|
"Mr Bibic your numbers keep changing. Are they just bullshit?"
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
This is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Whoever is talking right now is amazing, he's totally destroying everything Bibic is saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
"It'll take me about 30 minutes to respond to each question." "You've got 1.5 minutes."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Bibic: there is too much regulation  "The only way to keep up with internet usage and our investments is UBB and unlimited usage plans are no longer feasible" Just in Canada, though. Someone needs to ask them why without bundling that question with others because Bibic keeps addressing the others while ignoring that one. Crumbletron fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
why do they keep picking on the heavy users? I can't help the way I look 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:10
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Also hope someone asks why, if they traffic-shape, UBB is necessary as a means to combat congestion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
"Some people say that internet congestion is a myth." "Well the CRTC says that it isn't, based on our numbers! SO THERE!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
Oh I see, their whole argument is based on Heavy user = Pay more = Fair Therefore UBB is good. Forget about how much the bandwidth cost or how people who uses almost no bandwidth do not get a price break. Forget about how non-congested the node is. Usage based billing is perfectly fair. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
These questioners never connect the dots.. "Business users buy their own pipes and thus pay for what they use." "You mean like small ISPs that you're wholesaling your last mile connectivity to?" "No, that's totally different."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
"You charge extra for overusage. Do you give rebates for underusage?" Bibic "uh um... OUR PLANS ARE FAIR" "You're not investing any of your deferral money on infrastructure upgrades?" Bibic "uh. we will be..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
"Do you rebate customers for unused bandwidth?" "No, because... money?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
I don't like how Bibic is using the word "bandwidth"... according to him it is "consumed" as if it gets burned up and vanishes. Along with all the other cognitive dissonance this guy makes my blood boil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
WTF TV does congests the DSLAM, the questioner is so close to getting it alas it fails.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Oh, the lying fucker about IPTV. Yes, it uses bandwidth on the part of the network which you are complaining about!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Funny how every other ISP in the US can do fine without taxing its users huge amounts for pipe investments and and still give them unlimited usage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
ahahhaha draconian is metering on peak hours only. But full time metering is ok.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Did he just admit they're not setup to monitor usage? The cost would be TRAUMATIC! Oh god, the horror...
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
"Our top package is 100mbps!" "How many minutes of usage is that with your top packages cap?" Pick up the goddamn ball, Government!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
I wish I had listened to the other streams instead of this one because it is frustrating the gently caress out of me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
Parachute Underwear posted:Funny how every other ISP in the US can do fine without taxing its users huge amounts for pipe investments and and still give them unlimited usage. They are not really arguing about 'doing fine' or not, they just want to get the heavy user to pay more because that's the 'fair' thing to do even though their network is not congested or completely overpriced.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
^^ Yeah but they're saying the reason they want to charge more (and why they have a baseline price even for those who don't pop their caps) is because they keep having to pour money into infrastructure. "What if smaller ISPs started using plans promoting non-peak hours to download?" "Yeah but then regular users would have to pay for the peak hour bandwidth!!!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
Parachute Underwear posted:"What if smaller ISPs started using plans promoting non-peak hours to download?" And thats not FAIR! It's funny tho where the questioner was going with off peak usage that power companies deal with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
I'm glad I listened to this. ...I was considering staying with Shaw until I listened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Just admitted that congestion is not in the last mile but upstream past CO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
Parachute Underwear posted:^^ Yeah but they're saying the reason they want to charge more (and why they have a baseline price even for those who don't pop their caps) is because they keep having to pour money into infrastructure. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
Why would you design something to never have peak hours? Isn't that impossible? It's just an excuse to charge more. Should the highway be ten lanes each way? That would be nice, yes, but at what cost?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
PhancyPants posted:I'm glad I listened to this. I just requested an invitation to their customer meetings http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data-Usage/ and fully intend on questioning them on off-peak usage, among other things. I'm already heavily throttled during peak hours, being charged off-peak and throttled on-peak despite being charged $100/month for access bugs me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
This is interesting in that some of the discussion is actually going beyond UBB and more sort of examining the big 3's practices in general. e.g. what is the basis for their pricing and caps in the first place. I wonder if this stuff will get examined in any detail after the UBB brouhaha blows over. I will say that this is the worst possible place for them; to have the cold light of scrutiny passed over their operations that due to oligopolistic practices were previously unexamined.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:I certainly hope so, I could easily see this spreading to what we pay for cell phone plans (e.g. lack of unlimited there too), something I'd like addressed, but right now am looking at this one thing at a time to not spread things too thin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
is there a recording of this available? edit: nevermind, found it. e2: yeah Shaw is definitely back on my list of motherfuckers. e3: it infuriates me that Bell and Shaw manage to completely avoid the issue that capacity has nothing to do with the number of Gigabytes someone uses. I want to ask those morons how limiting my internet traffic on a monthly basis will change when I use it during a single day, since their "congestion problem" occurs in the evening. ZShakespeare fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Feb 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:is there a recording of this available? link?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEntityId=7272
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 03:11
|
|
|
That's the whole crux of this specific UBB issue. Congestion is time-dependent, not usage dependent. It has nothing to do with heavier users when torrents are already traffic-shaped anyway. I guess that's the elevator speech. Bell's reason for UBB, they claim, is reduce congestion, but it can't do that by its very nature and the nature of congestion and bytes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 03:16
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:That's the whole crux of this specific UBB issue. Congestion is time-dependent, not usage dependent. It has nothing to do with heavier users when torrents are already traffic-shaped anyway. That's the thing. When asked why they couldn't work out something for off-peak hours, Bell/Shaw's answer was the equivalent of, "But but but mumble mumble mumble." The biggest thing that would reduce their (non-existent, in my opinion) congestion is off the table because it doesn't bring them more money. If congestion was really an issue, shaping (which they admitted to already doing anyway) is the second-best option.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 04:35
|
|
|
Congestion is a nonissue. Technology currently exists to eliminate it and Bell can afford to make the necessary upgrades. Congestion is entirely, one hundred percent, Bell's problem to deal with. If people cannot place a phone call because the network is too busy, you add more towers and upgrade the network. You don't piss and moan that people are talking too much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
If I get a phone line I can talk as much as I want. If I get a TV package I can watch as much TV as I want. If I get an internet plan I can only use it at max speed for six hours a month. And Bell wants to talk about 'fairness'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:If I get a phone line I can talk as much as I want. Don't forget that if you did dial-up you could also use it as much as you want - you can do 20 gb combined upload and download in a month with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
It's basically double dipping. If Bell tiered its internet packages based on data transfer caps 90+% of the population would get the cheapest package. But if they tier it based on speeds they probably get a much higher number of people springing for the more expensive packages because 'faster' is a much more easily understood metric than 'more data'. And then Bell decides to double dip by now putting caps on the plans. So paying an extra $50 a month only gets you speed, you need to pay another $50 on top of that to get higher data limits. Basically the same thing that airlines are doing. Take one old simple service, break it down into its basic components and then charge the user for each component. a $499 flight now becomes a $400 flight + $100 taxes + $40 baggage + $20 food + $20 convenience charges, etc.. A customer will pay more overall if instead of getting one thing he now gets two. Need to make more money off your chocolate bars? Replace the one 100g bar with two 40g bars and then market it as 'more'. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Feb 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
cowofwar posted:If I get a phone line I can talk as much as I want. Vergeh posted:Congestion is entirely, one hundred percent, Bell's problem to deal with. If people cannot place a phone call because the network is too busy, you add more towers and upgrade the network. You don't piss and moan that people are talking too much. Nicely put. These two quotes are the best way I've heard to begin explaining this issue to those who don't know what the issue is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2011 14:18
|
|
