase from the year before that. I haven't bothered looking back further, but i expect it's more of the same.
> 
> I actually pointed this out to you earlier, but apparently you only read what you want to .


Just lost my post again..............

In a nutshell.
Sorry for not reading your other post re the 84% and 80+% and "more of the same" previous post, I must have missed it but I also don't read every last post.

Anyway - I would love to know where you get your information from because it's definitely wrong.
For 2009 there was an 84% earnings increase compared to 2008, but for one that is nowhere near "astronomical", it's not even 2x the previous years earnings (you were talking about prices at 100x and 20x over cost), but the 2009 earnings were the lowest in the last five years except for 2008 which was an exceptionally poor year.
Great way to take things out of context to try to make a point.
Earnings for BCE were as follows:
2009 $1738
2008 $ 943 (that's what the 84% increase is based on)
2007 $4057
2006 $2007
2005 $1961

The 2009 earnings are actually somewhat on the low side compared to the other years, 2007 included $2406of other special income, so one needs to take that out of the equation.

In any case, a percentage increase of earnings has nothing to do with Bell's profit margin.
Bell is seeing ROI numbers between 5 and 15% in the last five years, 11.3% for 2009 - those are reasonable and not anywhere near astronimical.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

krs said:


> However, do people actually sign a longer term contract with an ISP?
> I don't think so, at least I don't believe I did.


It has to do with the *terms of your contract* at the time you signed up, as long as you don't change your service, it remains in effect. In my case when I signed up with bell High speed 10+ years ago, I signed an unlimited contract now considered *grandfathered* If I decide I want fiber, I will lose my *grandfathered* account, so in reality I'm stuck with the speed, I originally signed up for. I'm sure in the fine print on the current contracts that there is a provision for reducing or increasing caps. Even with the CRTC change there was a clause for legacy unlimited before 2007, for 2nd tier ISP's. Unlimited doesn't mean they can't throttle my account during heavy or peak times, I'm not guaranteed the max speed only unlimited up to that speed.

The same applies for cell phones, at the end of your contract, they continue to bill you at the same rate until you sign a new contract, the old contract remains in force until then on a month by month basis.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> Just lost my post again..............
> 
> In a nutshell.
> Sorry for not reading your other post re the 84% and 80+% and "more of the same" previous post, I must have missed it but I also don't read every last post.
> ...


Why do you feel the need to defend Bell? I am sure they pay people to do that...

If it is just to defend your position that you agree with the premise of UBB, you are going about it the wrong way.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

broad said:


> while you're sitting in the cab though, even if its not moving the cab driver can't be out picking up other passengers and making money, ergo you are on the clock.
> 
> this doesn't really apply to bandwidth though, as its already been proven ad nauseum that the cost per GB is negligible.


Yes, however a cab _company_ serves more than one customer at a time.

Negligible to who? The customer? The ISP still has to service the infrastructure, hire technicians, that facilitate said Gigabytes.

I'm not for UBB but let's be fair, running an ISP isn't as easy as flicking a switch and voila! It's magically there.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lets' stop arguing the analogies as none of them are truly equivalent and only serve to dilute/diminish/inflate the real/specific/relevant issues. 

This is a unique market with its own precedents/history and "rules". IMO the narrower/more specific we keep our focus the more relevant our arguments will be... Other forms of commerce/old paradigms are not directly comparable...


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

screature, maybe she works for Bell! hmmm.....


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> Anyway - I would love to know where you get your information from because it's definitely wrong.


From here regarding the 84% increase :

Bell Canada Enterprises profit up 84 per cent - Industry Watch - IT World Canada Blogs

I can't find the other link, but perhaps it alluded to another year to year raise in the first couple of quarters of 2010.



krs said:


> it's not even 2x the previous years earnings (you were talking about prices at 100x and 20x over cost),


wait, you can't compare the ENTIRE Bell conglomerate's earnings to the per GB cost profit in their broadband usage. There is absolutely no connection. It's been widely acknowledge that price of a GB of bandwidth to providers is anywhere from 1-3 cents (with that price going down). The independent ISPs have asked Bell to open their books so everyone can see their true cost but Bell has refused. I wonder why?

And also there wouldn't be a 20-100X jump even in their broadband profits because they've ALWAYS been overcharging for their DSL service.



krs said:


> In any case, a percentage increase of earnings has nothing to do with Bell's profit margin.
> Bell is seeing ROI numbers between 5 and 15% in the last five years, 11.3% for 2009 - those are reasonable and not anywhere near astronimical.


ROI is not the same thing as profits. I do agree that the 84% increase in profits may be misleading when looking at the last 5 years in context, but it certainly proves that they are not hurting, and that UBB was not in any way needed to save them.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

These analogies are giving me a headache. Many show a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. I would suggest that people use some of their bandwidth to download the actual crtc decision.

But in the meantime, here's a picture of what I saw when I made it to the last page of this thread:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

crawford said:


> These analogies are giving me a headache. Many show a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. *I would suggest that people use some of their bandwidth to download the actual crtc decision.*
> 
> But in the meantime, here's a picture of what I saw when I made it to the last page of this thread:


+1 I have posted the links a couple of times now in different threads.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

crawford said:


> These analogies are giving me a headache. Many show a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. I would suggest that people use some of their bandwidth to download the actual crtc decision.
> 
> But in the meantime, here's a picture of what I saw when I made it to the last page of this thread:


Oh you're going over. Rodgers will spend 3 (or less) cents delivering each GB to you, whilst charging $2.00 for each! Sounds fair to me! Maybe they should invest some of that $1.93 in equipment so your going over isn't an issue. Or maybe they should just charge you 10 cents a GB and take a reasonable profit.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Canada still wants to "discipline the use of the Internet"

Great picture...



> Even if the new billing rules are revoked completely, only indie ISPs would be affected, and they reach only a few percent of Canadian users. As von Finckenstein noted, most of Canada is a functional duopoly. No matter what happens, Bell and the cable companies will still be free to keep jamming low caps down subscribers' throats.


And Konrad STILL just doesn't get it. Sigh. Apparently he thinks it's his job to make sure that the country goes from being a functional duopoly to an absolute one.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Speech

by Konrad von Finckenstein

Chairman
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission



to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology


Ottawa, Ontario

February 3, 2011


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

screature said:


> Speech
> 
> by Konrad von Finckenstein
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting Screature.

This isn't directed at you btw, just at the article 

I saw 2 big issues with this statement:

1. "We have since received from Bell Canada a request that we delay the implementation date by 60 days. " Ok...so who's running the CRTC? Proves our point that the CRTC can't stand on its own feet and needs to be hog tied by a larger company to make decisions.

2. He kept emphasizing that low bandwidth users shouldn't subsidize heavy users. He may be right to a point, but my point is that he doesn't know what the future holds. He claims that on average 15.5 GBs was the average monthly download by Canadians. He might be right, but who's to say it's going to stay the same moving forward as content delivery options continue to evolve? Sure, the avg Canadian might not download alot now, but as more folks adopt the internet to watch content on their devices, computers or TVs, their download usage will increase and with a small cap of 25 GBs per month, their cost will skyrocket. Plus, for those folks thinking of making a change, a 25 GB cap will make them think again and probably stay with their satellite subscriptions or worse, stay away from smaller ISPs, therefore strengthening the duolopy even more!

I think his idea of a cap is perhaps well intended, but incredibly short sighted if he's basing his reasoning on 1 or 2 years worth of data.

I personally don't buy it. I truly believe Bell is doing this b/c they are losing satellite customers who are finding their content online one way or another. They'll never come out and say it but even before I left Bell, I know a number of people who were in the process and more who already had left Bell or Rogers for that matter. Sure, it's not a scientific study, but if people around me are doing it, I can believe even more are in the same boat.

Unless I missed it, there other thing that bothers me is there was no precursor issue before this motion was filed last year - did the internet suddenly bog down, did it crash like the electrical blackout a few years ago? I just think it was a hasty decision and made by my point #1, led by Bell!!!!

Will be interesting to see where this all goes. I personally think there will be a cap, but they'll come back with a higher amount, which will still not be effective imho.

Cheers,
Keebler


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Keebler,

I agree with you entirely on your second point. 

The TelCos are doing this in anticipation that internet-based content delivery devices such as AppleTV and as more and more TV sets and DVD players come equipped with Netflix, GoogleVideo and YouTube integration, people will be watching less and less regular cable and satellite programming and more online content. The TelCos don't want to loose this revenue, and are therefore lobbying for usage based billing. 

This is nothing more than a money grab and the CRTC is complicit in it. To me, this demonstrates that the CRTC is an antiquated bureaucracy that is impeding the market. 

For example, why in the hell would I watch CNN's garbage when I could watch this on YouTube? (YouTube - Riz Khan - Tariq Ramadan and Slavoj Zizek on the future of Egyptian politics)


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

The big problem is, it doesn't account for the future.... Five years ago I averaged less than 1GB. Now I'm averaging 18GB. I'm not spending more time on the internet, but the basic internet experience has changed, as has browsers (right now I have 4 tabs open). So how much am I going to be using in another five years? I will certainly be going over the limit, and that won't be because I decided to join Netflix, it's will be because technology changes.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

singingcrow said:


> The big problem is, it doesn't account for the future.... Five years ago I averaged less than 1GB. Now I'm averaging 18GB. I'm not spending more time on the internet, but the basic internet experience has changed, as has browsers (right now I have 4 tabs open). So how much am I going to be using in another five years? I will certainly be going over the limit, and that won't be because I decided to join Netflix, it's will be because technology changes.


Yep, exactly.

This is an election issue for me. Whatever party proposes dissolving the CRTC gets my vote.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> Yep, exactly.
> 
> This is an election issue for me. Whatever party proposes dissolving the CRTC gets my vote.


+1 :clap:


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Yep, exactly.
> 
> This is an election issue for me. Whatever party proposes dissolving the CRTC gets my vote.


Telecommunications should be taken out of the CRTC's mandate and handled by elected officials. It's evident the CRTC isn't equipped to consider consumer interest and is only looking out for the interests of Bell/Rogers. Time for them go back back to focusing on television and radio licenses.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Mrsam said:


> Telecommunications should be taken out of the CRTC's mandate and handled by elected officials. It's evident the CRTC isn't equipped to consider consumer interest and is only looking out for the interests of Bell/Rogers. Time for them go back back to focusing on television and radio licenses.


That inevitably happens with stagnant bureaucracies. The big boys just have to get one guy in top management to conquer the whole organisation. That is an easy task when you are recording profits well into the tens of billions per year.

You know, Adam Smith said there are three instances when government can intervene in the economy. The first, to prevent monopolies (capitalism has a natural propensity towards monopolies); second, for national defence purposes; third, to keep private capital the hell away from public government.

The CRTC represents two of these fears.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

You know folks, I was thinking. I have a bad feeling that they might implement some sort of UBB and if they do, they shouldn't have caps at all. Just a flat rate per GB download.

That way at least, we'd be paying for exactly what we use and not overpaying for something we didn't use.

time will tell eh?


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

That'd be great if they weren't ripping us off for the amount per GB. I would have no problem whatsoever paying per GB if it was actually reasonably priced.. as in $0.25/GB. As it is right now it's a complete and utter rip off. $1-$2 per is absolutely insane.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Adrian et al, I can sum this up in one simple comment that my, then 6 year old, son made, when I told him to get off the computer and internet and watch TV: "TV is for old people."

Bell and Rogers can't fight that. But they can, with the help of the CRTC, make it very hard for us to afford a full media lifestyle over the net.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

kloan said:


> That'd be great if they weren't ripping us off for the amount per GB. I would have no problem whatsoever paying per GB if it was actually reasonably priced.. as in $0.25/GB. As it is right now it's a complete and utter rip off. $1-$2 per is absolutely insane.


Sure go with unlimited, with a per GB charge. Even $0.25 is outragous when it costs less that $0.03 to deliver. Lets say $0.03 wholesale, then let the ISP decide. I bet it the service would come in at $0.10 a GB plus a basic monthly connection fee. Still the providers would be making money.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

bgw said:


> Adrian et al, I can sum this up in one simple comment that my, then 6 year old, son made, when I told him to get off the computer and internet and watch TV: "TV is for old people."
> 
> Bell and Rogers can't fight that. But they can, with the help of the CRTC, make it very hard for us to afford a full media lifestyle over the net.


So true.Out of the mouthes of babes....


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Ottawaman said:


> So true.Out of the mouthes of babes....


Ya, when I heard that I was kind of shocked. I think it captures a lot of our situation.


----------



## Chimpur (May 1, 2009)

I think once this case is settled here in Canada, it might give precedent elsewhere in the world too! For better or worse...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

*von Finckenstein's speech to the Standing Committee on Industry...*

Ok so I previously linked to the speech by Konrad von Finckenstein, Chairman of the CRTC to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Having read it a couple of times now I would like to point out the flaws and what I think are intentional disingenuous statements/untruths in his speech.



> Nearly all the Large Distributors have introduced usage-based billing for their residential customers. Bell Canada, for example, adopted this billing practice in 2006. I would like to point out that usage-based billing applies only to residential customers. It does not apply to business customers.
> 
> *As a result, large users,* such as those who watch a lot of high-definition movies and television shows online, *pay higher rates* than those who simply send emails and visit social networking websites. Customers who exceed their monthly limits are usually subject to an extra charge, though many providers allow users to buy additional capacity for a small fee.


The statement he makes here is completely false. Large users *do not* pay higher *rates* than light users in terms of $/GB of available bandwidth. They pay a higher flat fee to* access* more/*cheaper bandwidth* ($/GB) and *faster download speeds*.

This morning I did a cost analysis of all the major internet providers in Canada relative to the bandwidth users/subscribers have access to and the download speed of the package that they subscribe to and in fact *the opposite* of what he says *is true*. In *all* cases in Canada the lightest users pay by far the most for their available bandwidth on a $/GB basis and for slower download speeds. 

Here is the analysis based on the packages being currently offered:


*Videotron*

Monthly data transfer of 4 GB combined, $28.95= *$7.2375/GB @ 3Mbps *

Monthly data transfer of 40 GB combined, $43.95= $*1.10/GB @ 8Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 70 GB combined, $55.95= *$0.80/GB @ 15Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 120 GB combined, $66.95= *$0.56/GB @ 30Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 150 GB combined, $82.95= *$0.55/GB @ 60Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 170GB download and 30GB upload, $149.95= *$0.75/GB @ 120 Mbps*


*Bell (in Quebec)*

Monthly data transfer of 1 GB combined, $19.95= *$19.95/GB @ 500Kbps*

Monthly data transfer of 5 GB combined, $27.95= *$5.59/GB @ 2Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 60 GB combined, $34.95= *$0.58/GB @ 7Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 75 GB combined, $39.95= *$0.53/GB @ 10Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 90 GB combined, $44.95= *$0.50/GB @16Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 100 GB combined, $54.95= *$0.55/GB @ 25 Mbps*


*Rogers*

Monthly data transfer of 2 GB combined, $27.99= *$13.99/GB @ 500Kbps*

Monthly data transfer of 15 GB combined, $35.99= *$2.40/GB @ 3Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 60 GB combined, $46.99= *$0.78/GB @ 10Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 80 GB combined, $59.99= *$0.75/GB @ 15Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 125 GB combined, $69.99= *$0.56/GB @ 25Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 175 GB combined, $99.99= *$0.57/GB @ 50Mbps*


*Shaw*

Monthly data transfer of 15 GB combined, $25.00= *$1.67/GB @ 1Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 60 GB combined, $37.00= *$0.62/GB @ 7.5Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 100 GB combined, $57.00= *$0.57/GB @ 15Mbps*

Monthly data transfer of 175 GB combined, $97.00= *$0.55/GB @ 50Mbps*

So as one can see while the *details* of the different pricing schemes employed by the various providers differ, the overall pricing structure is universally consistent (with the of exception at the ultimate high end for Videotron, Bell and Rogers, where the highest capacity and speed actually are slightly more expensive than the next fastest/highest bandwidth alternative). Light users pay *more* and at the lowest end, users pay much, much, more for their available bandwidth and slow speed on a $/GB basis than do medium to high bandwidth and faster download speed users. 

Ultimately this means that his statement:



> In short, our decisions were based on two fundamental principles:
> 
> 1. *Ordinary Internet users should not be made to pay for the bandwidth consumed by heavy users.*
> 2. Small ISPs offer competitive alternatives to the Large Distributors, and it is in the best interests of consumers that they continue to do so....
> ...


is disingenuous at best and at worst a complete lie as the way the large providers have their pricing schemes structured now, *they do exactly* what he says *should not be the case*.

The ruling that the the CRTC made concerning Bell and UBB would have *NO* effect on the large players pricing schemes to their retail subscribers it would only affect the wholesale customers (TekSavvy, etc.) and their customers (those who have access to unlimited bandwidth plans).

So when he says:



> There is also a number of Small Internet service providers (Small ISPs) that serve approximately 6% of the market, which represents about 550,000 subscribers, of which 76% are residential customers.


This means that that due to the small number of subscribers to independent ISPs, the UBB ruling would in fact have little to no effect on the overall network capacities and the bogus "congestion" issue.

The CRTC's ruling is clearly anti-competitive and aimed at driving the small ISPs out of business and the premise that it was made to "stand up for the little guy" is clearly at best extremely misguided and at worst a deliberate lie intended to obfuscate the truth and real outcome.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Screature, if you have these numbers in a table it would be interesting to sort them into groups that are in Mbps.

Monthly data transfer of 4 GB combined, $28.95= $7.2375/GB @ 3Mbps Videotron
Monthly data transfer of 15 GB combined, $35.99= $2.40/GB @ 3Mbps Rogers


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> Screature, if you have these numbers in a table it would be interesting to sort them into groups that are in Mbps.
> 
> Monthly data transfer of 4 GB combined, $28.95= $7.2375/GB @ 3Mbps Videotron
> Monthly data transfer of 15 GB combined, $35.99= $2.40/GB @ 3Mbps Rogers


There are many ways that the data could be sorted, as you indicate, for comparison sake. 

Preparing for this analysis and writing the post took me about an hour and half this morning, so I am not immediately inclined to prepare an Excel/Numbers spread sheet right now. But I may do so later. 

If you feel so inclined to do so Ottawaman with the data I presented here you have my blessings.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Perhaps later, I'm off to Winterlude.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Screature, a most interesting bit of analysis - and I couldn't agree with you more re: Von Finkelstein's reasoning or lack thereof. It's truly appalling that this sort of doublespeak doesn't get soundly and thoroughly refuted on the spot.

I wish the newspapers would do the same sort of analysis...(wonder if there is anyone at the Toronto Star you could send this to who might do something with it?)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Paddy said:


> Screature, a most interesting bit of analysis - and I couldn't agree with you more re: Von Finkelstein's reasoning or lack thereof. It's truly appalling that this sort of doublespeak doesn't get soundly and thoroughly refuted on the spot.
> 
> I wish the newspapers would do the same sort of analysis...(wonder if there is anyone at the Toronto Star you could send this to who might do something with it?)


Thanks Paddy, I am thinking of sending it in as a letter to the editor at The Ottawa Citizen as that is my local print media provider.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

I'd send it to the G&M and the Star too - more impact.  (No harm in trying!)


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Screature, brilliant observation and wonderful work. With your permission I would like to borrow this. Unfortunately I have to work now, but when I get a chance I may try my hand at graphing this data.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bgw said:


> Screature, brilliant observation and wonderful work. With your permission I would like to borrow this. Unfortunately I have to work now, but when I get a chance I may try my hand at graphing this data.


Thank you very much bgw, much appreciated. Please by all means do. This is public information for anyone who takes the time to do the analysis... I just happened to take the time today. The only thing I would ask is that you link back to my post as the original source of the data... just because I did put in the effort that even the CRTC didn't seem to.... so it can show how that even the "common folk" can see through the smoke screen that the CRTC and Konrad von Finckenstein are trying to envelope us with.

The truth needs to be told.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

screature said:


> Thank you very much bgw, much appreciated. Please by all means do. This is public information for anyone who takes the time to do the analysis... I just happened to take the time today. The only thing I would ask is that you link back to my post as the original source of the data... just because I did put in the effort that even the CRTC didn't seem to.... so it can show how that even the "common folk" can see through the smoke screen that the CRTC and Konrad von Finckenstein are trying to envelope us with.
> 
> The truth needs to be told.


Full attribution, of course. I'm still working, so it may happen late tonight or early tomorrow morning. I may also add TekSavvy, and a Japanese ISP to the mix just to make the comparison more broad. Do you know of any companies in the States that would be worthy of comparison? I'm thinking of using AT&T but that might not be the best choice.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bgw said:


> Full attribution, of course. I'm still working, so it may happen late tonight or early tomorrow morning. I may also add TekSavvy, and a Japanese ISP to the mix just to make the comparison more broad. Do you know of any companies in the States that would be worthy of comparison? I'm thinking of using AT&T but that might not be the best choice.


Sorry bgw I don't know the US market... that data will be up to you to add if you choose. This is all public information for those who take the time and have the inclination....

Go bgw, go bgw.... Woot, woot...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

bgw said:


> Do you know of any companies in the States that would be worthy of comparison? I'm thinking of using AT&T but that might not be the best choice.


Comcast is the big ISP in the States.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

screature: Thanks for spending the time to pull out these numbers. The observation that the people paying the highest rates are those using the least amount of bandwidth and getting it at the slowest speeds is a strong argument in favour of UBB. 

This is in no way supportive of the CRTC's approach or ruling. A quasi-judicial government agency should have no role in regulating the price of broadband as they are attempting to do. There are both fixed and variable costs associated with providing the service that should be recognized in the pricing structure and it is reasonable that those who use more bandwidth should pay more for it. Unfortunately, the scheme proposed by the CRTC is asinine and clouds issues.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

WestWeb said:


> ... There are rural areas in Canada, such as the area I live, where the telecoms simply don't have the technology in place to track our internet usage. I was even speculating there might be a good business opportunity for opening a chain of rural coffee shops that offer unlimited downloading. ....


And then there are rural areas, near your own, such as mine, where we have no broadband, nor even highspeed Telus landline, and absolutely no prospect of either. I know this because I enquire at the local Telus and Shaw offices on a regular (=nagging) basis.

So we must use a wireless modem for all internet connections. Telus has the best coverage, but whatever, it's still $ 65 plus all applicable taxes and surcharges for a maximum of 5 gigs up and down per month. To repeat, that is 05.00 gigs per month. Past that, we pay by the meg - so a software update of 150 megs this month costs me $ 25 !

I just used an exclamation mark. Can any of the rest of you get that agitated about the way we are treated here in the back woods?


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

bgw said:


> Sure go with unlimited, with a per GB charge. Even $0.25 is outragous when it costs less that $0.03 to deliver. Lets say $0.03 wholesale, then let the ISP decide. I bet it the service would come in at $0.10 a GB plus a basic monthly connection fee. Still the providers would be making money.


I must pay $ 0.15 plus all applicable taxes and surcharges per meg. Not per gig, per meg. If $ 0.25 per gig is outrageous, then what do you think about $ 250.00 per gig? That is what I pay.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

klokeid said:


> I must pay $ 0.15 plus all applicable taxes and surcharges per meg. Not per gig, per meg. If $ 0.25 per gig is outrageous, then what do you think about $ 250.00 per gig? That is what I pay.


Who is your Internet provider? Can you change internet providers? TekSavvy charges me $0.16 a GB, of this Bell gets $0.11 and TekSavvy gets about $0.05!


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

bgw said:


> Who is your Internet provider? Can you change internet providers? TekSavvy charges me $0.16 a GB, of this Bell gets $0.11 and TekSavvy gets about $0.05!


They all charge the same order of magnitude. There is no wireless modem provider that charges by the gig. They charge by the meg.


----------



## WCraig (Jul 28, 2004)

screature said:


> ... This morning I did a cost analysis of all the major internet providers in Canada relative to the bandwidth users/subscribers have access to and the download speed of the package that they subscribe to and in fact *the opposite* of what he says *is true*. In *all* cases in Canada the lightest users pay by far the most for their available bandwidth on a $/GB basis and for slower download speeds.
> 
> Here is the analysis based on the packages being currently offered:
> 
> ...


So I took Screatures data and massaged it in Excel to make a cost comparison chart. Attached is the data table and the comparison chart. On the chart, note that the cost per GB scale is logarithmic. 

Craig


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

crawford said:


> screature: Thanks for spending the time to pull out these numbers. *The observation that the people paying the highest rates are those using the least amount of bandwidth and getting it at the slowest speeds is a strong argument in favour of UBB. *
> 
> This is in no way supportive of the CRTC's approach or ruling. A quasi-judicial government agency should have no role in regulating the price of broadband as they are attempting to do. There are both fixed and variable costs associated with providing the service that should be recognized in the pricing structure and it is reasonable that those who use more bandwidth should pay more for it. Unfortunately, the scheme proposed by the CRTC is asinine and clouds issues.


It could be viewed that way except that the CRTC's ruling has *no* effect on the existing pricing schemes of the big providers. As I said before, it would only affect the small wholesale buyers, i.e. small independent ISPs and their retail customers. So because von Finckenstein defends the ruling by saying that it is to protect the "little guy" we know this argument is completely fallacious.

UBB would only be tenable and fair if it were a flat rate charged on a per GB basis, no "packages" and no difference in download speeds or a flat rate based on per GB *at* a given speed. This could then be the point of competition where individual providers prices/rates differed accordingly.

So for example lets look at the data I presented yesterday with a download speed that is comparable across all providers:

*Videotron*

Monthly data transfer of 70 GB combined, $55.95= *$0.80/GB @ 15Mbps*

*Bell*

Monthly data transfer of 90 GB combined, $44.95= *$0.50/GB @16Mbps*

*Rogers*

Monthly data transfer of 80 GB combined, $59.99= *$0.75/GB @ 15Mbps*

*Shaw*

Monthly data transfer of 100 GB combined, $57.00= *$0.57/GB @ 15Mbps*

The comparison makes the picture a little more clear as it $/GB cost at identical download speeds(except for Bell with a 1Mbps difference which is negligible). However of course the overall bandwidth available in the package makes the comparisons less direct.

The way the current big players pricing schemes work, is that the more you pay for a package the cheaper $/GB, greater available bandwidth and faster service you get, essentially they all offer "bulk discounts" for their bandwidth. This is why it is disingenuous of them to claim that is the small independent ISPs who offer "unlimited" packages and make up only 6% of the market as being the "cause" of "network congestion" when they themselves provide incentives for the consumer to buy higher bandwidth packages.

So to say it again, a reasonable solution IMO that would make the implementation of UBB tenable and fair is if it were a flat rate charged on a per GB basis (no "packages") *at* a given speed with no data cap, unless that data cap was universal across all rate structures. The competition, would exist because of differing prices from one ISP to another on a $/GB basis at a given speed. 

This would only work for the ISPs if the rate were set high enough for the medium and high bandwidth consumers to compensate for the loss in revenue that would be incurred because of the dramatic reduction in price for low bandwidth consumers. I could easily see that meaning a 25% to 100% increase in cost to medium and high bandwidth users on a $/GB basis. 

So while this kind of structure may be "fair", due to the existing pricing schemes, many, many people would be unhappy with it. This is an exceptionally convoluted situation that I think is going to require considerable effort to be sorted out in a way that is acceptable to broadest range of internet users possible and I certainly see the current actions of the CRTC and the words of von Finckenstein failing miserably in that regard thus far.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

*Some More Graphs*

The following graphs where made with the information provided by screature, with some additional data from me. 

Below is the cost for the least expensive plans, Canada only. Then for the high end service for both Canada, USA and Japan. The numbers after the plan just indicate which of the plans are being graphed; to simplify the work I just numbered the plans from cheapest to most expensive.

You'll notice that for the low end service people are really getting dinged for their bandwidth. The best low end service if you like some capacity is TekSavvy's, if you want cheap Bell is the cheapest, but also the most expensive per GB.

For high end service I've assumed that the customer uses the full bandwidth all the time for an entire month. Rogers is the most expensive at $1.00 GB and TekSavvy is $0.02 or $0.01 depending on the service selected. Teksavvy is the only company that is internationally competitive on price, however they still lag for speed. The US and Japanese plans are both under 0.01 of a cent per GB, Japan's offer is 0.0023 of a cent!

It should be noted that the average data transfer cost in Canada is $2.11, while the average from the US and Japan is less then $0.01.

I'm working on more graphs and ideas. My problem is that Canada's services are so bad that they overwhelm or underwhelm any graphs that I make and you can't see the results properly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

WCraig said:


> So I took Screatures data and massaged it in Excel to make a cost comparison chart. Attached is the data table and the comparison chart. On the chart, note that the cost per GB scale is logarithmic.
> 
> Craig


Thanks for doing this WCraig. It pretty much reveals what one sees just by looking at the raw data and that is for medium to high bandwidth users there really is very little $/GB across the major providers.... "price fixing"?.... Hmmm....

Of course part of the reason for this is that with the exception of Bell which has it's services across the country Videotron, Rogers and Shaw are regional providers and have very little direct competition (again primarily Bell). 

The current ruling from the CRTC regarding UBB would do nothing to address this problem and in fact would only serve to further reduce competition. For a UBB regime to work it would have to be a clear, transparent and universal (level playing field) in which a given provider cannot take advantage of their dominant position. This would be what the Competition Bureau would refer to as "an abuse of dominant position". It is also why independent ISPs such as Teksavvy should be filing complaints with the Competition Bureau to investigate the current market dynamics of internet delivery in this country and the pricing schemes of the large ISPs


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bgw said:


> The following graphs where made with the information provided by screature, with some additional data from me.
> 
> Below is the cost for the least expensive plans, Canada only. Then for the high end service for both Canada, USA and Japan. The numbers after the plan just indicate which of the plans are being graphed; to simplify the work I just numbered the plans from cheapest to most expensive.
> 
> ...


Thanks bgw for this. One of the biggest problems I see in trying to make any sort of "direct" comparisons of ISP services on a $/GB is that as it exists now, there is no "level playing field". In other words different packages from different providers can be compared on a $/GB basis but the available bandwidth and download speeds within those comparable cost structures can differ greatly. For example:

*Videotron*

Monthly data transfer of 150 GB combined, $82.95= *$0.55/GB @ 60Mbps*

*Bell*

Monthly data transfer of 100 GB combined, $54.95= *$0.55/GB @ 25 Mbps*

So while the $/GB cost is identical, Videotron provides for 50% more bandwidth and 2.4x the download speed, but it is $28 more expensive on a monthly basis. So how does one directly compare which is a better "value" when the only thing that is the same between them is the $/GB cost. It makes "direct" comparisons very difficult indeed.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

screature said:


> So while the $/GB cost is identical, Videotron provides for 50% more bandwidth and 2.4x the download speed, but it is $28 more expensive on a monthly basis. So how does one directly compare which is a better "value" when the only thing that is the same between them is the $/GB cost. It makes "direct" comparisons very difficult indeed.


Still thinking about that one. I tried to make Net graphs, but TekSavvy's service, because it is internationally competitive on price throws the whole works! I'm going to do other things and see if the lightbulb goes on.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

klokeid said:


> And then there are rural areas, near your own, such as mine, where we have no broadband, nor even highspeed Telus landline, and absolutely no prospect of either. I know this because I enquire at the local Telus and Shaw offices on a regular (=nagging) basis.
> 
> So we must use a wireless modem for all internet connections. Telus has the best coverage, but whatever, it's still $ 65 plus all applicable taxes and surcharges for a maximum of 5 gigs up and down per month. To repeat, that is 05.00 gigs per month. Past that, we pay by the meg - so a software update of 150 megs this month costs me $ 25 !
> 
> I just used an exclamation mark. Can any of the rest of you get that agitated about the way we are treated here in the back woods?


Yowsa!  Rural areas are indeed another kettle of fish altogether, where if you want the internet you get bilked big time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

klokeid said:


> Can any of the rest of you get that agitated about the way we are treated here in the back woods?





screature said:


> Yowsa!  Rural areas are indeed another kettle of fish altogether, where if you want the internet you get bilked big time.


Back woods? When one lives on a Gulf Island, perhaps it presents unusual challenges not seen in 99% of Canada's "rural areas"? It's tough to run land lines over ocean. Rural and even remote back woods areas of Alberta are very well served by that same Telus.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Back woods? When one lives on a Gulf Island, perhaps it presents unusual challenges not seen in 99% of Canada's "rural areas"? It's tough to run land lines over ocean. Rural and even remote back woods areas of Alberta are very well served by that same Telus.


SINC I think YMWV greatly depending on what part of the country you are in when it comes to wireless internet delivery. My sister and brother-in-law who live in a community only 25kms outside of Ottawa on the Quebec side (just barely rural) only have 3G or 4G internet available to them and the cost is prohibitive to them considering they work in Ottawa and have access to government lines for e-mail and they make do with that.

Everyone's situation is different it seems.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Without doubt screature, but being surrounded by water presents special challenges I would think.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Without doubt screature, but* being surrounded by water presents special challenges* I would think.


Indeed.... but what about Victoria and PEI as they are essentially in the "same boat"?...


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

screature said:


> Indeed.... but what about Victoria and PEI as they are essentially in the "same boat"?...


I suspect the key difference is that more than a dozen or two people actually live there


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

John Clay said:


> I suspect the key difference is that more than a dozen or two people actually live there


Exactly. A user base that makes infrastructure installation profitable.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

You don't have to live on a Gulf island or somewhere in the remote backwoods. There are pockets of southern Ontario with no high speed access. I know - my sister-in-law lives in one of them. She's about 20 minutes east of Apsley - south of Bancroft, and there is no high speed there. No cable, no DSL, though Bell have been promising for years that they'll expand their service there. It's a funny little pocket with no service.


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

I live in Bruce County, ON, near Walkerton, and loads of people around here dont have high speed, they suffer along with dial up. I am lucky to have DSL out here on a back road, had it for 10 yrs or so! No cable tv either, most have satellite dishes.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Just looking around on the web. Looked at world speed tests. So Canada is ranked 36 in download speed (and 64th in upload!), after such places as former Eastern Block countries as Romainia and Moldova. Then look at the image of pricing. Canada is in the pink zone, with rates of $5 to $10, which our small IP's are responsible for holding down. With the CRTC's (Bell's) proposed rates we'll be in the red zone I bet.


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

I wouldn't have a problem with metered usage if it weren't priced so ridiculously high! 
It's like your favorite deli meat going from $1/100g to $7.50 or something.
And you can be sure the guys in charge will NOT be letting grandma go with a $4 monthly bill for her tiny emails.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

BlueMax said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with metered usage if it weren't priced so ridiculously high!
> It's like your favorite deli meat going from $1/100g to $7.50 or something.
> And you can be sure the guys in charge will NOT be letting grandma go with a $4 monthly bill for her tiny emails.


This is certainly an active topic!

But the way I see it, the change if it had gone through, would only affect the really heavy users.

I have a cap of 60 GB now, that has been the maximum allowed for years by my ISP, no "unlimited" with them.
The new cap for the same price was going to be 25GB but for $5.- a month more one could have increased the new cap to 65 GB, so essentially a $5.- increase.
I always thought I was a relatively heavy internet user since I spend a lot of time on the net, but my monthly usage only peaks at 25 GB occasionally, most months are well below that.
But then I don't use VoIP or stream videos for any length of time, just short video clips.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

So I can figure out my cellphone data use right in the settings app on my iPhone (which has never exceeded 2GB/month even with tethering, though I have 6GB available), but I don't know how to find out my internet data use at home for our computers and iPads. I have Shaw (Extreme, I believe), and can't figure out the website to get this information.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

Apparently Shaw only shows you your usage if you go OVER the cap. 

thewunderbar » The New Shaw Reality–Bandwidth Caps: How Can I Monitor My Usage?

Read the comments too - seems Shaw is not particularly customer-friendly on this issue and has in fact made what monitoring they do have LESS useful recently. Note: I did see a post from 2007 that indicated that you could phone Shaw and ask them to turn the monitoring on for you - not sure it that still applies and you'd have to call and ask. 

Rogers and Bell at least have the decency to show all customers how much we're using day by day, month by month etc. I think any capped service should at least show this!


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

BlueMax said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with metered usage if it weren't priced so ridiculously high!
> It's like your favorite deli meat going from $1/100g to $7.50 or something.
> And you can be sure the guys in charge will NOT be letting grandma go with a $4 monthly bill for her tiny emails.


How about a base service connection fee based on speed:

$5/month for up to 1 Mbps speed
$10/month for speeds between 1 Mbps to 5 Mbps
$15/month for speeds between 5 and 20 Mbps
$20/month for speeds between 20 and 50 Mbps
$25/month for speeds between 50 Mbps and 100 Mbps
$30/month for speeds above 100 Mbps

Customer pays a flat rate of $0.10 per GB, regardless of usage.

Companies like Teksavvy could buy the GB at $0.05 a GB and buy the connection at 65% the large ISP (or last mile provider) rate. Then companies could compete on price & service. Also these prices would have to be reexamined every 1 to 2 years to ensure that they are reasonable (the connection fee and rates should fall quickly!). The regime would only have to stay in place until real competition started in the market. And by real competition I mean more then 5 companies splitting the market with no one company having more that 35% of the market.

At present I don't have the time to create a function for the numbers above. I simple function that relates speed of connection with basic connection fee would be best.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

bgw said:


> How about a base service connection fee based on speed:
> 
> $5/month for up to 1 Mbps speed
> $10/month for speeds between 1 Mbps to 5 Mbps
> ...


What's the logic having a fee based on connection speed?
With DSL the connection speed depends more on the length of the loop than any thing else and you're never going to get past the 5 to 20 Mb/s tier.
I read somewhere that around 8 Mb/s is the the maximum with current DSL technology.

As to competition - I always wondered about that here in Canada - what competition is there when it comes to book stores? Chapters, Indigo, Smith - all the same company - which other b&m book stores are there? Seems to me the "Indigo" group controls around 90% of that market, that apparently was acceptable to the competition bureau.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> As to competition - I always wondered about that here in Canada - what competition is there when it comes to book stores? Chapters, Indigo, Smith - all the same company - which other b&m book stores are there? Seems to me the "Indigo" group controls around 90% of that market, that apparently was acceptable to the competition bureau.


the difference is chapters/indigo isn't gouging their customers and then telling their competition they have to sell books for the same price.


----------



## macpablodesigns (Jun 11, 2010)

update on proceedings CRTC bows to pressure on usage-based billing - Page 1 - Voice, Data, and IP


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> What's the logic having a fee based on connection speed?
> With DSL the connection speed depends more on the length of the loop than any thing else and you're never going to get past the 5 to 20 Mb/s tier.
> I read somewhere that around 8 Mb/s is the the maximum with current DSL technology.
> 
> As to competition - I always wondered about that here in Canada - what competition is there when it comes to book stores? Chapters, Indigo, Smith - all the same company - which other b&m book stores are there? Seems to me the "Indigo" group controls around 90% of that market, that apparently was acceptable to the competition bureau.


Bell sells 25Mbps DSL. But aside from that cable ISPs out number Bell 3 to 1. Having the speed of your connection linked to the cost of your service makes perfect sense and it is in fact already that way. 

So two wrongs make a right? Who says the Competition Bureau is fine with it? Unless a grievance is filled they won't even look at the situation.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

macpablodesigns said:


> update on proceedings CRTC bows to pressure on usage-based billing - Page 1 - Voice, Data, and IP


This is last weeks news that we have been talking about all week-end. Time to get with the program.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

krs said:


> What's the logic having a fee based on connection speed?
> With DSL the connection speed depends more on the length of the loop than any thing else and you're never going to get past the 5 to 20 Mb/s tier.
> I read somewhere that around 8 Mb/s is the the maximum with current DSL technology.
> 
> As to competition - I always wondered about that here in Canada - what competition is there when it comes to book stores? Chapters, Indigo, Smith - all the same company - which other b&m book stores are there? Seems to me the "Indigo" group controls around 90% of that market, that apparently was acceptable to the competition bureau.


1) I don't think an ISP would be happy get a $1 or 2 revenue from some of their low usage customers.
2) They need some basic fee if you are adding equipment to your line end for your internet connection. The type of connection might determine the fee (Dial up, DSL, ADSL, Fiber, etc)
3) Other nations have similar fees.

I'd be happy with a straight low usage fee and a reasonable installation fee, but I doubt the ISP's would be happy with it. I've assumed that rack space for your connection is worth something.

As for bookstores, Chapters had to close their store at North York Centre station to open one at Bayview Village (Toronto), 3 km away. Yes I'm discouraged by the lack of competition in the selling of books. When I buy these days it usually is online.

If someone has a better proposal or an accurate idea of what the costs are/should be for keeping us all connected, I'd be most interested in hearing it.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> the difference is chapters/indigo isn't gouging their customers and then telling their competition they have to sell books for the same price.


I just mentioned that as an example where it seems to be OK to create a non-competitive environment. The Competition Bureau doesn't look at one company like Indigao and says - you're the good guys, we can trust you, you want to buy your competitive chains and get 90% of the market - *no problem* or on the other hand looks at Bell, decides they are the bad guys, so we only let you have 35% of the market by restricting you from buying any of your competitors.

As to Chapters/Indigo not gouging? 
Have you forgotten when they charged 40 to 50% more for calendars and books than the printed US $ price even though the Canadian dollar was at 95 cents US at the time?
Everytime I complained about that, I got a different bull**** story from their sales staff.
Bottom line was - if you wanted the calendar or the book you got ripped off and had to pay that 35 to 45% premium. That was no different at the other bookstores - they all pointed to the printed price at the back of the book or calendar.
I even had a small independent bookseller attach his own price sticker over the printed one and that was even higher

Anyway - this is a bit off topic, it just irks me every time the word "competition" comes up.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Bell sells 25Mbps DSL. But aside from that cable ISPs out number Bell 3 to 1. Having the speed of your connection linked to the cost of your service makes perfect sense and it is in fact already that way.


Has anyone reading this thread signed up to 25Mbps DSL and actually done a speed test?
I would love to see the results.
My ISP offers "up to" 5Mbps and earlier today I was getting just a bit over 4Mbps, so I can't complain.

Why does the speed of the connection linked to the cost make sense?
The length and condition of the local loop determines the speed you can get at your house with DSL and from the CO or remote, speed is in the end just a capacity issue which people think doesn't enter into the pricing equation.
Charging less for lower speed is just a pricing scheme some ISPs use; my ISP (KOS) offers two services - lite and mega - the download speed for both is the same at up to 5Mbps, the difference is the cap, 5GB and 60GB and the number of email addresses etc. but not the speed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> Has anyone reading this thread signed up to 25Mbps DSL and actually done a speed test?
> I would love to see the results.
> My ISP offers "up to" 5Mbps and earlier today I was getting just a bit over 4Mbps, so I can't complain.
> 
> ...


You keep focussing on DSL alone. With cable you actually need a new cable for speeds beyond 10Mbps (I just had mine installed when I upgraded to to 30Mbps from 10Mbps) and you need a different modem.

And no it isn't a pricing scheme *some* ISPs use it is the pricing scheme *ALL* the big ISPs use, check it out for yourself if you don't believe me or look at post #178 where I laid it all out for everyone to see.

Your ISP is the exception and most likely because they only have one speed to offer.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

krs said:


> Has anyone reading this thread signed up to 25Mbps DSL and actually done a speed test?
> I would love to see the results.
> My ISP offers "up to" 5Mbps and earlier today I was getting just a bit over 4Mbps, so I can't complain.
> 
> ...


The price of the connection has to do with the technology and when it entered the market. DSL started at 5 Mbps and has climbed in speed since, it was introduced quite a few years ago and cost a pretty penny initially. Now you could probably buy 5 Mbps line ends (the first device that connects your phone line to your ISP) for DSL at a dime a dozen. The newest connectors used in Japan (that seem to support 160 to 200 Mbps) probably cost a fortune, but 5 years from now will be surplus and very cheap. There is also the cost of rack space, maintaining, heating/cooling, lighting the building and the cost of just having someone around to maintain the equipment even if there is no traffic. I think all of that should be covered by a basic monthly fee.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> I just mentioned that as an example where it seems to be OK to create a non-competitive environment. The Competition Bureau doesn't look at one company like Indigao and says - you're the good guys, we can trust you, you want to buy your competitive chains and get 90% of the market - *no problem* or on the other hand looks at Bell, decides they are the bad guys, so we only let you have 35% of the market by restricting you from buying any of your competitors.
> 
> As to Chapters/Indigo not gouging?
> Have you forgotten when they charged 40 to 50% more for calendars and books than the printed US $ price even though the Canadian dollar was at 95 cents US at the time?
> ...


You can say that pretty much EVERY store in canada charges a premium over the US retail price for EVERY product. Go look at Electronics. Clothes. Even fast food. That has more to do with the canadian market place and economics than chapters/indigo specifically.

The point is no one is stopping an independent store from opening and selling books for cheaper than chapters. The reason many stores went out of business when chapters/indigo emerged was because they couldn't compete with online pricing. Even still there are many options for consumers (online or independent....chapters still doesn't carry many books i'm interested in)

But that's very different then chapters/indigo dictating the price which they have to sell at.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> You keep focussing on DSL alone.


Well yes - because this is what this thread is all about - UBB that applies to Bell and the ISPs that use the Bell infrastructure and that all happens to be DSL.

Internet access via cable is inherently a totally different kettle of fish.
For starters the pipe to the house is a shared pipe, so the more of your neighbours sign up the more contention there is for bandwidth - with DSL you have your own pipe to the first access point.
Cable also uses Co-ax instead of a twisted wire pair, so the inherent speed is higher and susceptibility to external influences is less.

If the pricing structure is based on the actual cost structure, it will look quite different for the two technologies........but that is probably not what the consumer expects.



> And no it isn't a pricing scheme *some* ISPs use it is the pricing scheme *ALL* the big ISPs use, check it out for yourself if you don't believe me or look at post #178 where I laid it all out for everyone to see.


I;m not questioning that - all I'm saying is that some ISPs are using that pricing scheme including Bell as you pointed out but that doesn't necessarily mean that pricing scheme relates to the cost. There are hundreds of small ISPs across Canada offering internet DSL connectivity, I doubt that KOS is the only one that offers all their plans with the same download speed.
I saw your earlier post, but of the four big ISPs three use cable to provide internet services so I don't really see how they fit into this topic. There are very few small ISPs that offer internet via cable, the vast majority use DSL.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

bgw said:


> The price of the connection has to do with the technology and when it entered the market. DSL started at 5 Mbps and has climbed in speed since, it was introduced quite a few years ago and cost a pretty penny initially. Now you could probably buy 5 Mbps line ends (the first device that connects your phone line to your ISP) for DSL at a dime a dozen. The newest connectors used in Japan (that seem to support 160 to 200 Mbps) probably cost a fortune, but 5 years from now will be surplus and very cheap. There is also the cost of rack space, maintaining, heating/cooling, lighting the building and the cost of just having someone around to maintain the equipment even if there is no traffic. I think all of that should be covered by a basic monthly fee.


With DSL, no matter which type, there is a limit to the speed one can obtain over a specific distance. This has nothing to do with the terminating equipment (or connectors as you call it) but with the inherent limitation of the telephone cable, basically resistance and capacitance and to some degree inductance.
This seems to be a good summary of the various technologies:
Internet Technologies|DSL|ADSL|xDSL|HDSL|SDSL|RADSL|VDSL|Distance impact on DSL speed.

With VDSL the download speed can go up to 50Mps but the range is limited to 1.5 kms.
One can only get rid of these limitations by replacing the telephone cable.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

Krs, the point you seem to be missing, is that, it's fine for one company to decide to put caps on their customers, but what Bell is doing, is controlling other ISP's and what they offer to their customers. Bell is trying to overpower their competitors, and so their competitors' customers are having to deal with the consequences. In other words, Bell is acting like the Mob, and as far as I understand, in Canada, that's illegal.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Bell has been adding FiberOP to their list of services. Not sure how far west it's trickled, but they've been pushing it here on the East Cost for the past couple of years.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

singingcrow said:


> Krs, the point you seem to be missing, is that, it's fine for one company to decide to put caps on their customers, but what Bell is doing, is controlling other ISP's and what they offer to their customers.


That is not really true.
Bell is just saying to the ISPs that use their infrastructure: "Here are your new wholesale rates"
The ISPs then turn around and take those costs to develop their own rate structure.
The one thing that went out the window from a wholesale point of view, I'm not sure if it was ever officially there as far as Bell at the wholesale level is concerned, was unlimited downloads.
But that doesn't mean the ISP can't offer it.
Teksavvy decided to cap their new package offerings at 300 GB per month - that's not based on anything Bell is offering. Teksavvy could have just as well offered unlimited for a few dollars more - they have all the data to figure out what kind of packages make sense.

In the past it was like $35.- for 200 GB and $40 for unlimited - that's like saying Ontario Hydro offering unlimited electricity use for a flat fee per month. Doesn't make any sense to me - customers should pay for what they consume.

I think the really heavy users have been receiving a bit of a free ride at the expense of the rest of the internet users. That needs to be corrected.

Now, as far as the actual fees are concerned - that's a secondary issue and that is what everyone in this thread seems to be focusing on now.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> Bell has been adding FiberOP to their list of services. Not sure how far west it's trickled, but they've been pushing it here on the East Cost for the past couple of years.


Bell FiberOP does not mean that they string an opto-fiber connection to your home.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> But that's very different then chapters/indigo dictating the price which they have to sell at.


Bell didn't dictate the price the ISPs have to sell for - where did that come from?

Teksavvy and my ISP offered completely different pricing plans (before everything went on hold) and they both offer DSL which has to be provided via the basic Bell infrastructure.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> Well yes - because this is what this thread is all about - UBB that applies to Bell and the ISPs that use the Bell infrastructure and that all happens to be DSL...


We all know (or at least I think most of us know  ) that Rogers has applied to the CRTC for the same UBB structure as Bell and the rest of the big ISPs will most likely follow thereafter and we are also speaking hypothetically about what a "reasonable" UBB regime would look like... I thought you were following along.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> In the past it was like $35.- for 200 GB and $40 for unlimited - that's like saying Ontario Hydro offering unlimited electricity use for a flat fee per month. Doesn't make any sense to me - customers should pay for what they consume.


No. It's nothing like that. The comparison is erroneous. The way Bell proposed UBB was *nothing* like how Ontario hydro charges their rates.



krs said:


> I think the really heavy users have been receiving a bit of a free ride at the expense of the rest of the internet users. That needs to be corrected.


No. People have been subsidizing Bell with the rates they pay, not a handful of heavy users.



krs said:


> Now, as far as the actual fees are concerned - that's a secondary issue and that is what everyone in this thread seems to be focusing on now.


No. It's *NOT* a secondary issue because the whole point is Bell's proposed UBB was disingenuous. They aren't interested in a fair UBB model because in the end they'd lose money. Their proposed UBB model is based on overcharging everyone who uses less then their cap, and then further overcharging everyone who uses more. It's the definition of having your cake and eating it too.

Their whole UBB model is based on a sham.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> Their whole UBB model is based on a sham.


Just saying "No", "No", No" doesn't prove a thing.

Do people realize that one of the key arguments Bell used was that UBB was granted to the cable companies back in 2006?
I don't recall an uproar then.



> The Bell companies submitted that their UBB proposal for GAS was consistent with the principle that the Commission established in Telecom Decision 2006-77 when it approved UBB for incumbent cable carriers' third-party Internet access (TPIA) service.4 The Bell companies also submitted that, because the Commission had approved UBB for TPIA service, considerations of regulatory symmetry between incumbent telephone carriers and incumbent cable carriers supported approval of their proposal.


Also, quite a few ISP intervened this time around:



> Acanac Inc., Accelerated Connections Inc., AOL Canada, Aventures en Excellence Inc., the Canadian Association of Internet Providers, the Coalition of Internet Service Providers inc., Cybersurf Corp., Distributel Communications Limited, EGATE Networks Inc., Electronic Box, Execulink Telecom Inc., l'Union des consommateurs, Managed Network Systems, Inc., MTS Allstream Inc., the Ontario Telecommunications Association, Primus Telecommunications Canada Inc., TekSavvy Solutions Inc., Telnet Communications, Vaxination Informatique, and Yak Communications (Canada) Corp.


but obviously their counter arguments weren't strong enough.

To move this thread forward - are people still arguing agains UBB in principle or are we now at the stage where the issue is the actual implementation.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

krs said:


> Just saying "No", "No", No" doesn't prove a thing.
> 
> Do people realize that one of the key arguments Bell used was that UBB was granted to the cable companies back in 2006?
> I don't recall an uproar then.
> ...


The TPIA tariffs for cable are only used by a couple (I think maybe 3 in Ontario) providers now, and probably only 1 or 2 back when UBB was approved. A lot has changed since 2006 - consumers are more connected, they're using more online services, and they're demanding better value.

UBB for GAS-tariffed services is fundamentally wrong - ISPs already pay for usage via flat-rate 1Gbps connections between Bell and the ISP.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> Just saying "No", "No", No" doesn't prove a thing.
> 
> .....
> 
> To move this thread forward - are people still arguing agains UBB in principle or are we now at the stage where the issue is the actual implementation.


I said 'No" because you're trying to equate Bell's original UBB proposal with the *principal* of UBB. You're stance throughout this thread has been that Bell was in the right to try and implement their UBB proposal as they structured it. Others (myself included) have consistently said throughout this thread that they wouldn't take issue with UBB if it was implemented fairly. 

By trying to steer this thread into "actual implementation" ignores the fact that it was never a *true & fair* UBB model that Bell was trying to implement.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

John Clay said:


> The TPIA tariffs for cable are only used by a couple (I think maybe 3 in Ontario) providers now, and probably only 1 or 2 back when UBB was approved. A lot has changed since 2006 - consumers are more connected, they're using more online services, and they're demanding better value.
> 
> UBB for GAS-tariffed services is fundamentally wrong - ISPs already pay for usage via flat-rate 1Gbps connections between Bell and the ISP.


Well, all I can say that none of the 20 intervening ISPs got that message across to the CRTC.

As to the TPIA Tariffs, that simply established the principle in practice based on the Telecommunications Act - the number of users it actually affected is irrelevant in a case like that.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> I said 'No" because you're trying to equate Bell's original UBB proposal with the *principal* of UBB. You're stance throughout this thread has been that Bell was in the right to try and implement their UBB proposal as they structured it. Others (myself included) have consistently said throughout this thread that they wouldn't take issue with UBB if it was implemented fairly.
> 
> By trying to steer this thread into "actual implementation" ignores the fact that it was never a *true & fair* UBB model that Bell was trying to implement.


Bell submitted their cost analysis to CRTC and CRTC accepted it.
What makes you think that the Bell UBB model wasn't "true and fair"?

And to set things straight - my initial argument was that I thought the principle of UBB was fair and appropriate for internet access. 
At the time some people argued that unlimited access for a small $40.- fee was fine - I say small, because that's what it is compared to say $25.- for a 2GB cap.

Now it seems most people find the concept of UBB itself acceptable just not the rates that the ISPs have set (Based on Bell rates to the ISPs I assume) - are these listed somewhere in this thread?

From what I have seen so far, only users who exceed 60GB or so per month would have been affected by this change.

As to the government intervening - I smell an election coming.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> To move this thread forward - are people still arguing agains UBB in principle or are we now at the stage where the issue is the actual implementation.


In the interest of moving this forward...

The first step of getting an actual fair UBB implementation would be for Bell to open it's books and be transparent on the actual cost of a GB of data. Then the actual cost of an active connection per consumer and any associated costs of accounting and service would also have to be determined. Once those REAL costs can be determined and agreed on by an impartial party then the wholesale costs can be worked out for all the various ISP's that would see Bell get a fair and reasonable markup. From the wholesale costs each individual ISP could choose how they'd want to charge their own customers.

Of course the above will never happen because Bell would never open their books as they'd know that they'd lose money on the proposition.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Internet usage debate, Part 1: The real myths

Rebuttal by Rocky Gaudrault president and chief executive of TekSavvy Solutions Inc.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Ottawaman said:


> Internet usage debate, Part 1: The real myths
> 
> Rebuttal by Rocky Gaudrault president and chief executive of TekSavvy Solutions Inc.


Finally a comment from someone who really knows the business, who is also a honest broker. You can't get a better source of information then Rocky on the state of the Canadian Internet.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

bgw said:


> Finally a comment from someone who really knows the business, who is also a honest broker. You can't get a better source of information then Rocky on the state of the Canadian Internet.


what a fantastic summary of everything we've been talking about in this thread!
Great article!


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

*Graphic on Growing Data Usage (G&M)*


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

An Angus Reid poll revealed that 75% of respondents did not support UBB and the government seems to be taking this seriously (Ottawa Notebook - The Globe and Mail).


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Adrian. said:


> An Angus Reid poll revealed that 75% of respondents did not support UBB and the government seems to be taking this seriously (Ottawa Notebook - The Globe and Mail).


This is rather hilarious - 

Don't people realize we have had user based billing by all ISPs pretty much forever?

I certainly can't think of any ISP that has only one flat rate for internet access - every ISP I have ever checked has at least two plans based on usage, many have more and many also base their plans on download speeds.

The issue Teksavvy and the others have is not UBB to their customers which they have implemented already but UBB by their wholesaler provided to them.
So what is the difference?

Brings up another question - if the ISPs now pay a flat rate to Bell for internet access why are they not charging their customers a flat rate as well?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> Internet usage debate, Part 1: The real myths
> 
> Rebuttal by Rocky Gaudrault president and chief executive of TekSavvy Solutions Inc.


Thanks for posting the link to the article.

Reminds me of the last time when there was this big uproar about throttling and Teksavvy came up with all sorts of comments which were poorly thought through and didn't make any sense.
Talk about deja vu.

Just a couple of comments:



> Last week in the Financial Post, Bell’s Mirko Bibic suggested that a number of myths in the usage-based billing (UBB) debate need busting. We agree, but the ones that require busting are those of Mr. Bibic’s making, because the simple fact is that UBB is an anti-competitive and innovation-squashing cash grab.


Hmmm - What about the UBB by Techsavvy and the other ISPs?




> Here are some of the real myths that need busting.
> 
> Light users subsidize heavy users. If this were the case, you would think there would be a similar response around the world, not just in Canada. Yet only Canada seeks to impose a usage-based billing system on the wholesale Internet market to combat this supposed inequity. The CRTC itself acknowledged that all costs associated with the provision of Internet services are recouped by the flat-rate component of the service.


He should have stopped right here, although that comment brings up the question again - why is the end customer not paying a single flat fee for internet access?



> This myth is equivalent to arguing that apartment rents should be based on the number of people living in a unit, because the rent of the person living alone subsidizes the cost of an apartment occupied by two people.


Pretty ridiculous to compare the pricing of internet access to an apartment rent but if he really wants to compare "accommodation" pricing - what about the price of a hotel room? Hotels limit you to the number of people who can occupy a room and they charge you extra if more people occupy a room.
One can always find an example that supports whatever point one wants to make 



> UBB is a punitive measure because the marginal cost of higher use is miniscule once the network is in place. It has been acknowledged as such.


That very same point applies to the "delivery charge" on the Ontario Hydro bill for example - the "delivery charge" varies with the amount consumed even though "the marginal cost for higher use is miniscule once the network is in place."
What Teksavvy seems to fail to understand is that this network is not a static "thing" to be used as is from now until forever - it needs to evolve and expand, and better sooner than later - the money to do that needs to come from somewhere and with the high usage services that people use the internet for now - sooner can't be soon enough.




> Internet service is a utility like gas and electricity. Internet service is indeed an essential service,


An essential service? How so and since when?
To start with, the internet isn't that old and we got along fine without it before - even today - cut off the electricity for even a day or two would cause major problems, cut off the internet and it creates a bit of an inconvenience - I'd have to pick up the phone to talk to people and send pictures via the mail, watch movies using a DVD player, etc.
One looses convenience and istant gratification but in no way can the internet be classified as an "essential service"
Today, about 20% of the Canadian population has no access to the net, that's more than 6 million people in Canada.



> Gas and electricity are resources that have an inherent value in and of themselves. A consumer pays not just for the delivery of those resources to the door, but for the substance of what is being delivered. The Bell system, on the other hand, is fundamentally just a pipe that carries bits of other people’s data,


That is also true for the Hydro delivery charge, the LD telephone network, cable TV to name just a few - and pricing for all of these are based on usage to some degree - either granular or in larger pre-paid chunks.



> Bell seeks a fair and level playing field. This is not the case. In fact, Bell has much to gain from UBB, as it has a three-fold agenda: (1) it wants to make as much as it can on its existing infrastructure, deferring upgrades for as long as possible. (2) It wants to protect its ever-expanding content businesses, which are threatened by over-the-top services like Netflix. (3) It does not want to lose business to innovative and competitive companies like TekSavvy.


I'm not sure why any of these are even issues. 
Bell operates a business, same as Teksavvy. They have an obligation to their investors to run this business as profitable as possible. Last time I checked Bell was not a non-profit charity operation. 




> Wholesale operators ride on the Bell network. This is a strange way to treat a valuable customer. TekSavvy has paid tens of millions of dollars to Bell,


So ?????
I have paid tens of thousands of dollars to my suppliers over the years - that doesn't stop them from increasing fees or changing billing practices. My suppliers are not operating under any regulatory control.



> based on tariffs determined by the CRTC in a regulated framework no different from those applicable to gas or long distance services. TekSavvy “rides” on Bell’s system no more than do independent long distance providers.


Well, a lot of independent LD operators don'tv use the bell network - but that is really irrelevant.



> And that is frankly a comparison worth remembering. When the incumbent telcos controlled long distance, customers paid $1.50 per minute. With the entrance of competitors, customers now pay mere pennies.


Yes - and that was because the revenues from the LD services subsidized the local services. But that is conveniently forgotten. All that happened was a redistribution of charges - local services have gone way up over relatively few years as LD rates have plummeted. The money has to come from somewhere.
Bell was always regulated, more so in the past that now, and part of the regulation included the amount of profit they were allowed to make each year with their regulated business. I wonder how many people know that




> What Bell is trying to do with UBB is the equivalent to charging $1.50 per minute for long distance. Instead of caps and artificially high fees, the incumbent telcos should establish the real cost for bits, if material, and negotiate a fair “cost plus” tariff for those bits.


Ah! Now it turns out the UBB as such is not the issue at all - it's the actual charges Bell wants to implement which are based on their cost analysis provided to CRTC.
Teksavvy needs to get their story straight.



> Not many people are heavy users of bandwidth. And with UBB as proposed, not many will be. That would be a shame because Canada will lag the world in that regard, and become a communications backwater. In any event, Mr. Bibic presents questionable, backward-looking data as the basis on which to form forward-looking public policy. Virtually every study from Sandvine to Berkman to the OECD predicts exponential growth in Internet-based video consumption, whether by movie lovers, students, businesses or grandmothers enjoying their grandchildren from afar. The answer to future growth is not to stifle it by imposing punitive pricing but to encourage it, accommodate it, and *make more money on greater volume* consumed at lower prices with more efficient infrastructure.


That what we say jokingly in the office "Loose on every sale but make it up in volume"

But seriously, how does one make more money on greater volume if the volume is already "unlimited".
And if he meant number of users by "volume", well there is not that much market potential left in Canada with an 80% penetration now.


Going back in time a bit...
Whatever happened to the "throttling" issue that Teksavvy was fighting against?
Did that go through, or not or is it so transparent that it's not noticable in normal use?








That is how it is done elsewhere in the world and how it ought to be done here. And if it takes regulation of Canada’s telecommunications regional duopolies to achieve it, the CRTC and the government should do so, with an emphasis on the interests of Canadian consumers, not the duopoly.

Read more: Internet usage debate, Part 1: The real myths | FP Comment | Financial Post


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

krs If you really want the answer post your questions on this forum....
Canadian Broadband forum | DSLReports.com, ISP Information
Rocky Gaudrault is a member there and posts frequently.


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

Audio only;

ParlVU Event Center


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

Has everyone seen this: The Meter - "I know it's crooked, but it's the only game in town."


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

*Bell's Profits*

Bell makes money hand over foot! Wow, the nerve of this company.

Profits up 25% and they want to cap almost all of us. Ouch.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> krs If you really want the answer post your questions on this forum....
> Canadian Broadband forum | DSLReports.com, ISP Information
> Rocky Gaudrault is a member there and posts frequently.


+1 Krs, I'm convinced your Mr. Bubic in disguise. Either that or you enjoy us being regulated without cause. Just take a step back and look at the situation - look at the uproar on this proposed bill. If you're in the minority, maybe you should take a closer look and try to understand why so many people think one way and so few take another approach.

Post your queries on that other website. Heck, Maybe I'll sign up too and see the responses. Honestly, let me know if you don't b/c I would like to repost your questions on your behalf for Teksavvy to respond. I'd love to see his responses, for better or worse.

i don't have the time to go through all your rebuttals, but if you don't think internet isn't an essential service, you're missing something in a big way. Just one example, try being a university or college student without the net. I know we all did it before the net was really born, but try doing it now. Probably could be done, but wouldn't be easy. Oh and how about hospitals and how they use the internet and webcamming for surgeries and such.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

The internet is an essential service. Business in this country would be crippled without online access. Anyone who doesn't understand that is years behind reality.

Could we survive without it? Sure. But we could also survive without electricity and gas service. (mankind did for most of our existence). I suppose if we had to "rank" services it'd be behind those 2, but it'd also be ahead of phone, TV, Radio and any other form of communication.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

i-rui said:


> I suppose if we had to "rank" services it'd be behind those 2, but it'd also be ahead of phone, TV, Radio and any other form of communication.


It is all of those services and more rolled in to one. That's why it is so important to get the rates right and allow Canadians and Canadian companies to use it to it's fullest extent. One of the goals of the CRTC should be to ensure that Canadians have the best and lowest cost internet in the world.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

bgw said:


> Bell makes money hand over foot! Wow, the nerve of this company.
> 
> Profits up 25% and they want to cap almost all of us. Ouch.


That article is rather misleading.
For one, you have to look at a bit of history, say five years, to determine if a 25% increase in a single quarter compared to a year ago is really significant - maybe last years quarter was a poor quarter - and then, the author just picked the highest increase he could find on BCE's balance sheet to create a story.

Revenues for instance, which is the money you and I pay to Bell hardly increase at all.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

I agree - it really has become an essential service, not just a convenience in both the business world and education. Sure, we could sort of return to the old ways without the internet, but what a crippled, inefficient world it would be!

There are whole segments of business that have become dependent on the internet. Think of all the specialized databases - usually paid, BTW - which exist now to aid in everything from medicine to marketing., or architects, engineers and landscape architects who collaborate and update CAD drawings online (are you really suggesting that returning to the good old days of couriers, CDs and hard copy drawings is a viable option???) And it goes on and on. Last year when I was helping a friend get quotes on work being done in her house EVERY contractor emailed them to her. Sure...they could have mailed them, or dropped them off - but think of the time and energy saved. Plus - they were readable (except for the guy who scanned his handwritten one... )

You could use the same arguments that the telephone wasn't an essential service (use the mail!) or that mail wasn't an essential service (get on your horse and take that letter yourself!) but things do change.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> The internet is an essential service. Business in this country would be crippled without online access.


Not if there was no internet access at all and everyone had the same playing field.

Business did just fine before the internet - it's actually being crippled today by the internet.

Now I constantly come across questions here and elsewhere on the net - Where is the cheapest price for this or which is the best of that or are there any problems with something else?
There are dozens of search engines on the net one can use to find the absolute rock bottom price for anything.

The internet empowers the consumer - it does very little for business - they are just being dragged into it to survive.
And only the largest and the fittest do.

I'm not saying I want to live without it, and life certainly wouldn't be as convenient without it but also in some aspects better.
I just don't see how it can be classified as an essential service.
I suppose this depends on the definition of "Essential Service", to me it's:

"A service, facility or activity that is or will be, at any time, necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public."

The internet or access to the net certainly doesn't qualify for that.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> Could we survive without it? Sure. But we could also survive without electricity and gas service. (mankind did for most of our existence). I suppose if we had to "rank" services it'd be behind those 2, but it'd also be ahead of phone, TV, Radio and any other form of communication.


In a life threatening emergency where someone needs help, the internet is totally useless.
I would certainly rank the phone *way ahead* of the internet when it comes to Emergency Services.

The Internet is a convenience - nothing more.


----------



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

Time to, Duck & Cover!:yikes:
:greedy:Bell:greedy: is about to unleash more :baby:B.S.tptptptp


Title INDU Meeting No. 56
Location La Promenade Building - 268
Event Date Thursday, Feb 10, 2011
03:30 PM - 05:30 PM
2 Hours

DescriptionMeeting No. 56 INDU - Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

ParlVU Event Center





NOTICE OF MEETING 

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology 

AMENDED 

Meeting No. 56 
Thursday, February 10, 2011 
3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 
Room 268, La Promenade Building 
151 Sparks St. 
(613-996-9346) 



Orders of the Day 


1.	Recent Decisions of the CRTC concerning the Billing Practices of Internet Service Providers



3:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. 

Panel I 

Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. 

Bill Sandiford, President 

*Christian S. Tacit, Barrister and Solicitor, Counsel 

Anthony Hémond, Lawyer
Analyst, policy and regulations in telecommunications, broadcasting, information highway and privacy 
Canadian Association of Internet Providers 

Monica Song, Counsel
Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP 

MTS Allstream Inc. 

Teresa Griffin-Muir, Vice-President
Regulatory Affairs 
Videoconference - Vancouver, British Columbia 

OpenMedia.ca 

Steve Anderson, Founder and National Coordinator 

4:45 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

Panel II 

Bell Canada	

Mirko Bibic, Senior Vice-President
Regulatory and Government Affairs

Jonathan Daniels, Vice-President
Law and Regulatory Affairs 
Shaw Communications Inc. .

Ken Stein, Senior Vice-President
Corporate and Regulatory Affairs	

Jean Brazeau, Senior Vice-President
Regulatory Affairs 

House of Commons Committees - INDU (40-3) - Notice of Meeting - Number 056 (Official Version)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

krs said:


> The internet empowers the consumer - it does very little for business - they are just being dragged into it to survive.


That is to be polite, pure bunk. Online sales now number in the $ billions.

Tell that to Amazon, Tiger Direct, Best Buy, Future Shop, London Drugs, Circuit City, Sears, Zellers, all major banks, Safeway, Superstore, Telus Mobility, every real estate firm in the country, all automotive dealers, every major media outlet in the country, and hundreds of thousands of small niche businesses in this country that make a living online. I could go on and on, but by now one can see that the OP's statement is, well, bunk.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

keebler27 said:


> Just take a step back and look at the situation - look at the uproar on this proposed bill. If you're in the minority, maybe you should take a closer look and try to understand why so many people think one way and so few take another approach.


You tell me, I have a pretty good idea but it's not something I care to post.



> Post your queries on that other website. Heck, Maybe I'll sign up too and see the responses. Honestly, let me know if you don't b/c I would like to repost your questions on your behalf for Teksavvy to respond. I'd love to see his responses, for better or worse.


Do whatever you like. I'm not signing up on another website for that (actually, I think I'm signed up on that DSL site already), but in any case, we are all just spinning our wheels here. Discussing this accomplishes really nothing. Teksavvy and the rest of the interveners obviously didn't have a strong enough case based on facts so they had to drum up public support for their cause and make it a political issue.

I still haven't seen any real dollars and cents to decide for myself if Bell's analysis was reasonable or not - all I know is that the proposal would have cost me an extra $5.- per month compared to what I pay now and the internet for me is worth the extra money.
I rather pay that then find out a year or a few years from now that access to websites and downloads has become so painfully slow that the internet has become useless.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

SINC said:


> That is to be polite, pure bunk.
> 
> Tell that to Amazon, Tiger Direct, Best Buy, Future Shop, London Drugs, Circuit City, Sears, Zellers, all major banks, Safeway, Superstore, Telus Mobility, every real estate firm in the country, all automotive dealers, every major media outlet in the country, and hundreds of thousands of small niche businesses in this country that make a living online. I could go on and on, but by now one can see that the OP's statement is, well, bunk.


Thank you, Sinc. Couldn't agree more. As a (former) practicing landscape architect, I know full well how important the internet has become to even smaller practices. The collaboration on drawings (via CAD files uploaded to FTP servers) is incredible - the ability to discuss changes via email with all concerned, without having to call a meeting etc. etc. all have made a huge impact. Back in the day (1990...) we were still using couriers and sending hard copies and changing drawings by hand...it was time-consuming and inefficient, and probably led to a lot more errors. That's just one _tiny_ example.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

SINC said:


> That is to be polite, pure bunk. Online sales now number in the $ billions.


It's not the sales dollars that count but the profit dollars.
The profit dollars on internet sales are only there because of the volume and the low overhead.
Low overhead = jobs lost to individuals plus outsourced to other countries.
Not a pretty picture for the future.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Paddy said:


> Thank you, Sinc. Couldn't agree more. As a (former) practicing landscape architect, I know full well how important the internet has become to even smaller practices. The collaboration on drawings (via CAD files uploaded to FTP servers) is incredible - the ability to discuss changes via email with all concerned, without having to call a meeting etc. etc. all have made a huge impact. Back in the day (1990...) we were still using couriers and sending hard copies and changing drawings by hand...it was time-consuming and inefficient, and probably led to a lot more errors. That's just one _tiny_ example.


Fair enough, but all that is a convenience that allows you to facilitate certain aspects of your business. It has nothing to do with the internet being a essential service.
You now actually save money by using the net in the way you describe vs the way you handled these business aspects previously.
I'm sure (well maybe not reading some of these replies) that you would be willing to pay a reasonable amount to continue to take advantage of these benefits the net brings to your business.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2011)

krs said:


> Fair enough, but all that is a convenience that allows you to facilitate certain aspects of your business. It has nothing to do with the internet being a essential service.
> You now actually save money by using the net in the way you describe vs the way you handled these business aspects previously.
> I'm sure (well maybe not reading some of these replies) that you would be willing to pay a reasonable amount to continue to take advantage of these benefits the net brings to your business.


That's not true for everyone. Without the internet I would have NO business, I'm a web programmer -- in that internet access is essential for my business in multiple ways.

The public has spoken out on this and they don't want it. I think you can count yourself in the minority of people that are ok with this whole shenanigan they call UBB. In any other line of business there is protection against this sort of thing, but because Bell has deep pockets and spent a bunch of time and money lobbying for the CRTC to approve it it's technically "ok".

I think at this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing krs. If you think it's ok then by all means find yourself a petition that supports UBB and sign up ... if you can.


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

krs said:


> Fair enough, but all that is a convenience that allows you to facilitate certain aspects of your business. It has nothing to do with the internet being a essential service.
> You now actually save money by using the net in the way you describe vs the way you handled these business aspects previously.
> I'm sure (well maybe not reading some of these replies) that you would be willing to pay a reasonable amount to continue to take advantage of these benefits the net brings to your business.


I'm ALREADY paying a "reasonable" amount to continue to enjoy these benefits - in fact it's downright UNreasonable when compared to most other countries.



mguertin said:


> That's not true for everyone. Without the internet I would have NO business, I'm a web programmer -- in that internet access is essential for my business in multiple ways.
> 
> The public has spoken out on this and they don't want it. I think you can count yourself in the minority of people that are ok with this whole shenanigan they call UBB. In any other line of business there is protection against this sort of thing, but because Bell has deep pockets and spent a bunch of time and money lobbying for the CRTC to approve it it's technically "ok".
> 
> I think at this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing krs. If you think it's ok then by all means find yourself a petition that supports UBB and sign up ... if you can.


Like you, I'd have NO business either without the internet, as I now design websites instead of landscapes...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

*We're going around in Circles............*

.......... isn't the basic issue that Bell wants to change their pricing structure at the wholesale level to user based billing from the current (as I understand it) flat fee (per ???) access.
All of this discussion of "free" vs "not free" vs "essential service" is really irrelevant.

Now, from what I have seen, the ISPs have had UBB for years, either two or more packages with a cap and x dollars if you go over the cap - and some ISPs offered an "unlimited" package.

In retrospect, no ISP should have ever offered an "unlimited" package because they simply cannot truly deliver what they promised - basic false and misleading advertising.

So now that ISPs have offered it and people have subscribed to it and are used to, there is a problem.


----------



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

Are there any on here actually monitoring these two links?

INDU Thread: Thursday Feb 10th 2011 - TekSavvy | DSLReports Forums

ParlVU Event Center


----------



## Gene B (Jul 2, 2001)

TVO Livechat and video stream: Tolls on the Information Highway
The Agenda - The Agenda Blogs - The Inside Agenda


Ah, come on! Use some of the bandwidth that you pay for and watch the show!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Gene B said:


> Are there any on here actually monitoring these two links?
> 
> ParlVU Event Center


I would love to listen to the audio, but how?

Any suggestion re an appropriate application?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

mguertin said:


> That's not true for everyone. Without the internet I would have NO business, I'm a web programmer -- in that internet access is essential for my business in multiple ways.
> 
> I think at this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing krs. If you think it's ok then by all means find yourself a petition that supports UBB and sign up ... if you can.


Well, the internet isn't going to go away so your business is pretty safe going forward.
But if there had been no internet, I'n sure you would be involved in some other business and not sitting at home twiddling your thumbs.

As to supporting UBB in principle - absolutely.
Supporting what Bell was proposing? No idea because I don't have any details.

But when people think the internet is "free" and just magically appeared and magically operates and maintains itself and magically keeps expanding as the demand increases and new services are thrown at it - well sorry, I do have a problem with that.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

krs said:


> Not if there was no internet access at all and everyone had the same playing field.


Yes, the internet wouldn't be essential to business if it didn't connect anyone to anything, thus negating it's whole purpose. Brilliant observation. 



krs said:


> Business did just fine before the internet - it's actually being crippled today by the internet.
> 
> Now I constantly come across questions here and elsewhere on the net - Where is the cheapest price for this or which is the best of that or are there any problems with something else?
> There are dozens of search engines on the net one can use to find the absolute rock bottom price for anything.


it's function is beyond simple sales #'s (which grow exponentially every year). Business needs the net for research and access to data. Information is broadcast by media outlets. There is no going back.



krs said:


> In a life threatening emergency where someone needs help, the internet is totally useless.
> I would certainly rank the phone *way ahead* of the internet when it comes to Emergency Services.
> 
> The Internet is a convenience - nothing more.


Phones could be replaced very easily using VOIP and chat technology over the net.



mguertin said:


> I think at this point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing krs. If you think it's ok then by all means find yourself a petition that supports UBB and sign up ... if you can.


It's worth mentioning that earlier in this thread krs asserted that online petitions are useless, and politicians wouldn't even look at them.

I guess he was wrong about that.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2011)

krs said:


> .......... isn't the basic issue that Bell wants to change their pricing structure at the wholesale level to user based billing from the current (as I understand it) flat fee (per ???) access.


That's exactly the problem. They are taking what had been previously mandated that they must sell in order to allow for competition (wholesale bandwidth) and upped the pricing massively, to the point where they are now trying to enforce that ISP's who were purchasing wholesale bandwidth to pay almost retail prices for it (literally hundreds of times the previous wholesale price). Along with this they are also enforcing upon wholesale bandwidth purchasers the limitations that they put on their own retail sales for the amount of bandwidth they can sell to their customers. With this approach they have basically found a way to work around the mandates put in place that required them to allow competition. 

Lastly, wholesale bandwidth was never sold at a flat fee from my understanding, it has always been based on blocks of bandwidth (or call it usage if you want), the issue is that with UBB they want to take what they used to charge pennies for and are now mandating it's going to cost multiple dollars instead.

I think this is the single most anti-competitive move a company has made, ever, and the government needs to treat it as such. Just because they found a loophole, lobbied the CRTC, and gotten their backing (in fact their enforcement) to do it doesn't change the fact that this is about as anti-competitive as it can get ... especially considering they are THE monopoly -- ISP's literally have nowhere else to turn if they want to sell DSL service.

Even in the state of flux that it's in right now, it is still killing their competition. With the claims that Bell is trying to make to back up this venture .. it's almost a textbook definition of "Bait and Switch" selling. They advertised (for years) the availability and pricing of wholesale bandwidth to independent ISP's .. but now are making claims that there's just not enough availability to do it any longer. As I say, textbook "Bait and Switch" ... read up on it here: Competition Bureau - Bait and switch selling


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2011)

krs said:


> Well, the internet isn't going to go away so your business is pretty safe going forward.
> But if there had been no internet, I'n sure you would be involved in some other business and not sitting at home twiddling your thumbs.
> 
> As to supporting UBB in principle - absolutely.
> ...


My business might be "pretty safe" going forward, but this UBB move will pretty much guarantee that many many other are not. Independent ISP's come to mind. VoIP providers. Video on demand providers (like Netflix for example). Realtime internet communications companies. Video game companies. These are all examples of companies that are getting royally screwed by Bell's push for end-to-end UBB. Bell is basically making bandwidth a scarce commodity, or at least trying to.

You don't have any details??!!? Have you read ANY of the links people have been posting in this thread? 

I certainly don't think the internet is "free" ... I've been paying for access to it for a long, long time now. You arguments don't make much sense krs. You seem to have put on a really huge pair of blinders and refuse to take them off and are agreeing with things merely in principal without bothering to inform yourself about what the real issues are because they don't "seem" to affect you directly ... but sadly, they do.

Lastly I think you have a pretty poor idea of what "the internet" really is. As far as Bell goes expanding and keeping up with demand is, or at least should be, part of their business practice, after all they are in the business of selling bandwidth. They are making record profits but somehow are also crying that they can't keep up with the bandwidth and need to charge significantly more for it. That math doesn't add up at all.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Gene B said:


> Audio only;
> 
> ParlVU Event Center


.mp3 version


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

i-rui said:


> It's worth mentioning that earlier in this thread krs asserted that online petitions are useless, and politicians wouldn't even look at them.


I didn't make that up, that's what our lawyers told us.
We ended up spending a ton of money to bus people to Parliament Hill to demonstrate there in person.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Well your Lawyers were obviously wrong.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

mguertin said:


> That's exactly the problem. They are taking what had been previously mandated that they must sell in order to allow for competition (wholesale bandwidth) and upped the pricing massively, to the point where they are now trying to enforce that ISP's who were purchasing wholesale bandwidth to pay almost retail prices for it (*literally hundreds of times the previous wholesale price*).


Do you have any information to back that up?
It honestly doesn't make sense to me since my ISP only needs to charge me 10% more to cover his new costs from Bell per the UBB model.
Something seems out of whack here.

Not that I like a 10% price hike but it's certainly not hundreds of times - or if it really is, then the ISPs are making a killing at our expense.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Watch the UBB debate on The Agenda tonight! George Burger of Teksavvy is a guest.
The Agenda - Agenda Home
Watch the UBB debate tonight, guests include George Burger of Teksavvy and Mirko Bibic from Bell!

8pm

Here's the URL for the actual episode:
The Agenda - Broadcast - Tyseer Aboulnasr: History in Egypt | Tolls on the Information Highway
Guests:
James Cowan is a senior writer with Canadian Business magazine.
Donald Blair is an IT and political consultant.
George Burger is an advisor for TekSavvy.
Mirko Bibic is the chief of regulatory affairs for Bell Canada.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

mguertin said:


> You don't have any details??!!? Have you read ANY of the links people have been posting in this thread?


I have read lots of posts and links but not a single one that had credible, verifiable numbers.
If it's not too much trouble, mabe you could post one - I'd love to get some more facts.



> Lastly I think you have a pretty poor idea of what "the internet" really is.


Please, go ahead and do better within the confines of a forum if you can.
Anything specific about the internet that I posted that you don't agree with?
At least on the technical side emotions don't get into the picture.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2011)

Here's an article for you krs, from a fairly credible source (the financial post):

How much does bandwidth actually cost? | FP Tech Desk | Financial Post

And a small quote from it:


> “The cost associated with transmission and switching on a modern network is a non-issue — less than five cents per gigabyte and dropping fast,” David Buffett, chief executive of Radiant Communications Inc., an independent ISP, wrote in the Vancouver Sun this week.
> 
> “If the CRTC ruling survives federal government scrutiny, however, consumers will be paying in excess of $2 per gigabyte. (That’s about a 400-per-cent markup.)”
> 
> ...


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> .mp3 version


Thanks, listening to it - so far mostly in French.

Now listened to a president and a few VP's making their opening remarks.

Most so far are stumbling and stuttering and going way over their 5 minutes allocated.
Not good............


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2011)

krs said:


> Please, go ahead and do better within the confines of a forum if you can.
> Anything specific about the internet that I posted that you don't agree with?
> At least on the technical side emotions don't get into the picture.


My point here is that we're not talking about "the internet" here ... we're talking about *access to* the internet. "The Internet" is an international connection of computer networks. Bell is an "internet provider" -- meaning that they are charging us to connect to their network which is in turn connects to "the internet". No one provider is "the internet" but unfortunately Bell has the monopoly on any DSL connections to "the internet", at least in Ontario and Quebec it seems.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

mguertin said:


> My point here is that we're not talking about "the internet" here ... we're talking about *access to* the internet. "The Internet" is an international connection of computer networks. Bell is an "internet provider" -- meaning that they are charging us to connect to their network which is in turn connects to "the internet". No one provider is "the internet" but unfortunately Bell has the monopoly on any DSL connections to "the internet", at least in Ontario and Quebec it seems.


I was trying to describe the "internet" itself to try to get people to understand that there is actually equipment out there that has to be paid for and maintained etc. etc. to allow the "internet" to be what it is - it's not just a non-descriptive cloud which is what one often sees on charts and documentation.
For instance, to access ehMac to post this comment, there are 15 routers and/or switches involved with 14 pipes to connect them. OK, the first two are my router and my modem, but there is still a lot of expensive equipment needed to make all this happen.

As far as Bell is concerned, they are both an "internet provider" as you said but they are also part of the internet itself within their territory. Whenever anyone in the world accesses a server located in "Bell territory", they would most likely be using some of the Bell infrastructure.
DSL is just the low speed pipe from the Bell Central Office to the individual home, the ISP also has to have a pipe to the internet itself and for the smaller ISPs, Bell provides that as well. You can see that when you do a traceroute.

Maybe someone who is with Techsavvy can run a traceroute to see if they have their own connection to the net.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> Watch the UBB debate on The Agenda tonight! George Burger of Teksavvy is a guest.
> The Agenda - Agenda Home
> Watch the UBB debate tonight, guests include George Burger of Teksavvy and Mirko Bibic from Bell!
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting this or I would have missed it.
Pretty good episode in my opinion.
The person who to me made the most sense was James Cowan, Mirco Bibic was of course well prepared and didn't flinch, George Burger from Teksavvy didn't say too much other than trying to second guess what Bell's purpose for UBB was.

Nobody (except Bell and CRTC) seems to have a clue what the actual cost is to provide internet service which is one thing I would be interested in.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Well, if they're making record profits.. isn't it suffice to say that the equipment they've installed thus far is paid for? How much 'maintenance' is actually required of this equipment, and how much of that cost should be passed onto us? How can the cost of a gigabyte actually be calculated; what are the factors involved?

If TimeWarner can afford to offer ultra highspeed with a zero bandwidth cap for $40/month, why can't Bell?

So far I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it's anything else but greed.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2011)

krs said:


> I was trying to describe the "internet" itself to try to get people to understand that there is actually equipment out there that has to be paid for and maintained etc. etc. to allow the "internet" to be what it is - it's not just a non-descriptive cloud which is what one often sees on charts and documentation.
> For instance, to access ehMac to post this comment, there are 15 routers and/or switches involved with 14 pipes to connect them. OK, the first two are my router and my modem, but there is still a lot of expensive equipment needed to make all this happen.


Again this is and should not be our problem, it is Bell's business that they seem to make an insane amount of markup on even from the most auspicious estimates. I really don't understand how this even fits into the argument for upping their bandwidth charges to wholesalers, especially since they are already making record profits.

I stand by my statement -- that many others including Michael Geist share with me -- that this move is incredibly non-competitive and should be struck down as such. At the same time I think that the CRTC needs a shakeup for not only allowing this to happen but trying to enforce it. The agencies that were meant to protect the end-users and consumers don't seem to give a rat's a$$ about the little guys anymore. Same holds true for copyright, it's done a complete about-face as well.

I guess you're choosing to not comment on my backing up my "claims" so I'll walk away from this argument once again and let you have whatever partially formed and mis-guided opinion you would like to have on the matter. You seem to do a really good job of burying your head in the sand when someone makes a valid point that you can't figure out how to contest.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2011)

kloan said:


> Well, if they're making record profits.. isn't it suffice to say that the equipment they've installed thus far is paid for? How much 'maintenance' is actually required of this equipment, and how much of that cost should be passed onto us? How can the cost of a gigabyte actually be calculated; what are the factors involved?
> 
> If TimeWarner can afford to offer ultra highspeed with a zero bandwidth cap for $40/month, why can't Bell?
> 
> So far I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it's anything else but greed.


:clap:

It's all about "the bottom line" and extorting (opps did I type that out loud) as much money as they can, the whole time crying up a river that their network is congested. If the network is that congested then shell out some of those record profits to upgrade or stop overselling it. Now they want the best of both worlds, they want to cap every single user's access AND charge more for it ... without having to upgrade their "congested" network (congestion which many experts believe is a pile of hokey to being with).


----------



## Silv (Mar 28, 2008)

Hmm, the overhead to transmit 50GB through a switch doesn't cost you any more than it does to transmit 5GB. It's not mechanical, there's no wear and tear from pushing through 10x, 100x, or 1000x the data.


----------



## steviewhy (Oct 21, 2010)

sudo rm -rf /


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

TVO.ORG | Video | The Agenda - Agenda Insight: UBB, CRTC, OMG!


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Thanks!

Is there any link to the complete episode? I missed it when it aired.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

i-rui said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Is there any link to the complete episode? I missed it when it aired.



http://podcasts.tvo.org/theagenda/video/1904498_480x270_512k.mp4


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2011)

steviewhy said:


> Just to snub their nose at Bell now that UBB is on hold, Teksavvy has increased the monthly usage from 200GB to 300GB for the same money. :clap::lmao:beejacon


It's probably not _just_ to snub their noses at them ... they are playing the same game Bell did a while back. By upping their default bandwidth it gives them a stronger case to fight against the teeny caps that UBB is trying to impose. Bell did the same thing last year by shrinking their caps down to the tiny things they are today ... that setup the whole argument for UBB enforcing those caps ... "Our users have used these caps for this long then it's not unreasonable to force others too" ... same game but from the opposite side of things.

I also think Teksavvy is doing whatever they can to try and keep or get back some of their customers that bailed during the whole UBB thing. I think after they sent out the UBB email there was a mass exodus from them.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

One also must realize that this will cost TekSavvy next to nothing. I they might show the numbers when it comes down to the final discussion with the CRTC. 

I would hazard a guess that this bandwidth increase is costing TekSavvy somewhere between 10 cents and a dollar a user.


----------



## Funkynassau (Apr 13, 2008)

Go Teksavvy! No, I am not a customer of theirs, I'm just glad to hear that.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

mguertin said:


> I also think Teksavvy is doing whatever they can to try and keep or get back some of their customers that bailed during the whole UBB thing. I think after they sent out the UBB email there was a mass exodus from them.


I'd be surprised if they lost many users because of UBB - even with the absurd charges, they'd still be the best in town.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

This is an interesting and enlightening from Michael Geist. 



> Bell's comments are noteworthy since they confirm that there is no congestion in the "last mile" - the connection between the user and the so-called Central Office. At the moment, Bell aggregates the data from both its own retail customers and independent ISPs at this stage (which it says causes the congestion necessitating traffic shaping and UBB), though the independent ISP subscriber traffic later goes to the independent ISP before heading to the Internet. The "congestion problem" is therefore not at the last mile nor at the Internet - it is in the intermediate stage between the two.
> 
> 
> This raises the question of why not offer the independent ISPs access to the network at the Central Office or at other earlier points in the network so that their users' traffic never causes congestion for Bell?


What we really need is open access to the Central Office, which Bell refuses to give, for the reason below:



> In other words, Bell recognized that ADSL-CO would mean that independent ISPs would be able to better differentiate their services (including the prospect of no traffic shaping) and eliminate Bell's ability to implement wholesale usage based billing. The entire exchange is worth reading because it plainly recognizes the consequences of allowing independent ISPs to fully compete with speed matching and ADSL-CO. Bell describes it as "damaging" since it "undermines the ability to win the broadband home."


They have purposely set up the system so Bell could lockout and control their competition. The CRTC needs to break this wide open.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> http://podcasts.tvo.org/theagenda/video/1904498_480x270_512k.mp4


thanks again!


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2011)

John Clay said:


> I'd be surprised if they lost many users because of UBB - even with the absurd charges, they'd still be the best in town.


I spoke with them the day they sent out the UBB email and they had everyone they could manning the phones and from what I gathered they were losing people left, right and centre. Even though I agree that they are the best around I ended up switching to my local cable provider (Cogeco) ... wanted faster downloads and my dry loop speed kept getting worse and worse (thanks Bell). I was down to around 2MB/sec from 4.5 this time last year and there was nothing that could be done about it according to the Bell technicians that kept coming out to check the line quality.

I chose not to use Teksavvy's Cable offerings, even though it was available in my area, because of the absurd $99 fee if a cable technician needs to do any work at your premises (the fee is out of their control) ... I knew for a fact that the cable in my neighbourhood is problematic as I see the trucks here all the time working on things and my neighbours confirmed they had issues ... and I was right .. the Cogeco installer had to do some work on my internal cable setup on the installation day -- which had I gone with Teksavvy's offering would have cost me an extra $99 :/


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

How much are you paying for Cogeco?


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2011)

kloan said:


> How much are you paying for Cogeco?


I'm paying $100/mnth with the package I'm on right now (more than I was previously but I'm getting a MUCH faster connection). I'm on the Ultimate 50 package. Up to 50 Mb/sec down and 150G/mnth bandwidth. I get around 30-35Mb/sec down so speed wise is fantastic. I'm probably going to change to the business package that's 16Mb down and gets a static IP at some point though .. they are the same price. I was paying over $50/mnth with Teksavvy for around 2Mb/sec at the end ...


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

Just got an email from Teksavvy letting me know that my cap is going up from 200GB to 300GB effective March 1st. Great to see an indie ISP essentially flipping Bell off.:clap:


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Silv said:


> Hmm, the overhead to transmit 50GB through a switch doesn't cost you any more than it does to transmit 5GB. It's not mechanical, there's no wear and tear from pushing through 10x, 100x, or 1000x the data.


That's only true if you have a small number if users. If you have a lot of users wanting to transmit, the switch doesn't have the capacity to transmit all that data in a timely fashion.

That said, if the provider is making large profits, then there's no excuse not to add more switches and more lines.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

hayesk said:


> That said, if the provider is making large profits, then there's no excuse not to add more switches and more lines.


According to a _Globe and Mail_ article, I linked to earlier, switches are falling in price by 60% a year, while gaining 60% more power a year. Switches are cheap, and should be thrown into the system at the first hint of congestion. Especially when you have the profits that Bell has!


----------



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

mguertin said:


> I'm paying $100/mnth with the package I'm on right now (more than I was previously but I'm getting a MUCH faster connection). I'm on the Ultimate 50 package. Up to 50 Mb/sec down and 150G/mnth bandwidth. I get around 30-35Mb/sec down so speed wise is fantastic. I'm probably going to change to the business package that's 16Mb down and gets a static IP at some point though .. they are the same price. I was paying over $50/mnth with Teksavvy for around 2Mb/sec at the end ...


Yikes. I'm paying $55.99 (before HST) for Rogers Extreme Plus, which though it's advertised as 25Mbps down/1 Mbps up, with a 125GB cap, is actually delivering 50 Mbps for many of us with DOCSIS 3.0 modems and has been doing so for months now. They've been improving their service bit by bit (this is documented by others on the DSL Broadband forums - and I just clocked my download at 52.7Mbps with Speakeasy). I do bargain hard with Rogers once a year - we have all our telco services with them and for the last two years I've managed to reduce our bill each year AND add substantially to our cell phone services, long distance etc.

I guess I'll stop complaining about Rogers...at least for a little while.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2011)

Yep not cheap but so far the service has been ok. There are basically zero options for me that are cheaper and fast since my Bell line (dry loop) is so poor. I also don't think this UBB stuff is finished by any stretch of the imagination either so I'll sit tight on cable for the time being at the very least. After 2Mb/second I'm feeling very spoiled with this speed.


----------

