So is this new proposal now - 41GB per subscriber (but not tracked on a per subscriber basis) included in the base rate and the proposed additional price per block in excess of that considered reasonable or not?
Gives each ISP a lot of leeway with their pricing structure but still retains the concept which some on ehMac didn't like, that infinite bandwidth is not available without additional cost.
Gives each ISP a lot of leeway with their pricing structure but still retains the concept which some on ehMac didn't like, that infinite bandwidth is not available without additional cost.
I don't think the problem is infinite bandwidth; it's paying such a hefty price for service. Why should I be paying an order of magnitude more for a slower service then I can get in parts of Europe and Asia? I pay it because I'm here in Canada and Bell and Rogers have no real competition to force prices and service to be reasonable and/or the government has imposed a poor regulatory environment on the industry. I'd be quite happy with UBB if it reflected the real costs of the service and reasonable profit. It doesn't, as noted by a number of industry pundits.
Bell's current proposal is still steep; it will likely double my ISP bill. And for what? I'm not going to get better service (not faster, not a higher cap, throttling still imposed, etc) The difference in what I pay now and what I will pay in the future is pure profit and protectionism for old media. Bell is making money; tonnes of it, all they want is more money. And they where hoping with UBB that the public would roll over and pay up. We didn't!
__________________
24" iMac, 2.8 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HD
eMac, 700Mz, 640 MB RAM, 40 GB HD
Mac Classic
I don't think the problem is infinite bandwidth; it's paying such a hefty price for service. Why should I be paying an order of magnitude more for a slower service then I can get in parts of Europe and Asia?
Cherry-picking isn't much of an argument.
You will always find countries around the world where some things are much cheaper or much more expensive than here.
I just don't see why if the push for everything online is so great why the Government wouldn't have a vested interest in securing that asset and enforcing regulations on it to make it more feasible for the end consumer.
Ok, Let Me clarify what I said. If the internet and e-commerce is the pushing trend, then why doesn't the government step in to make the internet easily affordable by all in the interest of furthering the economy?
But that cost does not directly determine price is true for any product or service - anyone who is responsible for a companies pricing policy knows that.
Why do people think Mac computers are more expensive than Windows computers?
Not because they cost that much more to manufacture.
Checking the profit margin of Macs vs say a Dell PC pretty much provides the picture.
Where do people get these "cost" numbers from?
Same thing happened last time this subject was discussed - people were pulling so called "cost" numbers out of their hats left, right and centre.
Funny, the "last" time this subject was discussed I provided quite a few credible links that discussed what will be as close as possible to the "true" associated costs of this but you managed to ignore them everytime and instead change the direction of your arguments. The only costs you're going to find online for this are going to be best guesses by experts in the field -- because Bell and Rogers are simply not releasing the actual costing information to the public, especially given what they are trying to pull with UBB. If you can't accept these as the "true" costs then please just refrain from complaining about it and save everyone some typing... I still suspect that you're secretly a Bell or Rogers employee or worse, a stock holder :P
So is this new proposal now - 41GB per subscriber (but not tracked on a per subscriber basis) included in the base rate and the proposed additional price per block in excess of that considered reasonable or not?
Gives each ISP a lot of leeway with their pricing structure but still retains the concept which some on ehMac didn't like, that infinite bandwidth is not available without additional cost.
The big issue is exactly this ... Bell is selling wholesale bandwidth ... not "wholesale bandwidth that is arbitrarily limited by the amount of DSL subscribers your company has" ... If they are in the truly in the business of selling bandwidth as they claim it should be just that. X amount of bandwidth == X amount of $$, end of story. What the ISP does with the bandwidth shouldn't matter at all as long as they have paid for it. Said bandwidth should also NOT be throttled, rate limited, traffic shaped, packed inspected, or otherwise tampered with unless required by law.
Anything beyond Bell continuing to sell wholesale bandwidth at standardized rates and without arbitrary limits and/or packet tampering is very serious act of anti-competitive nature and should be voted down as such by the powers that be and enforced by law, plain and simple. Canada just needs the ball$ to setup an agency that can and will govern this for the good of everyone, not just the stockholders at large companies.
Linear Mode
