|
So much for unlimited internet ! (pg. 32)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Skipper |
Very happy to see the reversed ruling. :D
I can also vouch for teksavvy, although if you need your service moved or hooked up, it's still a bell person that comes and does it, and they will still it up. |
|
|
| Shaya007 |
Free and slow..LOL! I win!
 |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
Very happy to see the reversed ruling. :D
|
so is it reversed or are they just talking about it being reversed? |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
so is it reversed or are they just talking about it being reversed? |
Talking. Clement 'tweeted', that they will get them to reverse, but nothing has actually been done yet. 4PM will show the next step. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
Talking. Clement 'tweeted', that they will get them to reverse, but nothing has actually been done yet. 4PM will show the next step. |
clement tweeted that he suggested to the committee to reverse it but ultimately he can't do anything by himself. they have to decide themselves. |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
clement tweeted that he suggested to the committee to reverse it but ultimately he can't do anything by himself. they have to decide themselves. |
That's not true. From what I have read, parliament can overturn the CRTC, just as they did with the Globe Alive decision. |
|
|
| Orko |
The CRTC is not backing down. They spent part of the time debating whether they were going to review the UBB decision before or after Clement's tweet. guys, get to the issue:
KvF keeps saying that internet is a utility, and that heavy users are accounting for most of the traffic, so regular users shouldn't subsidize the heavy users.
They are not talking about marginal cost at all, or the real cost. |
|
|
| geroin |
interesting article, not sure if was posted.. a lot of same info but still good
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...article1890596/
| quote: |
What is a fair price for Internet service?
Hugh Thompson | Columnist profile | E-mail
Globe and Mail Update
Published Tuesday, Feb. 01, 2011 3:52PM EST
Last updated Wednesday, Feb. 02, 2011 11:26AM EST
For the last month Digital Home has been lit up with readers from across Canada who are venting their anger over the ever increasing cost of Internet service and new charges for usage-based billing (commonly called UBB).
Clearly, no one wants to pay more for internet service, but at some point the price of just about everything goes up. So recently I decided to investigate whether the spate of price increases were justified and fair.
I began by contacting two of Canada's major Internet providers -- Bell and Rogers -- and asked them why bandwidth caps and usage-based billing are necessary. A representative from Bell justified the caps by saying: “Flat-rated pricing structures are simply no longer viable given the massive acceleration in Internet traffic and the load it puts on carrier networks.”
My research into Internet traffic certainly seems to support the assertion by Bell and other providers. Research papers from the University of Minnesota Internet Traffic Studies and Cisco Systems estimate that monthly Internet traffic in North America has grown by an astounding 40 to 50 per cent per year in the last decade. In a report released last year, Cisco predicted Internet traffic would quadruple between 2009 and 2014, a compound annual growth rate of 34 per cent.
Although the average Canadian is still subscribing to the same Internet packages they were four years ago, the reality is they are, on average, downloading twice as much data as they were two years ago and four times as much data as they were four years ago.
The argument that the exponential growth in Internet usage as the primary reason for higher prices is a seductive one. However, it ignores the fact that the technology that drives the Internet has become more powerful and much cheaper in the past decade.
While Internet traffic grew at a rate of around 50 per cent per year in the last decade, The University of Minnesota and other researchers have found that processing power, hard disk densities and transmission rates grew at rates closer to 60 per cent per year over the same period. In addition, the servers and routers and other electrical equipment that are the backbone of the Internet are much more energy efficient than they were ten years ago, which has dramatically reduced the cost of operations.
In simple terms, the bandwidth explosion is real, but it’s been more than offset by more powerful and more energy-efficient machines. So, we can reject the notion that increased usage is the a significant rationale for huge Internet price increases and usage-based billing.
But perhaps there is a simpler reason for trying to justify why UBB and data caps are a more fair than flat-rate pricing?
If you went into a restaurant with a friend and they had an appetizer, main dish and a dessert while you had coffee and a salad, would you want to split the bill? The notion that if you consume more Internet traffic, you should pay more seems like a fair argument. The question then becomes, what is a fair price for those extra gigabytes of data?
To find out what is a fair price, I contacted several industry insiders. They informed me that approximately four years ago, the cost for a certain large Telco to transmit one gigabyte of data was around 12 cents. That’s after all of its operational and fixed costs were accounted for. Thanks to improved technology and more powerful machines, that number dropped to around 6 cents two years ago and is about 3 cents per gigabyte today.
Are these valid numbers? After the recent CRTC decision regarding UBB, it was announced that effective March 1st, Bell will be charging Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) providers $4.25 for a 40 GB block of additional data transfer.
The fact that Bell is able to sell 40 GB of data to wholesalers for $4.25 and still make a profit demonstrates that the true cost of data transfer is well below the 10.5 cents per gigabyte they are charging wholesalers. One TPIA provider agreed the 3 cents per gigabyte figure is probably close to the true cost.
So why are Internet service providers charging consumers $1 or more per gigabyte of data used beyond their respective data caps? That’s a good question.
Bell will charge you an additional $2 per gigabyte to a maximum of $60 a month up to 300GB. After 300 GB, you'll pay a $1 a gigabyte. Shaw is charging $2.00 per GB on its popular high-speed package while Rogers is charging a whopping $5 per gigabyte on its Ultra Lite plan and $2 per GB on its popular 10 Megabits per second service.
Assuming an inflated cost of 10 cents per gigabyte, it means that Bell, Shaw and Rogers are charging consumers between 10 and 50 times what it costs them to deliver data. This on top of their regular monthly Internet pricing! While I agree that heavy users should be prepared to pay more once they have reached their bandwidth caps, a fair price would be much closer to 10 cents per GB than the inflated $1-to-$5-per-gigabyte charge sanctioned by the CRTC.
The vast mark-up granted to cable and telecommunications under UBB by the CRTC demonstrates that the federal regulator has failed to deliver a competitive Internet services business in Canada. Rather than ensuring consumers receive fair Internet pricing, the CRTC seems content to line the pockets of Cable and telecommunications companies by forcing Canadian consumers to pay Internet data rates that have no basis in reality. |
|
|
|
| geroin |
just got an email from Michael Ignatieff lol
from Michael Ignatieff
to ************************
date Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:57 PM
subject RE: Stop Usage-Based Billing
Gera --
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.
Our work is not yet done. We need to keep up the pressure until the CRTC’s decision is reversed once and for all.
Canadian families and businesses need open, affordable, unlimited internet access. The future of our economy depends on it. The Conservative government should have known that from the start.
When messages like yours reached us this past weekend – on Twitter and Facebook, by email, phone and fax – my Liberal colleagues and I knew what we had to do.
On Tuesday morning, we sided with you against the CRTC’s decision. By the end of the day, Liberal MPs on the Industry Committee had already begun an investigation. Then, yesterday, we kept the pressure on the Conservative government during Question Period in the House of Commons. At tonight’s meeting of the Industry Committee, Liberal MPs will tell CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein to reverse course.
This isn't the first time that you’ve stared down the Conservatives over an open internet — and that's why tens of thousands of you visited our action page at http://www.liberal.ca/ubb/, to join our digital policy email list and help carry the fight into Parliament.
This is your movement. You rallied on Twitter. You wrote emails and called Tony Clement’s office. You made the difference.
We all know that there are wider issues at stake here. After five years of Stephen Harper, Canada still has no digital plan. The Conservatives’ proposed copyright bill contains unfair digital lock provisions. Canadians are less connected and face higher internet costs than citizens of other OECD countries. And don’t even get me started on the long-form census.
Liberals have been engaged on these issues. In 2009, we worked with the Openmedia.ca / Save Our Net Coalition on Net Neutrality, a position that we support wholeheartedly. Last fall, we announced our Open Government Initiative, which will make government data accessible to all Canadians.
At the heart of our digital policy is a core Liberal value: we must make Canada more competitive and more innovative. That means expanding high-speed internet access to every region of the country, fair and equitable wholesale access, and transparent pricing.
We must build a digital strategy for Canada that embraces the energy, entrepreneurial spirit, and innovative creativity of consumers, businesses and digital influencers like you.
We'll keep the pressure on the Conservatives in Parliament to make sure they follow through and reverse the CRTC’s decision on usage-based billing. This victory is just a taste of what we can accomplish, if we continue this fight together.
I hope you’ll join the Liberal Party's digital policy email list at http://www.liberal.ca/ubb/. Let’s build a more open, more competitive future for Canada.
Thank you for being engaged.
Michael Ignatieff |
|
|
| jester |
If Bell wants to cap their service, don't cripple people.
This is what you can download in theory
5 Mbps = 1.54 TB (for the month)
24 Mbps = 7.39 TB (for the month)
120 Mbps = 36.95 TB (for the month)
But Bell/Rogers capping it at 25 or 60GB a month and having to for insurance to get another 120GB is beyond stupid.
5 Mbps should be capped at 385 GB and if you want the other 1.1 TB of bandwidth than they can rape you. |
|
|
|
|
