Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 28, 2005
3884 posts
188 upvotes
Toronto
Mark77 wrote:
Nov 16th, 2011 9:13 pm
Go start a company, lease that fibre, and do it. I'm sure Toronto Hydro would love an incremental source of revenue.



100mbit/sec, big deal. And those unlicensed wireless services are only useful if you have a line-of-sight to one of their facilities. Business users in downtown Toronto already have plenty of options. What we're talking about here is mainly residential users, in the 'burbs, who are stuck on DSL or cable.

Look shillbot 2000 your opinion is useless WE ALL KNOW YOU WORK FOR BELL. I am adding myself to the MASSIVE list of users that have you on ignore.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3198 upvotes
Calgary
edgedamage wrote:
Nov 16th, 2011 9:21 pm
Look shillbot 2000 your opinion is useless WE ALL KNOW YOU WORK FOR BELL. I am adding myself to the MASSIVE list of users that have you on ignore.

That's not very nice....and you're missing out on a lot of valuable knowledge if you ignore me. Your loss.
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
Apr 25, 2006
1223 posts
59 upvotes
Mississauga
Bell sucks. And they have sucked for twenty years. The only people who stick up for bell or older folks, employees and stock holders.

Rogers is the lesser of two evils.

Usage based billing is just a way to increase profits/revenues once the market got full.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
17683 posts
2376 upvotes
Langley
rems wrote:
Nov 16th, 2011 5:50 pm
I believe the claim of 10X-100X is the charge they want for an extra GB that is transmitted. The incremental cost to transmit that GB was not the $X that Bell wanted to charge. In their rationalization, they omitted the real issue is when people transmit that GB ie if there's congestion. Is that not dishonest? Cuz they talk about congestion yet their pricing only deals with how much you transmit.

That's certainly not dishonest. There's a high correlation between people who transmit a lot of data and people who transmit a lot of data during peak times.

I'm sure we can both agree that UBB would have reduced traffic.... including peak times.

There's also constant per gb peering costs that Bell incurs for traffic leaving it's network, and Bell is charged for that no matter when it happens.
rems wrote:
Nov 16th, 2011 5:50 pm
Cuz even Bell's own pricing that they previously proposed for resellers had it at 20c/GB... ($200/TB)
How much did Bell want to charge? $2 at least right? 10X 20cents is $2, right? unless my math is wrong.
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/ ... -proposal/

It's a little like returning a rental car late, there's a punitive charge for using more than you've agreed. The $2 charge existed mostly theoretically to put people onto plans appropriate for their use, where the per-gb costs was far closer to costs.

I doubt you could find anywhere where Bell suggests that the underlying cost of traffic is near $2/gig.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 29, 2001
4791 posts
40 upvotes
Toronto
Mark77 wrote:
Nov 16th, 2011 9:37 pm
That's not very nice....and you're missing out on a lot of valuable knowledge if you ignore me. Your loss.

OMG, are you for real?

I thought KvF made some of the dumbest quotes. But this takes the cake.

I got to have it as my sig.
Mark77 wrote:
Nov 16th, 2011 9:37 pm
That's not very nice....and you're missing out on a lot of valuable knowledge if you ignore me. Your loss.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3198 upvotes
Calgary
i6s1 wrote:
Nov 16th, 2011 11:21 pm
I doubt you could find anywhere where Bell suggests that the underlying cost of traffic is near $2/gig.

a) The difference between profitability and merely being neutral (with no profit) is use of the add-on video services for Bell.

b) It very likely costs Bell $40 to deliver an average DSL line, per month, all capex and opex included. An average user, as of the most recent data, hits this for approximately 17/gb per month.

Therefore, its not hard to conclude that the average cost of Bell delivering a gigabyte is around $2. For the user that they fail to up-sell to video services, or a premium package, basically, they're just treading water at the current rates charged.

Treading water is better than getting $0 for the service, but the capex to deliver these services is enormously expensive. Bell has a hard time raising prices on the lowest-end users, so they had to try and hit the highest end. I don't really think they need to apologize for that; let's face it, if you're running some app that is kicking 100, 200, 300gb/month over a residential DSL line, there's a pretty good chance the app isn't exactly what you'd classify as being a traditional home use.
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 11, 2008
9419 posts
447 upvotes
i6s1 wrote:
Nov 16th, 2011 11:21 pm
That's certainly not dishonest. There's a high correlation between people who transmit a lot of data and people who transmit a lot of data during peak times.

I'm sure we can both agree that UBB would have reduced traffic.... including peak times.

There's also constant per gb peering costs that Bell incurs for traffic leaving it's network, and Bell is charged for that no matter when it happens.
Im sure there is some correlation but it's not 1. Wasn't UBB about being fair? Why would you penalize people who use it at off-peak hours and don't contribute to the congestion they spoke of?
It's a little like returning a rental car late, there's a punitive charge for using more than you've agreed. The $2 charge existed mostly theoretically to put people onto plans appropriate for their use, where the per-gb costs was far closer to costs.

I doubt you could find anywhere where Bell suggests that the underlying cost of traffic is near $2/gig.

But wasn't the original plan to put everyone on a 25GB limit and those that use more pay that $2 for every GB they went over? If other plans for more usage was available, what was the per GB cost that Bell wanted to offer?
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3198 upvotes
Calgary
rems wrote:
Nov 17th, 2011 12:09 am
Im sure there is some correlation but it's not 1. Wasn't UBB about being fair? Why would you penalize people who use it at off-peak hours and don't contribute to the congestion they spoke of?
Certainly a system that requires a huge amount of calculations as to time of use, etc., is one that is not very user-friendly. Traffic shaping only has limited usefulness. The guys who are doing heavy torrents in the off-hours, it is fair that they essentially would end up paying the base rate, while the so-called 'normal' people end up paying most of the freight? At some level, its reasonable to capture some incremental revenue from above-average off-peak users. The treatment of 'off-peak' use at the same rates as on-peak use perhaps wasn't the best idea --

But wasn't the original plan to put everyone on a 25GB limit and those that use more pay that $2 for every GB they went over?

Hardly, the terms were nowhere near that bad under UBB 1.0, and certainly, Bell retail plans charge nowhere near that, topping out at basically ~$150 for essentially an unlimited 25mbit connnection (do the math on that!).
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
17683 posts
2376 upvotes
Langley
rems wrote:
Nov 17th, 2011 12:09 am
Im sure there is some correlation but it's not 1. Wasn't UBB about being fair? Why would you penalize people who use it at off-peak hours and don't contribute to the congestion they spoke of?

Because being perfectly fair is completely impossible. If peak traffic is at 6:42:27PM, do you charge every who used the internet at that time the full capacity costs and everyone else gets a free ride, paying only for a connection charge and a pittance for the electricity to leave the equipment on the other 3559 minutes each day? Do you arbitrarily call peak time 6pm to 7pm and just bill users during that time? Do you charge $2/gig during 6pm-7pm and 5c/gig the rest of the day.... I mean, even that is arbitrary. The shorter you define peak time, the more accurately you're defining it, but at the same time, you're simply shifting peak time earlier or later as people seek to avoid peak time useage. Then they'd start needing updates on peak time, if it gets defined from 6pm-7pm, and billing, it won't be long before peak time is 701pm or 559pm.

I don't really know where "fair" enters the conversation, but there's a tradeoff between fairness and complexity, and the vast majority of the population couldn't tell you how much bandwidth they used last month. Peak time charges are more fair, and most of the people in this thread can understand why they would exist and how to mitigate them. But, for the other 95% of the population, they'd have no idea.

Overall bandwidth useage is certainly not perfect, but it is strongly correlated and far more easily understood.

And again, the point you were making was that it was dishonest, if you still believe that, please let me know where you feel the deception lies.
rems wrote:
Nov 17th, 2011 12:09 am
But wasn't the original plan to put everyone on a 25GB limit and those that use more pay that $2 for every GB they went over? If other plans for more usage was available, what was the per GB cost that Bell wanted to offer?
Everyone would get a 25gb cap, but would be able to purchase additional blocks of 40gb for $5. 12.5c/gig if you used the full block. Looking at it a different way, 25c/gb of revenue if the average customer uses only half their block.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/01/crtc- ... d-billing/
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 11, 2008
9419 posts
447 upvotes
i6s1 wrote:
Nov 17th, 2011 12:26 am
Because being perfectly fair is completely impossible. If peak traffic is at 6:42:27PM, do you charge every who used the internet at that time the full capacity costs and everyone else gets a free ride, paying only for a connection charge and a pittance for the electricity to leave the equipment on the other 3559 minutes each day? Do you arbitrarily call peak time 6pm to 7pm and just bill users during that time? Do you charge $2/gig during 6pm-7pm and 5c/gig the rest of the day.... I mean, even that is arbitrary. The shorter you define peak time, the more accurately you're defining it, but at the same time, you're simply shifting peak time earlier or later as people seek to avoid peak time useage. Then they'd start needing updates on peak time, if it gets defined from 6pm-7pm, and billing, it won't be long before peak time is 701pm or 559pm.

I don't really know where "fair" enters the conversation, but there's a tradeoff between fairness and complexity, and the vast majority of the population couldn't tell you how much bandwidth they used last month. Peak time charges are more fair, and most of the people in this thread can understand why they would exist and how to mitigate them. But, for the other 95% of the population, they'd have no idea.

Overall bandwidth useage is certainly not perfect, but it is strongly correlated and far more easily understood.
When you charge by bandwidth usage though you're then assuming that it's always congested (which obviously isn't the case). Guess who comes out on top here?

Everyone would get a 25gb cap, but would be able to purchase additional blocks of 40gb for $5. 12.5c/gig if you used the full block. Looking at it a different way, 25c/gb of revenue if the average customer uses only half their block.

http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/01/crtc- ... d-billing/

See this is what I don't like about these caps. Why should we be constantly seeing how much we use? If we don't use enough we're not getting what we paid for. If we go over then we're hit with huge overage fees. It's like cellphone minutes...who actually uses the entire amount they have in their plan? People usually buy more than what they need since they don't want surprises when they get their bill. If I normally use 25-30 GB a month, what are my options? Either I risk it and pay $2 for each additional GB and hope I only need no more than 27GB or pay the $5 and hope I use more than 28GB to get my money's worth. Who's the winner in these cases? Why don't they just charge the actual cost (plus some reasonable margin) on overages?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
17683 posts
2376 upvotes
Langley
rems wrote:
Nov 17th, 2011 12:37 am
When you charge by bandwidth usage though you're then assuming that it's always congested (which obviously isn't the case). Guess who comes out on top here?
Then provide a better idea for managing traffic at peak times. All have flaws. Regulated flat rates for resellers mean that high users head to them, and then Bell has to pass higher capacity costs onto it's own low-traffic users, which is far less fair than UBB at ~20c/gb for heavy users.

I believe that all traffic management policies have their merits. Low users are best off with UBB, heavy users are best off with higher flat rates. Torrenters are best off with peak time caps and unlimited off peaks, but that's the opposite of what netflix users would want.

I agree that peak time caps and unlimited traffic off peak is more fair than constant UBB costs, but it's also more complex and the average person would have a hard time understanding it. Bear in mind that 50% of users use under 4gb and total traffic divided by total users is 17gb, so under UBB, most people pay nothing extra.
rems wrote:
Nov 17th, 2011 12:37 am
See this is what I don't like about these caps. Why should we be constantly seeing how much we use? If we don't use enough we're not getting what we paid for. If we go over then we're hit with huge overage fees. It's like cellphone minutes...who actually uses the entire amount they have in their plan? People usually buy more than what they need since they don't want surprises when they get their bill. If I normally use 25-30 GB a month, what are my options? Either I risk it and pay $2 for each additional GB and hope I only need no more than 27GB or pay the $5 and hope I use more than 28GB to get my money's worth. Who's the winner in these cases?

If it comes down to winners and losers, the winners are the people who use 24.9gb or 54.9gb, and the losers are the people who use 28. Bear in mind that per minute, pay as you go costs are higher than postpaid cell phone plans. This is because providers know that the average person doesn't use all the included minutes (or gigs) and they price the plans based on total usage across many customers.

FWIW, even Teksavvy uses that model albeit with higher caps, since the backhaul was provided by Bell. If suddenly everyone on a 300gb teksavvy plan started using 299gb, they'd probably have to raise prices a few dollars. Like everyone else, they can price services based on average customer cost.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3198 upvotes
Calgary
rems wrote:
Nov 17th, 2011 12:37 am
When you charge by bandwidth usage though you're then assuming that it's always congested (which obviously isn't the case). Guess who comes out on top here?
If you start with the underlying assumption that the status quo was sustainable, both as an overall model, and in quantity, for the telecom infrastructure of Canada, in the environment of inflation, plant replacement and retirement costs, etc., then, of course, any decision that ultimately sees an increase in rates is going to be perceived as being unfavourable to the consumer.

Of course, as shown on numerous occasions, while Bell and the other providers (Telus, etc.) have, through technology, been able to increment incremental solutions to local access speed problems, and have been able to develop additional revenue streams (ie: TV over DSL), at some point, the service life of these investments will come to an end and FTTH implementation will be mandatory.

A recent article I read tonight said that Ericcson claims that they can do 500mbit/sec, over very short 6 or 8-pair bonded VDSL links. Fine, that might be good enough for the next 10 years, maybe 15 years. But after that, the entire telecom system of Canada will need to essentially be replaced in order to go faster. Most houses don't even have 6-pair or 8-pair available to implement the bonding techniques. Sooner or later, people will want their 10 megapixel video screens to be fed with data, and 200mbit/second probably won't cut it. (or insert your own numbers here....).

Why don't they just charge the actual cost (plus some reasonable margin) on overages?

That's exactly what the tariff attempted to do. Much of the argument turns on whether the above-average users should be forced to pay average costs, or incremental costs. Incremental costs can be close to zero, or they can be big-ticket items, like FTTH, depending on how many facilities are in the ground, etc. Certainly Bell cannot, and should not be expected to maintain extremely difficult rate tables. ie: if you live on Mavis Rd in Mississauga, you pay 10 cents/gb. If you live on an overloaded DSLAM near Ryerson with the students pounding on it, you pay $5/gb because the whole DSLAM has to be replaced!

Bell operates in an extremely competitive environment as far as providing their infrastructure goes, and if the rates they charge get out of line, Rogers can swoop in and clean up. The most recent CRTC decision in fact heavily incentivizes outfits such as Teksavvy to use Rogers for local transport, instead of Bell. If Bell loses a lot of customers to Rogers-based transport, then certainly, you could/should expect Bell to go to the CRTC with an application to lower the tariffed rates, if they are not permitted to vary the tariff to a lower rate on their own volition.
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2010
2635 posts
161 upvotes
Mark77 wrote:
Nov 16th, 2011 2:13 pm
The 'neat' thing about this debate is that if Bell's rates are excessive, and if an excess profit windfall is going to accrue to Bell, you can participate in it by purchasing BCE stock.

So tell me, are you lining up to buy BCE stock? Or not?

The dividend yield is already well over 5%. So its not like you're going to have an opportunity cost versus keeping your money in a 0% savings account, if you believe the narrative that Bell is this hugely over-profitable company that the Teksavvy's of the world seem to be pushing...

Paying an arm and a leg for internet and then buying BCE stock to get back a few dollars as dividends is pretty lame.

I am simply not going to support BCE.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3198 upvotes
Calgary
desidealer49 wrote:
Nov 17th, 2011 1:06 am
Paying an arm and a leg for internet and then buying BCE stock to get back a few dollars as dividends is pretty lame.

I am simply not going to support BCE.

There are two types of people in this world, the people who whine and complain that everything is messed up in the world -- and the people who see an opportunity because things are 'messed up', and seize that opportunity.

Most of the arguments made against BCE apply to the oil companies, and to the banks as well. Do you refuse to put your money in those firms as well? Seriously, if you're against companies that make a profit from selling a valuable goods and services to consumers, what is left for you to invest in? Groupon? :lol:
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...

Top