SimbaSevenI Void Warranties join:2003-03-24 Billings, MT |
Caps anyone?Yep.. Now you can run over your caps even faster and not realize it until you get your first bill.
I'm sure the large ISP's there are loving this.. that's *if* they reach those speeds by 2015. | |
|
| MarkAWBarry White Premium Member join:2001-08-27 Canada |
MarkAW
Premium Member
2011-May-5 2:27 pm
Re: Caps anyone?said by SimbaSeven:Yep.. Now you can run over your caps even faster and not realize it until you get your first bill.
I'm sure the large ISP's there are loving this.. that's *if* they reach those speeds by 2015. HUH? How am i going to go over my cap faster if they drop me to 5/1 when i am getting up to 7/1 now with a 60GB cap? | |
|
| | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: Caps anyone?60GB?! OUCH! | |
|
| | | |
| | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: Caps anyone?I burned through that the first 6 hours of the month. Completely by accident mind you but still. ouch. | |
|
| |
to SimbaSeven
Yup, we temporarily won the fight against usage based billing. But lost it in the recent election. re: 100% at 5Mbps - We talk a big game, but the reality is that last 20% of the markets are really tough to reach. Town populations of 200, 50 & 30 people are tough to service cost effectively. 100% by 2015 is a lofty goal indeed. | |
|
| | |
Re: Caps anyone?Do those towns and populations have phones, electricity, and water services now?
They do? Then no, it is not tough to service them cost effectively.
The problem with these providers is that they are allowed to individualize city and towns or even single homes / businesses in some cases. So if you want to break it down by individual towns then just about none of these services are cost effective in a vast majority of places. But if you are going to do that, then you might as well break it down to individual homes and businesses. Then not a single home or business is cost effective to serve any of these services. Therefore the country and their governing bodies should do exactly as they have: Declare the entire country cost effective as a whole (because it is) and then make them deliver it as a whole and then they can enjoy the vast amount of profits they will earn "as a whole" servicing the entire country. | |
|
| | | |
bt
Member
2011-May-5 4:29 pm
Re: Caps anyone?said by Skippy25:Do those towns and populations have phones, electricity, and water services now? Not necessarily. Phones and electricity, likely - but a town of under 100 is very likely on individual wells and septic systems. Phone service is likely served out of a central office some significant distance away - far out of DSL range. And if the town is in a remote location, electricity and phone service are also likely provided at a significant loss due to regulatory requirements. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Caps anyone?I understand as I did not mean it was a get all or none deal, but my point still stands. Regardless of loss because of regulatory requirements all homes and businesses can and should be serviced. The whining and crying that a place is not profitable enough should not be acceptable because in the grand scheme of things, the companies that provide the service will still make their billions quarter after quarter. | |
|
| | | | |
to bt
Skippy, BT is right. One challenge with Canada is 90% of population is within 100Km of border. Good populations density makes it relatively easy to service those folks. the other 10% are the issue. utilities wise - they are mostly septic systems, well water service, and no natural gas. They are on the grid for power & phone, but those are the only wires going to there house. Satellite TV is quite popular in those regions for a reason. Compared to US, Canada has about the same land mass, but 1/10th the population. Goals that target 100% (not just the 90% easy to serve) have to have solutions for rural areas. My understanding is that satellite internet does not cut it for the targets (5Mbps down, 1 Mbps up). What else is there for rural? | |
|
| | | | | smack_dab |
Re: Caps anyone?check out the cell phone coverage map for a service that piggy backs on Rogers network. I see a lot more white areas than black areas. » www.speakout7eleven.ca/s ··· coverageRogers is far from perfect, but they optimize their capital well. economics of little or no subscriber base plays a big role in getting the infrastructure up & running. | |
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Caps anyone?... most small towns in Saskatchewan already have 5mbps down. CRTC is regulating it because they know it can be done. » sasktel.com/search/contr ··· ign=HomeAs for Rogers... they cover the major centers in Saskatchewan... and a few highways. But more often then not, if you leave the city, you lose coverage. Sasktel has coverage anywhere populated. | |
|
| | |
to smack_dab
said by smack_dab:Yup, we temporarily won the fight against usage based billing. But lost it in the recent election. re: 100% at 5Mbps - We talk a big game, but the reality is that last 20% of the markets are really tough to reach. Town populations of 200, 50 & 30 people are tough to service cost effectively. 100% by 2015 is a lofty goal indeed. Lost it in the "recent election"?? What are you smoking? | |
|
nogaps join:2011-01-08 Greenbush, MI |
nogaps
Member
2011-May-5 2:35 pm
it needs a nameAnd they'll call the bandwidth greater than dial-up and less than "Broadband" what? I smell a marketing opportunity. | |
|
| openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 1 edit |
openbox9
Premium Member
2011-May-5 2:51 pm
Re: it needs a nameYep, the definition of "broadband" is irrelevant. Besides, do ISPs still sell broadband connections? I thought most of them had moved on to high speed internet connections. My high speed internet connection is much better than my old broadband connection...regardless of what it was defined as | |
|
| |
to nogaps
said by nogaps:And they'll call the bandwidth greater than dial-up and less than "Broadband" what? I smell a marketing opportunity. I can't seem to find a good one. Quasi-band? DuopolyMarketFailure-band? | |
|
| ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to nogaps
I call it WAN. It is my WAN connection. | |
|
| | |
Re: it needs a namegood name for it! If its not copyrighted can I use that name too? | |
|
|
raisethebar
Anon
2011-May-5 3:15 pm
welcome to 1998As far as I recall 3-5mbit was common in 1999, lets raise the bar here Canada.. | |
|
MerinXCrunching for Cures Premium Member join:2011-02-03 1 edit |
MerinX
Premium Member
2011-May-5 3:59 pm
Total pointlessnessThe major 4s packages are pretty much there already other then fail upload speeds by the cablecos.(not counting lite packages with like 2 gig caps that are worse then dial up) So the major telcos are fine but the wholesalers seem to be the only ones who will be effected since they can not just up the speeds as they please now that speed matching is off the tables.
Bell Fibe 6 Download speeds of up to 6 Mbps1 Upload speeds of up to 1 Mbps Internet usage: 25 GB of bandwidth per month
Shaw high speed(they might have to bump up speed to qualify) Up to 7.5 Mbps download speed Up to 512 Kbps upload speed 60 GB monthly transfer limit
Telus high speed Download speed: 1.5 - 6 Mbps 75 GB/month download/upload usage Up to 1.0Mbps
Rogers express (would not qualify like shaw as broadband) Download speed:10 Mbps Upload speed: 512Kbps 60 gig cap
Seems to me the real problem here is the lack of reasonable usage terms. Having slight speed increases is rather pointless when you can not use them without paying 1-2 dollars per gigabyte.
I think they should be required to say how long it takes at those speeds to hit those caps so people have some idea how screwed they are getting.
Seems to me the CRTC just wants to look like it is doing something for the people, well it gets ready to screw us and wholesalers with UBB now that election is over and the Cons have a majority. | |
|
|
MehBe better if a 100GB minimum monthly cap was what is considered "broadband" instead... | |
|
| |
Re: MehCareful now, we don't anything worded like that lest the ISPs totally blow it out of proportion (EG: "Well they said a minimum 100GB cap so I guess we need to add one now.") | |
|
| redxii Mod join:2001-02-26 Michigan |
to The Gizmo
If they were forced to a minimum cap, then they will raise prices. | |
|
Celexi join:2009-12-27 Chico, CA |
Celexi
Member
2011-May-5 5:54 pm
:(I kind of feel sorry for those who live in Canada and rely on internet related content for a living or as major entertainment, while being here with a no caps 100/20 mbit connection. | |
|
pb2k join:2005-05-30 Calgary, AB |
pb2k
Member
2011-May-5 7:23 pm
Wired/wireless?If this includes HSPA/LTE wireless, then it's pretty much already done, other than the far north and some extremely remote areas. I really hope that wireless dosen't count for any community with over 200 houses and wireline services are built out properly. People taking caps: bugger off, this isn't the right discussion because a 5mbps with a 17GB cap is 1000x more useful than an equivalent 56k connection run at max capacity 24/7 (yielding ~17GB one way). | |
|
|
mounted boot printkeep up the pressure on the necks of the crtc!!! they've gotten telco/cablecos to back away from hard low caps & overages, but the war is far from over. | |
|
|
Caps vs. SpeedsI think the internet in Canada (and globally) has become less of an issue of speed and more of an issue of usuably bandwidth.
In most of the cities you can get speeds much higher then the ones posted in this article. The problem isn't so much with speed anymore, its with how much bandwidth you can use.
I guess that had to do with the quality of the service. If the CRTC was trying to raise quality at the same time, they could make a speed to cap ratio. IE if you're going to sell a 15mbps package, the cap should be no less then if the client ran the connection full speed 15%-20% of the time?
I think speed is an old issue to be quarelling on, that was more a 90s thing. More speed doesn't help when small caps render faster speeds moot. | |
|
| pb2k join:2005-05-30 Calgary, AB |
pb2k
Member
2011-May-5 9:44 pm
Re: Caps vs. Speedssaid by zod5000:IE if you're going to sell a 15mbps package, the cap should be no less then if the client ran the connection full speed 15%-20% of the time? 15000 kbit/8 = 1875KB/s * 3600 /1024 = 6591 MB/hr * 24 / 1024 = 154 GB/ day * 30 = 4634.85 GB / month. You think 695-925 GB/ month is reasonable? | |
|
2 edits |
POTS networks POTS network owners by territory. |
POTS network owners:Tellus - Greedy green BCE (as Bell, Bell Aliant, Telebec) - No choice consumer blue Northwestel - Soggy tundra brown EDIT: also owned by BCE should be blue as well SaskTel - Provincially owned pink MTS Allstream - Manitoba mosquito fever yellow (Also shown but not seen at this scale are a dozen different little POTS network operators.) None of the incumbents either own or operate (resell) POTS service outside their own areas, the only competition is by resellers that pay usage, homage or tribute to the incumbents for using their network. Yet the CRTC calls that a success. As for the CRTCs grand plan of yesterdays speeds at tomorrows prices who cares. They will set up another slush fund that steals from consumers pockets and be set aside but not used to build anything. Eventually the CRTC will order that money be returned to the consumer and after the incumbents set up a series of conditions of how it will be paid back they will pocket the bulk of it as an administrative fee and offer the rest back if a consumer signs up for a new product or option. EDIT: Updated map below | |
|
| jfmezei Premium Member join:2007-01-03 Pointe-Claire, QC
1 recommendation |
jfmezei
Premium Member
2011-May-6 10:10 am
Re: POTS networksNlorthwestel is owed by BCE, so perhaps it should be in the No choice consumer Blue colour too. | |
|
| | |
Re: POTS networks POTS ownership |
Thanks, so it is! I guess the CRTC believes this offers even greater market "competitiveness". | |
|
|
|