Bell Outlines Plan To Cap Wholesalers > Corporate greed is reaching new levels....

Corporate greed is reaching new levels....

It doesn't make any sense. The prices of all services always included the price of bandwidth. Because bandwidth is cheap. 500gigs only costs 50 cents or less.
It just seems ISPs are going to follow the oil model. When you control supply, make it sparse to justify charging a ridiculous price for it. So they purposely don't upgrade anything as they get new customers or when customers start to use what they have been paying for. This allows them to claim networks cannot support it and therefore they need to charge a 1000% increase for bandwidth to conserve their limited resources. But I guess this is what happens when you are under pressure to have a 10% increase in stock price every year no matter if you really grow or not. Profits are meaningless to these companies. It's only about increased profits. And that means raising prices on existing customers to pretend you are experiencing growth.

BS! If you find me 500Gb for 50 cents or less delivered I will buy it right this very minute.

www.dreamhost.com
5TB of transfers, $5.95/month. That's $.60 cents per 500 GB. Close enough.

First comparing cost of bandwidth in a datacenter and delivered via the last mile is apples and oranges. Second, have you pushed 5 TB with Dreamhost, because I seriously doubt you ever get 5 TB for $6/mth in a shared hosting plan.

reply to battleop

reply to fatmanskinny

reply to fatmanskinny
We'll part of the problem is that the competitors are using the same network connection as bell at the DSLAM. If the competitors put in alternative backhaul they could bypass bell alltogether.

That's how it's done in the states most of the time AFAIK.

reply to munky99999

reply to battleop
It is BS. Cheapest transit you'll find is $4/mbit from Cogent. That comes out to (at 100% utilization) roughly 321GB, or (divide by eight) ~40.2GB per 50 cents. Of course, Bell's network is internal and self-owned, so their costs would be significantly lower than this.

reply to openbox9
Dreamhost will cut you off at 400 GB's (usually less) or so since they aren't exactly the most honest people. I pay around 5 cents a gb for my datacenter for the first 2 TB's of data then 10 cents overage for everyother gb. It's really really cheap.

reply to karlmarx
That's shared bandwidth in a data center. Thanks for playing. Please try again.

reply to insomniac84
That may be the raw cost of bandwidth but it certainly not the cost of delivering that bandwidth.

reply to pspcrazy
There's still a huge difference between the cost of bandwidth in a datacenter or a peering point and the last mile broadband connections heading into people's homes.

reply to munky99999

reply to NOCMan
from what i understand Bell is limiting the bandwidth at the DSLAM before it even hits the backhaul. So they have ful control before it even hits the internet to the ISP. So having an alternative backhaul wouldn't work since they put the cap at the DSLAM.

They should just but DSLAMS in the COs and go from there. they shouldnt have to worry about being capped then since they would be considered a CLEC and not a Wholesale/Reseller ISP.

reply to drjp81

Don't try your little semantic manipulations on me, mister. It won't work. We as humans, regardless of the language, when communicating, whether by peaking or writing, have to use a certain convention the usage of words, otherwise, up will end-up being down, east will be west. You want to get technical with me? How's this:

When "the rest of the world" says "download" it means to not only have the more bits and bytes in the downstream than upstream (yes, while "downloading", we are also always "uploading"), it is usually to determine if there will be an archival save of the said data on some form of physical media for retrieval in the future (hard drives, cd, dvd etc).

Furthermore "when you go online" is also misused. Most people that watch youtube are "always online" as their network connection is in one way or another, seldom ever severed. But you seem to equate going online to firing up your web browser.

Again, this is not clear and further demonstrates your poor usage of the english language, that according to you, I should have a lesser handle of, because of where I write from. What's your excuse? (rhetorical, please don't answer)

Your comment in that instance is akin to a redneck's level and borders on racism (based on geography) of all things. And this is the 21st century (if you hadn't noticed), there is no more room for that kind of intolerance.

So the usage of the word download, was erroneous without further clarification on your part and you know it, you're just being a PITA.

You have also completely sidestepped the throttling issue, I have noticed.

--
Cheers!--
I reserve the right to use any private message
in these boards if you behave like a horse a$$ in it.