|
Twelve cents a gig? That seems really high compared to any other quoted figure I heard. Either way, even 5 cents a gig doesn't matter with even a very low limit. At that rate, it even seems reasonable to just pay for a tier of speed with no bandwidth at all, and then pay for everything your download. That wouldn't be too bad, but the ISPs will probably make the upfront payment the same as a full monthly rate is right now.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 03:59 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 10:07 |
|
My figure is a rather generous one, but hey I'm also looking out for the poor corporations here as well. I want them to be able to afford the upgrades to their network. Even at 12 cents/GB; 1 TB of data would only be twelve bucks and not $1200. Wholesale rates are cheaper, but you're not going to get those as a consumer.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 04:31 |
|
Stanley Pain posted:My figure is a rather generous one, but hey I'm also looking out for the poor corporations here as well. I want them to be able to afford the upgrades to their network. Even at 12 cents/GB; 1 TB of data would only be twelve bucks and not $1200. Wholesale rates are cheaper, but you're not going to get those as a consumer. Your figure is extraordinarily generous, because the "poor corporations" make money on every bit they charge you for regardless of how much it is. They pay literally nothing for the transfers because nearly all the ISPs in North America have peering agreements where they don't pay anything to transfer on each others' networks. A 1 cent charge is equal to a 1 cent profit. Furthermore, you need to do the math again: 1 terabyte at 12 cents/gig is $120, not $12. A reasonable rate for right now (I would expect it to go down over time) is more like 2.5 or 3 cents per gigabyte, and that's still an infinite% profit.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 04:42 |
|
E:ffff^^^^^^^ At 12 cents/GB, 1TB = $120
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 04:43 |
|
Fuckin' Bell. I live in the boons and don't really have a viable satellite internet option, so i am stuck with them. it's painful. There are just so many problems with this set-up, but the whole thing gets confusing because of how entrenched bell is and how far back these issues go. Paying for usage is acceptable, provided you are paying a reasonable fee (ie one that reflects the cost of 'production'). Unfortunately there is no competition to force companies to create fees that reflect this cost, so we get hosed like with cellphones. don't even get me started on trying to contact Bell to complain/ get costumer service... on a brighter side though, i havnt been this politically active in a long time, it felt good to call an mp/fax the PM. It will be interesting if Harper's decision does anything or ends up just being a way for him to have washed his hands of the matter come election time. also, The Gunslinger, a fellow niagara-West-Glanbrookian/ gunslinger fan? city/town? Pelham here
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 04:54 |
|
fishmech posted:Didn't Netflix say the actual cost of bandwidth to the home was a penny per gigabyte? At this point, the lines and infrastructure have been around so long that the legacy costs have been paid for dozens of times over. The actual cost of bandwidth for ISP's in this country is 0 goddamn dollars. It is all pure profit. They could charge a penny a gig and still bathe in money. All you guys west of Toronto are lucky bastards. There are lots of cable options and even Yak's service that is Bell free, working off their own DSLAM's. The corridor from Scarborough to Oshawa is basically a choice between getting hosed by Bell or hosed worse by Rogers. Drive a half hour north, and you can get service by those obscure rural ISP's that blow either Bell/Rogers out of the water. Toronto's got more options than I can keep track of. Teksavvy finally expanded a few years back out here for DSL, and while the download rates blow, the bandwidth has been great. Now, that's gone come March. Their roll-out of cable has been abysmally slow, so I can't move to that. This situation is so surreal. If nothing changes by March, there could be riots. Riots in the streets. Over internet overage fees. Isizzlehorn fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Feb 2, 2011 |
# ? Feb 2, 2011 05:19 |
|
Time to sign up for Rogers & Bell & Telus and just split it What am I going to use the other 27 days
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 05:48 |
|
Martytoof posted:I'm having a lot of trouble articulating what I'm trying to say so hopefully someone can follow where I'm trying to take this. I totally get what you're saying and it's what annoys me. I wouldn't mind UBB (even though ideally I'd abolish both it and caps) if caps were reasonable, but they're taking advantage of UBB to lower their caps so that even if UBB is overturned we still have to deal with the other shitstorm that is unreasonable data caps. I really think both issues have to be condensed into one by the public/government/legit media so that we deal with both of them now rather than UBB now, maybe lovely caps later.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 05:55 |
|
By the way Cogeco is hopping on the bandwagon now with "bandwidth blocks", more details coming soon according to a Cogeco rep on the dslreports forums. As if the $30/$50 overage charges weren't enough already on top of your regular plan and etc. I'm betting on $2 per GB from them but hopefully all of the UBB backlash will make them reconsider.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 06:29 |
|
Stanley Pain posted:My figure is a rather generous one, but hey I'm also looking out for the poor corporations here as well. I want them to be able to afford the upgrades to their network. Even at 12 cents/GB; 1 TB of data would only be twelve bucks and not $1200. Wholesale rates are cheaper, but you're not going to get those as a consumer. (The problem is that it doesn't give you those big fat cable TV margins, and that's what the big telecoms are trying to protect.)
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 07:25 |
|
When are Bell planning on telling their customers about the new data caps and changes to their plans? If this is going live in less than a month it'd be cool to be notified more than a week before they do.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 07:27 |
|
This shouldn't change things for Bell/Rogers customers at all. We've had caps for years.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 07:28 |
|
orange lime posted:Your figure is extraordinarily generous, because the "poor corporations" make money on every bit they charge you for regardless of how much it is. They pay literally nothing for the transfers because nearly all the ISPs in North America have peering agreements where they don't pay anything to transfer on each others' networks. A 1 cent charge is equal to a 1 cent profit. Oh poo poo yeah, maths. Would still be cheaper than what I pay using up around 500GB You'll never, ever get 2-3 cents/GB though unless you run your own data centre and have some pretty good peering connections. Some of the better pricing I've seen has been around the 5-10 cent/GB depending on connection type, co-location, etc. Now the actual costs incurred by the ISPs really is close to 0 since there are some very sweet peering contracts between the big ISPs/Telcos in place. The only time it might cost them money is if you pull stuff overseas and even that's pretty drat cheap for North America. edit: Seems to have gone over people's heads, but my "generosity" towards the telcos comment was sarcasm... vv
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 07:31 |
|
Stanley Pain posted:Found a half way decent one template Rough translation of the above for anyone who wants to use it. I rephrased certain parts and added in a bit about the Ontario vs Quebec thing. It's rough (so is my French, I'm blaming Bell ), but I'm loving tired; I'll brush it up tomorrow unless someone else wants a go. quote:Les fournisseurs internet viennent juste de devenir agence de collection pour les monopoles, selon Teksavvy, un fournisseur internet qui est maintenant obligé de réduire le service qu’ils peuvent offrir à leurs clients. Ce 25 janvier, la CRTC a accordé à Bell Canada de droit d’imposer un tarif. Dès février, tout excès du montant de giga-octets (go) accordés chaque mois seront facturés à $2.50 par go. Selon Teksavvy, le coutant d’envoyer ce giga serait, au max, 3 cents. Ceci donne à Bell plus de 5000% de profits, que tout fournisseur d’internet doit maintenant charger à leurs clients pour ensuite donner à Bell. Pire encore, les frais supplémentaires sont moins cher en Ontario qu’au Québec, les québécois payant 2.5x le montant des ontariens.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 07:37 |
|
The writeup is really informative, but it's pretty long. It doesn't seem to me that anyone would be willing to read any more than a few sentences of a letter to an MP.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 07:50 |
|
Nomenklatura posted:This shouldn't change things for Bell/Rogers customers at all. We've had caps for years. Yes but as far as I know they're lowering their caps and increasing their prices. Someone even posted tentative numbers a couple pages back.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 08:00 |
|
(Sorry, been busy) Okay, since the numbers got leaked (it's buried on Geist's site/blog): The average end-user of a CNOC ISP uses approximately 30GB per month. Bell has acknowledged in the past that only 10% of their users go past their bandwidth caps. And something to note is that chances are a high usage Bell customer left them for someone like TekSavvy in the past, skewing the distributions a bit. Makes you wonder how many low bandwidth users there are out there to balance out the 100+Gig transfers some people do...
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 19:38 |
|
Friend who is a CSR at Telus sent me a txt this morning. They got a work email stating that Telus will not be changing their bandwidth policy. If this is true, yay.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 21:02 |
|
And as a surprise to nobody, the National Post editorial team is taking the stance that this will effect nobody, that we're all a bunch of whiners, and that Bell is only charging what it needs to in order to survive, as determined through their heavy research of asking a Bell spokesperson about it.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 21:30 |
|
If there really is a finite amount of bandwidth, why not charge for it they way we get charged for hydro? Cost + a reasonable (or even gigantic) profit margin plus a speed multiplier. Oh, I know why, because their bread and butter customers would start getting monthly bills of like $8.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 22:18 |
|
prom candy posted:If there really is a finite amount of bandwidth, why not charge for it they way we get charged for hydro? Cost + a reasonable (or even gigantic) profit margin plus a speed multiplier. You forgot the $30 admin fee to print and mail the bill.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 22:32 |
|
kuddles posted:And as a surprise to nobody, the National Post editorial team is taking the stance that this will effect nobody, that we're all a bunch of whiners, and that Bell is only charging what it needs to in order to survive, as determined through their heavy research of asking a Bell spokesperson about it. http://business.financialpost.com/2011/02/02/crtc-chief-to-testify-before-parliament/ He's probably also the only one writing about it there under 30. He even mentions Steam.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 22:48 |
|
Suniikaa posted:Friend who is a CSR at Telus sent me a txt this morning. They got a work email stating that Telus will not be changing their bandwidth policy. If this is true, yay. I'm surprised nobody has decided to get out ahead of this now that the winds seem to be changing. The first major ISP to bail and offer an unlimited plan even at a 25% markup from the old prices would probably get a boatload of customers.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 23:09 |
|
CBC Radio 1's "Spark" is highlighting this issue right now.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 23:13 |
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...aign=DTN+Canada Hopefully this will be the first step in the government coming around to realizing that the CRTC is incapable of meeting it's mandate, and is instead trying to make their buddies more rich than they already are.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 23:20 |
|
ZShakespeare posted:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...aign=DTN+Canada The question is, will they be prepared to grill him? Or will he just be there to officially spout the same statistics that we already know? I mean, it sounds good, but if they don't have a technical consultant on their side and aren't prepared to play the devil's advocate then this is just going to be a day's worth of "our internet tubes are clogged don't you see we need people to pay extra to flush more" and everyone will be all "hey well that makes sense".
|
# ? Feb 2, 2011 23:28 |
|
kuddles posted:And as a surprise to nobody, the National Post editorial team is taking the stance that this will effect nobody, that we're all a bunch of whiners, and that Bell is only charging what it needs to in order to survive, as determined through their heavy research of asking a Bell spokesperson about it. That Spark interview was crap, too. Hey, mister economics professor? You can't talk about how the market will solve all ills when there is no free market here. Bell et al have natural monopolies. Telecoms are the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of natural monopolies. Competition is something you have to impose, or you won't get any. Nomenklatura fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Feb 2, 2011 |
# ? Feb 2, 2011 23:35 |
|
kuddles posted:And as a surprise to nobody, the National Post editorial team is taking the stance that this will effect nobody, that we're all a bunch of whiners, and that Bell is only charging what it needs to in order to survive, as determined through their heavy research of asking a Bell spokesperson about it. Also saw coverage of this issue on Global for the first time tonight, its becoming too big for even a news outlet owned by Shaw to ignore.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2011 00:37 |
|
Nomenklatura posted:That Spark interview was crap, too. Hey, mister economics professor? You can't talk about how the market will solve all ills when there is no free market here. Bell et al have natural monopolies. Telecoms are the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of natural monopolies. Competition is something you have to impose, or you won't get any. oh, you heard that interview too? There's actually a full version of that interview on the podcast feed. Boy was I let down as I eagerly booted up the Spark podcast to listen to a well-informed discussion on UBB.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2011 00:40 |
|
Sashimi posted:I love how just about every comment on that editorial is calling the author out on their bullshit. kuddles fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Feb 3, 2011 |
# ? Feb 3, 2011 02:15 |
|
If Radio One used the same guy as Metro Morning just go to the website and write a complaint. The CBC in general has been doing the best job covering this of all the major media outlets, with Jameson Berkow at FP being a close second. The Globe has been good all things considered. kuddles posted:And as a surprise to nobody, the National Post editorial team is taking the stance that this will effect nobody, that we're all a bunch of whiners, and that Bell is only charging what it needs to in order to survive, as determined through their heavy research of asking a Bell spokesperson about it. Sashimi posted:I love how just about every comment on that editorial is calling the author out on their bullshit. Speaking of which, Bibic has resorted to flat-out lies worthy of his employers. In a Globe article late today he claimed that the smaller ISPs only think free bandwidth is a good idea because they don't have to invest. Last I checked, they are only renting the last mile and everything beyond central office is their own. There is a circle of hell for people like him. Suniikaa posted:Friend who is a CSR at Telus sent me a txt this morning. They got a work email stating that Telus will not be changing their bandwidth policy. If this is true, yay. Shumagorath fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Feb 3, 2011 |
# ? Feb 3, 2011 02:57 |
|
Openmedia.ca is trying to raise $10,000 by tomorrow for the following (copy-pasted from email): * Buy ads in Clement’s riding to encourage him to champion the Internet. * Provide resources to grassroots groups who are lobbying at the local level. * Strengthen our online activism – your responses were so great that it crashed our site! We need stronger online tools to gather momentum and support. http://tinyurl.com/4ne9mfh Donated $100
|
# ? Feb 3, 2011 03:43 |
|
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Ottawa+quash+CRTC+decision/4214138/story.htmlquote:The Harper government will overrule a recent decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that effectively kills unlimited Internet-pricing packages — unless the telecommunications regulator backs down first, Postmedia News has learned.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2011 04:26 |
|
blkmage posted:http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Ottawa+quash+CRTC+decision/4214138/story.html Great news. http://twitter.com/TonyClement_MP appears to have verified it. Nairbo fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Feb 3, 2011 |
# ? Feb 3, 2011 04:34 |
|
Can't wait to hear Konrad's testimony as to why he supported UBB! edit: ugh... shot this post out too quickly! fix'd. Septimus fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Feb 3, 2011 |
# ? Feb 3, 2011 04:41 |
|
Septimus posted:Can't wait to hear why Konrad's testimony as to why he supported UBB. The bulge in his back pocket will give him away regardless of what he says.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2011 04:51 |
|
|
# ? Feb 3, 2011 05:19 |
|
That's awesome news. I guess word of mouth really spread. I was at a hockey game earlier and some teen sitting behind us was telling his friends about the demons of UBB
|
# ? Feb 3, 2011 05:27 |
|
Haha that's amazing. drat, except for Egypt, this is turning out to be a pretty good day!
|
# ? Feb 3, 2011 05:29 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 10:07 |
|
less than three posted:And Postmedia broke the story,
|
# ? Feb 3, 2011 05:33 |