dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5762
share rss forum feed

Nitra

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

1 edit
reply to Phorkster

Re: Do we really need unlimited monthly usage?

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:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile

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:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
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:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
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.


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

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to Nitra
said by Nitra:

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

It will take many more years than that for 4k to be common in households. Full HD took over a decade from commercial introduction on analog to mainstream on digital.

Also, quadrupling the pixel count less than doubles the bitrate required to maintain overall picture quality on existing CODECs. Add h265 which is expected to almost double h264's efficiency and 4k should end up using only slightly more bandwidth than 1080p/h264 does today.


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


MXB

join:2009-12-18
Burlington, ON
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

shepd

join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
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.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
reply to MXB
said by MXB:

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.

Unlimited =/= infinite. Unlimited means that I can use my connection to it's full capacity without limit. And it is very important that this be offered because monthly caps are artificial restrictions on usage not tied to how network costs are determined.

Even at your 5gb per month, if you fully utilize your connection at the same time as your ISP experiences their peak capacity requirement you are contributing to costs as much as any other user.

And old man, you may want to be careful how you determine a persons life quality. We're not all use to the joys of a tractor pull, or cow tipping so we're quite comfortable making use of the forms of entertainment available to us today.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
reply to shepd
said by shepd:

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.

95th percentile was what TPIA ISP's requested, but I don't believe that's how they are currently billed.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
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.

geokilla

join:2010-10-04
North York, ON
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...
Expand your moderator at work


Fergless
Premium
join:2008-04-19
Toronto, ON
kudos:1
reply to Samgee

.

cow tipping lol


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

Re: Do we really need unlimited monthly usage?

said by InvalidError:

It will take many more years than that for 4k to be common in households. Full HD took over a decade from commercial introduction on analog to mainstream on digital.

It may never happen. Look at Audio. By the '70s it was possible to create truly life-like audio reproduction. The Absolute Sound, so to speak. Look where we are now...
--
electronicsguru.ca

DSL_Ricer
Premium
join:2007-07-22
kudos:3
reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

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.

For the availability of content, sure. For the purchase of displays? I don't think so. Few people will see increased quality from 4K simply because of display sizes. 720P 32" TVs are still being sold (I think).

A better and more realistic use of large amounts of bandwidth is video conferencing. For that, you need a larger bit rate simply because of real time requirements.
Think of a team of 8 developers each at different locations streaming 1080p without multicast: at netflix rates, that's 70+mbit both for up and down. A half an hour of that every business day gives you 300GB+. You could then have long term use for paired programming.
I believe Google has noted that they're one of the largest users of video conferencing.

On the residential side, you could start having some form of "remote" families.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to tom_tom
720p 32" TVs are available, sure, although larger televisions are rather common. 50+" 1080p displays seem to start at $730ish (probably less in the US). Compare that to when HDTVs first launched, selling for about $8000. There's also not that much of a technology barrier either, since 4K TVs are generally extremely low DPI; Sony's 56" 4K model is only 80 DPI (the retina macbook 15" is 220 DPI), so existing LCD panels can be used (just cut larger chunks from existing LCD sheets at the desired DPI).

There's also the advent of high-resolution computer monitors. These are typically between 2.5K and 3K, but that's still enough to get a benefit from it (and to sell consumers on the content). The macbooks airs and chromebook pixels out there. If desktop computer monitors follow (and you can imagine Apple has their sites on a retina iMac), they'd likely be higher resolution than the laptops. How long before all iMacs ship with 4K displays?
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


Boo_Guy

@rogers.com
reply to tom_tom
Do we need unlimited? Probably not. But having caps that I could blow through in days if I tried, isnt the solution either. Neither is charging up to $4 per extra per extra GB when it costs them pennies, theyre making tones of profit from these overages, more money from less service.

I just want a monthly bill that stays the same every month and not have to worry about going over some arbitrary low limit.

I think theyre really doing this to limit competition from internet based services. Im really surprised Netflix or VOIP companies havent started suing ISPs since their traffic counts against the cap but their own online offerings in the same areas dont.

Theres no real reason for caps, other than greed.

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

Re: .

said by Fergless:

cow tipping lol

People actually film that?

I know my sister & her friends did that extensively (you get bored easily in the middle of nowhere with no internet, so stupid things will keep you amused a long time), but people actually film it?
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
said by resa1983:

said by Fergless:

cow tipping lol

People actually film that?

I know my sister & her friends did that extensively (you get bored easily in the middle of nowhere with no internet, so stupid things will keep you amused a long time), but people actually film it?

It was a farcical substitute for what people did to entertain themselves before the internet.

shepd

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

Re: Do we really need unlimited monthly usage?

said by Samgee:

said by shepd:

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.

95th percentile was what TPIA ISP's requested, but I don't believe that's how they are currently billed.

That's true, although I'm referring to the ISP's Tier 1 links.

shepd

join:2004-01-17
Kitchener, ON
kudos:1
reply to tom_tom
Now, if we are going to discuss heavy usage (and that is a VERY separate thing from billing methodology--most companies who are seriously heavy users have links to Tier 1 providers which means they are probably not getting "unlimited") suggesting nobody deserves to use the internet heavily is a sad argument.

There's a LOT of things that would be excellent for heavy usage if you had a link with enough capacity. Imagine no longer having to have a hard drive in your PC, it boots through the internet. At the 250 mbits service you can get today, that's actually not unreasonable. You could stream all your security video at 1080p to save remotely, you could offer everything on your drive to everyone else (well, assuming we didn't have copyright law) and so on. These are all excellent usages of the internet and we shouldn't be suggesting nobody is worthy of it.


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

But that's the WHOLE POINT and NOTHING BUT THE POINT. They [the incumbent providers] want to monetize EVERYTHING they think they can get away with and find some seemingly plausible cover story....

....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.

 
You did not mention (in the same post) that at the same time as they do all of this gouging, that the incumbent providers are gambling that nobody will be able to successfully take them to task on it, and given that our national regulatory body is ineffective and/or corrupt, they are prob'ly correct - between that and all of the Sheeple who will bend over and not even bother to try, and they are correct about their statistical analyses of that group too.

We simply cannot have everything at once, and if we are not prepared to fight (to the death, as it were), and if we want to get on with living our lives in some predictable and reasonable fashion, then we must prioritize.

Soooooo, if we have to play the cards which we are dealt, and in the short to medium term (jokingly called an 'interim') we always do, my position is to accept some intelligent version of throttling if we expect to have unlimited packages.

OR forego the unlimited packages in favour of no throttling.

--

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.