[tpm] [Bulk] Re: Usage Based Billing - What you should know..
mjglover at gmail.com
Tue Feb 1 08:02:29 PST 2011
I normally just read these posts but this thread affects us all as techies
The one main argument with UBB and internet as compared to gas, water and
power - is gas, water and power are effectively not for profit. (enbridge is
regulated to reinvest whatever profits they create back into the system and
they are dependant on gas spot prices to stay solvent).
IF we accept UBB then the costs should be commensurate with a modest profit
model. BNS did an independant study and determined it costs < $0.01 to
deliver 1G of traffic. So lets allow Bell/Rogers etc to apply a 500% markup
or $0.05 a Gig per month of usage to allow for future expansion of the
If that was the model then I would accept it because it would be far cheaper
for all of us. Assuming we all cap at 60G a month that would cost us $3 for
that traffic. Allow them a monthly service cost of say $10 a month then the
total bill would be $13 a month and they are making incredible profit
margins as compared to any other industry.
If that was the gist of the pricing model altertations then I would be for
UBB because even if one month I decided to watch a bunch of movies on
Netflix - the additive costs would not be a deterant.
The way it is being positioned now is effectively taxation without
representation which we all know didnt work over 200 years ago for the
states - it should not fly for us now.
I will now go back to lurkiung.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:43 AM, <arocker at vex.net> wrote:
> > The last mile monopoly in Canada is certainly a problem. However, the
> > idea of usage billing is not a bad one. It works for water, electricity
> > and natural gas.
> There is one difference, though between those and Internet traffic; the
> cost model. All have some combination of virtually fixed infrastructure
> cost and usage-related costs. Water, electricity and gas all involve the
> producer in some degree of effort, related to the volume of consumption.
> For bits, especially when provided by somebody other than the network
> provider, the marginal cost has to be practically nil.
> That argues for high access fees and little or no usage charge.
> The problem is rationing access. A free good generally is in almost
> infinite demand, which eventually means the system becomes clogged. Then
> the argument becomes about expanding the system, (and who pays for it), or
> imposing some sort of throttle on users to keep the demand within bounds.
> toronto-pm mailing list
> toronto-pm at pm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the toronto-pm