UBB and more explained very well
CLIFFORD ILKAY
clifford_ilkay-biY6FKoJMRdBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org
Sat Feb 5 20:46:09 UTC 2011
On 02/04/2011 11:29 PM, Jason Carson wrote:
> I'm with TekSavvy and have a 200GB cap but I have always had the option of
> switching to their unlimited service. On average I use 80GB/month and that
> is with 3 people using the connection as well as running a server.
>
> There are two issues I have with the new UBB rules. First I would be
> limited to a paltry 25GB/month, which isn't nearly enough. Second we are
> being overcharged for the small amount of bandwidth we are limited too.
> Bell charges $31.95 for those 25GB/month.
>
> According to Steve Anderson of openmedia.ca the Telecoms costs are less
> than $0.01/GB (give or take) which means you are paying around $1.28/GB.
> If you go over your monthly limit they charge your $1.90/GB! All this and
> their cost is about a penny! Obviously they are ripping us off big time.
If this issue becomes one of haggling over price, we've lost. I wish
that the only problem with this "usage" based billing was the usurious
pricing. You should read the Vaxination document Hugh referenced earlier
to understand why. There is a wonderful analogy in that document I'll
quote below which succinctly describes one of the biggest problems with
UBB. Even accepting that what Bell and Rogers want is "usage" based
billing plays into their hands. It's double speak of the worst kind and
unfortunately, all too common coming from Bell and Rogers.
"In the various proceedings since 2008, Bell Canada has consistently
complained that end users of ISPs used "disproportionate" amounts of
network capacity. In the 2010-803 proceeding, Bell stated that GAS end
users represented 17% of total DSL users, yet generated 31% of the traffic.
This statement is best explained with chocolate chip cookies. Competing
cookie makers would use different amounts of chocolate chips in their
recipes, some use more chips and advertise their product as a premium
quality, while others may wish to offer low cost cookies with just one
chip per cookie. They can differentiate their products and target
different consumers. As long as the bakers pay for the amount of
chocolate chips they use, there is absolutely nothing wrong with one
buying twice as many chocolate chips as another to make the same number
of cookies. Forcing all bakers to use the same number of chocolate chips
in their cookies would go against basic competitive principles."
--
Regards,
Clifford Ilkay
Dinamis
1419-3266 Yonge St.
Toronto, ON
Canada M4N 3P6
<http://dinamis.com>
+1 416-410-3326
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
More information about the Legacy
mailing list