dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5679
share rss forum feed


tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto

Do we really need unlimited monthly usage?

It seems to me that the main problem after the recent CRTC ruling is that offering unlimited packages became very dangerous for indie ISPs. With the currently offered download speeds, users can download enormous amounts of data monthly (13TB at 50Mbps) so to offset that possibility, ISPs have to charge "regular" users more.

I was wondering that maybe this problem can be solved by offering monthly data caps, but with reasonable overage fees.

Let's say that an indie ISP has to pay $25 per 1 Mbps. That means roughly 260GB of data monthly, which means approximately 10 cents per 1GB.

So, can we have a package that has a 250GB monthly limit, and a 10 cents per 1GB overage fee? (or a bit more if indies want to also profit on this). I've got a feeling that it would satisfy 99% of people.

Or am I missing something?


bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

said by tom_tom:

Or am I missing something?

Overselling, and peaks and valleys in bandwidth usage.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
reply to tom_tom

What you're missing is costs are no longer tied to monthly usage, it's tied to peak time use.

A customer who saturates their connection during peak time a few nights a week may only end up downloading 50-100gb a month. This customer is more costly for a provider than a customer who say only uses 75% of their available bandwidth (not saturated) but does so 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The second customer may download far more data, but because they aren't using their full bandwidth at peak time, their costs for the network provider are lower.

Customers should not be paying for something not directly tied to costs. Total monthly usage has been the go-to billing model because it's the easiest thing to measure, but it's not measuring where the true costs lie.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1

Excellent post. I've always wondered how weekends tie into "peak usage." Does the 5-11 or whatever it is continue on the weekends or are the weekends a blanket "peak time?"


Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

It only applies when needed. I'd imagine right about now would be middle of peak time for a week night. Obviously speed boost affects these, but just trying to show there is no throttling taking place right now.




tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto
reply to Samgee

said by Samgee:

What you're missing is costs are no longer tied to monthly usage, it's tied to peak time use.

Interesting. I'm not sure I understand this correctly then. Can someone explain this using an example?

This is my understanding:
An indie ISP transferred 250TB of data in a given month. In order to download 250TB of data, it had to use *on average* 1000Mbps of bandwidth. Since 1Mbps costs $25, the bill from incumbent should be $25000 for that 250TB of data.

Based on what you said, my mistake was probably to assume that they take *average* usage per month. Instead, it seems, they charge it differently. How? Do indie ISP have to predict how big is going to be their peak usage and pay for that upfront? That wouldn't make sense I think, because the peak usage would have almost nothing to do with their monthly usage.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

4 edits

said by tom_tom:

said by Samgee:

What you're missing is costs are no longer tied to monthly usage, it's tied to peak time use.

Based on what you said, my mistake was probably to assume that they take *average* usage per month.

Monthly usage doesn't factor into the calculation at all, it's based on maximum bandwidth required. Whether that's upfront or not I'm not familiar with how the TPIA's are billed, but they do need to pay for what they expect to need.

Edit - basically, if every user of a network only logged in one day in the month for a few hours and maxed our their connections, but did so all at the same time, those usage costs would be twice what the costs of half the number of users who log in all month long and use their full connections 24/7 would be. Far more data would be used by the second group, but the costs for the provider would be half. This is only talking about the bandwidth costs, the per user costs are separate.


tom_tom

join:2009-01-17
toronto

said by Samgee:

Monthly usage doesn't factor into the calculation at all, it's based on maximum bandwidth required. Whether that's upfront or not I'm not familiar with how the TPIA's are billed, but they do need to pay for what they expect to need.

Interesting. I had no idea that's how it works. No wonder it now takes so long for indies to calculate their package prices. It's some seriously convoluted math to be done to translate this peak-bandwidth price model into a monthly data usage packages. It's apples and oranges really - just growing on the same farmland

Now I can understand why Acanac came up with their throttling at peak hours. It makes sense to me now in this light. Maybe that's the future of Internet pricing (in Canada)? When you think about it, it basically was always like this, since our download and upload speeds have always been advertised as "up to"
So maybe nothing really changes here - just that the rules are more explicit now.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2

Paul from Acanac is pretty confident that his model may spill to other providers, it does seem to make the best use of what they have to deal with. It allows their users to download as much as they want, just reducing speeds where costs become a factor to keep prices down. It's what I expect my ISP to do, and I've never been concerned with my connection speed, just my ability to use my connection without checking a meter every day to make sure I'll make it to the end of the month without going over. There are few things I do online where I'll notice a difference between 28 and 14 for the few hours it could happen.



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

said by Samgee:

said by tom_tom:

said by Samgee:

What you're missing is costs are no longer tied to monthly usage, it's tied to peak time use.

Based on what you said, my mistake was probably to assume that they take *average* usage per month.

Monthly usage doesn't factor into the calculation at all, it's based on maximum bandwidth required....

 
Exactly, and bear in mind that while you used the term 'Bandwidth' properly, that many other folks use it to mean the same as monthly 'usage', which it it not, and now that we actually HAVE a reason to talk about true 'Bandwidth', which in reality is an instantaneous measure of demand on the capacity of a circuit, we now more than ever must discourage folks who use that term improperly.

Things are confusing enough, even when everyone uses the correct terms.

And unfortunately, the Indie ISPs have to find a way to establish an equivalency between two criteria which are of different feathers.

--

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.



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

said by Samgee:

Paul from Acanac is pretty confident that his model may spill to other providers, it does seem to make the best use of what they have to deal with....

 
And I have posted a few times already that I am inclined to agree with Paul's analysis.


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

2 edits
reply to tom_tom

 
And to reply to your original post's question, I say that we do NOT need unlimited monthly usage, yet we DO need a much more generous cap than what the greedy incumbent providers want to have offered, and we need a very moderate UBB if we exceed this much more generous cap.


morisato

join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX

i say Our problem is the question, With bandwidth prices dropping yearly it makeslittle to no sense for us to be Watching internet going up yearly - Clearly this decision is Not 100% ideal But it does suggest its time to Get The Hell off the cable! p:) go to dsl! woo. 50% off! for its cbb P:)
--
Every time Someone leaves Sympatico an Angel gets its wings.



BliZZardX
Premium
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON
reply to tom_tom

13TB is not an enormous amount of data, maybe 10 years ago, but now that's only slightly less than 4 top-end spinning disk drives.



BliZZardX
Premium
join:2002-08-18
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
reply to tom_tom

said by tom_tom:

Let's say that an indie ISP has to pay $25 per 1 Mbps.

This is why you're confused. The cost of transit is NOT $25 per Mbps. It's between $1-4 per Mbps and always falling. In fact the cost of bandwidth has already fallen so much that the largest ISPs in the world have been operating at a loss for years and were forced to merge and expand into different higher-margin services to make up the revenue like QoS, CDNs and security. Over 50% of internet traffic today comes from caching servers that sit at your ISP.

Now what stuff actually costs and what Bell/Rogers decide to charge are totally different. If the indie ISPs built and operated their own network in order to sell residential internet instead of leasing the incumbents, they would be paying far lower rates. But until then, Bell/Rogers will continue to squeeze them, leave less breathing room, and the finger pointing persists.

Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX

Given the fact that there's been a decline of costs over the last many years, there's really no reason not to have unlimited from any provider.
The only reason the large providers pushed the usage caps, was it cash cow. Period, full stop.
Costs go down, usage goes up, lets cap people and make $$$$, great racket if you can get into it.


MichelR

join:2011-07-03
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·voip.ms
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to tom_tom

I'm alone, so I don't need unlimited, but I do like having a high-enough cap that I don't have to monitor my usage (unlike what I had with Rogers). I have 350Gb right now - I don't need that, but I wanted the higher upload speed. I can probably do OK with 150-200, even assuming quite a bit of Netflix streaming.
--
Start Communications Forum


Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX

said by MichelR:

I'm alone, so I don't need unlimited, but I do like having a high-enough cap that I don't have to monitor my usage (unlike what I had with Rogers). I have 350Gb right now - I don't need that, but I wanted the higher upload speed. I can probably do OK with 150-200, even assuming quite a bit of Netflix streaming.

See, this is exactly what the big providers want.
They're training you into submission.
Also keep in mind, as more streaming becomes the norm, bandwidth will go up, as quality increases, bandwidth will go up. All the while, you'll be trained to be locked into a cap that has nothing to do with actual costs.

Phorkster
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Windsor, ON
kudos:1

said by Nitra:

said by MichelR:

I'm alone, so I don't need unlimited, but I do like having a high-enough cap that I don't have to monitor my usage (unlike what I had with Rogers). I have 350Gb right now - I don't need that, but I wanted the higher upload speed. I can probably do OK with 150-200, even assuming quite a bit of Netflix streaming.

See, this is exactly what the big providers want.
They're training you into submission.
Also keep in mind, as more streaming becomes the norm, bandwidth will go up, as quality increases, bandwidth will go up. All the while, you'll be trained to be locked into a cap that has nothing to do with actual costs.

No, you should be training yourself to ask for what you use. This it he problem with society today. Its always more more more. If thats all he needs, thats all he needs. My needs are much greater seeing that I have 6 people living in my house and unlimited would be fantastic. Oh how I long for the cogeco 10Mbps unlimited days...

Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX

said by Phorkster See Profile
No, you should be training yourself to ask for what you use. This it he problem with society today. Its always more more more. If thats all he needs, thats all he needs. My needs are much greater seeing that I have 6 people living in my house and unlimited would be fantastic. Oh how I long for the cogeco 10Mbps unlimited days...

:

How exactly does this make sense?
Costs have declined across the board, yet we're paying record highs for service.
It's been proven time and time again, there is no reason for anyone to have caps, none at all.
Most of Europe have connections that are 10~100x faster then anything available here for a fraction of the cost, with no limits.
Look south of the border @Google fiber, same thing, gigabit connection for a fraction of the cost, no limits.
You are falling for the marketing they want you to fall for.
This limit BS, is nothing more then that.


Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX

1 edit
reply to Phorkster

said by Phorkster See Profile
No, you should be training yourself to ask for what you use. This it he problem with society today. Its always more more more. If thats all he needs, thats all he needs. My needs are much greater seeing that I have 6 people living in my house and unlimited would be fantastic. Oh how I long for the cogeco 10Mbps unlimited days...

:

On the flip side of this.
You say society wants, more more more more.
The big providers want that too, more more more more, money.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

1 recommendation

It's not that we WANT more more more, we're being convinced by "big box" that we must have "more more more" because they're able to provide "more more more". In other words, it's the providers who are pushing "more more more" onto the consumer, either directly by putting it in front of them, or by making it seem more appealing to the point that the consumer "must have it".

Do you really need to be "supersized" every time you go to a burger joint, or has the store convinced you by telling you that the next size is only 5c more. that you go for it.


Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX

You are failing to see the point.
There's no reasons for these limits other than monetary gain for the big providers.
The costs are way overblown, adding caps is nothing more than a cash grab.

And yes, I have limits as well, and I live in them.



dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..

1 recommendation

reply to sbrook

said by sbrook:

It's not that we WANT more more more, we're being convinced by "big box" that we must have "more more more" because they're able to provide "more more more". In other words, it's the providers who are pushing "more more more" onto the consumer, either directly by putting it in front of them, or by making it seem more appealing to the point that the consumer "must have it".

Do you really need to be "supersized" every time you go to a burger joint, or has the store convinced you by telling you that the next size is only 5c more. that you go for it.

This is a very interesting notion. The idea that we are cajoled into consumption and crave "bigger faster better" and fall victim to marketing spin. As if not getting "bigger faster better" somehow deprives us of something.

In the battle for "bigger" usage allowances, we are somehow rubbed the wrong way by the words "cap", "allowance". We hate it when companies like Bell and Cogeco, Rogers Shaw and Telus, use words like "generous", and "more than enough". But when those same companies offer us a "bigger faster better" we drop everything and come running.

We never stop to ask "do we really need it".

I just switched from a 16/1 connection to a 30/2 connection. You know how much difference it makes to me? Nada. I don't notice the difference. I work. I play. I download iso's. Netflix. Youtube. Yada yada. Same same. It's all crazy fast.

I have a 400GB allowance. 400gb. And I swore I'd never give up my grandfathered 400gb because I would DIE without it. DIE I SAY!!! And here I sit, on the last day of the month, with 55gb on the meter.

So you know what? I don't need no stinking unlimited. If the government wants to allow these companies to stagnate and retard the telecommunications of this country, hey, who the fuck am I?

I'm going to drop my grandfathered 30/2 package with 400GB for $60 to 30/2 package with 250GB for $50, pocket the $120 I save this year and spend it on vodka to ease my "bigger faster better" blues.

I will never directly do business with Bell, Rogers, Telus, or Cogeco. I will strongly encourage others to follow suit. I'll write the CRTC and IC insanely vicious letters. That is the extent of my evangelism. It's one thing to vote with my wallet. Quite another to do so stupidly just to make a point that is lost on most people, all in the pursuit of "bigger faster better". I'm replacing the "bigger faster better" in my lexicon of life with "enough".

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged

Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·ELECTRONICBOX

You do have a point dilly, but think about this, you go to download the latest ISO, would you rather sit and wait for it for 22 minutes, or @ 100 megabits, 6 minutes, or 40 seconds on gigabit.

It may not matter, you can queue the download and come back later and let it run, but if you had a fast connection without limits, it wouldn't matter and you could save time.

There is no justifiable reason to have these limits, if you have them, you'll adjust your content consumption to match, and the big players know that. If you have a limit, you're more likely to watch things like streaming video less, and consume content on their TV systems more.
It's all marketing.

You'd be able to go to any online provider (licensed in Canada) and get IPTV, you wouldn't need one that has access to local VLAN's.
Why do you think there's a hard push from the big providers, they know that if things open up like Europe, they are in serious financial trouble, so why not milk it while they can.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

Do you *really* save time? I suggest not. You go and queue something that takes 22 minutes and do something else in that time, presumably useful. BUT if you get it in just 6 minutes, you decide instead to play a game of solitaire while you wait for the 6 minutes if you really opt to do anything at all!

It's the techno equivalent to more haste less speed


Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal

But, why have the limits that serve nothing more then to make the big telco more money?
They could lower the rates by 50% and still make a profit.



sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable

But that's the WHOLE POINT and NOTHING BUT THE POINT. They want to monetize EVERYTHING they think they can get away with and find some seemingly plausible cover story ("fairness", "congestion" etc.) At one time there were issues of fairness and congestion which made these cover stories somewhat more plausible. Now they want to find as many ways as they can to gouge out as many dollars per customer as they can. The bean counters have a term for it ... ARPU ... Average Revenue Per (Customer) Unit. They want to maximize that number to create shareholder profits and golden parachutes for themselves.

Running a company is not for the benefit of the public at all any more, it's for the benefit of the stakeholders ... vis a vis the shareholders and the executives. We the public are just a source for their income.


InvalidError

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

said by BliZZardX:

13TB is not an enormous amount of data, maybe 10 years ago, but now that's only slightly less than 4 top-end spinning disk drives.

For average individuals, this is still a whopping lot. I'm a hoarder (rarely delete anything until there is no doubt I will never use it again) and I "only" have about 4TB worth of data.

13TB/month would be almost like watching max-profile BD movies 24/7, which does not seem particularly reasonable. Most people need to sleep/work/school/transit a few hours per day and no streaming site goes anywhere near that high.

Nitra

join:2011-09-15
Montreal

In a year or 2 once 4K resolution starts to be phased in, this will be much more taxing on the streaming/internet systems.