<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Liam R E Quin wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1297449939.31908.606.camel@desktop.barefootcomputing.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm not sure either. It sounds to me like people in the city wanting
life easy -- out here in the country the bandwidth caps are rarely
higher than 10G and it's still $50/month for 1.5Mbps service. (we
actually pay $90/month to have two antennas, for more reliability)
</pre>
</blockquote>
I doubt very much that it's got anything to do with the town/country
divide.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1297449939.31908.606.camel@desktop.barefootcomputing.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I do take the point that the charges are too high, but that's separate
from charging based on usage. Bandwidth <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>is<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> a limited resource: any
given router has a maximum capacity, any given connection has a maximum
throughput at any given time.</pre>
</blockquote>
There are three basic problems with the model of UBB as has been
presented to the CRTC, all of them based on a pyramid of lies and
deceptions:<br>
<br>
1) The cost of $2/G. This is ridiculous and outlandish. The true cost
of 1GB from a transit point of view (i.e. what Bell are actually
paying, after fixed costs) is around 1-3c per G (this is complicated
again by the fact that you pay for capacity not bandwidth at the
wholesale level, so if you don't use it you're still paying). So this
cost has been set in place as a punitive damage to discourage heavy
use, not to actually cover the cost of it. This is unlike the situation
with Electricity or Water, where the regulatory framework ensures that
the price you pay is only a small markup from the actual cost of it.
I'm actually pro usage based billing, if the price reflects the cost
more accurately and is reduced as the cost reduces over time. In fact
if the cost reflected this, with prices close to what we pay for
Electricity (e.g. my fixed costs are about $25, and my bill is about
$45) then my bandwidth limit even at 5c/GB would be plenty high enough
given what I pay per month.<br>
<br>
2) The bandwidth bill is mostly footed by the provider, not
Bell/Rogers. While it's true that the connection under TekSavvy DSL (or
$other) goes to Bell's data center and their equipment, it doesn't HAVE
to be that way. They just want it to be that way. Having said that, the
data then goes direct to TekSavvy's equipment and out to the internet
through THEIR pipes. If they want to give people unlimited bandwidth on
their pipes don't you think they should be able to?<br>
<br>
3) Bell/Rogers are already making a profit off these third party
providers. Unless and until there is COMPLETE disclosure of
profits/losses of providing services to external providers it is
entirely unreasonable of the CRTC to just take Bell's word for it that
these are the costs involved. Full disclosure is absolutely paramount.<br>
<br>
The whole thing really stinks of protection of their TV services in
light of people using the internet more for video, rather than true
costs of doing business. Everywhere else in the developed world manages
it with significantly higher limits and much cheaper service fees, why
can't they?<br>
<br>
Matt.<br>
</body>
</html>