dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3022
share rss forum feed

SkySpy247

join:2009-04-03
Toronto, ON

Caps should be outlawed !

Dear CRTC/FCC,

Ask any major ISP (Third Party ISP's don't count) to provide a SINGLE invoice from any supplier/partner that shows that THEY pay ANY monthly, yearly fees for data volume transfered.

I don't care what volume they transfered, what rate they pay, who they pay it to but, I want to see a line item on an invoice that says something like ...

Dear ISP,

Jan 1/2012 - Jan 31/2012 - XXXX TB transfered @ $X.XX/TB = $ X,XXX.XX

Please remit.

Sincerely,

ISP Supplier Company "X"


Network gear suppliers base their prices on speed.

So should ISPs ... all of them.

Period.

Caps were "sold" on the bullsh1t premise of a way to reduce network congestion (that they would not have if they did not over-sell their infrastructure in the first place). All they do is reduce congestion in the last week of the month as users approach their bogus CAPS!

I blame the "regulatory bodies" and politicians that have been either bamboozled or bought by the ISP's.

By extension, I blame an apathetic electorate for not voting out those that are either bamboozled or bought by the ISP's.

I am so sick of this sh1t !

PHUCK!!


GeoStar

join:2011-02-10
j2e6f5

and what "perks" can you supply to make this reality ?



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to SkySpy247

There really are comparable costs to major ISPs based on capacity consumed. They're very inflated when passed on to the third party or consumer, but they're there. Just because you don't believe in them doesn't make it so.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


SkySpy247

join:2009-04-03
Toronto, ON

I bought a new Cisco 3500 recently with GB ports on it ... it was more expensive than the one with 10/100 ports on it.

I'm not expecting a bill from Cisco for the (less than) 80 GB of internet (or the server to media player) data that flows through it every month.

I'd really be interested in any details of these 'comparable costs' you speak of.


bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

said by SkySpy247:

I bought a new Cisco 3500 recently with GB ports on it ... it was more expensive than the one with 10/100 ports on it.

Did it also come with it's own backbone connection included in the price? No?

You mean those two things aren't directly comparable? You sure?


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to SkySpy247

We can estimate a raw cost for upstream transit. Say an ISP pays $10 per megabit for some high quality bandwidth (likely lower for a large ISP, but a smaller guy isn't going to be able to afford a big commit).

He's got this on a gigabit pipe, full commit to get some sort of a discount (not uncommon), so he's at $10,000 per month. Now, you don't want to max it out, so let's say his peaks are at 800 Mbps, and let's say that means his averages are 400 Mbps.

We now have a cost of $10,000 per month for an average throughput of 400 Mbps. Let's translate that into gigabytes: 128,405.

Divide it up: 10000/128405 = $~0.08 per gigabyte.

Now, that's just the transit cost. There are obviously many other costs, such as the facilities cost (power, hardware, colo), the cost of the distribution network, the cost of your staff, office, retirement plans, etc. And I'm presenting ballpark figures here, in reality they'll be very different (and the cost per megabit can vary from $1 to $100 per megabit depending on the location, the supplier, the commit, the facility, etc).

There are real costs to provide a certain amount of bandwidth. Are the UBB prices the CRTC has approved horribly overinflated? Yes. But there are real costs that got inflated to produce those prices.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


the cerberus

join:2007-10-16
Richmond Hill, ON

1 edit

I think were arguing 2 different things.

There is cost for throughput but no cost for the associated data.

You can't just "divide it up" because caps end up being on a per month basis and not the per second it was meant to be.

If tracking was done per second and done by actual usage on the network, then yes there is a cost associated with it.

But these so called "caps" are nothing but BULLSHIT because the time of day, down to the second matters. not some monthly total.

lets stick to facts that can easily be proven. UBB aka monthly data, could never accurately bill usage properly.

one simple example is a user that downloads large amounts in off peak hours.
this example was used by all parties arguing factually and logically valid arguments during the CRTC UBB hearings many times.
there was no factual or logical argument to billing data per month.


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by the cerberus:

There is cost for throughput but no cost for the associated data.

A 1Tbps pipe with 0GB/month usage costs nothing in upstream infrastructure and transit.

The cost is a combined function of BOTH speed AND usage.

the cerberus

join:2007-10-16
Richmond Hill, ON

4 edits

said by InvalidError:

said by the cerberus:

There is cost for throughput but no cost for the associated data.

A 1Tbps pipe with 0GB/month usage costs nothing in upstream infrastructure and transit.

The cost is a combined function of BOTH speed AND usage.

No.
The cost is a function of TIME and usage. Mb per SECOND. Mb/S (throughput). The cost is the mbit used over time. its not simply the mbit (or GB's) used, its relative to the TIME.

Someone with the name invalid error should know that you cant just go per month when you are billed per second.
You basically just reiterated what I said in reverse.
If there is little traffic, aka off peak hours, then usage is basically free. Its only in the SECONDS when there is heavy traffic that the usage costs money.

Also, no one has a 1Tbps pipe to the internet with 0 usage. you just dont invest in that. the load is either heavy or light, not 0.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 edit

said by the cerberus:

No.
The cost is a function of TIME and usage. Mb per SECOND. Mb/S (throughput). The cost is the mbit used over time. its not simply the mbit (or GB's) used, its relative to the TIME.

If you transfer only 1KB at 1Tbps, the likelihood of that 1KB having any incidence on costs at any point in time is extremely small.

Links, however fast they may be, have a finite amount of available capacity at any point in time. You cannot define cost using any one factor in isolation, you need to weigh all three.

How ISPs choose to pass their costs down to customers is their own business. If you are not happy with caps, you can simply switch to a 3rd-party ISP that offers unlimited so there really is no point in petitioning the CRTC about it. The CRTC does not regulate retail speeds, caps, overage rates, etc. anyway, so the CRTC is the wrong place to complain about it.

the cerberus

join:2007-10-16
Richmond Hill, ON

1 edit

your example is not ever going to happen in the real world. no one invests in a 1Tbps pipe to transfer 1KB.

its almost like you completely ignore they pay in mbps used.
mb per SECOND. as in at that second how much DATA is being transfered.

if im on the road at rush hour, i'm adding to the traffic, but if i'm on at 2am, aka off peak hours, theres no one on the road, and it doesn't do anything.

this 3rd factor (cap or mbit/month) does not accurately describe the traffic a user caused. the cost is already in the traffic caused, simply the 2 factors, mbps, at that specific s.

its not complicated, and its why the CRTC did rule bell must provide mbps prices, without caps per customer, to wholesalers/GAS.

On the one hand I understand that since the CRTC did this we have choice to go to GAS that has unlimited.
But I dont see why the CRTC couldn't decree that caps/month don't accurately bill customers.



hrmm

@shawcable.net
reply to the cerberus

when my ISP implemented caps the stability of the connection rose dramatically


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to the cerberus

said by the cerberus:

But I dont see why the CRTC couldn't decree that caps/month don't accurately bill customers.

Simple: it is not the CRTC's job to tell companies how to pass costs down to customers. If a company decides to average bandwidth costs on a per-GB basis, that is their choice and privilege as a service provider.

This is a bit like capitalism vs communism. With socialism you spread costs across the whole customer base regardless of usage. With capitalism, you seek the most effective method of monetizing your investments.

The per-km charge on car rental does not accurately represent the cost of a km at any particular time and place, it represents the lumped average cost of a km. Similarly, with Bell's new CBB rates, the lumped average cost of a GB to 3rd-party ISPs is around $0.25.

OHSrob

join:2011-06-08
reply to SkySpy247

Caps should not be outlawed your issue is with UBB.

Usage limits/caps are essential in keeping the modern internet always fast, reliable and congestion free. Netflix users use too much bandwidth to be left completely unchecked.

What we do as opposed to UBB is we throttle our users who exceed our caps to 1.5 megabit's per second down and 256 kilobits per second up regardless of speed package.

It resets when the usage limit resets (monthly). If user's do not like ever seeing 1.5 megabit's speed's when they go over they can change their browsing habits to fit within our limit. (My service has a 100GB cap on residential and 120GB on business)

I feel this is a fair system that prevents people from abusing my service and negatively impacting other users experience's on my service.

That said I feel assigning a monetary value to usage is backwards thinking, It is simply an issue of insufficient capacity throwing money at the problem will not magically make more capacity. (But it will pay to run more fiber optic cables for more capacity).

Historically according to the throttling documents bell submitted to the CRTC a few years back, bell's congestion issues have been on the OC3 interfaces off the old legacy Dslams. This older equipment cannot be further upgraded. They could probably offer a 300+GB cap on the FTTN stuff tho since they have a full gigabit feeding each remote dslam.



Spike
Premium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

We can estimate a raw cost for upstream transit. Say an ISP pays $10 per megabit for some high quality bandwidth (likely lower for a large ISP, but a smaller guy isn't going to be able to afford a big commit).

Fact is, its much cheaper than that. Try ~$1.50/mbit for more than half the usage of a 10GbE link.
Prices have dropped off a cliff the last 2 years due to ever decreasing 10GbE equipment costs. You wouldn't know it though with todays Incumbent pricing schemes.

markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to SkySpy247

Does it really matter what the incumbents caps are? If you choose to sign up with them, that's your choice.

Fortunately there is competition in the sector now (I don't know if the CRTC pricing is fair), but there are options for unlimited, capped services, services that give you unlimited but cap during peak times, unlimited off peak, cable and DSL.

I think that as it stand right now, other than quibbling about pricing (I don't know what the costs are), things have been sorted out in a satisfactory manner for most.


Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB
reply to SkySpy247

I don't mind caps as long as.

1) caps are reasonable for the speed of the connection EI: 50mbit with 500GB is reasonable
2) Have a reasonably priced Unmetered plan as well EI: shaw 250/15 for 140/mnth


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to Spike

said by Spike:

Prices have dropped off a cliff the last 2 years due to ever decreasing 10GbE equipment costs. You wouldn't know it though with todays Incumbent pricing schemes.

Prices may have decreased but the costs on network operators' amortization tables will need a few more years to adjust since past purchases are written off at the original purchase price.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to SkySpy247

Also, some aspects only get more expensive over time. It costs a lot more to dig a trench today than it did 20 years ago...
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Kitchener, ON
reply to SkySpy247

said by SkySpy247:

Network gear suppliers base their prices on speed.

So should ISPs ... all of them.

Caps reduce the average speed of users, and therefore reduce ISP cost. A user with unlimited 15Mb/s can use 15Mb/s every day of the month all day. A user with 300GB cap 15Mb/s can only use 15Mb/s for part of the month. On the days they're not using the connection (because of the limit) some other user can use the same bandwidth. This obviously doesn't work with two users, but when you average over a userbase of tens of thousands of customers it does work. The cap brings down the total average speed, which reduces the ISP's costs for their transit.

It is a valid point that bandwidth is cheaper off peak, and that's why you're seeing ISPs like TekSavvy offering unlimited overnight usage. But that doesn't change that caps do actually save ISPs money.

You also may be correct in that Rogers/Bell have excessively steep overage charges, but that's what competition from TekSavvy/Acanac/Ebox/etc is for.
--
Taylor Byrnes

the cerberus

join:2007-10-16
Richmond Hill, ON
reply to InvalidError

said by InvalidError:

said by the cerberus:

But I dont see why the CRTC couldn't decree that caps/month don't accurately bill customers.

Simple: it is not the CRTC's job to tell companies how to pass costs down to customers. If a company decides to average bandwidth costs on a per-GB basis, that is their choice and privilege as a service provider.

This is a bit like capitalism vs communism. With socialism you spread costs across the whole customer base regardless of usage. With capitalism, you seek the most effective method of monetizing your investments.

The per-km charge on car rental does not accurately represent the cost of a km at any particular time and place, it represents the lumped average cost of a km. Similarly, with Bell's new CBB rates, the lumped average cost of a GB to 3rd-party ISPs is around $0.25.

Actually, I wasnt saying they should outlaw caps, like the OP suggested.

I was simply saying the CRTC should either require ISP's to inform the customer that GB/month (cap) doesnt acurratly bill customers, or have information about caps on thier own website.

Then its the customers choice to sign up or not.

I'm not saying that ISP's shouldnt be able to charge whatever they want.

Simply that customers have the right to know its not calculated to accurately bill the traffic that you cause.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by the cerberus:

Simply that customers have the right to know its not calculated to accurately bill the traffic that you cause.

There is no such thing as a way to "accurately bill" based on the instantaneous usage cost of every single customer since the exact costs vary continuously. The best that can reasonably be achieved is an averaged cost of some sort and averaged costs are everywhere, they aren't anything new.

If everyone was adjusting prices based on a very short term cost fluctuation basis, the price of everything would change on a per-second basis.

If you wanted "accurate cost" billing for electrical power, the rates would vary on a per-second basis due to variations in water levels at electric dams, wind speeds at wind farms, clouds/snow/rain at solar farms, load on the distribution network, losses, etc. but most power companies only update their price once or twice a year based on the lumped average production and distribution cost of a kWh.

"Accurate billing" sounds nice in theory but it is not practical in the real world. Whatever proportional scheme ends up implemented, averaging is always required to keep it practical.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to the cerberus

said by the cerberus:

Simply that customers have the right to know its not calculated to accurately bill the traffic that you cause.

I think honest non-usurious market rates would be fine here... something like X$ for your base speed plus $0.02 to $0.05/GB if we're going to go down that road.

Realistically caps aren't about fairness they're about punishing you for getting services off the internet that are offered by legacy media.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

the cerberus

join:2007-10-16
Richmond Hill, ON
reply to InvalidError

said by InvalidError:

"Accurate billing" sounds nice in theory but it is not practical in the real world. Whatever proportional scheme ends up implemented, averaging is always required to keep it practical.

Nonsense. All you have to do is pass the cost down to the consumer for the traffic they caused. Its very simple.

The examples you gave (1KB on a 1Tbps pipe) wont ever happen in real life.

What teksavvy is doing makes sense, there are times of high load, and low load. real traffic has usage patterns. like rush hour.

in other words, only billing when the user is actually adding to traffic. then figure out the cost of bandwidth during that time.
like el quinton suggests its a max of $0.05/GB.
Then you can add up all the REAL TRAFFIC caused over the month.
Even if there was no usage patterns there is no reason why you couldnt factor in time of day and if there was traffic or not.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by the cerberus:

Nonsense. All you have to do is pass the cost down to the consumer for the traffic they caused. Its very simple.

What teksavvy is doing makes sense, there are times of high load, and low load. real traffic has usage patterns. like rush hour.

Even if there was no usage patterns there is no reason why you couldnt factor in time of day and if there was traffic or not.

So you are telling me that Teksavvy's $0.50/GB rate is "accurate" even though this is around twice their back-end costs (including Bell's CBB) and applies regardless of whether that extra usage occurred during an actual cost-driving peak or not? lol.

As I have already said, the "real cost" of individual subscribers varies on a second-by-second basis, there is no practical way to "accurately" bill usage based on fractional contribution to cost-driving factor so companies have to choose simpler, more practical metrics to average/distribute costs on. Whatever model and rates get chosen, someone will inevitably find reason(s) to protest.


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to SkySpy247

Caps are like the horse and buggy on the cobblestone road. Quite outdated as Canada falls further behind the rest of the world.


IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:2
reply to SkySpy247

said by SkySpy247:

Network gear suppliers base their prices on speed.

So should ISPs ... all of them.

Period.

I'll keep the caps, thank you very much. I can't afford the $1000+ monthly that a 60mbps link costs wholesale.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to the cerberus

said by the cerberus:

said by InvalidError:

"Accurate billing" sounds nice in theory but it is not practical in the real world. Whatever proportional scheme ends up implemented, averaging is always required to keep it practical.

Nonsense. All you have to do is pass the cost down to the consumer for the traffic they caused. Its very simple.

in other words, only billing when the user is actually adding to traffic. then figure out the cost of bandwidth during that time.
Then you can add up all the REAL TRAFFIC caused over the month.
Even if there was no usage patterns there is no reason why you couldnt factor in time of day and if there was traffic or not.

That would require significantly more complex tracking systems than are currently in place, and even more significantly staffed call centres to deal with the customers who don't understand the usage portions of their bills.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL

said by bt:

That would require significantly more complex tracking systems than are currently in place, and even more significantly staffed call centres to deal with the customers who don't understand the usage portions of their bills.

Access charge + usage charge would work fine in this case, as long as both were reasonable.

The problem with Caps isn't the overage charge itself, it's the fact that it's designed to be punitive, which is anti-innovation, and protectionist.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to SkySpy247

The most fair way to bill traffic would be per megabit 95th percentile, since that's ultimately how the ISP gets billed. And trust me, you don't want to get billed by 95th percentile. That works fine for an ISP, but it would suck for any consumer who uses their connection at full speed more than 36 hours per month...
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org