said by Atragon:
As we've noted countless times, while you certainly could have an ISP design new usage-based pricing that's fair and offers value, we haven't seen any ISPs do so yet. The pricing models we've seen emerge in Canada with the CRTC's blessing aren't designed to save light users money, as even the lowest, cheapest tiers result in significant and confusing penalties for even the lightest of use (say one HD film of the new baby for grandma). You don't reign in the use of a tiny percentage of your userbase by imposing severe penalties on the entire userbase. We've also yet to see any ISP offer raw financial or congestion data supporting the need for this pricing instead of flat-rate pricing or even straight and reasonable caps/throttling.
I'd like to take slight issue with this statement, it seems to imply that the CRTC is allowing
ISPs to implement UBB-based pricing schemes, and that no ISPs have chosen
to implement a fair scheme.
This isn't quite the case, the CRTC has mandated
that all ISPs who are paying bell for access to their wholesale services must
also pay Bell based on an absurdly priced UBB model per user, and thus the small independent ISPs seem to have had
no choice but to implement a pricing scheme that nearly mirrors Bell's own retail prices.
Frankly, I'm disgusted that the CRTC allowed this to pass.
Exactly. Nice correction. The CRTC has basically reversed years of rather progressive wholesaler/incumbent regulation with one fell swoop, and dictated that TekSavvy et al. pay Bhell for something they already pay for.
They completely violate the proper definition of wholesaler
in the process by taking away the ability of the independent to buy in bulk and sell retail. Under UBB, everyone's a white label Baby Bhell reseller. Under the old status quo, independents had the flexibility to price their product the way THEY wanted.