Slashdot Mirror
Bell Canada To Stop Internet Throttling
inject_hotmail.com writes "I just caught wind of a story over at the Huff. Bell Canada has written a letter to the CRTC indicating that it will end traffic shaping on March 1, 2012. Although Bell says that this is due to "increasing popularity of streamed video and other traffic" and 'P2P file-sharing, as a proportion of total traffic, has been diminishing,' it's far more likely that they are interested in higher revenue. In all likelihood, the change of heart is based on the fact that Bell has moved most of their customer base to, and offer no alternative to, low-usage-cap UBB packages, which would ultimately generate more income or deter full usage of their service (and thus require less infrastructure investment)."
Aborting throttling is definitely a good thing.
However the caps and overage fees are definitely an issue, and I can see this being part of a plan to get that bandwidth used up earlier, and collect the overage fees. Dirty, but we should know better than to assume they're doing something for the good of the customers.
I'm still dreaming of the day when the physical layer is run by an agency that has no relation to the provider, and the provider of your choice can hook up at the CO.
The current setup is too much of a conflict of interest, and they'll want low caps so people use their TV services and such. This should never be...
Sent from my PDP-11
Similar to cell plans with unlimited nights and weekends, usage-based-billed broadband also ought to be cheaper during periods of low demand when there's plenty of spare capacity. If I were on such a plan, I would stream movies less and download movies more, during the wee hours, to save money. The ISP would also save money by not having to add capacity just to prevent the network from getting congested a couple of hours each day.
Everybody wins with efficient pricing.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Like most things Canadian, they'll give the outward appearance of being progressive, but then in the end they'll be just as evil as the US.
finally got it through their heads to listen to the users and the common good?
No, they finally understood that at the rate current legislation is going around the world, there will be nothing worth downloading in a couple years anyway.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
...they have stopped throttling because they have found another way to screw their customers over. And hey, it's not like I'm down just on Bell - pretty much all Canadian ISPs suck. ESPECIALLY TELUS - their suckage knows no bounds.
So, for what this means, here is some data on pricing and data caps:
Essential Plus - Speeds up to 2Mbps - $34 per month
2GB of bandwidth per month
= 2.27 hours of usage per month
Performance - Speeds up to 6 Mbps - $44 per month
25GB of bandwidth per month
= 9.5 hours of usage per month
Fibe 6 - Speeds up to 6 Mbps - $44 per month
25GB of bandwidth per month
= 9.5 hours of usage per month
Fibe 12 - Speeds up to 12 Mbps - $54 per month
50GB of bandwidth per month + $5 per 40GB
($1.50 per GB not prepaid)
= 9.5 hours of usage per month
Fibe 16 - Speeds up to 16Mbps - $64 per month
75GB of bandwidth per month
= 10.7 hours of usage per month
Fibe 25 - Speeds up to 25Mbps - $74 per month
125GB of bandwidth per month
= 11.4 hours of usage per month
Basically, Bell figures that you will use the full capacity of your connection about 10 hours a month or so.
1. Sell product with *unlimited bandwidth usage. *Restrictions may apply. ... repeat...
2. Implement traffic shaping because of overselling actual available bandwidth
3. Change everyone's plans to tiny, capped plans
4. Announce new *unlimited bandwidth usage plans and upsell existing customers. *Restrictions may apply.
Not even close. Did you happen to see this part of the article?
So basically, what Bell is saying is, "Now that we've got all our customers right where we want them, and we're squeezing every cent out of providing bandwidth, with customers paying more to get less, we would just as soon not have to worry about any government regulations."
It has nothing to do with any pro-consumer decision on Bell's part. It has nothing to do with Bell being concerned about their customers well-being. It has everything to do with what used to be a public utility turning customers upside-down and shaking every penny out of their pockets. Bell is going to continue to ignore you. They will continue to lower caps and raise prices. They'll continue to avoid spending money on improving infrastructure. They'll continue giving you the finger. But now that they're feeling their oats, they're going to give the government the finger too.
Traffic-shaping is a bad thing. Anything that is not providing neutral telecommunications services to customers is a bad thing. Bell doesn't have anything against filesharing, as long as you're ready to pay out the nose for every byte. They're still enforcing the government's rule, but they're making sure they're going to make big money in the process.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't know if Bell did this in response to competition, but they have lost me as a customer permanently over the issue. I switched to TekSavvy for internet a year ago will never use another another Bell service as long as live (using Wind for cell phone and dropped cable TV entirely).
http://teksavvy.com/en/res-internet.asp#cable
I've downloaded well over 1 TB this month (of Linux distros!) on the unlimited package with no throttling or caps so far.
Sorry, I'm in pain, I'm laughing far, far too hard. Bell doing something positive for consumers, oh stop, please, it hurts! About the only nice thing Bell would do for customers is to provide lube to ease the penetration they usually inflict on users.
Traffic-shaping is a bad thing.
Don't be an idiot. Traffic shaping is fundamentally necessary to manage a network whose capacity is less than demand (basically any public network). Abusive and discriminatory traffic shaping is a bad thing.
Not necessarily. Read the summary. All of Bell's customers are now on usage based billing. Here is a summary of a couple of the 'fib' plans (fibre optic network) so you can judge for yourself.
The fastest package is 25Gb/s at $75 per month ($35 for the first year, then it goes up), and has a 125 GB cap. Overage costs $1/GB unless you pay ahead of time for "insurance" at $5/40GB (and similarly 10/80GB and 15/120 GB bucks). Upload is 7 Mb/s.
Their 12Mb/s package is 12 Gb/s at $54 per month ($44/month for the first year), with a 50 GB cap. Overage is $1.50/GB up to $80 each month. Upload is 1Mb/s but if you pay $5 you can get 7 Mb/s. Same download "insurance" as all the other plans including the fastest package already mentioned.
So they are not altruistic. If you download a lot you pay for it. You can make up your own mind if they are reasonable or whether you think they are or aren't still repressing their customers. Personally the 12 Gb/s plan's 50GB cap is pretty bloody low if you ask me. Ridiculous really. But then again bell also has their own IPTV service and pay per view which competes with other services like Netflix. So go figure. The big three regional monopolies do the same thing (Bell, Telus, Rogers).
On the other hand, services like Netflix are far more limited in Canada, and really not of much value. This is mainly because of archaic 'culture protecting' laws (limit foreign networks and shows and enforce certain percentage of 'Canadian content' by hours of broadcast time) and laws allowing the three regional monopolies, Bell, Rogers, and Telus to buy sole distribution rights to foreign (mostly American) shows in Canada. These severely limit what people can download legally or without having technical ability above the average user. So Canadians have been hamstrung us in many other ways in terms of telecommunications and so the need for high caps is somewhat diminished.
And to rub salt into the wound, it is cold for long periods of the year so it isn't surprising that Canadians are near or are the top internet users in the world. So the telecom companies know they dig and still get money. And since the big three dominate so much, they can call the shots and walk over anyone they please will little push back from the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (many of whose board members either have worked previously for the big three, or where they often end up when they leave the CRTC).
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Any additional usage fee that is higher than subscription/cap is absurd.
That's why I'm on TekSavvy. They offer the same speeds at slightly lower prices but with a 300GB cap. They even have a 5M/unlimited plan.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
The fastest package is 25Gb/s at $75 per month ($35 for the first year, then it goes up), and has a 125 GB cap. Overage costs $1/GB unless you pay ahead of time for "insurance" at $5/40GB (and similarly 10/80GB and 15/120 GB bucks). Upload is 7 Mb/s.
Their 12Mb/s package is 12 Gb/s at $54 per month ($44/month for the first year), with a 50 GB cap. Overage is $1.50/GB up to $80 each month. Upload is 1Mb/s but if you pay $5 you can get 7 Mb/s. Same download "insurance" as all the other plans including the fastest package already mentioned.
I read those prices and speeds and I think to myself, "Shit, I need to move to Canada. What are they even complaining about?"
I'm assuming that you mean 25Mbps and not Gbps. That said, I wonder what's so different between ontario and manitoba? Shaw gives me 100Mbps for $70/month with a 500GB cap. For $120 I get 250Mbps with no cap. Even MTS (our phone company) offers 25Mbps unlimited for $75.
I had always just assumed that telecom stuff would be more expensive here with our lower population density.
Of course that's the kind of traffic shaping I meant.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Move to Hong Kong.
No cap ever for the past 11 years, my utorrent constantly register ~150GB for past 30 days. 30Mbit plan, torrent goes max 2.2MB/s, up 350kbps.
$30 cdn.
i do not understand why cell companies and internet companies have such low GB limits? 50 GB a month? try streaming a game and you have reached your cap in about 10 minutes..........never mind trying to upload pics from your smartphone to the web......last week i uploaded over 600 GB of hi res photos,.,......not looking forward to the bill.......oy vey.......
i could see caps of 5 to 10 terabytes.....but this 50 GB crap is BS!!!!!
Here in the US I'd kill for 25 Mbps @ $75/month... I pay for 8 Mbps @ $75/month... x.X
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
$70/mo with a bundle.
Just so people can compare apples to apples.
My bad... you're right. 25 Mb/s. Gah!
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
25Gigabits/second residential plan? TAKE ALL MY MONEY!
Bell is not going to do anything - ANYTHING - unless they believe they can squeeze every possible dime out of their customers. This is a company hellbent on profits at the cost of anything remotely approximating good business. Worse, they are a company that still thinks they have a monopoly and acts like it. And, worst of all, too many Canadians are willing to let them when there are many better options available. I'd go with Rogers (who I loathe) a million times over before going with Bell...
Believe me, the only reason they're doing this is they did the math and they believe they can screw their customers over better this way. I believe someone else in the thread supplied math that demonstrates this rather nicely...
Don't for a second think that Bell is doing something good - they are screwing customers every chance they can. They are the worst sort of the greed-corporations...
Was I the only one who had a double take thinking initially it was "Bell Canada To Stop Internet Trolling" ?
First: I'm glad to see traffic shaping gone.
Second: I don't really have a problem with caps. I mean, is it really, truly reasonable to expect unlimited bandwidth? And before you flame me, take a moment to calm your gut reaction nerd rage in regards to this issue. I mean, that shit's not free. There should be some expectation that people pay for what they use. We don't expect unlimited electricity, so why would we here. That being said: the overage charges need to be reasonable. I have no idea of what the marginal costs to Bell are for each gigabyte over the cap. One *hopes* their overage charges are somewhat in line with this, but who knows.
Third, in relation to that last point: When I lived in Ontario a few years ago I had Bell. I lived in a house with six other guys, and we sucked bandwidth. I don't remember what they charged us per extra gigabyte, but I do remember that the overage charges were capped at $30/month. *If* Bell still has this overage charge cap, then I think this is an especially reasonable thing.
Don't be an idiot. You know exactly what he meant.
Here in KS with Cable One, I think we can get a 50Mbps package, but they meter it and charge extra if you go over 50GB in a month I think.
TekSavvy cable: $62, 30Mb down (45Mb w/ speedboost), 1Mb up, no caps.
Sorry... s/fastest package is 25Gb\/s/fastest package is 25Mb\/s/
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
It is indeed strange to see Bell throttle people when they have ridiculous bandwidth caps and extra fees in the first place... One has to wonder if this wasn't planned all along: throttle down the connexions because they were not technically capable to force usage-based billing to their customers. Now that they have figured out that bit, they can get in the lucrative business of reselling bandwidth. And they resell that bandwidth at high price.
Doing the math:
So. This means that bandwidth is sold by bell 90$/mbps whereas they are paying probably something closer to 10$ or even 5$/mbps, probably even less considering the monopoly and sheer volume. We could also observe how those prices usually also involve a 100mbps pipe, whereas Bell offers you a 20mbps connexion. Of course, those are datacenter prices which do not cover the connectivity costs, but still, one could assume those are covered by the 25$/mth base price.
And i'm not even talking about how competitors of Bell *can't* even offer 25$/mth packages because *they're* base price is over 30$/mth... No wonder they fought so hard to try to charge their competitors based on usage too: it is the only edge they have left. (This is still in the cards, by the way.)
I am also ignoring the fact that Bell is also a *content* provider which puts them in a conflict of interest: throttling people and charging them extra for downloading stuff helps them sell their digital TV offerings and other revenues
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
Good point. Unbundled I can still get 50Mbps and a 400GB cap for $75. Either way, it's crazy that we'd be getting better access than Ontario.
Remember this is in Canada's largest city. 2.5 million people in the city alone. 5.5 million in the metro area (yeah I know it's not the biggest city in the world, but it is a big city especially by North American standards... 4th or 5th largest in N.A.). This size of place they should have higher speeds. But the Canadian companies tend to gouge customers without any improving service in proportion (yes they improve, but relative to how much they screw you).
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Shaw is cable, Bell is not.
Bell/Rogers have a much bigger market than your providers, and it seems they also have a much smaller outcry when they slam their hands into customer pockets and retrieve the entire contents of their wallets.
Bell/Rogers are trying very hard to put people on ultra limited caps with high speeds (and high prices) so they can charge people an extra $50 to $(whatever they decide the maximum will be) for overages every month.
Bell(especially)/Rogers are trying very hard to keep 3rd party resellers from being able to provide their service.
From the actions of the CRTC and other government members, Bell/Rogers have some very good friends making sure they can continue to do all of this.
UBB should have never been allowed to happen, caps should have never been allowed to happen.
Traffic shaping is actually against the current business plan of getting people to use way more than their caps, that's why it's being dropped by Bell. This actually sort of helps TekSavvy as they shouldn't be shaped anymore, either. I wouldn't be surprised if Bell continues to traffic shape 3rd party resellers, though. Rogers does not have the technology to traffic shape 3rd party resellers, if I understand correctly, and I do believe they shape their own customers.
Those GBs in your cap don't really cost much of anything. They don't really cost anyone anything, any longer.
I'm assuming that your providers would get a ton of complaints if they tried to do what Bell/Rogers are doing, that's why you still have essentially unlimited caps.
And in a contract.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
People keep saying this but its a bald faced lie.
For the price of two movie rentals at the video store you get access to a wide range of movies and TV shows, as long as you watch a minimum of two movies a month it basically pays for itself. Hell, I've been enjoying watching episodes of Farscape, Xena, Buffy, The Walking Dead, and re-watching the Star Trek movies again. Hell, they just got Bones the other week, I'd never seen it from the beginning so now I've got the chance to; I'm hoping they get NCIS and JAG, I'd never seen those from the beginning either. My young nieces and nephews have been having a blast watching the Land Before Time movies, Astroboy, Pingu, Thomas the Tank Engine, Curious George, The Pink Panther, etc...
Unless you're looking for the latest and greatest, which is usually reserved for the Cable/Satellite providers VOD channels for a premium fee, there is plenty of value on Netflix for the paltry 8.00 bucks a month that they charge.
The smaller ISPs have fought and won the legal battle over throttling. They have won the right to not cap their customers, even though they buy (in bulk) from Bell. Bell is just dropping into line with what their competitors are now doing. I had an email from my own ISP (TechSavvy) a few weeks ago about it.
No, not in a contract.
So a lot of small ISP's buy bandwidth from Bell. And then they re-sell that bandwidth to users like you. Up until now, those users haven't been using too much bandwidth, because the "backbone" (from Bell) used traffic shaping to reduce their throughput.
Now that Bell has stopped shaping, what do you think will happen to those ISP's? Their customers will torrent away all their bandwidth, and the ISP's will either have to add their own shaping or add caps to their plans.
End result: Bell's customers (on capped plans already) see no big benefit. ISP customers get some short-term benefit until their ISP's adjust to the new system. ISP's suffer. Bell wins.
Ever hear the comment that a snakes teeth point inward? The prey can not escape!!!
Bell, Rogers and their ilk are like that.
What looks, at first blush to be a gratuitous boon, will in time show the hidden teeth.
Like Google, 'do no evil' has morphed into 'do no weevil', and they protect the honor of weevils.
At the basis of my feelings is the sure knowledge that Bell is a rapacious predator
I love it when all the anti-Google crowd misquote the "don't be evil" into "do no evil".
For those of you who are American English challenged, these two phrases have totally different connotations.
"Don't be evil" is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, more like "don't emulate Hollywood villains".
"Do no evil" is fire-and-brimstone church preacher telling you you're going to Hell.
If you want to rank on Google for being hypocritical, you should first try to understand this. It's important.
I've had Bell internet at my home for 7 years now. I'm still on the original plan: 1Mb/s down, unlimited bandwidth. I know that I could upgrade to a better speed, but that would mean loosing the "unlimited" part. As it is, Netflix, at the highest quality setting, works just fine. What more could I ask?
You just listed about the best content on Netflix Canada. Didn't take very long did it? That was the person's point- there is very little on it. 90%+ is garbage not worth reading the title of. That is probably what gives people the biggest grudge against it. Having to sift through mountains of crap to find something that is "okay" to watch isn't exactly endearing.
Having the latest and greatest reserved for the cable/sat providers was also one of the parent poster's main complaints. You find some value. I, and many others, disagree.
I think the cost of real estate (buying or renting) easily makes up that difference though. I really wish people would stop with these tropes.
to a shitty, small, pathetic amount of gb's package.
so you can't even stream 24/7.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
For me: MI-5 (8 seasons of it), Lie to Me (1 season, fun so far), Walking Dead (only seen a few episodes so far so good), Luther (havent watched it yet but loved the main actor when he was in The Wire), and a lot of other TV shows, let alone the movies listed. There is a lot on Netflix IMHO, and its well worth the cost.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I was going to second the recommendation for TekSavvy, but wait, what, 1 TB / month?
That's > 1,000 Linux images.
I don't believe the internet has that much data. /joke
Man, that's a lot of downloading.
Damn, that's almost enough to get me to sign up for Netflix. But, it's Silverlight-only, isn't it? That would be a deal-breaker.
BTW, if you like MI-5, did you ever watch Intelligence (follow-up show to Da Vinci's Inquest & Da Vinci's City Hall)? Similar vein, though more polished IMHO. (Saw a couple MI-5 shows that were a bit ... unfulfilling.)
Agree on TekSavvy as a provider.
Here it's cable: $30 / month, 7.5 down (minimum, on Shaw's network), 300 GB cap.
Last 6 months' usage at Shaw for me were 5, 6, 4, 11,5, 6 (roughly, from memory), so 300 GB is pretty acceptable.
Just thought I'd throw that out there for anyone looking for a slightly cheaper option...
I think in the case of Netflix it's entirely due to the distribution rights and nothing to do with CanCon (Canadian Content) legislation (which some would argue led to the success of some of the greatest Canadian bands in history, and are generally a good thing. I personally hate it when Canadians talk about our "Miranda rights" or "District Attorneys", "The Constitution" instead of "The Charter", etc. Also good for Canadian artists & businesses that produce content & jobs. I'm getting on a tangent here... :)
That said, I wonder what's so different between ontario and manitoba? Shaw gives me 100Mbps for $70/month with a 500GB cap. For $120 I get 250Mbps with no cap. Even MTS (our phone company) offers 25Mbps unlimited for $75.
Different market. In Ontario, there's the Bell/Rogers duopoly, and they are borderline cartel in how they fix their prices to be essentially the same between them. Even from the same provider (Bell) in a different province (like Quebec), the plans are radically different, because they're competing against Videotron instead of Rogers, and Videotron has larger caps. Hopefully as cellular services like Wind/Mobilicity start to offer them more competition, they'll start to realize that their customers don't want to have it any more. ($40/mo for 4G cellular 'net, no monthly cap, on Mobilicity, for example)
Bell *does* offer nice plans in markets other than Ontario/Quebec, though... MTS and Bell Aliant are all under the same umbrella, and Aliant is offering 70/30 unlimited FTTH service for $70/mo in Nova Scotia, for example. For some reason, Ontario and Quebec are being left behind, and screwed over by Bell. I'll put it this way: I am paying $45/mo for a 12mbit DSL from TekSavvy, with a 300GB cap, and by Ontario standards, that's a *really* good deal. Ultimately I'm still buying service from Bell, but I'm hopeful that they'll use that money to start offering FTTH in my area.
I just checked and that is bullshit. It is not apples to apples. You are comparing a decent internet service like I was quoting above, to a package of the worst service you can buy. Something most people would do without rather than waste their money.
The bundle you quote only has 2 Mb/s download. And the TV is equivalent to basic cable and NO long distance or voice mail or anything else on the phone. You want to compare apples to apples? I used the 'build your own' tool to create a realistic bundle with a 12 Mb/s download speed. And unless you call them direct you can only get satellite TV in the package, something that many don't or can't use (the Fibe TV is more).
Total Monthly Fee for a realistic package not a shill quoted one = $162.61
So you must be astroturfing for Bell. Nice try, shill. Try listing something that people would actually want to pay for and not the Judas goat package.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I personally hate it when Canadians talk about our "Miranda rights" or "District Attorneys", "The Constitution" instead of "The Charter", etc. Also good for Canadian artists & businesses that produce content & jobs. I'm getting on a tangent here... :)
We do not have "Miranda" rights, no, but we do have all of the rights that Americans would know as Miranda rights, as granted by other legislations. We do not have "District Attorneys", but we do have public prosecutors who serve exactly the same role. Those are merely a question of nomenclature. We *do*, however, have a constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is section 1 of The Constitution Act, 1982. When somebody talks about the Constitution granting rights that are part of the Charter, they are absolutely correct, because the Charter is part of the Constitution.
Incidentally, we don't have "felonies" in Canada, either. We have "indictable offenses".
And no, Netflix' small library in Canada has nothing to do with CanCon. Netflix isn't a broadcaster, and isn't under those rules. It is indeed distribution rights that are the real issue.
All good points, and correct about the Constitution.
I guess it bugs me when complicated issues are referred to with incorrect nomenclature: it's not a good indicator of a grasp of the topic.
Having said that, I've probably been guilty of mentioning the "Dis, DA, er, Crown's opinion" or somesuch in the past.
Cheers
Exactly! This is Bell going for a triple win. They are providing the least amount of product for maximum profit. They can get rid of government eyeballs looking over their shoulder. And, so they think, they will get some positive PR.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Not necessarily. Read the summary. All of Bell's customers are now on usage based billing. Here is a summary of a couple of the 'fib' plans (fibre optic network) so you can judge for yourself.
The fastest package is
Those are for general "internet" packages. If you're really that worried about it, buy a dedicated connection from them. No caps, no limits, no shaping, problem solved.
But you'll have to pay for it.
Internet "packages" are just different rates for the Public "All you can eat" Buffet. Network hardware and the physical infrastructure just are not cheap enough yet for most people to pay for a dedicated connection.
Has taught everyone to be disingenuous.
I agree. I am stuck with Rogers in my area (just north of Toronto, still part of the GTA). I have no other alternative. Any other provider that I call is "unable to provide service" in my area "at this time".
Funny thing is, my area is relatively new. 10 years old (and still building). When I moved in, there was a giant sign advertising that a small Telco company had run fibre optics through the entire neighbourhood! But their DSL service was horrendously expensive. Something along the lines of 2mb/256k for $65 a month. Rogers cable at the time was $45 a month for 7mb/1mb. To make matters worse, when developers build a new neighbourhood, local providers can bid on the rights to provide service for that neighbourhood and lock people in for 2 years. So, for the first 2 years, you had Rogers for cable and Futureway for telephone. The only alternative for TV was satellite, and no alternative for phone service except cellular. Then Rogers bought Futureway. Now they've effectively blocked any other phone service from the neighbourhood except their VOIP service, and you still can't get any other television service other than satellite. And, of course, no other options for high speed internet. Even the old DSL option under Futureway is gone. It's Rogers cable internet or dial up.
The infrastructure is already there. It was bought and paid for years ago. Sure, periodic upgrades to switches and similar devices, but the fibre optic cable isn't going anywhere. So why can't I get Teksavvy? Or any other provider? Because the CRTC allows Rogers and Bell to maintain a stranglehold on us. I've filed complaints. I've spoken to MPs and MPPs. Nobody cares. There's too much money involved.
This is because Bell is changing their billing structure to the wholesale customers, like my employer. Bell is going to reduce our monthly bills per subscriber by 6-7$, but then introduce a capacity charge of $2200/100MB/month. This comes in to play starting February 1st.
We have time of use billing for electricity here in a lot of Ontario Canada now. It's a crock. Want to do laundry? Wait until after 7PM so you get the "cheap" rates. I could not stand that for internet too. What happens is the "cheap" off peak rate is the same as what the standard rate used to be. The non off peak rates are then more expensive and you end up paying MORE every month. Time of use no matter what it is for is just a way to get you to pay more than you are now. ISPs will never settle for REDUCING your monthly rates.
We do not have "Miranda" rights, no, but we do have all of the rights that Americans would know as Miranda rights, as granted by other legislations.
Ha, but we have indefinite detention without trial now, so we're still ahead! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Also watch:
Sherlock
Jeckyll
X-Files
Stargate SG-1
The IT Crowd
Community
Fullmetal Alchemist
Avatar: The Last Airbender
Seriously, there's hundreds and hundreds of hours of television and movies on Netflix that is of comprable if not higher quality than what the networks are currently showing. All for the price of a single fast-food lunch.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Then don't sell services that you cannot fulfill 24/7 for all potential customers (barring catastrophes, unexpected outages and so on)
If you're a TekSavvy or other 'small' ISP subscriber, your rates are going to have to go up. In Ontario, Canada Bell will be charging ISP's an ADDITIONAL $2,213/month per 100mbps of aggregation at the head end connection. Essentially, for an ISP to sustain 100mbps (relatively small value these days) for a group of subscribers, the ISP has to buy $2,213 (per 100mbp) of bandwidth in addition to the ISPs other costs from Bell (such as the head end connection, rack space, power, bandwidth from Tier 1 carriers, employees, etc). Just think, four 25mbps customers all downloading at the same time who saturate the subscribed head end speed. A company like teksavvy has multiple GigE connections back to Bell, this translates into an added monthly expense of $22,000/month per GigE connection to supply 1000mbps of sustained traffic to a grouping of end users/customers. To be clear, this is NOT 95th percentile billing, this is per 100mbps block of transfer speed available on the GigE head end link. Bell is reducing the circuit cost on a per subscriber basis, but depending on how many subscribers an ISP has per GigE connection, it might not make up for the new added expense. This is all in response to UBB. No one wanted to pay anything per gigabyte transferred. I'm in favor of charging per gigabyte as long as it's a reasonable rate. Bell should not force this on small ISP's as they are already paying (large) for a circuit into the Bell network, but that is my opinion.
It makes me sad that your current state of mind is such that you can't ever imagine living in a house with family & kids
"When I was your age, there was one TV in the house, and we all watched the same thing. Now get off my lawn!"
All of Bell's customers are now on usage based billing.
Not all. Some of us are still grandfathered in on unlimited plans.
That is, for all practical purposes, impossible. No company in the world could afford that level of service.
I use Bell mobility ( it is cheaper and faster than satellite ) and the price isn't bad up to 10 GB. After I hit 13GB,though, it's cheaper to buy TWO packages and alternate them every 2 weeks.
Bandwidth is limited instantaneously
Caps are a way to get people to use less bandwidth at peak times so that it doesn't saturate instantaneously at peak times. For example, a cap on transfer outside the least saturated hours encourages customers to shift large transfers to the least saturated hours. But as more people shift their usage away from peak times to the wee hours, the network will start saturating during the wee hours as well. At that point, use throughout the day becomes fungible, and any use of the network at all negatively affects other users.
You make tiers for max total use and if someone goes over you bump them into the next tier and charge them for that.
Providers have to plan ahead to set up a budget for future spending on infrastructure. They can make room for this spending by ensuring a minimum guaranteed revenue stream. This involves setting up overage fee structures that in turn encourage their customers to plan ahead.
OK, here's my horror story. Had Bell for years, then all of a sudden about thre years ago started getting $20-30+ extra charges on my bill. Checked it out and I had been put on a UBB plan without my knowledge or consent. So, obviously, I told them to take their internet service (and satellite and phone as well) and shove it. Went to a small ISP called Acanac for 5mbs DSL service unlimited for $18.95 mo. for the first year, going to $24.95 mo after that with $5.00 mo for a dry loop connection. And Shaw had bought out Starchoice and was offering really good Satellite TV packages with more standard HD channel than Bell for 42.00 mo. And then I got Vonage for the Phone at (I think it was $20.00 mo.) So overnight, my "Media" costs went from 150.00 mo. to $80.00 mo. All is well, right? WRONG> Bell came around my neighbourhood "upgrading" their lines and cut me off. I was standing not 10 feet from my front door when the Bell Tech did it, and asked him how long it would take to reconnect, he told me that since I was not a Bell customer and even though he had just cut my line and was stsnding in front of the box that he did it on, I would have to contact my ISP, they would have to contact Bell and arrange fopr a service call to reconnect me. Fuming, I did just that, was told 3-5 business days. Meanwhile, no phone, no web. To make a long and painful story a lot shorter than real life, it eventually ended up taking 58 DAYS to get my internet connection restored. Bell simply ignored my ISP's requests, and they went through 5 seperate escalations in an attempt to get me back up and running. It never did get done. My wife was screaming about not having a phone so she independently (doncha hate it when they do that) called Bell to get a land line reconnected (no alternative to Bell for land line, and I refuse to have anything to do with Rogers). I still had no Internet. I ended up having to get my ISP to kill my dry loop and piggyback on top of my land line, treated as a new account before I could get back online. During the 58 Days, I called the CRTC, send an email they said (right, to some black hole address), I spent hours trying to find SOME phone number at Bell that I could call, ended up at Corporate, "can't talk to you, you aren't a Customer, contact your ISP". Called my MP, she was busy taking kickbacks from local developers, and never responded. So, Bell and Rogers just use the CRTC as a diversion for disgruntled end users, nothing ever gets done, and whatever you try is drowned in legalese and bureaucratic bulls**t. F**k them all, and the horse they rode in on. The end result of all this is that I don't dare call about poor speeds, in case Bell comes and "Fixes" my lines again. Scumbags. I hope they rot.
"If the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Donny Rumsfeld
In Alberta, Shaw caps the 250Mbps service at 1 TB on their 100.00 plan. For $20 more, they give unlimited data. I am subscribed to their 100Mbps plan but I already find a lot of sites don't seem that fast. I am not sure I would see much real increase by going to the faster plan.
Is America still using their constitution?
Not presently. Depending on your point of view, we're either conserving it for later or we've progressed beyond it.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Then they could stop overselling. If you can only support X or 0.x mbps sustained for all of your customers, then make sure that fact is big and bold.
Funny how plenty of countries here in Europe dont have this problem. I have for example adsl2+ line that i can actually use as much as i want and my isp does not throttle even p2p traffic.
There was one isp here that tried caps in the past, and it failed badly since customers would just switch to another isp.
The problem in this case is monopoly and isps that don't bother upgrading the infrastructure.
Your mistake was not calling Bell that day and ordering phone service with no contract, then cancelling it as soon as they hooked your line back up. Also signing up with Acanac.
You definition of "best" must be so narrowly defined as to eliminate just about anything because I have often found the opposite to be true.
The breadth of content available often leaves me paralyzed with indecision, there are so many good shows and movies to watch that I simply cannot decide what to check out on any given night. I have to actually force myself to pick something otherwise I'll sit there for hours trying to figure out if I'm going to watch this movie or that movie, or finish one of the shows I've started, or check out that documentary I've been wanting to see.
All for the price of a combo at Subway or a couple of Tim Horton's specialty coffees.
You're correct in it being Silverlight only, of course that only affects you if you plan on playing it on a PC that doesn't support it. Just keep in mind that Netflix is enabled on many devices now, it works just fine on my X-Box, Wii, and the Samsung Blu-Ray player hooked up to the big-screen. Many Blu-Rays can support Netflix now and even older ones can do it with a software update, you'd have to check to see if your equipment is compatible.
Many of our neighbours go across the border and buy dish packages with large numbers of stations available, and with good high speed. I found that 480p was almost as good as 720p, or 1080p, particularly when it came to action movies. It costs half as much to watch good movies than the best local rates.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
I can't believe you're complaining about the service netflix offers. What better (legal) service have you ever seen for visual entertainment?
By the way, that "90% shit" that you mention is atuned to the "90% rule" and, in my honest opinion, a lot of the rather unknown titles available on netflix are far superior to a shitty hollywood blockbuster.
Anyways, adios, troll.
Nice try AC but there does not have to be a better service available for me to not think Netflix is worth it. And being as this is a very common sentiment about Netflix Canada it is clear that a lot of people feel the same. I do not watch TV simply for the sake of watching TV maybe that is the difference.
Mostly I am interested in the odd new show. And, being Canadian, if all I want is to watch an old re-run I can download it. Perfectly legal (currently).
Just because you like Netflix doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't is a troll.
My Wife and I bought ourselves a Samsung Blue-Ray player for Christmas. Cost us $68 + Tax at London Drugs. It supports network connections to my PC for watching downloaded content via Wi-Fi and works flawlessly, it supports Netflix, YouTube etc. So far its terrific.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Yes, I have to check that show out. Caught 1 or 2 episodes of it and enjoyed them a lot. MI-5 (more properly known as Spooks but that couldn't be used in the US for fear of offending black people apparently) is somewhat hit or miss, but overall I enjoy what they do with the storilines, and how hard they are on their characters.
I am currently enjoying Homeland as well.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I was so pissed at CBC for cancelling Intelligence without giving it a chance to wrap up. Idiots. I liked that the show started at the top of the hour and ran 15 minutes before the first commercial break. Also that they weren't afraid to run for several minutes with NO dialogue what-so-ever, yet still be riveting.
I wondered about that. I thought they had to call it Spooks in UK because MI-5 was taken by the real MI-5. But that was pure speculation.
MI-5 can be great, but it's not as consistent as Intelligence / Da Vinci's was.
Haven't seen Homeland. Cancelled my basic cable so get no TV now. If my stoopid ATSC TV tuner worked under Linux, or even in Windows inside VirtualBox, I'd watch some OTA TV. Is Homeland a CBC show?