dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2993
share rss forum feed

the cerberus

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

Re: Caps should be outlawed !

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


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by Guspaz:

The most fair way to bill traffic would be per megabit 95th percentile, since that's ultimately how the ISP gets billed.

Except 95th between 00:00 and 08:00 doesn't cost ISPs quite the same thing as 95th between 18:00 and 22:00 and once you get into those arguments, the idea of charging end-users 95th on a "fairness" basis falls apart even without considering the technical complexity.

An ISP that wanted to bill customers based on their individual contribution specifically to cost-driving peaks would have to log all their subscribers' usage on a per-X-minute basis, sort usage rows by global peaks and distribute bandwidth costs above baseline (expected average usage from typical subscribers included in base prices) based on how much of the global 90+th usage minutes each subscriber contributes to. This is feasible but would be somewhat computationally intensive and the "UBB" rate would vary from month to month depending on how many GBs billable peaks contain. There is no way to know the cost of GBs and how many of your GBs are billable (part of the global 90+th) until the month is over.

This would be a somewhat complex system but it would only bill people who participated in actual cost-driving peaks by using more than their "committed" (cap / sec_per_month) monthly average speed. However, spreading those costs on a relatively small subset (top-10% minutes) of global usage might yield somewhat steep rates.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to El Quintron

said by El Quintron:

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 is that as the cerberus was explaining it, the usage charge per unit of measurement would be variable, depending on how much everyone else was using it at the time.

Just imagine the people that have trouble figuring out what they've used now... they'd never figure out a system that also factors in peak loads.


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

said by bt:

Just imagine the people that have trouble figuring out what they've used now... they'd never figure out a system that also factors in peak loads.

A system that measures peak loads although technically correct, may be logistically unfeasible, due to the complexities you just mentioned, that's why I proposed something that I considered to be a fair, non-punitive UBB.

The "caps system" for lack of a better name, is designed to be punitive... this needs to stop, and ISPs have to get back into the business of moving bits, not protecting TV, and their other legacy businesses.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by El Quintron:

The "caps system" for lack of a better name, is designed to be punitive... this needs to stop, and ISPs have to get back into the business of moving bits, not protecting TV, and their other legacy businesses.

How low would the UBB rate need to be for you to not consider it "punitive" anymore? When I tried calculating the all-inclusive real cost of a GB a few years ago, I came up with a lower bound of $0.025/GB and upper bound of $0.05/GB. While much cheaper than Bell's ~$0.25/GB with CBB, even $0.025/GB would still be somewhat chilling to people who are allergic to paying anything extra.


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

said by InvalidError:

While much cheaper than Bell's ~$0.25/GB with CBB, even $0.025/GB would still be somewhat chilling to people who are allergic to paying anything extra.

The "chill" comes from the fact that there's a usage compenent built into the access fee... hence not making it very appealing to go over your caps.

Here's a better question, assuming there was no usage component built in, how much would you charge for 25/10 service? How much would you charge for 6/1 service?
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


Spike
Premium
join:2008-05-16
Toronto, ON
reply to SkySpy247

Just outlaw the unreasonable caps.

If all the indies can easily provide 300GB and unlimited accounts for a fair price, theres absolutely no reason why the big guys cant provide something remotely similar other than just plain gouging for overages/usage insurance and whatnot.

Obvious incumbent collusion aside of course. (They love to shrink caps and raise overage fees on a regular basis)


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to El Quintron

said by El Quintron:

Here's a better question, assuming there was no usage component built in, how much would you charge for 25/10 service? How much would you charge for 6/1 service?

If I was in charge, 6/1 would not exist where VDSL2 is available (no point in offering it since VDSL2 ports cost the same regardless of speed) and 25/10 without any included usage would be around $20/month.

If it costs ~$100 000 to deploy and operate a DSLAM for 10 years and you have an average of 80 subscribers on it, the DSLAM costs $11/month/sub. Add $3/month to cover copper costs, $2/month/sub to cover CO-side (aggregation) equipment costs, a 15% markup to cover unexpected/marginal costs and profit, the bandwidth-invariant part of VDSL2 access comes out to about $20/month.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10

You're hired. Make it so.

Mike



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

said by dillyhammer:

You're hired. Make it so.

Mike

What he said.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


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

I think it's silly to say that a DSLAM will last for 10 years... With the rate that cable is upgrading their systems, current VDSL2 deployments will not be relevant for high-value markets in 10 years.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



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

said by Guspaz:

I think it's silly to say that a DSLAM will last for 10 years... With the rate that cable is upgrading their systems, current VDSL2 deployments will not be relevant for high-value markets in 10 years.

Of course not, but even if VDSL deployments are only good for another 5 years, it doesn't increase the costs to the consumer by much.
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


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

Well, based on his math the $20/mth becomes $31/mth, which is a decent chunk since you have to also use it to provide low-end service.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1
reply to SkySpy247

In this day and age bandwidth caps are ridiculous. How can you cap an Infinite resource and then charge an enormously blowing up rate for it?

Where is the protection for the consumer or are corporations allowed to continue milk us with bi annual price increases for service that either degrades or doesn't improve with the cost increases.

Its said that the average user who just uses the net to check email and look at pictures subsidizes the power users who will blow through a 40Gb cap in a few hours but i think that is wrong.

The average user doesn't make full use of the bandwidth available to them so its the average user who should subsidize the power user who pays out the nose for their connections and usage and makes full use of their service.

Why should I have to pay more just so someone like the average user can use their connection sporadically?



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

said by Guspaz:

Well, based on his math the $20/mth becomes $31/mth, which is a decent chunk since you have to also use it to provide low-end service.

If it were up to me I'd probably just phase out the low end service
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have


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

said by DanteX:

In this day and age bandwidth caps are ridiculous. How can you cap an Infinite resource and then charge an enormously blowing up rate for it?

Where is the protection for the consumer or are corporations allowed to continue milk us with bi annual price increases for service that either degrades or doesn't improve with the cost increases.

Its said that the average user who just uses the net to check email and look at pictures subsidizes the power users who will blow through a 40Gb cap in a few hours but i think that is wrong.

The average user doesn't make full use of the bandwidth available to them so its the average user who should subsidize the power user who pays out the nose for their connections and usage and makes full use of their service.

Why should I have to pay more just so someone like the average user can use their connection sporadically?

It's not an infinite resource since it's a shared medium. They could phase out capped pricing in favour of an all-unlimited methodology, but then you'd see an increase in price (look at TekSavvy or eBox's unlimited versus capped pricing) to compensate.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

InvalidError

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

said by Guspaz:

Well, based on his math the $20/mth becomes $31/mth, which is a decent chunk since you have to also use it to provide low-end service.

If you shorten the service life, you also reduce the OAM costs associated with that lifespan and the cost only goes up $2-3.

As for "low-end service", the port cost would be the same since none of the costs considered in my costing exercise were bandwidth/speed-related. As Quintron said, I would simply not offer such a service since it makes no sense in the port+usage model I derived for Dilly and Quintron over the last couple of posts.

GeoStar

join:2011-02-10
j2e6f5
reply to SkySpy247

man they say canada has third world status thanks to its internet conectivty , wow someone is getin rich for no service and rasin rates all the time ?....

it would be like sayin that you gotta pay for all the electrons that your antenna captures on a tv or radio etc even if you don't look at them just cause you have befouled them by catchin them?

I guess the 1 % , ie fillty rich have found a way to trickle down the crap by sayin others are dirtier than they?

caps are crap ; they bring back the early 1930's , they are money for nothing and serve to retard the industry by putiin high test gas into the bloated yahts of provider pirate shipps sheeesh what am i saying ?