|
So much for unlimited internet ! (pg. 18)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Brennen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mach X
That would be a pretty sweet price actually since they estimate that the actual cost of a GB of transfer from the provider to you and whatever activity you used it for is just shy of a penny...
I'd pay 2cents, 3cents or even 5cents per GB if I need to!
$20 for a TB of transfer data? (@ ~$0.02/GB)
Most months I barely breached 300GB a month! |
this |
|
|
| The Potter |
| Competition will provide decent prices. Also, if there was better competition and choice, companies would be able to tailor and offer different products/packages to cater for the varied needs of consumers, including both pay-per-use and unlimited bundles, just as you have with internet and phone packages across the world. Given how minimal the supply costs are, it is not surprising that unlimited packages exist in the telecommunications world. |
|
|
| Mach X |
 |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Potter
Competition will provide decent prices. Also, if there was better competition and choice, companies would be able to tailor and offer different products/packages to cater for the varied needs of consumers, including both pay-per-use and unlimited bundles, just as you have with internet and phone packages across the world. Given how minimal the supply costs are, it is not surprising that unlimited packages exist in the telecommunications world. |
You mean if there was any competition. 2 companies in collusion on pricing isn't competition. It's time to disband the Communist Radio and Television Committee and let Verizon and company in. |
|
|
| The Potter |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
It's time to disband the Communist Radio and Television Committee and let Verizon and company in. |
For Christ's sake, isn't that how NAFTA is supposed to work!? We are able to benefit from plenty of other American companies operating in Canada, so why not telecomm's firms? |
|
|
| daves |
Yep - there is simply not a real air of competition:
- Cable providers do not run equivalent competing internet services directly over each others' footprint. To qualify "equivalent", consider that for example, Rogers Portable Internet is not able to really compete against Shaw high-speed inside of Shaw footprint, or against Telus' ADSL inside Telus' circuit footprint... and vice-versa. Same can be said about HSPA. Maybe LTE will change that eventually?
- Telecom T1 providers own their portion of the circuit-switched footprint, and even though there's "competition" they can slowly apply squeeze-play - the eventual result is a la what Teksavvy/ACANAC/similars are now feeling. If you are a reseller it is very difficult to make a decent coin (most strategies center around taking enough customers away from the big boys to be worth purchasing). If you are leasing last-mile (similar to what Rogers Telecom / Sprint Canada was doing) it is also not sustainable... too much costs to pay to the T1 provider you are leasing from, who happens to also be your main competor?! insanity... ask some industry insiders the amount of time it takes for each single customer to become profitable for the company under this setup. |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
You want providers to sell to you at cost? 100% mark up is pretty standard. |
Sure but the cost that they're pushing isn't 100% markup. More like 5x that at least. Also, like Orko pointed out the entire reason for them saying they're making the changes is because of network traffic slowing down etc etc which is total BS. |
|
|
| kamil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Endlesswave
Sure but the cost that they're pushing isn't 100% markup. More like 5x that at least. Also, like Orko pointed out the entire reason for them saying they're making the changes is because of network traffic slowing down etc etc which is total BS. |
The overcharges for going past the allowed bandwidth are ridiculous. Check out my latest bill from Bell:
They may have taken away my unlimited bandwidth, but at least I get to keep my ty speed.
Realistically though, I'd never reach 300gb in a month on that connection, its garbage. |
|
|
| jester |
| quote: | Originally posted by kamil
The overcharges for going past the allowed bandwidth are ridiculous. Check out my latest bill from Bell:
They may have taken away my unlimited bandwidth, but at least I get to keep my ty speed.
Realistically though, I'd never reach 300gb in a month on that connection, its garbage. |
Everyone who is with Bell should sue them for breaking a contract. The CRTC already fined them $1.5 million for telemarketers.
Even Bell limited their contributions to $50 million over 5 years for the "Let's Talk" campaign. They would donate 0.05$ per call or text for mental health. Cheap bastards. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mach X
That would be a pretty sweet price actually since they estimate that the actual cost of a GB of transfer from the provider to you and whatever activity you used it for is just shy of a penny...
I'd pay 2cents, 3cents or even 5cents per GB if I need to!
$20 for a TB of transfer data? (@ ~$0.02/GB)
Most months I barely breached 300GB a month! |
The only additional cost you would have would be any admin fees. I can't see how a company can't make a steady profit off this type of system.
You have to take the pricing away from the providers....its the only way to get fair costs to the users. |
|
|
| Brennen |
I was board at work:
 |
|
|
|
|
