Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers. • Hacker News Board

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#141

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:07 PM UTC

ergo98 wrote: post #135

jacquesm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twisted-pair sucks, actually The reason we're having this debate is because twisted pair easily does 20MBit these days. > and Bell's monopoly is on dead technology. Not quite dead. Maybe not on par with fiber to the home, but not all that bad either. ITU G.992.5 Annex M: 24 Mbit/s down, 3.3 Mbit/s up. > Though I'm not even sure what your point is. I think we can agree on that :) ISPs on metered billing is going abo…

The reason we're having this debate is because twisted pair easily does 20MBit these days. Easily? Hardly. Over an absurdly short distance from the switching station, with perfect copper, as a tech trial sure. In the real world most ADSL users find that their experience is nowhere near that. ADSL sucks. ADSL has always sucked. It is a dead technology that is constantly simply being replaced. We're having this discuss…

> Over an absurdly short distance from the switching station

That's sort of the whole idea ADSL is founded on.

> with perfect copper, as a tech trial sure. In the real world most ADSL users find that their experience is nowhere near that.

Actually, in the 'real world' it's doing pretty good. If there are limitations it is more often than not because of oversubscribing of pipes further down the line.

> ADSL sucks.

So you keep saying ;)

> ADSL has always sucked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_speed_digital_subscri...

Seriously, that does not 'suck', that's a pretty impressive technological hack. To take lines that were meant to carry voice and to get them to function at bitrates that a HF transmitter would be jealous of is not all that bad.

ADSL is constantly being upgraded to supply a market demand, it is not being 'replaced because it is dead'.

There is an awful lot of copper in the ground and will remain like that for a long time, ADSL has in this sense been a great enabler in bringing broadband to the masses, the other side of that coin has been internet over the TV cable.

From that wikipedia article:

"VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at source to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1,600 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3,300 ft), but degrades at a much slower rate from there, and still outperforms VDSL. Starting from 1.6 km (1 mi) its performance is equal to ADSL2+."

1 km is not an 'absurdely short distance' for a maximum of 50 Mbit. In practice at that distance VDSL2 (which is currently only available from a select few providers where I live) does anywhere from 20 to 40 Mbit, not all that shabby, in fact I can hardly imagine what I'd use that for and I'm a pretty big consumer. Oh, and I live about as far away as you could possibly get from the nearest POP.

> We're having this discussion because Bell, due to their ILEC status, was forced into agreements that favored some businesses that pandered to, essentially, the "problem users" who were kicked off every other network. Teksavvy didn't go to ADSL because it's such a great technology. They went to it because the CRTC cleared a sweetheart deal for them.

The bandwidth charges that Bell is trying to levy here are not based in reality, regardless of the position of Teksavvy, and I don't see any reason why people that simply use 'dropbox' or 'netflix' should be punished for that with these outrageous charges. No other developed country has such a backwards system. 'Problem Users' don't exist, that's simply people using the capacity of the bandwidth that was sold to them. If you don't want users to use a fat pipe: don't sell them one.

Anyway, this thread is becoming ridiculously indented, I'm going to let it go with this. Thanks for the exchange!

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#142

Post by derefr » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:08 PM UTC

cal5k wrote: post #121

jacquesm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Canadian government has a long history of propping up the monopolies operating inside its borders, especially when it has a stake in them. For additional entertainment read up on the LCBO and the Egg Board (no, that's not a joke).

Not to mention the Canadian Wheat Board, perhaps the most egregious of all monopsonies (apparently it's not a "monopoly" because it is the only BUYER of wheat).

Monopsony.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#143

Post by Locke1689 » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:18 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #134

Locke1689 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That graph was a useless piece of shit. I have a feeling there's a bimodal distribution there, but can't even get a feeling for it because the graph was so poorly made. Seriously, a mean without a standard deviation? That's a failing grade in a first year statistics course.

Fair enough, but my anecdotal evidence suggests broadband in the US is nothing to be proud of by any means.

I find myself pretty comfortable with 25/25 in rural Maryland. I could up it to 150/35 if I wanted.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#144

Post by Bud » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:19 PM UTC

neonfunk wrote: post #96

acangiano wrote: post #24

I'll provide one data point of how this affects Canadian internet users. I currently have no caps with TekSavvy and pay $39 a month. Starting from March 1st, I will pay $31.95/mo with a 25 GB cap. Any gigabyte over the limit will cost about 2 bucks. Now, you can buy a block at discounted prices. According to TekSavvy, based on my internet usage, I will need to buy at least a 275 GB extra block. Believe it or not, I d…

I actually agree with metering; I think it's the only fair measure. Granted, the metering you describe sounds atrocious, and there'll probably be a long messy transition to the point where our internet bill is more like our electric bill. But imagine this: on mobile networks, instead of voice minutes, text messages, data caps, fees for tethering, and every other scheme the Telcos are concocting right now (with regard…

The idea that metering is or will be "fair" as applied by rapacious telecoms is beyond hilarious.

You honestly think the rate will be within an order of magnitude of your guess? Pardon me while I get a hernia from laughter.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#145

Post by caf » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:22 PM UTC

neonfunk wrote: post #96

acangiano wrote: post #24

I'll provide one data point of how this affects Canadian internet users. I currently have no caps with TekSavvy and pay $39 a month. Starting from March 1st, I will pay $31.95/mo with a 25 GB cap. Any gigabyte over the limit will cost about 2 bucks. Now, you can buy a block at discounted prices. According to TekSavvy, based on my internet usage, I will need to buy at least a 275 GB extra block. Believe it or not, I d…

I actually agree with metering; I think it's the only fair measure. Granted, the metering you describe sounds atrocious, and there'll probably be a long messy transition to the point where our internet bill is more like our electric bill. But imagine this: on mobile networks, instead of voice minutes, text messages, data caps, fees for tethering, and every other scheme the Telcos are concocting right now (with regard…

The problem with "just pay for data" is that mobile voice calls use such a tiny amount of data that either the cost of voice would have to drop by several orders of magnitude, or the price of data would have to be so astronomical as to make web browsing unaffordable.

This is the problem that telcos have been struggling with in terms of mobile data for years - they don't want to give up their fat margins on voice, but the actual bytes used by voice calls is trivial.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#146

Post by caf » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:28 PM UTC

gyom wrote: post #118

samatman wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A total OT, but is "pardon my French" at all PC in Canada? Serious question!

I'm a French Canadian guy working in an English workplace and I feel a bit insulted whenever I hear this expression. I never hear anyone complain about it, but it makes me want to start saying "pardon my English" right after belching loudly (on purpose for that occasion). The only thing keeping me from doing that is that I don't think people would make the connection and understand the reference. I don't know how Jew…

It's not supposed to be a slight at the French. It's a "polite fiction" - the user of the phrase is pretending that the swear word was a (non-offensive) word in another language, and the other party is pretending to believe this (since of course they are so pure that they have never heard the word in question before). Both parties of course know exactly what is going on, but the device allows the first person to apologise without implying that the second person is so uncouth as to know the word in question.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#147

Post by jay_kyburz » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:35 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #140

We have this in Australia. Here at least the situation isn't too bad, because we have competitive resellers at the ISP level[1]. The ISPs compete on service, bandwidth, data limits and inclusions. For example, many (most?) ISPs arrange peering with video providers like Tivo so video streamed on their services don't count towards the data cap. [1] There are laws to ensure that any ISP can install their equipment in th…

It might also be interesting to some that in Australia, where we have always had metered plans and where people have come to accept it, natural competition has seen our first unlimited plans emerge. For $60 a month TPG offers uncapped internet and phone line bundle.

Even thought this may now be legal to do, Canadians may find that some ISPs still offer unlimited plans just to get ahead.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#148

Post by nolanw » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 10:51 PM UTC

sidek wrote: post #16

dholowiski wrote: post #3

Iv'e been following this debate, but it's been difficult to find actual facts. Right now with Telus (Canadian dsl ISP) i pay for 125gb transfer a month and $2/gb if I go over. Yes, the overage charge is insane but it's been like that for a long time. As far as I can tell, the issue is that the big ISPs (tells, Rogers, bell) all have caps/overage, but the smaller ISPs that piggyback on their network can offer unlimite…

Does Telus ever charge you? I have never been charged for going over, myself.

I've never seen an overage charge in five years, yet have consistently gone over every month therein.

Someone at Telus once mentioned (anecdotally) that Telus plain doesn't enforce caps, and that the cap is written down only in case they need it.

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#149

Post by lukevdp » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 11:03 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #140

We have this in Australia. Here at least the situation isn't too bad, because we have competitive resellers at the ISP level[1]. The ISPs compete on service, bandwidth, data limits and inclusions. For example, many (most?) ISPs arrange peering with video providers like Tivo so video streamed on their services don't count towards the data cap. [1] There are laws to ensure that any ISP can install their equipment in th…

Yeah, I saw this thread and thought "Wow, internet isn't billed on metered usage everywhere else in the world?"

Re: Canadians Just Became World's Biggest Internet Losers.

#150

Post by zmmmmm » Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 11:17 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #117

neonfunk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with metering; I think it's the only fair measure. Granted, the metering you describe sounds atrocious, and there'll probably be a long messy transition to the point where our internet bill is more like our electric bill. But imagine this: on mobile networks, instead of voice minutes, text messages, data caps, fees for tethering, and every other scheme the Telcos are concocting right now (with regard…

Metering only makes sense if the costs vary with usage. In the case of DSL, the vast majority of the cost is the cost of maintaining the copper pair to your house, and that cost largely doesn't change, regardless of usage. Now, if the line from the CO (where the DSL terminates) to the internet was a significant bit of the cost, I'd agree with you. But my understanding is that the line from the CO to the 'net is a ver…

> Metering only makes sense if the costs vary with usage ... in the case of DSL, the vast majority of the cost is the cost of maintaining the copper pair to your house, and that cost largely doesn't change, regardless of usage.

That's a somewhat naive view of things. It only works if all the upstream equipment has infinite capacity. If you (and others like you) use 275GB instead of 10GB then it absolutely does cause more equipment to have to be installed upstream, which I don't think is an insignificant cost.

I'm like the GP - I wish every connection was metered, the problem is not metering, but the rate which invariably seems to be way above what is reasonable. Metering seems to always just be a cynical strategy to exploit naive users who don't know how much bandwidth they consume (bill shock, etc) rather than a rational economic way of sharing a limited resource.