dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3454
share rss forum feed


d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

How does TSI offer unlimited?

...Given the current capacity costs they have to pay, until the CRTC decision comes out? Are they not on the hook for a lot of money if a subscriber downloads/uploads 5TB of stuff for example? I know this is why Start doesn't offer an unlimited Cable package at the moment, not until the CRTC decision at least...

So am I missing something, or is TSI not taking a financial risk on ALL cable subscribers on the Rogers network currently as they are all technically unlimited?
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting



Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21

I don't know how they can afford to offer Unlimited on DSL 25. I expect there are just so few customers on it that they can eat the loss.

For cable, my understanding is that they do not pay the $15k/gigabit that Aggregated TPIA has to pay. Presumably Teksavvy's wholesale cost for capacity is much much lower, but nobody knows the price, because it isn't part of CRTC rulings.
--
electronicsguru.ca


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to d4m1r

TSI has fairly high volume on Bell's side so they can afford to play averaging games... the average DSL subscriber uses less bandwidth than they "pay for" and that covers the balance of those on 25Mbps that might use more.

Pricing schemes are always about how to attribute cost recovery and profit-taking. With averaged schemes, someone always ends up feeling like one camp (low peak-hours users) is subsidizing the other but franking, I cannot imagine any indisputable way to divide the peak-hours bandwidth costs... it is one of those things where you just have to pick what you think is the path of least evil and stick to it.


graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to d4m1r

Pretty sure my Grandmother's 2 GB per month helps average out some of the heavier users. This is why everyone should encourage their non-bandwidth using friends and family to switch. (Aside from the great savings).

This is also the reason why TSI fought so hard when there was some effort to charge overages per user. The current arrangement of paying for gigabit/s capacity is so much better for the end user at TSI. Also why DSL gets a grace period over night (to reduce the gb/s load).



ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to d4m1r

People pay extra for unlimited far more than what it costs Teksavvy. So Teksavvy makes more money off the people on unlimited than they do the people with a 300 gigabyte a month cap. It's as simple as that. Take a look at other countries everything is already unlimited as bandwidth is virtually free in the year 2013.



d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by ChuckcZar :

People pay extra for unlimited far more than what it costs Teksavvy. So Teksavvy makes more money off the people on unlimited than they do the people with a 300 gigabyte a month cap. It's as simple as that. Take a look at other countries everything is already unlimited as bandwidth is virtually free in the year 2013.

1) Not in all cases. Look at the example I provide....If someone downloads/uploads 5TB for even 1 month on the unlimited or even 300GB plan (because no tracking tool), I guarantee you TSI is losing money...My question was, given this risk, why did they decide to continue to offer unlimited packages (specifically about cable), given the current high capacity costs they have to pay...

2) While underneath it might not cost much to the big 3 and others than provide capacity to TSI, they charge TSI a fixed rate and TSI has to pay it. THAT is the problem. So for them, it is far from free and quite the opposite, it can be very expensive (and therefore risky).
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to d4m1r

TSI is currently losing money on unlimited customers (for Bell anyhow) under the assumption that the CRTC is going to lower the UBB prices.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON
kudos:5
reply to d4m1r

It basically goes to the law of averages, and hedging your bets with unlimited, in hopes that not everyone will be using the pipe to full capacity all at once enmasse twenty four seven, day in day out all around the clock; people have lives (hopefully), so chances are they won't all be online saturating the tubes at full tilt all at once.

This is true for all internet service providers. This is also why sometimes they've oversold subscriptions in the residental markets, and why sometimes you'll see a stop-sell issued if the service provider cares enough to look out for the health of their network.

There are pro's and cons all over, and it simply boils down to risk and management.

Thats the essence of it in a nutshell.
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca


funny0

join:2010-12-22
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

TSI is currently losing money on unlimited customers (for Bell anyhow) under the assumption that the CRTC is going to lower the UBB prices.

prove this every part you say
i call foul

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to d4m1r

said by d4m1r:

...Given the current capacity costs they have to pay, until the CRTC decision comes out? Are they not on the hook for a lot of money if a subscriber downloads/uploads 5TB of stuff for example? I know this is why Start doesn't offer an unlimited Cable package at the moment, not until the CRTC decision at least...

TSI does not pay for traffic transferred but the capacity so the comment does not really make sense.


Ramin
Premium
join:2011-05-14
reply to d4m1r

I have unlimited cable28. My usage is really under 30 ~ 50GB / month.

Call me crazy, but I pay more to SUPPORT our BEST ISP in Canada.

And yes, I am well aware there are a few who download whatever on my account!



d4m1r

join:2011-08-25
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

said by d4m1r:

...Given the current capacity costs they have to pay, until the CRTC decision comes out? Are they not on the hook for a lot of money if a subscriber downloads/uploads 5TB of stuff for example? I know this is why Start doesn't offer an unlimited Cable package at the moment, not until the CRTC decision at least...

TSI does not pay for traffic transferred but the capacity so the comment does not really make sense.

Good point.....It harder to think of an applicable example for capacity :P

If 50% of unlimited customers were maxing out their connection throughout the day, including at peak times like 6pm? That doesn't exactly roll off the tongue
--
www.613websites.com Budget Canadian Web Design and Hosting


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2
reply to d4m1r

Cable Industry Finally Admits Caps Not About Congestion
After Insisting For Years Caps Were About Congestion

»Cable Industry Finally Admits Caps Not About Congestion


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

In well-managed networks, congestion isn't an issue.

Rogers isn't well-managed.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP



Taylortbb
Premium
join:2007-02-18
Kitchener, ON
reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

said by d4m1r:

...Given the current capacity costs they have to pay, until the CRTC decision comes out? Are they not on the hook for a lot of money if a subscriber downloads/uploads 5TB of stuff for example? I know this is why Start doesn't offer an unlimited Cable package at the moment, not until the CRTC decision at least...

TSI does not pay for traffic transferred but the capacity so the comment does not really make sense.

It does because they're related numbers. Capping a user brings down their average usage, and averaged over the entire user base that reduces their capacity requirements. A user downloading 5TB is averaging 16Mb/s, that's an awful lot of capacity required for one user. Someone doing 5TB/month on the 18Mb/s cable service would have to be doing that at basically all hours of the day, including peak.

I'm not arguing TekSavvy pays by the GB, I know exactly how they pay for both aggregation and transit capacity. But to suggest the amount transferred doesn't affect their capacity is taking that difference too far.
--
Taylor Byrnes


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

In well-managed networks, congestion isn't an issue.

Rogers isn't well-managed.

Yes, but think about it. Rogers is Canada's largest broadband provider and as such, represents us on the world stage. For Canada to be rated 39th worldwide on the Internet stage is deplorable. The government should step in and force Rogers to either "step up or step out".

This is of national importance and having 3rd world Internet access because of Rogers ineptitude is a national disgrace. We cannot let Rogers drag Canada into a black hole of Internet and information dispersal any longer.

In times of crisis all we'll have is the Internet to conduct matters of national security and survival.

Rogers cannot be allowed to be the root cause of the demise of Canada's ability to conduct business and transmit data in a timely and effectual online world.

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4

said by elitefx:

Yes, but think about it. Rogers is Canada's largest broadband provider and as such, represents us on the world stage. For Canada to be rated 39th worldwide on the Internet stage is deplorable. The government should step in and force Rogers to either "step up or step out".

This is of national importance and having 3rd world Internet access because of Rogers ineptitude is a national disgrace. We cannot let Rogers drag Canada into a black hole of Internet and information dispersal any longer.

In times of crisis all we'll have is the Internet to conduct matters of national security and survival.

Rogers cannot be allowed to be the root cause of the demise of Canada's ability to conduct business and transmit data in a timely and effectual online world.

Bell is actually Canada's largest broadband provider.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada

1 edit
reply to elitefx

said by elitefx:

said by resa1983:

In well-managed networks, congestion isn't an issue.

Rogers isn't well-managed.

In times of crisis all we'll have is the Internet to conduct matters of national security and survival.

Rogers cannot be allowed to be the root cause of the demise of Canada's ability to conduct business and transmit data in a timely and effectual online world.

I'm in the business, and I think Roger's doesn't actually do too badly.

Managing a network with 1.9 million end users is challenging... What exactly do you feel they are doing that is "inept" and leading to the "demise of Canada's ability to conduct business"?


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to yyzlhr

said by yyzlhr:

Bell is actually Canada's largest broadband provider.

Bell at ~3 Million internet subs leads the list, followed by Rogers at 1.9 million, Shaw at 1.8 million, TELUS at 1.3 million and Videotron with 1.1 million.

I couldn't find numbers for Tek... Any idea how many subs they have?


elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to LazMan

said by LazMan:

Managing a network with 1.9 million end users is challenging... What exactly do you feel they are doing that is "inept" and leading to the "demise of Canada's ability to conduct business"?

Better put: Common sense dictates having one company control the flow of information in a country as large as Canada, or any country really, is bad for competition, pricing, bandwidth costs and technological upgrade expenditures etc.

Bell and Rogers are for all intents and purposes one entity under 2 business , though legally separate, divisions. Their unified strategic attempt in purchasing MLSE was all the final proof anyone needed. It was a very public statement that together they stand.
Both control a separate arm of the internet service/bandwidth pricing structure in Canada. It is obvious price fixing is alive and well today. Rogers/Bell will back each other to the hilt. It is in their best business interest to do so.

How the Competition Bureau has allowed things to degrade this far and allow the Rogers/Bell conglomerate to monopolize Canada's data transmission services should be the subject of a full parliamentary investigation.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada

Wow - me thinks your tinfoil hat's on a little tight today...

The MLSE deal was to control content; and more an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of deal, then collusion, in my opinion...

Plus, you didn't actually answer my question, of what are they doing that's inept or leading to the demise of Canada's ability to conduct business. Which were your initial statements, BTW...



elitefx

join:2011-02-14
London, ON
kudos:2

said by LazMan:

Wow - me thinks your tinfoil hat's on a little tight today...

Insults will get you nowhere Bud. As they say " the proof is in the pudding".

We'll see who's right as time goes on................

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Taylortbb

said by Taylortbb:

It does because they're related numbers. Capping a user brings down their average usage, and averaged over the entire user base that reduces their capacity requirements. A user downloading 5TB is averaging 16Mb/s, that's an awful lot of capacity required for one user. Someone doing 5TB/month on the 18Mb/s cable service would have to be doing that at basically all hours of the day, including peak.

I'm not arguing TekSavvy pays by the GB, I know exactly how they pay for both aggregation and transit capacity. But to suggest the amount transferred doesn't affect their capacity is taking that difference too far.

Not really, and then you throw out a number like 5TB which isn't representative of 99% of the unlimited users. Find me someone doing 5TB on an 18Mb connection.. you can count the users on one hand. They're not the issue in the bigger picture with how few of them there are. When it comes to peak hours congestion it is the regular users with the higher speed tiers peaking their connections for relatively short periods of time but at the peak hours and the aggregate sum of those users consumes all of the capacity.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to elitefx

said by elitefx:

said by LazMan:

Wow - me thinks your tinfoil hat's on a little tight today...

Insults will get you nowhere Bud.

Can't help it if it is true.

shepd

join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to d4m1r

The sad thing in this whole discussion is the number of bytes consumed isn't really what costs (well, it can be, but only in an ideal world where that data is consumed at a constant unvarying speed).

In fact, the highest expense for any network operator is peak usage. A user downloading at a constant 10 mbits rate is almost exactly as expensive to service as a user downloading at 10 mbits for only the peak hour of the day (and otherwise never using their service at all).

Offering a large bandwidth connection, say, 100 mbits, is just fine to that 10 mbits user, since he'll never be a further problem to you. But that some user that only maxes out their connection for an hour a day (at peak usage) just absolutely screwed you, since now you need to buy a hell of a lot of extra capacity and equipment that is mostly unused to service them.

Your typical "I download all day and night user" isn't really a big deal (in a world sans UBB) when you compare them against your average working Joe that comes home at 5:30, has supper, and then uses the internet for a couple of hours to watch HD Netflix. You can swap the times for the morning/afternoon hours if your typical customer is a business.

Oh well, guess I'm just rambling now...



DarkStar33

join:2008-03-27
Toronto, ON
reply to LazMan

said by LazMan:

Managing a network with 1.9 million end users is challenging... What exactly do you feel they are doing that is "inept" and leading to the "demise of Canada's ability to conduct business"?

Regardless of the size of your network the investment should be along the same lines. Larger networks are often more efficient per user if you do them correctly.

If you are doing it right 0.9M, 1.9M and 10.9M really is not that big of a change if you invest correctly.

Chances are Rogers technical team is 1/3 of the size it should be and network development 5-10 years behind.
--
TekSavvy Extreme Cable Pro (Toronto, ON)
»www.speedtest.net/result/1343900371.png


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable

Actually, that is probably not true. It's more likely they drag their feet in upgrading network hardware to add capacity when it's needed in order to maximize profits.

Most NA carriers will upgrade hardware on their networks as late as they can while still continuing to advertise their services at speeds that are oversubscribed.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by TypeS:

Actually, that is probably not true. It's more likely they drag their feet in upgrading network hardware to add capacity when it's needed in order to maximize profits.

Most NA carriers will upgrade hardware on their networks as late as they can while still continuing to advertise their services at speeds that are oversubscribed.

To me that is pretty obvious.

yyzlhr

join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON
kudos:4
reply to DarkStar33

said by DarkStar33:

Chances are Rogers technical team is 1/3 of the size it should be and network development 5-10 years behind.

In North American standards, the Rogers HFC network is much more advanced than most MSOs on this side of the hemisphere.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by yyzlhr:

In North American standards, the Rogers HFC network is much more advanced than most MSOs on this side of the hemisphere.

Rogers/Shaw and Videotron are doing a pretty good job at downstream speeds but Rogers and more so Shaw are quite weak for upstream speeds. Comcast is the only US MSO that over all is doing a better job. One area they're ahead of everyone else is the push to move customers to their IPTV based infrastructure and according to them their time line is to migrate within the next 3 years. I think that is pretty darn optimistic but we'll see.