Operators getting really serious about bandwidth caps

Rogers has had internet caps for years now, its nothing new for customers, if you use 200gb a month, you should pay more than the guy using 2gb a month, thats just how it is... for example, you buy a 24 pack of beer, and the other guy gets a 6 pack, you drink more so you pay more. Just because its the same product you are using more quantity so you pay for it. Its a simple analogy really, Besides, if you use more than 100gb a month, you probably are doing illegal things anyways like downloading pirated movies and music. So that said, for the comment above about the guy finding hes actually using half the amount, he probably is too idiotic to realize hes got uploads too which count towards bandwidth and also probably has 3 cell phones using internet on wifi and a son surfing porn on his laptop. So this is how the world works, you use more of something, you pay more for more.

Perhaps a more important factor to consider is the cost of gb's and the way they are sold.
Consumers are forced to pay for "packages" to get the best price for mb's but in the end
most people don't use their allottment - and pay the provider more than is in their best interest.

It is 'interesting' that the big internet providers are also (coincidentally) the big media providers and thus have a vested interest in limiting non-traditional delivery methods for media (Rogers Cable TV, Bell Satellite TV). There has never been any issues with excessive use of free local phone calls despite it fully tying up a telephone switch yet when it comes to the internet there is a HUGE problem. Could Net-flix be an issue? Could X-box 360 or PS3 be an issue? No.. must be 'illicit' activiities. Why are we allowed to know the cost of crude oil & fuel duty and tax but NOT the cost of providing a gigabyte of data to our homes.

Both Rogers & Bell had been given monopolies which basically ensured the bulk of their network was paid for many times over years ago but now when the customer goes to use that network we hear about 'excessive use costs. So come on Rogers & Bell show us how your cost per gigabyte has gone up in lock step with our bills. Then show us how much more it costs you for us to video conference over skype verses just keeping the internet connection live with no data transfer.

So excessive could mean maxing out my quota for the month. Why should I be looked at differently if I'm using my alotted bandwidth, afterall I am paying for this service. The problem comes down to greed and in this case it's corporate greed.

Nick wrote: "if you use more than 100gb a month, you probably are doing illegal things anyways like downloading pirated movies and music."
Baloney, where is your proof. I can easily hit this mark via online storage due to images that are in RAW format and AVI movies via vacation photos. Believe it or not, online storage facilities do exist.

Well said Elmo. Nick is full of it and either works for one of the conglomerates or just doesn't get it.

I buy games of Steam (an online game store) and the games there can range from a few hundred MG to 25gb. Not too mention downloading games/movies/music from other LEGIT sources like iTunes or the Playstation Network.

Why should i pay for the same thing twice? UBB makes zero sense. especially when you are still paying a monthly fee.

Using the internet is not a commodity, When we surf the internet and download whatever the "supply" of the internet dose not go down.

I wonder if Nick would ok with the idea of charging gas to motorists based on the size of there engine? so if you got a 8 Cylinder then you use more gas then a 4 banger would so you should pay more then right?

It's the same old story, big business and government are in bed together and we get F'd over.

We might as well pirate then.

Skyfire,

That was a pretty dumb analogy you tried to put back-if you use more gas, you pay for more gas: its the same thing as what Nick was saying above, you are actually helping him.

I download all kinds of illicit movies, stream TV etc and I have a limit of 60 gb/month. It really isn't that hard to stay underneath it. If 100 gb isn't enough for you, then something is wrong. If everyone were to occupy that much bandwidth, the service would be too slow for everyone. Maybe the increased usage fees will go towards beefing up the network, investing in infrastructure so that someday we can stream, download, watch as much as we please.

There's no doubt whatsoever in the minds of any informed user that recent decisions made by the CRTC regarding the granting to the carriers the right to cap data usage, to increase the wholesale rates charged to independent ISPs for DSL connections to end users and to charge the same overage to ISPs as they do to their own retail clients are driven by the desire to eliminate any competition in the Internet market space.

Couple this to the fact that the carrier's own video products will NOT be subject to these limits, even though they will be delivered down the same pipe and it can be viewed as a form of price-fixing that in any other industry would be cause to sue the offending company.

However this won't happen (at least for the moment), because the CRTC, which is supposed to be looking after the interests of the citizens of Canada, is populated by an old boy's network of ex-carrier executives. So 'the fix is in'.

And as a result, Canada has the lowest high speed data rates and the highest subscription fees of any OECD country in the world - and it will get worse.

The concept of charging more for use is simply ridiculous.

The carriers need to build infrastructure that allows them to carry the full traffic allotment for all subscribers. So rather than use the 'how much you pay for gas' analogy, it is more along the lines of 'how much do you charge for driving down the road'? Do you charge a car more because he uses a public road (the Internet being a PUBLIC network)? No. You may charge him more for the right to drive (higher registration fees and road taxes for big vehicles than for small ones - in Internet terms, the bigger the pipe, the higher the subscription fees), but he can drive around the block as many times as he likes without penalty.

And where else do people get charged for data they have no control over? There is a huge amount of garbage traffic being generated that is dumped out the Ethernet port of my modem. I have no control over it. If they're going to charge me for it, then THEY had better get a handle on stopping this crap.

Further, the counters are being monitored by the carriers. Since I am stuck using PPPOE (or other) high level protocols to encapsulate MY data, then why should I be paying for overhead (which can easily reach 50% of the total data transferred)? Give me a pure Ethernet connection, routed to my ISP and charge me only for my own traffic or else let the carriers pay for the overhead.

Somewhere along the way, the various governments and their regulatory bodies have lost sight of just whom, they are supposed to be serving.

I agree with a lot of the above comments. In my opinion, it's just BIG BROTHER telling us what we can and can't do. These big companies ARE NOT keeping up with the growing demand. It comes down to the almighty buck again and by strangling the consumer by putting limits on us rather than keeping up with the demand, is a lot more money in their pockets and less service and money in our pockets.

I like your car driving down the road analogy---it is perfect because it allows you to think about the problem this way.

I believe that drivers should also be charged for how much they use the road. If you have all the costs up front and then make it free to drive, you end up with everyone binging themselves on driving. They drive uncecessarily, drive just to get themselves around the corner, and then the roads are completely clogged and anyone who wants to use his car once a month to pick his parents up from the airport gets stuck in a ridiculous traffic jam. If people paid per how much they use it, this problem wouldn't exist.

Same as a keg party-you make an upfront fee of $20, and then it is all you can drink...people will get in the doors and binge themselves, next thing you know everyone spends the entire night waiting in line, even the modest drinker that just wants to have a drink while socializing.

Well put Anon-e-mouse.

My 2 cents,

If the internet compaines want to charge us for each GB that we use over our limit; then they should rebate us for each GB that we don't use. At the very least we should be able to carry them over to the next month.

I agree with Philer, if you're going to upcharge for overuse then logically, ergo there should be a credit for underuse. But I think that every poster has a common thread and that is that the CRTC is not doing the consumer any favours. In fact they are doing the opposite, ensuring that the pigeons are systematically being plucked with sub par service and globe leading charges

Anon stated:
"The carriers need to build infrastructure that allows them to carry the full traffic allotment for all subscribers. So rather than use the 'how much you pay for gas' analogy, it is more along the lines of 'how much do you charge for driving down the road'? Do you charge a car more because he uses a public road (the Internet being a PUBLIC network)? No. You may charge him more for the right to drive (higher registration fees and road taxes for big vehicles than for small ones - in Internet terms, the bigger the pipe, the higher the subscription fees), but he can drive around the block as many times as he likes without penalty."

I like the car analogy. Look at what happens to the 401 at rush hour. Now compare that to internet use. You add more roads or you add more bandwidth and people will use it up because it's free. Now look at highway 407 (the Toll roadway). Much better. If you are not willing to pay for it, it can't be that important can it ? I can sit on the 401 for 2 hours or I can pay $10 and take the 407 and it takes me 45 minutes. In fact, instead of saying that internet should be more like the roadways, it's the other way around. You should pay more to drive a longer distance than someone else. Many places in the world do just that (London England, Singapore ect.) Before you tell me you pay taxes to pay for the road..yes you pay part of the cost, not the full cost.

It's called opportunity costing. Is it worth it to download 300GB of stuff ? Sure if you pay a flat rate, but if you paid a rate based on usage...maybe not. Infrastructure is expensive, hence the natural monopolies we see in our telecommunications. This is a very large country, and not densely populated so comparing to other countries doesn't really give you a clear picture. The fees they charge are for access to the internet and they are not required to upgrade that infrastructure. If people paid for usage maybe they would.

time for the ombudsman to check out the crtc and see what it is or isn't doing in the interest of the public

then we'll have to check out the ombudsman

Nick the dick,

then it should go both ways, under use deserves a refund every month, I'm sure that has never crossed your mind as you work for rogers or bell. Keep licking these guys and one they you'll be sorry when every penny you make is accounted for.

You can't compare buying physical things to something intangible like bandwidth. Yes it is measurable, but storage, size and other factors are always changing. A beer will always be made with the same general ingredients, be sold in the same couple of sizes. Costs like ingredients change. You can't assume that the same rules that apply to the corporeal (or meatspace) can be accurately applied to the digital space.

Let's assume just for a moment that paying for usage idea is not so bad. But why $2 per extra 1GB? It looks rediculous. According to experts the cost of internet truffic is almost nothing. As for infrastructure and equipment update, this cost we have already payed off with our regular monthly payments.

I don't understand why they are even proposing this other then to bend the consumer over once again. Bandwidth does not cost any more or less for the isp based on volume used. Sure if your getting more beer you should have to pay more because it carries an extra expense but bandwidth does not. This is just another example of how terrible the companies are in Canada.

Ok, lets really look at this question.

The internet providers can't provide the service for free as it costs money to build and operate. So they have to charge something to somebody.

It is reasonable for them to make a "profit" from this. Again most of us will agree. Furthermore the CRTC regulates about what that profit will be. Now we could argue on what that profit should be all day but lets just leave it at they make a bit of profit.

Now for each customer there is overhead for having them as a customer The guy that installs it, corporate administration costs (it costs the same to send a bill to a client regardless of how much is charged), availabel service support etc, etc, etc. Basically before somebody even uses the internet the company incurs an expense and allocates that evenly over all of their clients. This represents the basic charge you see.

So now the question is who pays for the actual network. Currently before this is implemented everybody pays equally (think of the road example above) and you can use the service as much or as little as you like. The new system proposed however is more like a road system with toll booths on it. You get charged for usage. This will infact be a better deal for the majority of users.

Look at it this way. Lets assume there are 11 users on the network. 10 of them use 1gb a month and the last guy uses 12 gb. Each consumer under the current system must pay for 2 gb of network capacity even though all but the last guy are only consuming 1. Now lets say that the 11th guy doubles his usage (legal or otherwise) and talks a buddy already on the system to do the same. Now 9 people are using 1 gb each and 2 people are consuming 24 gb each. That means everybody has to pay for 5.2 gb even though 8 only still consume 1 gb. Doesn't seem fair to those 8 does it?

TLDR: This deal should cost the average user less while only penalizing the "super" users. Last analogy. Consider when you and 3 friends split a pizza. If you all eat equal amounts than splitting the bill equally makes sense however if one of you ate 1/2 the pizza by themselves is it reasonable to expect the other 3 to pay amounts equal to the guy who was a pig? For disclosure I don't work in telecommunications.

We can argue all we want, the reality is. This is just more BS. Another way for the government to screw us over. Corporate greed, Capitalism at work. Why we put up with it is beyond me, we are just sheep to the controllers of wealth...we just roll over and accept their garbage and their lies...need I remind you of the HST? All of my bills have already gone up, but now I am expected to fork over more. When will it end? How will it end...it never will until people stop allowing themselves to be manipulated. Sheep, we are just sheep. sigh...