gteehan

With all due respect Jim I think it's unreasonable for everyone. I don't think the CRTC has the right or the knowledge to deem what is "reasonable". What is a basic amount anyway? What is 25Gb based on? More importantly WHEN is 25 Gb based on (see my last paragraph).

I pay just over $30 for my 5mb TekSavvy connection and it's currently limited to 200GB/Month. Totally fair.

I use anywhere from 50-75GB/month (well under my max). If I don't opt-in for the "insurance" my bill will triple or quadruple. Is that reasonable?

If I choose to opt in to the "insurance" my bill still goes up another $10/month AND I'm capped at 80GB. So I pay $10 more and get 120GB less. Still reasonable?

Also of note is that we pay more than most countries for services like this AND we're ranked 33rd in terms of available bandwidth. Again, we pay more for less.

Lastly, and this is what I think is the most important point ... As time moves on our reliance on bandwidth will increase at a rate that will not be inline with the rate of change the CRTC can or will support. As such, you'll continually be paying more for data as you wait for the CRTC to increase what IT deems reasonable.

pongobaz

Agree 100% with Geoff.

jumper5836

I agree with Jim, people should be charged for the data they use. Those that use less should not have to pay for those that use more. Someone who pays the same for 25gb and have a neighborhood bandwidth hog suffer with lower speeds and the bandwidth hog pays the same and abuses the system.

Until infrastructure is upgraded to higher capacity, data will remain expensive. Lot of 3rd world countries have better infrastructure then Canada becuase it all new and Canada is mostly all old copper.

Jaak Lepson

Being upgraded to Fibre ... which is expensive. We are also spread out over a HUGE land mass. We cannot compare ourselves to other smaller countries. USA has the subscriber base that makes it cost effective, we don't.

gteehan

I am currently being charged for the data I use (and for the data I don't). Come March I'll simply need to pay more for lesser service. FWIW my bandwidth or uptime will not be changing with these increases in fees, so while I hear you on the infrastructure point it's very one-sided at this time.

My point is that the CRTC has no clue what an appropriate amount of data is - they especially don't know what the needs will be in 1, 2 or 5 year's time. You think they'll be able to keep up with pace of change? As I said in my last post, the needs are growing exponentially and I highly doubt that rates will adjust accordingly.

Lastly, then I promise not to continue, is the upgrade to fibre/land mass argument. Yes, infrastructure costs are passed down to the end user but land mass has nothing to do with it. If I choose to live in a city or area with little to no infrastructure I shouldn't expect someone in a large city to help pay so I can have it.

Jaak Lepson

Point 1. The reverse path is clogged due to bandwidth limitations. Same as the forward which feeds you. Congestion relief requires changes both at the head end as well as out in the field. In some/many cases more fibre cables need to be brought in through redundant routes ... expensive. The Head end equipment needs to be added to handle the traffic as well as the routers etc. There is a cost in this as well. The more customers that are added ... the higher the costs to serve them. There are newer DWDM optical transmitters being brought out yearly to try and keep up with the traffic. When they get better and faster/bandwidth it will make it easier. Some of the traffic goes through DWDM OC 192 x 16 channels on a laser pair.

Point 2 & 3. The CRTC has set the rates and has looked at the usage as well as future demands on the system. If a new protocol/compression/data format is invented ... this may relieve the congestion. BTW ... CRTC is has mandated that the rural areas across Canada will have net access; part of the licensing requirements. They done so in the past where urban areas have funded the rural phone systems. Bell Canada was guaranteed a 12% profit for providing rural phone service. This is not new, has been going on for at least 50 to 75 years. They are now moving this practice to the new technology.

As for the land mass ... the connectivity to the net is in at least 4 places in the GTA IIRC. All traffic has to reach these portals in order to surf. These costs are spread throughout the customer base similar to the Freight charges that Automakers charge (good analogy, not the price). The charges Canada is now facing ... the USA has had for a while.

When I started in the biz 37 years ago ... we still had 12 channel tubed amplifiers ... I have see a big change since then. I was at the bleeding end of most of the new services including data. I set up the first T1 over a Coax CATV system in 1985. A lot has changed since then.

Sultan

I think we all used enough bandwidth for today on this topic......and I have to give up my 1st born now for this post

Jaak Lepson

I don't defend it ... just adding to the mix that most folks don't realize what is required to provide service. Everyone demands it be there and unlimited ... there are costs involved that everyone needs to understand.

gteehan

It's all your fault Jaak.

This is ridiculous but amusing nonetheless...
A 160GB SSD costs $300 ($1.88/GB)
Next day shipping for that SSD is $10 (let's say its in transit for 24hrs.)
That works out to a little over 15Mbps and $1.94 per GB.
That means it's cheaper to put downloads on an SSD, ship them across the country and then throw out the SSD instead of paying the $2/GB to your ISP.

jumper5836

I don't agree with prices they charge, nor the fact that you don't get reimbursed for data not used or like cell phone carriers min not used.
I am only saying people who use more should be charged more then those that don't.

Jaak Lepson

..... Used to be called Canada Post .....

Hard to e-mail this way ... and don't forget to pay for the content ... Pirate ...

Jaak Lepson

That's reasonable ... I've seen what some do with their service. Some have also become an ISP using the connection ...

Torontoworker

The bottom line is that they are rolling this out to post Feb 2007 users so in fact this is payback to the little guy for creating a market share that the big five were the cause of in the first place. By their own admissions at CRTC hearings they had to admit that people who left their services on or around this date, did so because these clients were getting a 'better deal' elsewhere. Gee - free market place. Right.....

The big five have convinced the 12 out of 13 board members (one not filled yet) that, gee, we can't handle these little start up's. So now these small groups such as Teksavvy are in affect being rolled back to 2007 business levels as a result of the big five industry friends (CRTC) helping them out.

Meanwhile in PQ - our friend who owns Videotron and also the Toronto Sun Group and soon Fox TV (Canada) and who has many former staff who work for Harper and or staff coming back from the PMO to his different companies - have been able to lock in a 60G cap instead of the ROC level of 25G. Why you ask? Do you have too? There was also the not so subtle 'threat' that the BQ passed along that the PQ would 'opt out' of CRTC control. So it's all about shady backroom business deals with a headoffice such as Bells located in Montreal and internal Tory politics and nothing else. FYI: Rogers and Shaw donated in a HUGE way to the Tories. Time for the pay back...

People who go on about; 'Well I never use this size of G so why should I pay' line of thinking are missing the issue here. You will continue to pay more and more for less and less service. Lets say you use 2G out of a 25G plan. Have YOU been offered a decrease in price? As if. Your plan will go up and up simply because they will have forced out small operators. You would be better to dump your internet service and use a smart phone. Oh wait, other then two tiny players in that market - who owns the smart phone market?. Ottawa - meet Moscow. Same ideals.

This is all about driving everyone to their movie networks and on demand TV, Rogers Video stores and preventing any form of new services that they don't own. It's not about the tiny 5% of the market making their clients look over the fence and ask why Rogers and Bell cap's them while Teksavvy doesn't. It might be a bit of that but it's more like the future is coming and they see themselves as the gatekeeper's or 407 like toll keepers. $1.00 per GB if you go over 25GB hard cap??!! It's 1 CENT per GB in the USA.

gteehan

Jaak, I know you're just joking about the piracy thing, but to be clear, piracy has nothing to do with the argument I'm making.

Sure I'm pissed that like most things in this country I continue to pay more for less. The additional cost is not the travesty here. What should be of concern to all of us are the ACTUAL services that could suffer, cease to exist or never be offered here as a result of the CRTC/UBB. Services that give people a truly better alternative to what is currently available. Things like Netflix, Steam and Hulu come to mind. We're already a small market, putting additional restrictions only lessens the desire or feasibility of services like this (or ones yet to be created) to exist in Canada. To put it more succinctly, it stifles innovation and removes choice.

I work in the industry too. We make a living off of finding better ways to solve problems using digital means. The office is nothing but 20 and 30 somethings. It sounds contrived, but these kids, like most their age, live in what my parents would call 'the future'. Most don't have a landline, many cut the cable a year or two ago and all of them rely on bandwidth and data over traditional means for the things most rely on their cable or phone company to figure out. These guys rarely watch live broadcasts, they view downloaded content or rent movies from services like Apple and Netflix everyday. They don't go to GameStop to buy the latest games, they download them from services like Steam. They stream music 24/7 from services like Hype Machine. And that's just the beginning. FWIW some of these files are huge. 2GB for a movie (and that's increasing); A game can easily run 5-10GB (that too isn't getting any smaller). They are constantly looking for a "better way" - all of which rely on data. Point is, some of these means may not exist or may no longer be financially viable anymore. They'll either need to pay exorbitant fees to do things a "better way" OR conform to the old services that are available through their service providers.

This post totally nails it:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/02/01...et-innovation/

mister_2

Totally agree with this post. I'm 30 and I do everything online. Movies, games and so forth just as mentioned above. If my internet fees go up it will force me to change the way I do things but not for the better.