How does TSI offer unlimited?

Author	All Replies
d4m1r join:2011-08-25 Reviews: ·Start Communicat.. ·TekSavvy Cable ·Rogers Hi-Speed	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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 14:51:26 ·
Teddy Boom k kudos Received join:2007-01-29 Toronto, ON kudos:5	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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 15:06:44 ·
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.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 15:23:59 ·
graniterock join:2003-03-14 London, ON Reviews: ·WIND Mobile ·TekSavvy Cable ·TekSavvy DSL	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).
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 16:02:59 ·

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.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 16:03:51 ·
d4m1r join:2011-08-25 Reviews: ·Start Communicat.. ·TekSavvy Cable ·Rogers Hi-Speed	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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 17:05:37 ·
Guspaz Guspaz Premium,MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC kudos:20	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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 17:28:08 ·
TwiztedZero Nine Zero Burp Nine Six Premium join:2011-03-31 Toronto, ON kudos:3 Reviews: ·TekSavvy Cable	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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 20:41:15 ·
funny 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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 20:42:49 ·
brad 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.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 21:13:06 ·
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!
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-19 21:20:03 ·
d4m1r join:2011-08-25 Reviews: ·Start Communicat.. ·TekSavvy Cable ·Rogers Hi-Speed	reply to brad said by brad: 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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-20 12:36:31 ·
elitefx join:2011-02-14 London, ON kudos:1	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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-20 13:00:44 ·
resa1983 Premium join:2008-03-10 North York, ON kudos:7	In well-managed networks, congestion isn't an issue. Rogers isn't well-managed. -- Battle.net Tech Support MVP
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-20 13:23:29 ·
Taylortbb Premium join:2007-02-18 Kitchener, ON Reviews: ·TekSavvy Cable	reply to brad said by brad: 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
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-20 13:57:12 ·
elitefx join:2011-02-14 London, ON kudos:1	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-20 14:05:45 ·
yyzlhr join:2012-09-03 Scarborough, ON kudos:1 Reviews: ·Rogers Hi-Speed	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.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-20 15:31:00 ·
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"?
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-20 16:06:21 ·
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?
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-20 16:11:41 ·
elitefx join:2011-02-14 London, ON kudos:1 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.
	to forum · permalink · 2013-01-20 16:44:20 ·

O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > How does TSI offer unlimited?