Internet Usage Based Billing Coming

Shouldn't you pay more if you use more?

JTF wrote:Shouldn't you pay more if you use more?

Lets say I use 100 litres of gas per month at which I pay 1.08 per litre.

Lets say you use 500 litres of gas per month.. should you be paying 25.50 per litre?

Yes if you are downloading movies illegally just saying . As this is one of the biggest draws on the system but saying that it is still wrong . the user fee based system that is . The telco's need to just be better at what they do and stop paying the huge Executive salaries they pay out . Stop worrying about how to squezze more out of me .

Deank wrote:

JTF wrote:Shouldn't you pay more if you use more?

Lets say I use 100 litres of gas per month at which I pay 1.08 per litre.

Lets say you use 500 litres of gas per month.. should you be paying 25.50 per litre?

Nice try.

I already will be paying more...$432.00 more.

no. thats not what this ruling is saying. Not at all.

The ruling is saying exactly what my example says.

No. It says that if you use more, you should pay more.

no JTF.. it does not say what you think it does.

It says if you use more... you should pay an absurd premium for that more.

not the same amount per GB.. but about 10 to 100 times the same amount.

so its says, just exactly what my example of gasoline indicates.

Ya. It says that if you use more, you pay more.

The issue is with how much more and not IF you should pay more.

JTF.. you are taking an argumentative stance for seemingly no reason. No said if you use more you should not pay more. The FEES that the CRTC has decided on are the issue.

Heh heh...it seems apparent that those that have been using large amounts of BW are now concerned with the cheap rates coming to an end.

now you are not making any sense at all.

Its not just LARGE users.. its typical usage.

here is mine for example.

Month	Nov 16, 2010 - Dec 09, 2010	Jan 07, 2011 - Jan 15, 2011	Jan 16, 2011 - Jan 30, 2011	Totals
GB Upstream	0.4	0.9	1.5	2.8
GB Downstream	2.3	11.2	27	40.5
Total	2.7	12.1	28.5	43.3

you know what those spikes in Data usage are? Online gaming. 3 hours per day on average.

Those "cheap rates" were never here in Manitoba. Those were only in Southern Ontario and Quebec afaik.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Opinion+Usage+based+billing+time+come/4180711/story.html

...kinda' sums it up for me.

User fees seems reasonable. Just so I get your position straight Deank, are you saying that if you only use 3.9kb a month your rate would be $1 per kb and if you use 12.7kb a month your rate would be $10 per kb?

btw my rates are totally made up...

Agreed, user fees seem reasonable.

I suspect the peeps who currently had "unlimited" type plans are the ones making a big stink about no more "unlimited" type plans.

I am not.

I've never had a "unlimited" plan, nor have I ever seen one here in Manitoba (in the last 5 years) for broadband internet service.

I still point to several of my previous posts outlining the piss pour performance of the telco's in delivering that kind of service to it's customers.

I want faster speed, and a bigger cap. Yet I have to shell out money to "bundle" in services that I do not want/need/find redundant with the internet being available.

On top of that, there's the little tidbit about the prices telco's would like, or are charging for "extra" services people like me would like to buy...Dean referenced that part perfectly with his gasoline analogy a few posts ago.

grumpy old man wrote:User fees seems reasonable. Just so I get your position straight Deank, are you saying that if you only use 3.9kb a month your rate would be $1 per kb and if you use 12.7kb a month your rate would be $10 per kb?

btw my rates are totally made up...

that is indeed what it ends up being yes.

I have no idea what my usage is. I suspect I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum and use a very small amount of bandwidth as I really don't download things like movies and music.

Here is where it gets really retarded to the point of not making any sense.

At any given time your cable company is sending you about 1GB per second of data in the form of hundreds of television channels. so its not like there is not extreme room to spare.

Deank wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:User fees seems reasonable. Just so I get your position straight Deank, are you saying that if you only use 3.9kb a month your rate would be $1 per kb and if you use 12.7kb a month your rate would be $10 per kb?

btw my rates are totally made up...

that is indeed what it ends up being yes.

But is the way it is now fair? Let's say Shaw has a 60Gb cap for $30. I tend to use about 3Gb per month so that's about $10/Gb. A heavy user who views many videos, uses voip, etc. and maxes the cap pays 50c/Gb the way it is now, and the low users are effectively subsidizing high users. A fair system would have a base fee, maybe $8/month just to have the connection maintained and then spreads the cost of bandwidth evenly acorss all users, e.g. at $2/Gb or however much it would be.

Not a terrible idea.

Not a terrible idea if the charges somehow reflect the true cost of providing the service. Something like a flat rate of $20/month for the first 10GB and something like $0.10/GB for every 1GB after would be fair. The first $20 covers administration/technical costs and the $0.10/GB is 10X the cost of providing the bandwidth, This should be more than sufficient to turn a very handsome profit.

Unfortunately, what some people fail to understand is that this has NOTHING to do with ISP's be unable to make money with the current pricing scheme or that there is some huge shortage of bandwidth. Judging from some of the responses in this thread it's clear that many have fallen for the ISP lines of "bandwidth hogs" driving up prices for everyone. This is all smoke and mirrors to divert your attention away from the fact that what this is really about is killing competition.

They don't want the consumer having access to cheap internet that allows you to circumvent their media distribution model. Why would you buy a movie from Shaw VOD for $6 when you can get the same rental from iTune for $4.95, or watch a Netflix movie for next to nothing? The only way to stop consumers from buying their media elsewhere is to make it cost prohibitive. If that iTunes rental now costs $4.95 + $5 for the bandwidth you've usesd then of course your "saving" money buying it from Shaw. Too bad the bandwidth you've used in streaming the movie cost 2-3 cents at most to provide.

That's what this is about, making it cost prohibitive to buy your media anywhere but from your cable provider who also happens to own your ISP.

This has been coming for years. The cable companies have been terrified that consumers would bypass their distribution model and buy content cheaply over the internet directly. This is their solution to the problem, make bandwidth ridiculously cost prohibitive and the CRTC and much of the public has bought it hook, line and sinker.

Bandiwdth is cheap and plentifull. Ask yourself this, if you're currently a low user do you think your bill will go down with these changes or stay the same? Is it fair that as bandwidth cap's were implented the price of the service remained the same or actually increased?

We've steadily getting less for more and some people seem to be happy about it because they choose not to use a servie they paid for to it's fullest, while their neighbour may choose to make use of the service to it's fullest. They've have fallen for the idea that they are somehow subsidizing someone else. By that virtue should MTS TV subscribers who watch 5 hours of TV a day pay more than TV users that watch 2 hrs a day? It's all bandwidth after all. Why should you subsidize our neighbour who watches more TV than you?

Is this really what some people think is best for the consumer? Being nickle and dimed for every byte of data they consume? That is the end of a free and neutral internet.

Are MTS and Shaw the only service providers (a genuine question)? If they are then you may well be right. Are there any alternatives? Satellite? Anything?

"They don't want the consumer having access to cheap internet that allows you to circumvent their media distribution model."

this

grumpyrom wrote:Not a terrible idea if the charges somehow reflect the true cost of providing the service. Something like a flat rate of $20/month for the first 10GB and something like $0.10/GB for every 1GB after would be fair. The first $20 covers administration/technical costs and the $0.10/GB is 10X the cost of providing the bandwidth, This should be more than sufficient to turn a very handsome profit.

Unfortunately, what some people fail to understand is that this has NOTHING to do with ISP's be unable to make money with the current pricing scheme or that there is some huge shortage of bandwidth. Judging from some of the responses in this thread it's clear that many have fallen for the ISP lines of "bandwidth hogs" driving up prices for everyone. This is all smoke and mirrors to divert your attention away from the fact that what this is really about is killing competition.

They don't want the consumer having access to cheap internet that allows you to circumvent their media distribution model. Why would you buy a movie from Shaw VOD for $6 when you can get the same rental from iTune for $4.95, or watch a Netflix movie for next to nothing? The only way to stop consumers from buying their media elsewhere is to make it cost prohibitive. If that iTunes rental now costs $4.95 + $5 for the bandwidth you've usesd then of course your "saving" money buying it from Shaw. Too bad the bandwidth you've used in streaming the movie cost 2-3 cents at most to provide.

That's what this is about, making it cost prohibitive to buy your media anywhere but from your cable provider who also happens to own your ISP.

This has been coming for years. The cable companies have been terrified that consumers would bypass their distribution model and buy content cheaply over the internet directly. This is their solution to the problem, make bandwidth ridiculously cost prohibitive and the CRTC and much of the public has bought it hook, line and sinker.

Bandiwdth is cheap and plentifull. Ask yourself this, if you're currently a low user do you think your bill will go down with these changes or stay the same? Is it fair that as bandwidth cap's were implented the price of the service remained the same or actually increased?

We've steadily getting less for more and some people seem to be happy about it because they choose not to use a servie they paid for to it's fullest, while their neighbour may choose to make use of the service to it's fullest. They've have fallen for the idea that they are somehow subsidizing someone else. By that virtue should MTS TV subscribers who watch 5 hours of TV a day pay more than TV users that watch 2 hrs a day? It's all bandwidth after all. Why should you subsidize our neighbour who watches more TV than you?

Is this really what some people think is best for the consumer? Being nickle and dimed for every byte of data they consume? That is the end of a free and neutral internet.

Man, you nailed it. Netflix has scared the ever living crud out of the likes of Shaw,MTS,Bell, etc . Why pay for cable when you can download a ton of movies/shows for 8 bucks a month? So now they charge us for how much we use to try and curb the enthusiasm for providers such as Netflix, iTunes ( and Sony is in the movie renting/downloading business as well ).

It'll be a crime of the CRTC lets Cable/Phone companies do this.

They already have, thankfully the government is saying.. NOW WAIT JUST A DAMN MINUTE... and promises a review.

Bandiwdth is cheap and plentifull.

I think the whole point of this present situation is that bandwidth isn't cheap and plentiful.