dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12343
share rss forum feed

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

1 recommendation

reply to Guru

Re: CRTC Decision

An off-peak "add-on" should be part of the standard "DSL Reports" offering, included in the base price -- doesn't cost the ISP anything capacity-wise to do that. Why should we pay extra for it and encourage UBB to continue at the retail level? Why did we all bother donating and signing that massive anti-UBB petition in the first place.. only to have it persist here at retail?

Cheers

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by mlord:

An off-peak "add-on" should be part of the standard "DSL Reports" offering, included in the base price -- doesn't cost the ISP anything capacity-wise to do that.

But the current caps account for some of it being used in off-peak periods. Just adding in free off-peak usage would mean lowering the "on-peak" caps from their current levels or raising prices.

To which I say "no thank you".


silvercat

join:2007-11-07
reply to Crashrun2003
The problem with offering unlimited off-peak usage in addition to the current caps, is that there's nothing stopping a user from using up all their remaining available bandwidth in prime time near the end of the billing cycle (month), which will dramatically drive up the peak level of bandwidth used in that month.

The reason i proposed a $20 / month add-on for unlimited off-peak usage, is that it would condition the user to download via P2P or Usenet during off-peak hours (they are paying for it, so they might as well use it).

But this is all rather stupid. It's obvious that independend ISP's will be forced to "play Cogeco's game", and then you'll see another kick in the teeth once (if) Cogeco offers unlimited bandwidth usage for a fee, as Rogers, Bell and Videotron are currently doing.

I really believe that the reason the CRTC kept Cogeco's CBB rates around close to what they were, is because they know that Bell's rates are significantly cheaper, and so they know that independent ISP's have a cheap option (and relatively good value for money compared to Cogeco). Problem is, not all areas are able to offer 25/10 / 50/10, but hopefully that improves. From Gone's descriptions of improvements to Bell's last mile infrastructure in the Niagara Region, it seems things in this regard are moving in the right direction.

Internet service through Cogeco's last mile is good for the family who doesn't consume much bandwidth, but even that will change as more and more video programming is streamed over the internet. I just see internet service over Cogeco's last mile as a dead-end for independent ISP's (at least for the next couple of years).

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by silvercat:

The problem with offering unlimited off-peak usage in addition to the current caps, is that there's nothing stopping a user from using up all their remaining available bandwidth in prime time near the end of the billing cycle (month), which will dramatically drive up the peak level of bandwidth used in that month.

This is about the only time I can say I think a non-standardized start/end date for the billing cycle would be a good thing.


silvercat

join:2007-11-07
said by bt:

This is about the only time I can say I think a non-standardized start/end date for the billing cycle would be a good thing.

Hmmmm.... that's a very good point. Your proposal will definitely solve the peak-usage-at-the-end-of-the-month problem, enabling Mr. Rocca to save money But it does come at some inconvenience to users. It's nice knowing on a consistent basis when the billing cycle starts and ends (January / February / March, etc..), instead of having to remember: "oh yeah right, it's from January 15th to February 15th".

But still, this proposal will save a lot of money for Start, enabling it to set up more competitive packages around the revised billing periods (for example, it could be based on sign-up date). Still a change like this will not make users happy.

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
Isn't that how it already works? Seems like a rather obvious thing to do. I'm pretty sure some of my friends have middle of the month billing dates with Teksavvy. Most other stuff (telephone, gas, electricity, ..) is already billed like that, so it's not something "new" to most of us.

But I suppose Rogers probably bills for the subscriber portions on a Calendar month or something?

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to silvercat
said by silvercat:

said by bt:

This is about the only time I can say I think a non-standardized start/end date for the billing cycle would be a good thing.

Hmmmm.... that's a very good point. Your proposal will definitely solve the peak-usage-at-the-end-of-the-month problem, enabling Mr. Rocca to save money But it does come at some inconvenience to users.

Though it could also require a major overhaul of their billing and invoicing systems, and might be more hassle than it's worth for them.

As for the users, it would be a hassle for some, but not all. The real pain would be people who sign up on the 31st.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to mlord
said by mlord:

Isn't that how it already works? Seems like a rather obvious thing to do. I'm pretty sure some of my friends have middle of the month billing dates with Teksavvy.

But I suppose Rogers probably bills for the subscriber portions on a Calendar month or something?

Depends on the company.

Start goes by calendar month. IIRC, Rogers was based on signup date. I've heard of some companies that run a few staggered billing periods (ie: Billed on the 1st or the 15th).

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to silvercat
said by silvercat:

The problem with offering unlimited off-peak usage in addition to the current caps ..

Rocca has said that the current caps already assume a significant amount of off-peak use. If that's not reality, then rates do have to go way, way up.

I am very much in favour of dropping peak use (defined as a 6-hour window during the evenings) to a smaller cap, and making the rest of the day "unlimited".

I really don't see any other viable solution that's fair to both Rocca and us. There are lots of asymmetrically unfair "solutions" that could happen, ala. Rogers style, but where's the innovation in that?

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
said by mlord:

I am very much in favour of dropping peak use (defined as a 6-hour window during the evenings) to a smaller cap, and making the rest of the day "unlimited".

I'm definitely not.


DrugTito

join:2013-01-17
canada
said by bt:

said by mlord:

I am very much in favour of dropping peak use (defined as a 6-hour window during the evenings) to a smaller cap, and making the rest of the day "unlimited".

I'm definitely not.

Same here.

Only time i can use internet @ Home is evening time.

MichelR

join:2011-07-03
Ottawa, ON
said by DrugTito:

said by bt:

said by mlord:

I am very much in favour of dropping peak use (defined as a 6-hour window during the evenings) to a smaller cap, and making the rest of the day "unlimited".

I'm definitely not.

Same here.

Only time i can use internet @ Home is evening time.

Same here, most of the time.

This is starting to feel like McGuinty has taken control of ISPs.
--
Start Communications Forum

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to DrugTito
said by DrugTito:

Only time i can use internet @ Home is evening time.

Well, if you really need 350GB entirely during prime time, then you will have to pay more, because that's the entire issue here. Capacity costs are directly determined by peak time usage, and just about ONLY peak time usage matters here. The rest of the day is practically "free" by comparison.

So perhaps Rocca may end up with something like this:

Plan A: Primetime Usage 100GB; unlimited rest of day; cost = $NN.
Plan B: Primetime Usage 200GB; unlimited rest of day; cost = $NN * 2.
Plan C: Primetime Usage 300GB; unlimited rest of day; cost = $NN * 3.

I want Plan A. You can have Plan C.

Cheers

MichelR

join:2011-07-03
Ottawa, ON
That might work, but is the tracking system able to deal with that?


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to mlord
The problem is that people want C, but don't want to pay for it.

Let's take the example of 350GB during primetime and for argument sake we'll say that's 6 hours every night of perfectly even streaming during those 6 hours (pretty much impossible but it's best case scenario for the ISP), so you're looking at 350GB / 30 days / 6 hours per day = 2GB per primetime hour. 2GB / 3600 * 8 = 4.5Mbps sustained primetime rate * $25/Mbps = $112 in CBB costs alone to Cogeco, plus circuit, plus transport, plus transit, plus equipment, plus, plus.

Guru

join:2008-10-01
kudos:2
I want plan C and can pay more.... count me on a positive side as long as that's on higher rate plan.

Guru

join:2008-10-01
kudos:2
For those of you who doesn't want to pay, you can go back to Cogeco It's cheaper there


silvercat

join:2007-11-07
reply to rocca
Okay Peter, so what is the solution

Maybe (on a premium package) have 200 GB as the "base" usage, and then any extra bandwidth used during prime time, pay a fee for that ?

For example, say a user consumes 350 GB in a month. They use the allowed 200 GB, and then from the extra 150 GB, calculate how much of that was used in prime time, and then pay prime time rates for that.

So: 60/2 Plan. $59.95 / month Included usage: 200 GB
- Prime time overages at $20 / 100 GB

So if a user used an extra 150 GB prime time usage above their aloted 200 GB, that would cost them $59.95 + $30.00 (prime time extra usage) = $89.95.

Still pretty steep.

Edit: Things are *not* looking good in Cogeco areas !


silvercat

join:2007-11-07
reply to Crashrun2003
Here is an amusing point concerning the top peak bandwidth reached in any current month:

You could have a heavy user who does consume quite a bit of bandwidth (on average) during prime time hours in any given month. However, let us hypothetically say that peak bandwidth for this month will be reach on February 28th at 10:05 p.m. During this exact time period, this high bandwidth user just happened to go out that evening, and not use their internet at all, contributing almost nil to that month's CBB payment to Cogeco.

My point is: you could have a heavy user use a lot of bandwidth during prime time for the first three weeks of the month, but if peak usage is reached near the end of the fourth week, that user does very little damage to CBB costs if they are consuming very little bandwidth during the precise time period that the "peak" is reached, so they would unfairly be blamed for pushing up that month's CBB costs. So you could penalize them for consuming a lot of bandwidth for a particular month, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they contribute signficantly to that month's CBB cost.


DrugTito

join:2013-01-17
canada
reply to mlord
said by mlord:

said by DrugTito:

Only time i can use internet @ Home is evening time.

Well, if you really need 350GB entirely during prime time, then you will have to pay more, because that's the entire issue here. Capacity costs are directly determined by peak time usage, and just about ONLY peak time usage matters here. The rest of the day is practically "free" by comparison.

So perhaps Rocca may end up with something like this:

Plan A: Primetime Usage 100GB; unlimited rest of day; cost = $NN.
Plan B: Primetime Usage 200GB; unlimited rest of day; cost = $NN * 2.
Plan C: Primetime Usage 300GB; unlimited rest of day; cost = $NN * 3.

I want Plan A. You can have Plan C.

Cheers

Well, as i said before, in that case i am moving to DSL.

Having 45+mbit connection and not being able to use it at the time i need it, there is really no point of it.

At least i am glad that there will be another option instead of Cable, which is DSL.

10-25mbit DSL is good enough for me and most of ppl out there if the price is right (*or at least better then cable*)


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to silvercat
said by silvercat:

Okay Peter, so what is the solution

That I don't know yet.

said by silvercat:

Maybe (on a premium package) have 200 GB as the "base" usage, and then any extra bandwidth used during prime time, pay a fee for that ?

I think the argument would be around how you would decide what part of that initial base was on/offpeak.

If we're talking about a special DSLR type package (ie there would be no way to educate/market this to the masses), likely the most practical one would be that you get a lower monthly fee with 0GB base, all off-peak is free and all on-peak is billed. Not sure what that rate would be but let's say 50 cents for argument sake (could be half, could be double, haven't done the math yet) - this would give technical users the ability to shift big downloads and pay a fair price for their impact on peak and those that avoided prime time all together would have ubercheap service.

said by silvercat:

Edit: Things are *not* looking good in Cogeco areas !

I still shake my head at $25/Mbps, it's like we've gone back ten years.

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to rocca
said by rocca:

The problem is that people want C, but don't want to pay for it.

Let's take the example of 350GB during primetime and for argument sake we'll say that's 6 hours every night of perfectly even streaming during those 6 hours (pretty much impossible but it's best case scenario for the ISP), so you're looking at 350GB / 30 days / 6 hours per day = 2GB per primetime hour. 2GB / 3600 * 8 = 4.5Mbps sustained primetime rate * $25/Mbps = $112 in CBB costs alone to Cogeco, plus circuit, plus transport, plus transit, plus equipment, plus, plus.

That's a great illustration, Rocca!
And we should all note that very, very few of us would meet the above --> none of today's existing (new signup) Start.ca plans cover it, let alone the upcoming adjusted plans. All of us have varying amounts of usage outside of prime time, or which can be shifted to outside of prime time, and I really doubt any of us use 350GB every month exclusively during prime time. Could be wrong, though.

Cheers

Crashrun2003

join:2013-02-10
Reviews:
·Nexicom
reply to rocca
said by rocca:

said by silvercat:

Okay Peter, so what is the solution

That I don't know yet.

said by silvercat:

Maybe (on a premium package) have 200 GB as the "base" usage, and then any extra bandwidth used during prime time, pay a fee for that ?

I think the argument would be around how you would decide what part of that initial base was on/offpeak.

If we're talking about a special DSLR type package (ie there would be no way to educate/market this to the masses), likely the most practical one would be that you get a lower monthly fee with 0GB base, all off-peak is free and all on-peak is billed. Not sure what that rate would be but let's say 50 cents for argument sake (could be half, could be double, haven't done the math yet) - this would give technical users the ability to shift big downloads and pay a fair price for their impact on peak and those that avoided prime time all together would have ubercheap service.

said by silvercat:

Edit: Things are *not* looking good in Cogeco areas !

I still shake my head at $25/Mbps, it's like we've gone back ten years.

I'd be in for that - however that seems like a lot of work, and a very small percentage would actually be able to use it like that in my opinion.

Guru

join:2008-10-01
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to rocca
said by rocca:

said by silvercat:

Okay Peter, so what is the solution

That I don't know yet.

said by silvercat:

Maybe (on a premium package) have 200 GB as the "base" usage, and then any extra bandwidth used during prime time, pay a fee for that ?

I think the argument would be around how you would decide what part of that initial base was on/offpeak.

If we're talking about a special DSLR type package (ie there would be no way to educate/market this to the masses), likely the most practical one would be that you get a lower monthly fee with 0GB base, all off-peak is free and all on-peak is billed. Not sure what that rate would be but let's say 50 cents for argument sake (could be half, could be double, haven't done the math yet) - this would give technical users the ability to shift big downloads and pay a fair price for their impact on peak and those that avoided prime time all together would have ubercheap service.

said by silvercat:

Edit: Things are *not* looking good in Cogeco areas !

I still shake my head at $25/Mbps, it's like we've gone back ten years.

I'm all game but I'd want to know the on-peak price. It sure enough looks like lot of numbers to be calculated...


JCohen
Premium
join:2010-10-19
Nepean, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 recommendation

reply to rocca
said by rocca:

If we're talking about a special DSLR type package (ie there would be no way to educate/market this to the masses), likely the most practical one would be that you get a lower monthly fee with 0GB base, all off-peak is free and all on-peak is billed. Not sure what that rate would be but let's say 50 cents for argument sake (could be half, could be double, haven't done the math yet) - this would give technical users the ability to shift big downloads and pay a fair price for their impact on peak and those that avoided prime time all together would have ubercheap service.

That would be a good option, but if possible maybe included a small amount of usage for use during the peak, say maybe like 10-15GB as that would still allow users to surf the web and do some basic stuff during peak especially for the people with families.

Guru

join:2008-10-01
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by JCohen:

said by rocca:

If we're talking about a special DSLR type package (ie there would be no way to educate/market this to the masses), likely the most practical one would be that you get a lower monthly fee with 0GB base, all off-peak is free and all on-peak is billed. Not sure what that rate would be but let's say 50 cents for argument sake (could be half, could be double, haven't done the math yet) - this would give technical users the ability to shift big downloads and pay a fair price for their impact on peak and those that avoided prime time all together would have ubercheap service.

That would be a good option, but if possible maybe included a small amount of usage for use during the peak, say maybe like 10-15GB as that would still allow users to surf the web and do some basic stuff during peak especially for the people with families.

+1


silvercat

join:2007-11-07
reply to rocca
said by rocca:

If we're talking about a special DSLR type package (ie there would be no way to educate/market this to the masses), likely the most practical one would be that you get a lower monthly fee with 0GB base, all off-peak is free and all on-peak is billed. Not sure what that rate would be but let's say 50 cents for argument sake (could be half, could be double, haven't done the math yet) - this would give technical users the ability to shift big downloads and pay a fair price for their impact on peak and those that avoided prime time all together would have ubercheap service.

hi rocca:

I very much like this idea. Of course it would have to be figured out when are the off-peak periods, and the time parameters of the on-peak period.

But another situation will have to be considered: the case where you have a family of four (for example). They all like to stream during prime time (Netflix, NHL Gamecenter Live during the hockey season), but you may at the same time, have one or two P2P power users in the family as well. I'm just wondering if this plan (0 GB base) would work for that situation as well, or if prime time usage would get way too expensive. If we cost prime time usage at 50 cents per GB and our example family uses on average 6 GB during prime time per day (180 GB / month), that would be $90.00 for on-peak usage. 40 cents per GB might be better

However you work this package out (if it indeed becomes reality), you could advertise it on the Start website. Perhaps call it the Power User package or the P2P Package. Maybe "ordinary" users will not understand how the specifics of this package work, but the more techie ones will.

Josh7890

join:2013-02-26
Peterborough, ON
reply to rocca

said by rocca See Profile
If we're talking about a special DSLR type package (ie there would be no way to educate/market this to the masses), likely the most practical one would be that you get a lower monthly fee with 0GB base, all off-peak is free and all on-peak is billed. Not sure what that rate would be but let's say 50 cents for argument sake (could be half, could be double, haven't done the math yet) - this would give technical users the ability to shift big downloads and pay a fair price for their impact on peak and those that avoided prime time all together would have ubercheap service.

I would definitely be interested in a package like this. I'd happily pay for the actual cost plus a reasonable markup for on-peak usage if off-peak was free. I see why it would be confusing for the average customer, but as an non-advertised or explicitly "technical user" option, I think it would be great. Having the price reflect the actual costs is only fair.

Of course, it would help if IISPs' costs to the incumbents weren't so inflated. Then we probably wouldn't need to have this discussion.



silvercat

join:2007-11-07
Of course the usage stats on the Start website would have to change to reflect what bandwidth consumption is on-peak, and what amount is off-peak.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to mlord
said by mlord:

An off-peak "add-on" should be part of the standard "DSL Reports" offering, included in the base price -- doesn't cost the ISP anything capacity-wise to do that. Why should we pay extra for it and encourage UBB to continue at the retail level? Why did we all bother donating and signing that massive anti-UBB petition in the first place.. only to have it persist here at retail?

 
A fair and reasonable rate UBB in principle is not a bad thing.

I signed that petition yet I said at the time what I said above, and still do say that.

The problem is that Bell and the other big guys ruined it (the thought, even) of UBB by demanding excessive greed-driven rates from the Indie ISPs (and they still charge such rates to THEIR OWN retail customers).

All that the UBB petition did was nudge them into coming up with another method, based on (my opinion) an even less suitable way of billing - CBB, and still at greed-driven rates.

I LIKED the idea of UBB and still do, though at a fair and reasonable rate, and made numerous posts here of proposed rate plans at the time that it was the topic of the day.

But since the big guys are now billing the Indies based on a different method (CBB), it is difficult to translate one into the other, and therein lies the problem.

I'm not sure WHAT the best answer is now, though.

--

We have only 2 things about which to worry :
(1) That things may never get back to normal
(2) That they already HAVE !
-
START Forum »Start Communications
Or you can still use Canadian Broadband.