O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Broadband > Do we really need unlimited monthly usage?

reply to Phorkster

Re: Do we really need unlimited monthly usage?

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.

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.

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.

reply to sbrook

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.

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

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.

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.

reply to BliZZardX

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

reply to tom_tom
Let's say that for each 4x increase in resolution, a 2x increase in bandwidth is required (detail does not increase linearly with resolution). If Netflix does 5800 kilobit for currend SuperHD streams, and we assume 4k to be four times as many pixels as 1080p, we can expect a need for roughly 12 Mbps for streaming video.

Let's assume that we're talking about a family household where, between the various family members, you get 4 hours of streaming per day. That's 210 GB/mth for video alone (actual bandwidth requirements for Netflix are higher, for audio and overhead, so assume about 250GB), before you even get into other stuff.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

reply to Nitra

reply to tom_tom
I think that we'll see faster adoption of 4k than we did HD. When we migrated to HD, there was only really physical media. Today, there's streaming media, and it's much easier for somebody like Netflix to start streaming to 4K,where a 4K stream is technically possible without Netflix making any architectural changes whatsoever. They would just have to flip a switch and send out 4K video. Many existing devices (PCs, anyhow) could handle decoding it.

I don't think that means the transition will be instant, by any means, just that it will happen faster than the migration to HD did, because the cost of implementation is lower.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

reply to tom_tom
Of course not. 5 Gb per month is good enough for me. Who has disk space/time or lack of life enough to need infinite usage? No one does. Infinite by definition can't be used.
--
01/01/01

reply to tom_tom
No need for unlimited monthly usage if ISPs would just bill customers by base rate for line maintenance + 95th percentile, which is how your ISP pays for their bandwidth.

Of course, then rezzy customers would be confused to hell and back, so they go for the easier pricing methodology.

reply to MXB

reply to shepd

reply to tom_tom
Well, doctors and others have determined that in general, more physical activity in one's life rather than a sedentary lifestyle does tend to result in a more healthful and longer life.

reply to tom_tom
Simple answer: No. Long answer: No. What are you doing on the Internet that requires unlimited usage? 1080P porn? 1080P Netflix? 24/7? I'm sure you have a life outside of the Internet...