# Usage Based Billing



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

Discuss my frugal friends. 

Mwahahahaha...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Booo!

I got my notice from Acanac. They will start throttling down to 100 kbps once you exceed 25 GB each month. An additional 100 GB is on offer for 9.95 per month. I'm more peeved that the cap is 60 GB is Quebec. This is pretty blatant favouritism on the part of our beneficent regulator.


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Booo!
> 
> I got my notice from Acanac. They will start throttling down to 100 kbps once you exceed 25 GB each month. An additional 100 GB is on offer for 9.95 per month. I'm more peeved that the cap is 60 GB is Quebec. This is pretty blatant favouritism on the part of our beneficent regulator.


Interesting. Are you allowed to buy 2 packages of 100GB?


----------



## RealizedReturns (Oct 16, 2010)

Speak with your wallet. If enough people do it, expect pricing to change. Yes, open markets really do work.

I use Shaw Extreme and it appears I have a 100GB/month cap before I am paying extra. I consider myself a heavier-than-normal user - lots of streaming, tons of downloading of TV shows and other media.. yet when I look at my usage I am usually in the 60-80GB range. Those using 100GB+ must be really heavy users.. 

I guess what I am getting at is that these caps won't impact most customers in pricing.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

I'm on cable with Tek Savvy for now I'm fine although I've heard that this may change in June. 

If it goes through I'm afraid I'll have to bend over just like every one else... 

Thing is that people don't really understand how the internet works. It's not really like plumbing where if other people take the water you don't get any. 

Let's face it the telcos have had a great time of it, they deliver the internet on the same old technology that we've had for years, phone lines and cable, they did have to invest in technology in your neighborhood to connect it it to the phone lines and cable system. 

Stats are that their infrastructure spend at this point is $1 per month per subscriber. Their profit margin is 3000%. With UBB they'll get even more money, it doesn't cost them any more. 

If they had spent all the money that they spent on throttling in anticipation of this UBB on infrastructure improvements we wouldn't even be having this conversation. 

When I was with Rogers, since they instituted throttling my VOIP phone quality was really bad. Quite frankly they should be sued for throttling, I paid for x amount of bandwidth at x download and x upload speed which I never received because they throttled P2P traffic. 

With Tek Savvy I get what I pay for, if I download a TV show, it downloads in real time. It takes a little less than an hour to download a one hour show. My VOIP phone works well. 

It's a blatant money grab, and what adds insult to injury is not that they want to charge their customers more... it's that they want to anticompetitively force other providers such as Tek Savvy to charge us as well. I have no problem paying for what I use if they would provide their side of the bargain. They contracted with me to provide me with a certain download speed and bandwidth and didn't. This affects the way my entire phone system works. Quite frankly they should be concerned about providing the services they have contracted to provide before someone initiates a class action lawsuit. If any one initiates one I'll be the first to sign up.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Also I'm one of those people who use over 200 gigs per month. 

I don't have cable, all my tv is downloaded, stripped of commercials and stored on a hard drive until I have time to watch it. 

I don't pay for cable, so I would be willing to pay more for internet. 

Quite frankly i'm spoiled...I haven't watched a commercial for a couple years now. If I go to a friend's house I can't even watch TV. I can't believe that people pay for the priviledge of being advertised to for 15 minutes out of every half hour. 

That's what all these moves are really about...they want to force us to consume their advertising so that they get paid according to the broken business model they've used for the last 25 years. Recently it was determined that people use more internet than TV. It didn't work for the music industry and it won't work for them either.


----------



## onomatopoeia (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm with cogeco in ontario and I've got a 60 GB limit per month and have had since i moved here 6 months ago.

It takes some getting used to. Between me and my wife we generally use it all up per month since we stream a lot....towards the end of the month i start having to monitor it - which is annoying.

This whole CRTC decision will probably get reversed by parliment - it's a political move that will garner a lot of political support for the conservatives.

In the end - it's a silly decision. A company choosing to limit you is fine...but the "big boys" getting an injunction to basically prevent any small companies from NOT throttling you is VERY non-competitive.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I dunno, I have a hard time exceeding 12 gigs/month of downloading; my average for the past three months was 10 gigs. I work at home and get hundreds of emails per day, many with large attachments; I download some music, occasional movies and TV shows (but not in HD), and I use a VOIP phone. I have unlimited bandwidth with Bell, but am considering going for the Fibe 10 fiber-optic option, which is about $20/month cheaper than what I pay now and has a 75 gig bandwidth limit. I could never imagine myself coming close to that limit.

But in general I think usage-based billing would be the death knell for streaming TV and movies, Netflix on demand, etc., as these are the things that really eat up bandwidth.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

A company choosing to artificially inflate the value of a commodity 10000% is fine? You can only do that in a NON-competitive market.

The independent providers buy interconnectivity capacity from Bell so they can reach customers via the copper pairs coming into their home. There is no other way for "competition" to have access to the present day infrastructure in millions of Canadians homes except to lease it from Bell. They are certainly not riding Bell's network for free! And essentially UBB, by forcing Bell wholesale customers to adopt the same rate structure as Bell's own customers, they are eliminating unlimited internet, and leaving NO alternative for the individuals and startups that require extra bandwidth.

The only extra mile independent providers can head at the moment is use the Access Services Tariff to co-locate hardware in central offices, IF space is available.

There are 27 central offices in the 416 area. DSL performance tails off with distance and building presence here alone would severely limit a services reach. For this reason, since 2004 Bell has spent millions on creating a fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) network by building additions to the brown OPI (outside plant interface) boxes on the street. However, this FTTN network does not fall under the Access Services Tariff, it's off limits. So each independent ISP would have mirror this build-out and build additions next to Bell's OPI, again, IF there is physical space to allow that. This solution is not in anyway elegant or efficient, because a single fiber has virtually unlimited capacity. What is needed for true competition in this space, is a neutral body to own and oversee the operation of this country's telecomm. infrastucture.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

We're screwed. The whole point of this exercise is to cash in on the current web trends that have a lot to do with video, streaming content, distracting advertising out the wazoo and other high-intensity downloads. People want to play games online, all of these things consume enormous amounts of bandwidth and the ISPs are now poised to take advantage of the demand for all of this. I hate it. It's rampant greed. As was pointed out above, they make a LOT of money as things stand now. But that isn't enough for them. The CRTC has managed to make the masses poor, to benefit the few at the top of the telcos.

My choice is to watch my TV shows on TV, using DVDs purchased in a retail outlet. I buy my music from used CD stores. The last time I was there, I bought a Glass Tiger CD for $3.99. Can't get those sorts of prices online. The CD contained no advertising or spyware and won't corrupt my computer with malware and other scripts contained in modern webpages. May not be trendy and modern, but the money is still in my pocket, not in that of the ISPs. I mostly use the net for surfing sites that are not video intensive and I have video and advertising blocked out. I send emails in plain text format and edit my images down to a proper size (less than 200KB) before attaching them (if at all). 

There are lots of things individuals can do to reduce their consumption, but I just don't see the willingness in the masses to put down their cell phones and high speed Internet connections just because the price goes up and we get gouged. Consumers allowed themselves to be gouged with cellphones when they started and the gouging continues. This will be no different. We can complain all we like, but I sadly think that consumers will just pay it and continue to trend upwards in their demand for resource-hogging content.

Just wait until sites like youtube start charging for membership to view their content. Greed runs rampant on the net.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Agreed. The internet is a utility and natural monopoly in many respects. Having every ISP string out fibre to every house isn't practical or desirable, so these networks should be opened to third party ISPs on a regulated wholesale basis.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

I have no problem with usage based billing in principle, it's the exorbitant fees Bell wants to charge ($1.50 - $5 per gb) that is incredibly unfair. According to analysts it costs Bell less than a cent to deliver 1 gb. So how can they justify charging $5? If it was something like 10 cents per gb they would still make a huge profit and most people wouldn't complain.

Also, since the purpose of UBB as Bell claims is to reduce congestion during peak usage times (evenings), why isn't bandwidth that's used during non-peak times free? If I'm downloading something at 3 am I'm not contributing to congestion so how can they justify counting that toward my cap.

By the way has everyone signed http://stopthemeter.ca ?


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Berubeland said:


> Quite frankly i'm spoiled...I haven't watched a commercial for a couple years now. If I go to a friend's house I can't even watch TV. I can't believe that people pay for the priviledge of being advertised to for 15 minutes out of every half hour.


I'm used to commercials, they give me a time to go to the kitchen to grab a snack or go to the bathroom or something. Pausing it is just not the same somehow. I don't pay for cable either though, I can get many digital channels with my antenna.


----------



## GeniusBoy27 (Jun 11, 2010)

Hmmm ... I can't stand the commercials ... imagine seeing a television show in 2/3 the time. Why wouldn't I do that?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Streaming and downloading video saves a lot of time. I can watch it when I want and not sit through 20 mins of commercials per episode.

There is no reason to be scared about the internet corrupting your computer if you have a decent router with a firewall... Besides that you just need to know what not to accept/install. It just takes a little DD no different than anything else.

Those who don't think they'll ever use 100 GB just don't realize what is out there yet. It's like saying you are fine with a 80 GB HDD until you realize the new OS takes more than that. 25 GB is not much anymore at all

A network at fiber optic speeds to the last mile has amazing potential and possibilities in many industries , especially with mobile computing in its infancy. There would be absolutely no need for physical media such as CDs, and cloud computing would be a reality among other things.


UBB isn't the only marketing ploy the Canadian Telcos have schemed to discourage internet usage. Canadians think they have fast internet because only the DL is advertised, when the UL is usually capped at 1 MB or less. You need a two way network nowadays. When I traveled, I was surprised to find net with equal DL/UL

UBB is purely to keep people paying for archaic cable TV and telephone lines etc. Otherwise they could easily set a price that would encourage more spending and usage (on renewable free content data to the provider). All this marketing is just discouraging innovation, because that's the most lucrative way. 

It would be better to adopt the Wind mobile fair usage approach that gives you a slap on the wrist for abusing the system. In many places the government owns and subsidizes the fiber optic network. Actually our taxes did pay for a lot of the Canadian fiber network!


----------



## RealizedReturns (Oct 16, 2010)

*Breaking News*

Rumours are rapidly spreading on all news sites that the government is going to ask the CRTC to reverse their decision or they will overrule it. I honestly did NOT expect that.

Tony Clement just tweeted "True. CRTC must go back to drawing board"

now, its no guarantee this will all reverse, but it sounds like it isn't over yet. Will be interesting to see what the next few days brings on this issue..


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

How about this solution.... I'll pay more if all of those who use less get money credited to their account when they use less than their cap. 

Go back to the drawing board!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> We're screwed. The whole point of this exercise is to cash in on the current web trends that have a lot to do with video, streaming content, distracting advertising out the wazoo and other high-intensity downloads. People want to play games online, all of these things consume enormous amounts of bandwidth *and the ISPs are now poised to take advantage of the demand for all of this. *I hate it. It's rampant greed. As was pointed out above, they make a LOT of money as things stand now. But that isn't enough for them. The CRTC has managed to make the masses poor, to benefit the few at the top of the telcos. [/QUOTE}
> 
> It's market trends that seem to be driving the internet and cell phone
> plans.
> ...


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

carverman said:


> Just wait until sites like youtube start charging for membership to view their content. Greed runs rampant on the net.


Seeing as Google owns Youtube, I don't see subscription fees coming our way for this service. If it were someone else, I'd tend to agree. We may see the networks start charging for online access - if that happens, it'll be back to torrents for me.

I watch TV through a computer - but its a computer connected to my TV (boxee box - check it out!). I am willing sit through the single repetitive ad while streaming through the network sites.

My usage is anywhere from 80 - 160GB / month. I don't mind paying more for Internet, since I'm saving on cable. 

Though, both hydro and Internet could be considered utilities, the difference is that it doesn't cost an ISP anything to generate data, where it does cost to generate hydro. And the networks which the ISPs operate on, were greatly subsidized by the Canadian tax payers.

I pay for my bandwidth already - 5Mbps. Its irrelevant how often I make use of that bandwidth i.e. How much data I process.

Glad to see the ruling is looking to be overturned / revoked.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> There are lots of things individuals can do to reduce their consumption, but I just don't see the willingness in the masses to put down their cell phones and high speed Internet connections just because the price goes up and we get gouged. Consumers allowed themselves to be gouged with cellphones when they started and the gouging continues. This will be no different. We can complain all we like, but I sadly think that consumers will just pay it and continue to trend upwards in their demand for resource-hogging content.
> 
> Just wait until sites like youtube start charging for membership to view their content. Greed runs rampant on the net.


Ok this is data we're talking about not water or another limited natural resource.... It's not like we have to reduce our usage to save the planet, in fact the internet is very good for the planet and saves trees and resources such as plastic used on billions of CDs etc

This data could be a heart rate monitor, a 2 way video with an ER or 911, detailed information on just about everything, everywhere. It could put the power of a supercomputer in the palm of your hand through cloud computing. A Gigabit network is much more than just streaming youtube video

This is no trend. When IBM execs first saw a mouse they laughed too and said they'll stick with their keyboards thank you.

If Google decided to charge for youtube they would instantly lose all credibility and another site would take over within days. Youtube is quite dated to be honest, there are many many other places to host video




carverman said:


> ...and so it goes..crackberrys, Iphones, etc...as users get
> used to the convience of new technology..(ie: watching a movie on an
> Iphone while travelling on a city bus), the cell phone providers will come
> up with more ingenious schemes for making money off them. The
> ...


People can steal anything it's completely irrelevant. SIM cards are great.. now I can have local numbers in any country and swap phones easily without paying a setup a new cell locked to 1 carrier.....

The pricing schemes are what we are complaining about. UBB is designed to discourage data usage because if they priced it lower they would make more (on internet, but lose on all the cable disconnections)


----------



## mrbizi (Dec 19, 2009)

UBB will only be fair if consumers realistically have many vendors to choose from which is not the case for internet providers due to the hassle/inconvenience involved in changing providers.

UBB is just a defensive move by the Bell, Rogers of this world to defend their turf from the growing trend of video streaming. I just purchased a blu-ray player last month which has the capability to stream movies via the net (thru Netflix), the quality of the video is awesome and quite comparable to high-definition TV broadcasts. I did not experience any problems e.g. buffering that you sometimes experience with youtube etc. There are tons more movies to choose from compared to Rogers in demand. I think it is a real and viable alternative to renting movies from Blockbuster or pay per view.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

The problem with letting all the vendors in is losing complete control over vital infrastructure

UBB will only be fair if the price is regulated.

If you charge too much for something, it obviously discourages usage. There is a certain price that controls usage without discouraging it. If you've read Freakonomics, charging a certain amount for something can actually increase usage. If it's unlimited, some people abuse the system and most people don't realize what they have

I've been reading about European telecoms, and I think the real shortfall of the CRTC is that they don't encourage investment in networks and services You either need to open it up to competition, or have a regulatory agency to enforce some reinvestment of profits


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I have no problem with usage billing as long as it is fair. Like any other user, I don't want to see heavy users penalized. There could be more granularity in their current offerings.

But make the new tiers fair. So we need someone other than the current CRTC to ensure that since the scheme they proposed is anti-competitive, designed to kill streaming video services in their infancy.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

If they want UBB it should apply to everyone, if you don't use up your "quota" then you should be charged just for what you use. 

The way I look at it is sure I use much more than most people, but how many people don't use even half of what they pay for? Many more than the heavy users that's for sure. 

So if the telecoms want UBB make them take it for all their customers, not just the heavy users


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I am surprised to see people mentioning the concept of fairness in this discussion. I hate to break it to you guys, but this wasn't implemented with the goal of "fairness" in mind. This is nothing more than a money grab by the big boxes to take advantage and cash in on the new web trends of video, music and other rich content downloads by consumers on their computers and wireless devices. They're not doing it to be fair to us or benefit us in any way. They're doing it to line their pockets. That is, the few people at the top, not the rank and file employees either.

I would suggest everyone re-read the post by mrbizi above as it sums up well the whole purpose behind this. Nothing more.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

There is an element of fairness Royal Mail

Currently you pay for internet speed, a chunk of the pipe, which makes absolute sense because the content is user-made

The problem is they sell more pipe than they can actually support. If everyone downloaded at the speed they were paying for 24/7, the system would crash.

Thus it is more fair to charge the usage rather than limit the speed of the light users. Don't you think?

The current UBB is priced to heavily discourage usage, and instead encourage cable and other profitable archaic mediums. It is not priced for profit, as usage would increase substantially with a lower price (No one is gonna pay $5 for a GB seriously) especially seeing as the content is free to the provider


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> There is an element of fairness Royal Mail
> 
> Currently you pay for internet speed, a chunk of the pipe, which makes absolute sense because the content is user-made
> 
> ...


You have a valid point. It would also be fair to charge by the hour for cable, no?

Congestion could theoretically be an issue, but factually, its not. Policy should be made to reflect the realities of our environment. Our current policy regarding telecommunications is based upon the Act, which is outdated and mentions the term consumer ONCE.


----------



## briant (Jun 23, 2009)

Here is my argument against UBB. I wrote to my MP, heritage minister, industry minister and prime mister about this ruling. See http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/01/usage-based-internet-billing-what-can-you-do/ 


Dear honourable prime minister Stephen Harper,

I'm a software developer in Calgary and I'm part of a generation of Canadians who live in an online world. Access to affordable internet is extremely important to me and I believe that the telecommunications sector should be open to competition and that consumers should have options when choosing an affordable internet service provider.

Right now, the major telecom providers in Calgary are Telus and Shaw. In March they will both be enforcing caps on internet usage and charging $1-$2/Gb of over usage. I believe this is unfair and wrong for the following reasons

1. Transmission of this data costs telecommunication companies roughly 3-6 cents/Gb of data. At $1-$2/Gb, that's a 3000% increase in transmission cost being past down to consumers.

2. By enforcing UBB, the large telecom companies are effectively removing the market advantage (unlimited usege plans) smaller providers have in order to compete. This leave customers with no options but to pay higher fees for less internet service. It also makes it harder for competitors (like teksavvy, nucleus, and 3web) in the telecommunication industry.

3. Competitors like netflix, skype, apple tv, hulu, google tv, and VOIP telephone providers all rely on internet transmission lines to get to their customers. They are direct competitors with shaw and telus tv/phone services. Telecom providers are essentially stomping out these alternative IP based television and telephone services.

4. In order for UBB to work, the bandwidth meter in place by ISPs must be accurate and it should be measured and verified by an independent party. Gas, electrical, water meters are all strictly regulated and verfied by independent parties so should internet bandwidth meters. I question the accuracy of the meters provided by Shaw and others, and I've run my own test on my router to keep track of my usage and the readings are always inconsistent.

5. UBB will only be applied at the consumer level and not for business accounts. Corporations require huge amounts of bandwidth to operate their network infrastructure. UBB will only be fair if it is applied to all consumers of internet bandwidth including corporations and business accounts.


I am for open and affordable access to information and a competitive telecommunications industry in Canada. This issue important to me and I will vote for another political party if UBB is not overturned and this kind of telecommunication policy continues.

Sincerely
Brian


----------



## K-133 (Apr 30, 2010)

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2011/02/08/technology-crtc-internet-billing.html


----------



## briant (Jun 23, 2009)

And here is the link to the CRTC review
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2011/r110208.htm


----------



## briant (Jun 23, 2009)

Looks like Shaw is rethinking their position on UBB

"Until this thorough consultation with customers has taken place, Shaw will not proceed with Internet usage billing. To date no Shaw Internet customer has received a bill for any usage based charges."

http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/New-Data-Usage/


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I love the part about the CRTC taking this on by their own initiative.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> I love the part about the CRTC taking this on by their own initiative.


Yes with Clements boot print in the *** of the Chairman!


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

So apparently "Usage Based Billing" is dead, but now they are scheming up "Aggregated Volume Pricing" whatever that is

Coincidence that UBB was killed right after an election was announced? and AVP probably won't be announced until after. Keeps it out of the discussions the one time the politicians actually listen..


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

As long as it is in the telcos best interest to do it, we can bet that some anti-competitive pricing will get introduced. Especially with Telus and Bell now offering TV over the same infrastructure, some billing method to kill Netflix is bound to crop up. Rogers and Shaw were already motivated.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

Am I the only one who thinks there should be some kind of anti-competition regulation when companies like Bell and Rogers who own television networks are allowed to dictate the pricing of internet infrastructure for companies like Netflix - e.g. their direct competition?


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

I can't believe this



> Users in our forums note that in a recent conference call with analysts and the press, Shaw proudly proclaimed that after consulting with users, they found that Canadian consumers were simply thrilled with the proposition to pay more for broadband services.
> 
> "Not one of the customers that came to these consultations said that if you charge more we will leave for a 'lesser performing' internet service," Shaw informed conference call attendees, adding that "customers have said we are prepared to pay more for a higher value of service." Shaw also proudly proclaimed that usage-based billing was "a win-win for our shareholders as well as our customers."


http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Shaw-Listens-Proceeds-With-UsageBilling-Anyway-113858


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> We're screwed. The whole point of this exercise is to cash in on the current web trends that have a lot to do with video, streaming content, distracting advertising out the wazoo and other high-intensity downloads. People want to play games online, all of these things consume enormous amounts of bandwidth and the ISPs are now poised to take advantage of the demand for all of this. I hate it. It's rampant greed.


Well we can call it greed, TRM..but to the ISPs..it's value added services and
the opportunity to cash in from the new society that is now born with a cell phone implanted in their ears and 12 fingers to manipulate those keyboards
a lot faster. Texting is here to stay and so is short form words..ie: CUL8tr
(see you later) ..it makes typing easier and you don't have to worry about
grammer or composition anymore.

About 10 yrs ago, I took some courses on "Evolving Technologies" and back
then BlueTooth was only a curious word in ones vocabulary..now it's a reality
so is the Online APP Store for the IPad/Iphone crowd. Heck we are now at 3G (third generation) and 4 G is just coming out with the new Apple Ipad and
the RIM/Blackberry offering that came out this week to compete with Apple.

Home computers/laptops..are still in (for now) but as the technology evolves
over the next 5 years, there will be less and less home computers sold and
those will be completely wireless. 

YUP..there's an APP for that! 



> My choice is to watch my TV shows on TV, using DVDs purchased in a retail outlet. I buy my music from used CD stores. The last time I was there, I bought a Glass Tiger CD for $3.99. Can't get those sorts of prices online. The CD contained no advertising or spyware and won't corrupt my computer with malware and other scripts contained in modern webpages. May not be trendy and modern, but the money is still in my pocket, not in that of the ISPs. I mostly use the net for surfing sites that are not video intensive and I have video and advertising blocked out. I send emails in plain text format and edit my images down to a proper size (less than 200KB) before attaching them (if at all).


Well that's good TRM, but you are one of those that is not "promoting"
the economy. It's the younger generation that's doing that for us...and
thank God for that..because if it was left up to us and our rather frugal
nature..we'd still be using rotary dial telephones!



> There are lots of things individuals can do to reduce their consumption, but I just don't see the willingness in the masses to put down their cell phones and high speed Internet connections just because the price goes up and we get gouged. Consumers allowed themselves to be gouged with cellphones when they started and the gouging continues. This will be no different. We can complain all we like, but I sadly think that consumers will just pay it and continue to trend upwards in their demand for resource-hogging content.


Is this a blog or a rant? FWIW, this is the information age, and everyone
knows it and manufacturers in the US, China and Canada are scrambling
their brains and resources to come out with the next best thing since
sliced bread. Yes, gouging is going to happen..and maybe the consumers
of information have at least some choice, besides the old "Big 3 Gougers".

I had signed up with WIND for 3Gigs of data and 0.2c per MB if the contracted
data rate was exceeded within a given month. They were offering a pretty
sweet deal compared to the other gougers, ($17.50 per month for 6months).
I bit and got a USB data stick/antenna from them and was happier than a 
pig in....well..last month I got a bit of a shock (surfing too much Youtube,
because I love music)..and besides the 17.50..I got a $38 excess data charge
on my bill. Now that still isn't that bad compared to the ripoff monthly rate
from B*LL, but I wasn't going to put up with those kind of charges month
after month because of my internet surfing preferences. 

I bought some data counter s/w from a 3rd party ( a bit over $20 for the online
licence), because I wanted to stay as much as possible within the charged laptop 3GB tier or face more overcharging, or go to the unlimited tier at $45 a month..
but since then, they are offering even better deals at $29 a month,
so today, I went back to them and got a sweet deal (at least I think)..
$29 a month UNLIMITED DATA for 12 months...now I don't have to worry
about excess data charges..and downloads galore..here I come!

I have Norton 360 Internet protection (bought at Staples) for online protection
against viruses, phishing, unsolicited cookies and spyware. God there are so
many "nasty's" out there that you would just give up..if it wasn't for these
companies that provide with constantly updated online protection like I have
when my computer runs a background virus/spyware scan and gives me 
a full report on any nastys out there trying to hack into my computer.
Well worth the $90 a year, but I found a Norton CD at Staples for around $45
and bought another one for the second year, as each one expires after 1 year
and when you do online banking/ordering by CC, you HAVE to pay for this
level of protection. I have a firewall set up so tough that they will have a
hard time penetrating it..that's the price one has to pay for this information
age..with millions unemployed out there and lots of time on their hands..
hackers are a reality today. 

So, there is some choice out there now..and it's going to get better
as the competition heats up even more in the next few months/or year
as the big 3 start losing more customers.



> Just wait until sites like youtube start charging for membership to view their content. Greed runs rampant on the net.


Well if that happens, I guess I'll have to pay for membership..I like Youtube..
it's my connection to the rest of the world.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

You can't compare wired to wireless, that's a fallacy. Wired networks have virtually unlimited capacity. Wireless spectrum is a limited resource,



> So the wired Internet is a little like the interstate highway infrastructure started in the 1950s. It was built to future capacity, and more could be added in the future: There could be more east-west and north-south trunks, and the individual highways could be widened, from the initial four lanes to six, eight or even 12 lanes.
> 
> We have plenty of capacity in the wired Internet and in its growth potential.
> 
> ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> You can't compare wired to wireless, that's a fallacy. Wired networks have virtually unlimited capacity. Wireless spectrum is a limited resource,


Well that is not exactly true. I used to work for Nortel on wireless (cell)
and wired systems(carriers/central office etc). If you are talking analog
then yes..the bandwidth spectrum is crowded and there isn't much room
as you say..but digital information can be encoded in very clever schemes
that are not possible with analog. For instance, an analog telephone line
can only carry a specific bandwith, 300 to 3400 khz for voice and up to 20k
for high fidelity applications such as FM radio. Yet, if you go digital, the
coding/decoding schema will allow that same pair of twisted copper wires from your home to carry multi-facet information by clever encoding.
Such as 4 phase or 8 phase or even 16 phase PSK as an example. 
And so can wireless bandwith..but the problems start occurring when
high bandwidth data traffic starts to go out of the local routers and
onto gateway routers..traffic starts to bunch up and throughput can
be a problem because although the digital bits/bytes can be stored in
memory in a local router which collects all the digital traffic in a specific
area, each packet of data has to be addressed and sent out on a high
bandwith digital trunk..that can be microwave or fiber or other means.

At the gateway routers, the digital packets take time to collect, decode
and be re-routed to yet another gateway router before reaching it's
final destination..there is a lot of things taking place to transmit digital
data and pictures..and this processing ties up expensive digital processing
equipment by the ISPs..so bandwith restrictions can take place, depending
on the level of transmission provided to the subscriber under the contract
with them.

Does this make sense?


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

That doesn't change the fact that spectrum is limited. There can only be so many operators due to laws of physics and licence restrictions, money is not as big an issue. The wired network is eons ahead in speed of wireless and it uses compression technologies just the same. Yes, 4G proper (LTE) has made significant efficiency improvements using 4x4 MIMO antennas for a combined bw of 326.4Mbps per 20MHz, compared to 56Mbps per 5MHz on a single HSPA antenna. But wired will always be the most efficient reliable and scalable technology an end user or business can have. Afterall isn't that the infrastructure behind wireless... Any point in a wired network where traffic meets can be load balanced. In case you run out of capacity, you leave some spare fibers and connect new equipment...



> "Since on the subject of competitive infrastructure, here are node split costs, according to preso Comcast CTO Tony Werner gave at last week's analyst day:
> 
> - Logical Node Split (65% of MSO Mix) costs $2,500; $3.35 per home passed
> 
> ...


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Didn't they just clear out all the analog TV frequencies? That's as if massive blocks of waterfront property was up for grabs to the wireless companies


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

The problem is the big 3 here bid large amounts of spectrum just to squat on it and prevent new competition from entering the market. Yes, there will be some available to reclaim and reallocate, but the prices are inflated and in the end those costs gets passed onto the end user in higher product fees or no availability of service. In the case of rural areas, the small providers rarely bother to bid at these spectrum auctions. In the US in the face of spectrum exhaustion the FCC had to implement a "use it or lose it" requirement. The same hasn't been done here in Canada by our CRTC so clearly they are not siding with consumers...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> Didn't they just clear out all the analog TV frequencies? That's as if massive blocks of waterfront property was up for grabs to the wireless companies


Ok, I'm not familiar with what ddkay is talking about...Phased antenna arrays..
maybe he can clarify it a bit more..but as I mentioned, I've been involved in
telecommunications for many many years. First with Bell in the late 60s,
on carriers and microwave, and then later on with Telesat at their earth station in Allan Park Ont. Later on computers and lastly Nortel in the data
and voice digital transmissions systems as a systems troubleshooter..so I am
a bit familiar with what was happening...at least 10 years ago, before I was
given early retirement.

As far as the old analog TV bandwith, that's what you would call vhf (actually
low frequency by todays digital technolgy standards. The freq range was 
54mhz (Ch2) to 216 Mhz(Ch13) with a small gap in between ch 4 and 5?
for fm radio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_frequency

While the allocated bandwith was 6.0 mhz (tv picture carrier was only 4.5mhz
wide, I believe, and was amplitude modulated, the sound carrier was around
10 khz and Fm modulated. When colour came along, they just introduced a
chroma subcarrier at 3.x mhz and they didn't have to increase bandwith.

Since am has both sidebands available from the centre of the carrier frequency, they decided to save on bandwith by transmitting vestigial sidebands. One sideband and part of the other..and that is where the audio band and chroma sub carrier is transmitted. 

Anyway, while this TV bandwidth is now available for reuse, the technology
to use it doesn't exist..as development for Cell and other uses has been
done before they made the decision to go digital on tv which generally
uses sat or cable, but terrestial reception via antenna/convertor is possible,but reuse is complicated because of the way the digital tv transmission bandwith was assigned. 

Any request has to be ok by the FCC and the channel assignment/spacing is not sequential in certain crowded spectrum areas...so it's easier for the telecommunications companies to allocate their own bandwidth spectrum..this way they can setup in any geographical area and not have problems with interference. 


Todays more modern GSM cell phones operate in a much higher frequency
range..typically 300mhz to 900mhz and much higher frequency allocations
in other countries around the world. 

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


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> The problem is the big 3 here bid large amounts of spectrum just to squat on it and prevent new competition from entering the market. Yes, there will be some available to reclaim and reallocate, but the prices are inflated and in the end those costs gets passed onto the end user in higher product fees or no availability of service. In the case of rural areas, the small providers rarely bother to bid at these spectrum auctions. In the US in the face of spectrum exhaustion the FCC had to implement a "use it or lose it" requirement. The same hasn't been done here in Canada by our CRTC so clearly they are not siding with consumers...


The Canadian frequency spectrum isn't as crowded as in parts of the US 
either, with major networks and independent stations working in one geographical area..and that is causing reception interference/crowding, should yet
another tv station to pop up and ask for a licence to broadcast.
So, in the US, they clearly didn't have a choice if the Tv market growth
and other types of communication were allowed to grow.

It's not that critical here in Canada yet..Montreal/Toronto are about the
biggest metropolitan areas..and they are managing so far..but the time
is coming that the CRTC will also have to make that decision..but it's
a expensive proposition for the networks..besides most networks are
now on sat tv or digital cable..there is very little antenna reception here
except in outlying areas. For satellite, Telesat is the only provider. 
TV stations rent earth station eqt from them and the signal is digitally
transmitted on the uplink /downlink on both the older C band (Anik series)
and the more modern Ku band which makes the sat tv to home pizza size
dish possible.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

LTE has multiple transponders/receivers on one chip, so with a 4x4 quad-band array and MIMO signal processing they are able to see the performance gains I mentioned in my earlier post.

There's only one upcoming spectrum auction I'm aware of & it's for 700MHz. At which point certain blocks within that band will be sold by the CRTC/IC to the highest bidder.

Our spectrum isn't as crowded as the US in terms of real-world utilisation but it is crowded on paper. If you go to the following page on section 4.2 you can see how incumbents are squatting the largest % of available Canadian wireless spectrum http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09949.html

Another auction for BRS/EBS bands (2500-2690 MHz) should come possibly in 2013 or 2014, the consultations were just opened in February of this year.


----------



## greenhawk (Mar 30, 2011)

As a high-speed customer of SaskTel, I can comfortably say I'm one of the very few in Canada who does not have to worry about UBB anytime soon. 

Government Telco. 

I pay roughly 30 bucks a month, and get unlimited 5 megabits down. 

The speed is just fine when you consider the bandwidth is absolutely unlimited.


----------

