FAIR Market Value on Bandwidth!
How many times will the CRTC and Bell compare the use of bandwidth to that of other common utilities such has hydro? They compare it time and time again saying it's fair. Pay for what you use..
YET!, If you paid $2.00 per kWh you would be PISSED OFF!
WHY!, can they get away with charging us upwards of $2 a Gigabyte when it's value is somewhere under 10¢ per gig.
FAIR MARKET VALUE, PEOPLE!
(Yes I'm an agitated Canadian)
---==[ It's time to go Egyptian on the CRTC ]==---
It's like when people say "But shouldn't people who use more pay more?" and I answer "Maybe, but Bell's prices are like paying $200 a litre for gasoline."
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org
|reply to JfromK |
Its less than $0.01 per GB to $0.04 per GB for transport, example if your ISP pays for its own transit (A internet wholesaler) it would cost $0.01 a full GB for transport over bells (rented) portion of the last mile monopoly. So $2.00 would be a 200x mark up, now lets say your utility raised your prices by 200% a kw. People would freak, Keep comparing it to utility's KvF maybe we can have bell governed as a utility.
The $0.04 A GB is transport if the ISP is a Bell 'reseller' and buys its Internet connection from bell (as we know bell charges more).
Under the utility scenario it would be $50 hookup $2.00 Monthly line maintenance fee, $2 Monthly network upgrade Fee and $1 monthly modem rental. so $5 a month for internet connection add $3 for 300 GB (or $12 at the $0.04 price for 300 GB).
A piece of crap in a box with a guaranteed sticker on it is nothing but a guaranteed piece of crap.
You Can build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night, You can set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
I think the percentage should be 20,000% with correct math. Really shocking. Why this kvf did not use this number when he compared internet with utility?
|reply to a1_Andy |
"So $2.00 would be a 200x mark up, now lets say your utility raised your prices by 200% a kw. People would freak"
That's actually 20,000% - that's why people like us have been freaking!
|reply to JfromK |
It really was appalling to hear him spout the invalid comparisons to utilities like electricity and gas again, as Bell is so fond of promoting. Someone in his position should be able to get his addled brain around the basics of network use, not just regurgitate the spoon fed, easily digested bs Bell has been feeding him. Unfortunately a large portion of the public has also bought this line of thinking as it makes a nice simple sound-byte.
It's not that complicated. The network moves data, the only "consumption of real resource" is electricity to the routers, switches, etc., which is almost the same for heavily used or lightly used networks, and a tiny portion of the operating/maintenance costs. Not the same as heating your home at all.
The issue is peak demand, and when (or if) saturation occurs on a segment. As usage grows, there will be some relatively small costs to increase capacity on these segments - add another Gigabit Ethernet link, upgrade your routers, light up some dark fibre, etc. Then it's fine for another year or five. Occasionally more radical upgrades may be needed to keep pace with global standards (i.e., FTTH). I'd think Bell earns more than enough, even just through GAS (wholesaler fees) to keep on top of these investments.
Can Konrad really be that remiss in his duty to understand what he's regulating? I don't think so. He still thinks he can sell Bell's bull to the public and politicians and keep his friends at the incumbents happy. Pure corruption.
|reply to JfromK |
Not to mention that bandwidth is a renewable "resource" that costs nothing to replenish.