| reply to Gruesome
Re: "aggregated volume pricing" rape.
ubb avp = rape.
period |
|
| reply to Gruesome
They could also do as MTS did and have extrodinarily high ASHPPI rates, a 1 gig port with MTS is $68,000/month.... that doesn't include the $24/customer or bandwidth..... I think Bells rates are around $3000/month for a 1 gig port +X per customer...
dont worry, the customer will pay more, |
|
| reply to Gruesome
i'm telling you guys the new proposal is even worse than the previous one. it's still UBB, only even more expensive LOL!
they sure are trying to fool you guys by switching words and numbers around. it's still the same in the end! |
|
| reply to corster
quote:
E12. The Companies have designed their economic ITMP proposal, AVP to satisfy the following five principles:
- Flexibility: The economic ITMP is not linked to individual user thresholds and allows the wholesale ISP to devise its own business models that allow it to differentiate its services in the market.
- Fairness: The economic ITMP ensures that those who use the most pay the most and are not subsidized by those who use the least.
- Predictability: The economic ITMP is designed such that all ISPs have an incentive to manage usage of the shared network.
- Promoting investments: The economic ITMP is designed to incent investments in building and augmenting access networks, and
- Transparency: Last but not least, the economic ITMP transparently matches a wholesale ISP's willingness to pay to its usage of the network, thus putting them in control of the economic ITMP in a clear and transparent manner.
... what a bunch of crap. So now they will be focusing on the ISP's rather than consumers/ISPs.. i hate Bell..
Also..
quote:
E13. Under the AVP proposal, GAS (both legacy and FTTN) would be composed of two components: a flat-rated access fee by speed and the AVP. The AVP can be pre-purchased in blocks of single Terabytes (TB). The rate for a single TB would be $200 (which effectively approximates a wholesale rate of $0.195 per GB per month). If the ISP's total aggregate monthly traffic volume exceeds the level of TBs it pre-purchases for a given month, the ISP will be charged a post-use wholesale rate of $0.295 per GB for any extra GB required to accommodate the overall usage of all its end-users that month.
|
|
|
|
| First I want to snip some stuf
said by bbdhomer: quote:
E12. The Companies have designed their economic ITMP proposal, AVP to satisfy the following five principles:
- Flexibility: The economic ITMP
- Fairness: The economic ITMP
- Predictability: The economic ITMP
- Promoting investments: The economic ITMP
- Transparency: economic ITMP
Bell,economic ITMP MY ASS!There is NOTHING economic with your UBB 2.0,it's going to kill the economy instead of Reviving it!  |
|
| reply to bbdhomer
said by bbdhomer: quote:
E12. The Companies have designed their economic ITMP proposal, AVP to satisfy the following five principles:
- Flexibility: The economic ITMP is not linked to individual user thresholds and allows the wholesale ISP to devise its own business models that allow it to differentiate its services in the market.
- Fairness: The economic ITMP ensures that those who use the most pay the most and are not subsidized by those who use the least.
- Predictability: The economic ITMP is designed such that all ISPs have an incentive to manage usage of the shared network.
- Promoting investments: The economic ITMP is designed to incent investments in building and augmenting access networks, and
- Transparency: Last but not least, the economic ITMP transparently matches a wholesale ISP's willingness to pay to its usage of the network, thus putting them in control of the economic ITMP in a clear and transparent manner.
... what a bunch of crap. So now they will be focusing on the ISP's rather than consumers/ISPs.. i hate Bell.. Also.. quote:
E13. Under the AVP proposal, GAS (both legacy and FTTN) would be composed of two components: a flat-rated access fee by speed and the AVP. The AVP can be pre-purchased in blocks of single Terabytes (TB). The rate for a single TB would be $200 (which effectively approximates a wholesale rate of $0.195 per GB per month). If the ISP's total aggregate monthly traffic volume exceeds the level of TBs it pre-purchases for a given month, the ISP will be charged a post-use wholesale rate of $0.295 per GB for any extra GB required to accommodate the overall usage of all its end-users that month.
I see open media thinks they won..... |
|
| reply to Gruesome
I don't understand why this wrong.
It is paying for exactly what you use, right? |
|
1 edit | reply to someshawguy
I'm not fooled at all, I agree this is a worse proposal as it takes away a lot of control away from the consumer. Now "insurance" would be offered to the wholesaler instead of the customer, which they in turn could resell to the customer at a substantially higher price than the $5 per 40GB block originally proposed. Bell wins, wholesalers win (somewhat), customers LOSE. This is quite a mouse trap Bell has set up here. |
|
| reply to Gruesome
What I want to know is why Bell is still talking about a single limit 41 GB, we're supposed to have speed matching already so what "included" bandwidth will the higher speeds have?
Bandwidth usage will grow over the next months/years who will dictate how much should be included in every plan ? If it's Bell and they decide to stick to the 41 GB number, the average monthly transfer per client will be going up which will make it hard for them to be creative and play with any "unused" margins. |
|
| reply to gruntlord6
open Media is smoking something bad. |
|
| reply to Gruesome
Only way I see wholesalers agreeing to the above is if Bell allows them to set the speeds they want for the same per port price they're paying now. The 41 GB would be applicable to the higher speeds, users will be more likely to reach it too but the higher profit margins will allow wholesalers enough room to be creative. |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to Gruesome
quote:
E12. The Companies have designed their economic ITMP proposal, AVP to satisfy the following five principles:
- Flexibility: The economic ITMP is not linked to individual user thresholds and allows the wholesale ISP to devise its own business models that allow it to differentiate its services in the market.
- Fairness: The economic ITMP ensures that those who use the most pay the most and are not subsidized by those who use the least.
- Predictability: The economic ITMP is designed such that all ISPs have an incentive to manage usage of the shared network.
- Promoting investments: The economic ITMP is designed to incent investments in building and augmenting access networks, and
- Transparency: Last but not least, the economic ITMP transparently matches a wholesale ISP's willingness to pay to its usage of the network, thus putting them in control of the economic ITMP in a clear and transparent manner.
Fundamental error #1 ... Just like UBB AVP is Not an ITMP.
Flexibility ... I'll give them that ... to a point ... but the trouble is that in the way it's being proposed it almost essentially forces yet agaiin a retail UBB on the 3rd party ISPs.
Fairness ... It ensures that SOMEBODY pays.
Predictability ... that's not predictability ... it's unpredictable what anyone pays! What they've described is as I said elsewhere ... they're forcing 3rd party ISPs essentially to implement retail UBB on at least some of their users.
Promoting Investment ... The rates paid to Bell in the past agreed to by Bell and the CRTC were designed to provide for maintenance and upgrades ... what happened to them? Why should raking in more money promote investment ... all it's done in the past is pay the company officers and the shareholders more cash to help them repurchase CTV Globemedia!
Transparency ... this isn't clear and transparent ... it's devious.
----
If Bell wants to limit a third party ISP's traffic to what they've paid for, then do that ... not these stupid games. Follow the industry standard for occupancy of the pipes ... stop playing the gigabyte by gigabyte game. |
|
Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to newSymp
Here's a bit of math that should give a clearer picture of how Bell's suggested rates will affect us.
Teksavvy DSL Premium is currently $31.95/month (300GB/month bandwidth)
Aggregated volume pricing (AVP) will cost Teksavvy $0.20/GB, however, they are not charged for the first 41 GB of data per user. Although it's hard to predict exactly how this will affect us since some light users may only use 10-20GB/month, therefore, bringing down Teksavvy's customer's average bandwidth consumption, we can estimate how this will affect us.
Sample package:
100GB/month cap
$31.95/month + $11.80 = $43.75
The math used to obtain the $11.80 figure is shown below:
100GB bandwidth - 41GB (free) = 59GB
59GB * $0.20 = $11.80
Under Bell's old UBB proposal, if you purchased 2 40GB insurance blocks for $4.50 each you would pay $40.95 and your bandwidth cap would be 105GB/month (25GB + 40GB + 40GB).
Anyway you slice it, AVP is bad for customers but the worst part about this is that the higher the average bandwidth consumption gets, the more expensive the fees become no matter how much you actually use.
In my example above, I'm assuming that the average Teksavvy customer uses 41GB/month so the first 41GB are free. But what if the average is 60GB/month? Then the rates get higher because Teksavvy will be paying a lot more for bandwidth and won't be able to pass off the "free" 41GB to us. Either that, or they'll have to create tiers that punish those who use a lot more than the average customer.
Bell just found a way to make UBB sound better. The wording will make most people believe it won't affect them since they're not being billed directly by Bell. UBB is more straightforward and most people were able to figure out exactly how much more they would be paying based on their own usage. AVP is not as straightforward and will confuse most people. |
|
| reply to Gruesome
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the higher per port pricing for the higher speeds and the ridiculous $191.40 setup charge for FTTN. |
|
 mazhurgPremium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB | Which they will probably absorb waive for their own retail customers...
Should keep the churn down.
Oh, and the pricing above are strictly what is paid to Bell. On top of that, connectivity, upstream, equipment, employees, etc, etc... |
|
| reply to sbrook
said by sbrook:Transparency ... this isn't clear and transparent ... it's devious.
It's very simple:
Under UBB 1.0 it was the individual user who was going to see the bill as a direct result of Bell's charges. Hence 500k signatures on a petition and a heated political issue.
Under UBB 2.0, with the 41GB wiggle room included, it's up to the individual ISP's to figure out how to price the plans and eat overages if they want to. This time around there's only CNOC & CAIP members on a petition ~ 100 or so signatures.....and it's just a business-to-business dispute now.
The 41GB figure is a way for Bell to put the boots to the ISP's directly.... the $200/TB and $300/TB extra overage fees are just another money grab by the serial extortionist Bell. |
|
| reply to mazhurg
said by mazhurg:Which they will probably absorb waive for their own retail customers...
Should keep the churn down.
Oh, and the pricing above are strictly what is paid to Bell. On top of that, connectivity, upstream, equipment, employees, etc, etc...
Yep in fact I wouldn't be surprised if Bell pushed for FTTN now that they want to charge $15 more per mo for the lowest speed tier 6mbps(ON)/7mbps(QC).
Even without UBB, wholesalers have a major handicap with a $200 setup fee. |
|
 DJRifulTeksavvy.comPremium
join:2005-06-12
canada
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to bjlockie
said by bjlockie:I don't understand why this wrong.
It is paying for exactly what you use, right?
it's wrong because their GB cost $0.04/GB while they want to charge us $2/GB...
see the profit by gouging wallets?
It's also bad because 25GB, it ends up killing small businesses also self-employed people.
Not just ourselves but it also affects services like NetFlix, Online gaming, other big company will no longer wanting to do business in Canada because no one is able to afford anything on top of the ISP fees. Anti-Competitive.
In this case the ISP will push away all those competition and keep the price up. You will end up paying $100 monthly the cheapest for any media services provided by the ISP.
That's just my 2cents.
--
Teksavvy.com + 300GB Bandwidth awesomeness! |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| said by DJRiful:said by bjlockie:I don't understand why this wrong.
It is paying for exactly what you use, right?
it's wrong because their GB cost $0.04/GB while they want to charge us $ 2.00 0.19/GB... It's also bad because 25GB, it ends up killing small businesses also self-employed people. There's no 25GB cap, your ISP sets the caps.
It is the end of unlimited. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to Gruesome
Bell is claiming that "the Companies have filed today, concurrent with these Comments, new tariff proposals for GAS FTTN with access rates that are lower than those previously filed."
Also, about the 42.1GB figure, that's actually aggregated, but it only applies to legacy GAS customers.
That will mean, I expect, that AVP on legacy GAS will be very low (for now, usage is increasing fast), but that AVP on GAS FTTN will be crazy expensive because it won't have that built-in figure.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
