91–100 of 269 posts
They have their own DSL centers and hence aren't going to be affected by this new proposition. I think we might see more companies starting their own DSL centers.
Here's another reason why this is bullshit... this is an excerpt from an article I'm working on: The biggest problem with these caps is that they are, plain and simply, anticompetitive. Probably illegally so. Let’s take Bell’s internet service as an example. Bell recently rolled out their “Fibe” offerings, both for internet and IPTV. Their most accommodating plan, Fibe 25, has a ludicrously low cap of 75GB. It would…
But FibeTV is bits over their private infrastructure... they can choose how to charge that, no? The other bits that they are charging for are ones that go "outside" of their network. Usage based charging will become the norm, just like with electricity, water, oil/natural gas, food. Some supermarkets carry loss leaders, why should Bell.ca not be allowed to too?
1) Does Bell really pay money for their peering arrangements? Is Bell paying for all of the bandwidth between their network and the rest of the Internet? Or are their peering arrangements much like other backbone providers' peering arrangements where it's a handshake and no money changes hands? Is the 'cost' that Bell says that it pays for outside internet access really the cost of maintaining their links to other peers/networks (and not payments made directly to those peers/networks)? If so, then the difference between the outside internet and their internal networks should be minimal. The only real difference would be the most of the bandwidth is leaving the network vs staying inside of the network just due to most of the content that people want being on the wider internet (not because it's somehow 'cheaper' to use the internal network b/c they are paying for bandwidth that leaves the network).
2) As cal5k states, the third-party internet providers that are using Bell's last mile lines are also being forced to pay these usage-based charges, even though they are not using Bell's connections to the internet. These providers have their own peering arrangements to the internet and are just hooking into Bell's last mile infrastructure. So if the real reason for usage-based billing is because Bell needs to recover the costs that it pays for bandwidth that leaves it's network through it's own peering arrangements, then there should be no reason to force third-party providers to be on a usage-based billing model as well.
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…
So much for 'the cloud' and ubiquitous broadband. Next time I see someone mention that such and such iPhone app can be made as a web app I'll point them here. Web apps are at the mercy of so many third parties...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, you could not possibly have picked a worse analogy than a supermarket. The grocery business in Canada is one of the most brutally competitive anywhere, with low margins and a large number of players. But back to the issue at hand: it should not be allowed because it's anticompetitive and flies in the face of the entire idea of net neutrality. Can Netflix get around the caps? iTunes? No. But because Bell is bot…
Anti-competitive, agreed, mostly (see next point). Net Neutrality, whole other debate. Should Bell be forced to allow equivalent pricing to a competitor to operate the same level of service? Maybe (probably). The pivotal argument in terms of anti-competition, to my view, is: Could someone else build out the infrastructure to allow them to compete? Yes, they could install a CDN close to the DSLAMs, and create their ow…
I'm going to argue yes to the first point and no to the second. The internet is absolutely necessary to be competitive. As prices continue to ratchet upwards, even as the number of legitimate uses for large amounts of bandwidth rise, it is fast becoming increasingly more unaffordable.
With those two criteria met, I would say it's time to regulate access to the internet. In particular, I would like to see the last mile and backhaul infrastructure owned independently of any content business and available to any reseller at the same wholesale rates. Content and infrastructure MUST be separated if we are to effectively create fair pricing conditions and net neutrality.
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…
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 to charging for individual services), we instead have a single measure of our usage — data — and our bill starts at something reasonable like $5 or $10 a month.
The problem with "unlimited" in my view is that it conditions us to think that said resource really is unlimited, versus, say, electricity where we are incentivized to be aware of our usage. Now, if they're going to charge $2 per GB above some arbitrary cap — that's clearly absurd. But to start the bill very low (for the basic connection), and then charge, say, 10¢ or 15¢ per GB? Sign me up.
Here's another reason why this is bullshit... this is an excerpt from an article I'm working on: The biggest problem with these caps is that they are, plain and simply, anticompetitive. Probably illegally so. Let’s take Bell’s internet service as an example. Bell recently rolled out their “Fibe” offerings, both for internet and IPTV. Their most accommodating plan, Fibe 25, has a ludicrously low cap of 75GB. It would…
I have intimate knowledge of this issue and it really was just bad timing on Rogers' part. They had been planning on rolling this out well before Netflix's announcement, at least 8 months, but they just chose to pick the absolute worst time to make their announcement.
Here's another reason why this is bullshit... this is an excerpt from an article I'm working on: The biggest problem with these caps is that they are, plain and simply, anticompetitive. Probably illegally so. Let’s take Bell’s internet service as an example. Bell recently rolled out their “Fibe” offerings, both for internet and IPTV. Their most accommodating plan, Fibe 25, has a ludicrously low cap of 75GB. It would…
Rogers’ suspiciously well-timed lowering of caps on their most popular plans when Netflix entered the Canadian market I have intimate knowledge of this issue and it really was just bad timing on Rogers' part. They had been planning on rolling this out well before Netflix's announcement, at least 8 months, but they just chose to pick the absolute worst time to make their announcement.
It may not have been the case in this instance, but it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility. I can tell you that reduced caps are, broadly, an attempt to make alternatives to Rogers' content services like Rogers on Demand less attractive.
In retrospect though based on the amount of members or customers of both these companies would there usage growth take that much of a hit and would those two companies still be able to operate if they were forced to change there business models and chage people just to access there content.
In the case of Facebook how many members would thy have if people were required to pay say $9.99 a month to access Facebook.
In the case of the Internet as a whole clearly it costs money for companies like Verizon to expand and lay new lines to meet the demands of usage.Why then would it not be right to charge the data hogs for overuse of bandwith?
Society has become addicted to free and believe that content in itself should have no cost associated with it.However people don't realize the manpower,creativity and cost associated just to have that content produced. It makes sense now as to why Rupert Murdoch is against the freemium models for news via the web.
I mean just think about it on a small scale just for me to write this comment.I'm paying for Internet service,heating bill,electric and other costs also.So why shoudnt I be able to pas that cost to the end user?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Most online services that have a presence in Canadian market will start to see cuts in their revenue. I was using NetFlix, but no longer. Many of my friends and co-workers are not using Dropbox for backup anymore. It makes no sense. Many went back to good old fashioned portable drives. In addition to purchasing less of online services, many people that I know refuse to buy anything from Bell and Rogers. No cable…
A total OT, but is "pardon my French" at all PC in Canada? Serious question!