dslreports logo
 story category
Rogers Tightens Noose On Capping Plans
While Canadian journalists realize low caps kind of stink...

Canadian cable operator Rogers has constructed what's essentially the dream business model for broadband executives. They've launched a new broadband video portal that's only available if you sign up for Rogers wireless, TV or broadband service -- avoiding a stand-alone service in order to keep users from canceling regular cable. Rogers has also imposed low caps and high overages and the new service counts against your monthly cap -- meaning Rogers is keeping content revenue in house while socking customers with per-gigabyte overages -- up to $5.00 per gigabyte.

Back in January we noted that after Rogers let users get used to the idea of caps and overages, they began nudging prices upward -- and had plans to raise the maximum possible overage penalty from $25 to $50 a month. Canada's Globe and Mail (via Stop The Cap) notes that the maximum penalty hike has now taken effect as of March 1. Interestingly Globe and Mail writer Michael Snider explores his experiences with life under Rogers capping plans, and not surprisingly complains that the low caps and high overages have him paying more and more money:

quote:
While I’m not opposed paying for what you use -- that’s a well-established model for utilities, including hydro, gas and wireless -- it’s getting too damn expensive. I am discovering that I’m actually limiting my consumption of some totally legitimate services because I’ve no desire to pay extra on my Rogers bill at the end of the month.

Take for example Microsoft Xbox’s movie service. After waiting for what seemed eons for some kind of a legit movie download service, I finally have access to one that has a list of movies that I’d actually like to see, but it’s proving too expensive to really enjoy it regularly. Reason is, downloading an HD movie eats up more than 11 GB of my bandwidth -- more than 10% of my monthly allotment (before I upgraded) for one freaking movie.
That's because once again, the low cap and high overage model dreamed of by many executives and investors isn't the same thing as pure per-byte billing model. Contrary to what ISPs claim, low caps and high overages have nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with protecting TV revenues and milking consumers for every dime possible. For the moment companies appear to be backing away from this model in the States due to cost and consumer backlash. But make no mistake it's where carriers would like to go, and if you're interested in where that road leads -- just ask Canadian consumers.
view:
topics flat nest 

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel

Member

"...paying for what you use..."?

What exactly are you "using"? as in, using up? In reality: nothing. It's not like the bits and bytes that you're sending and receiving are a limited resource being created by the ISP. It's not like it costs the ISP any more to transfer 1 billion bits/bytes than it does to transfer 1 thousand bits/bytes.

A router might consume a few pennies more worth of electricity over the course of a month (across the entire customer base), but that's about it, which amounts to "nil".
Roop
join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON

1 edit

Roop

Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

the part i hate the most is the "up to" on the speed. they say "up to 10 meg" but if you don't get 10 meg, you still have to pay for 10 meg. a discount should be applied for whatever my actual speed is, not theoretical.

second if i don't download the max bit cap in a month, i should get a discount for that month or at least those bytes transferred to next month.

that would be fair. but fair = less money for rogers.

for those on rogers, ditch them for a reseller like CIA/3web. CIA may not be the best but they don't throttle and don't actively cap you.
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada

munky99999

Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

said by Roop:

the part i hate the most is the "up to" on the speed. they say "up to 10 meg" but if you don't get 10 meg, you still have to pay for 10 meg. a discount should be applied for whatever my actual speed is, not theoretical.
Yes. surely you understand why they have to do "up to" as they couldnt possibly ensure that quality everywhere; but the regulators should be creating a system which makes them prorate your bill according to the speed you actually get.
quote:
second if i don't download the max bit cap in a month, i should get a discount for that month or at least those bytes transferred to next month.
The problem with caps isnt the usage. It's the fact that traffic isnt differentiated. The isps cant differentiate. Meaning you can be a LUser and have joined a botnet. You might be ddosing people. Should you really be forced to pay for that bandwidth? Perhaps. However there's 2 situations. If the ISP is profiting off your stupidity. They have no reason to contact you and inform you that you're in a botnet; or try to limit the impact for that matter. If they arent profiting off your stupidity. It's in their best interest to fix the situation.

Moreover. All these isps have very limited ipspace and are publically traded. Anyone can go take a million $$. Get into say Rogers. Then go rent/build/use botnet against that isp's ipspace; or even... setup a website in a datacenter and simply flood your website to the ipspace. Next quarter when Rogers posts massive profits because of insanely large amount of customers having to pay $10,000 bills. You cash your stocks in for massive profit.

realitybytes5
Premium Member
join:2002-07-15
Ottawa, ON

realitybytes5 to mod_wastrel

Premium Member

to mod_wastrel
If Canadians ISP's continue down this metered use model, I will just learn to hack wireless, and become an access pirate, If companys cannot provide affordable internet to Canadians, the poorer netizens will just steal wifi etc.

Right now I can access over 40 WEP encrypted connection points from my apt, that's wep not wpa! I know for a fact with about 20,000 packets using a sniffer program, is pretty much all you need from one wep encrypted network, to crack the passkey.

Hopefully the mafia, I mean service providers, realize the dangerous path they now travel.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

said by realitybytes5:

If Canadians ISP's continue down this metered use model, I will just learn to hack wireless, and become an access pirate, If companys cannot provide affordable internet to Canadians, the poorer netizens will just steal wifi etc.

Right now I can access over 40 WEP encrypted connection points from my apt, that's wep not wpa! I know for a fact with about 20,000 packets using a sniffer program, is pretty much all you need from one wep encrypted network, to crack the passkey.

Hopefully the mafia, I mean service providers, realize the dangerous path they now travel.
Taking advantage of your neighbors isn't a morally upright position. Arrest is well deserved in that case.
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada

munky99999 to realitybytes5

Member

to realitybytes5
said by realitybytes5:

If Canadians ISP's continue down this metered use model, I will just learn to hack wireless, and become an access pirate, If companys cannot provide affordable internet to Canadians, the poorer netizens will just steal wifi etc.

Right now I can access over 40 WEP encrypted connection points from my apt, that's wep not wpa! I know for a fact with about 20,000 packets using a sniffer program, is pretty much all you need from one wep encrypted network, to crack the passkey.

Hopefully the mafia, I mean service providers, realize the dangerous path they now travel.
Well for one. That's illegal. You can get in crap for it. Moreover... wpa is crackable most of the time.

It's one of those things though. How many people in canada really can learn to crack wifi? Not many. So this really isnt a problem that concerns them. Infact the more people who connect... perhaps they are more likely to be going over those limits but not enough to cause them to cancel their service. They also realize that you as the wifi thief cant put tons of load on those lines anyway or ud get caught.

realitybytes5
Premium Member
join:2002-07-15
Ottawa, ON

realitybytes5

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

I was being rhetorical, but you can imagine the strain if joe bloe cant afford his internet, all that free music and tv pirated over these last few "pioneering" days of the internet, don't worry the partys ending.. and it's about time.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2 to mod_wastrel

Premium Member

to mod_wastrel
said by mod_wastrel:

It's not like it costs the ISP any more to transfer 1 billion bits/bytes than it does to transfer 1 thousand bits/bytes.
Ummmmmm... yes, it does cost to move data - period. It's been discussed here many times on BBR. People get confused and misguided that there isn't a cost to move data which is pure wrong.

I really wish I saved the post made by a high up tech who explained how and why data does have a cost per byte to move - he said it all too well.

It's more than just the amount of electricity to run a router in cost.

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

said by fiberguy2:

said by mod_wastrel:

It's not like it costs the ISP any more to transfer 1 billion bits/bytes than it does to transfer 1 thousand bits/bytes.
Ummmmmm... yes, it does cost to move data - period. It's been discussed here many times on BBR. People get confused and misguided that there isn't a cost to move data which is pure wrong.

I really wish I saved the post made by a high up tech who explained how and why data does have a cost per byte to move - he said it all too well.

It's more than just the amount of electricity to run a router in cost.
I actually want to know what the numbers are.

Citation needed.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 edit

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

lol "citation needed"... that doesn't work with me, nor discredits what I say. I don't need to find someone else who agrees with me, well, sorry, actually knows what they're talking about, to make my point any different.

You can do your own research.

The fact is, it costs to run a business, that's one cost. Employee time, training, upgrades, network maintenance.. those are all costs. Then you have the charges that come from your peering agreements. Many of the major carriers charge the ISPs per byte.. that's a cost to transfer data alone.

Seriously... you need citation?

.. and the numbers, as you want to know, are different for each business. Its not like every ISP pays the same rate..

Gbcue
Premium Member
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA

Gbcue

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

said by fiberguy2:

You can do your own research.

The fact is, it costs to run a business, that's one cost. Employee time, training, upgrades, network maintenance.. those are all costs. Then you have the charges that come from your peering agreements. Many of the major carriers charge the ISPs per byte.. that's a cost to transfer data alone.

Seriously... you need citation?
What you've mentioned, "employee time, training, maintenance" are all fixed costs...

Because somebody moved 1.44megs of data or 10000megs, how does training costs increase? Is there an employee monitoring every single k of data?

I can see how those costs increase if you have more subscribers, but more data? C'mon.

Yes, I do need a citation since you just pulled an imrf See Profile.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

ugh... I don't need to cite anything to you.. you conveniently avoided the part where they, themselves, pay per byte! If you can't read, then there is no point to talking to you.

This isn't wiki - do your own research. I happen to work in a related industry... that's my citation. And, there are many people here that understand this.. it's common knowledge. Again, google is your best friend.

Residential use and certain business class services pay for a flat rate use.. it's a LOT different in the larger scheme of providers where paying per byte has always been a norm. For the longest time, and still to this day, many T1 connections come with a local loop charge, line charge, and they too pay for the bytes they transfer.. it goes all the way up to top tier providers.. duh!

jimi419
Dadof4
join:2002-03-14
Round Lake, IL

jimi419

Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

no offense but anybody still using a T1 with the dif. options available today deserve to pay waht they do u can get buisness class cable for less then the 300-400 a month for what is basically a dedicated dsl line and most dsl providers offer more then 1.44 u/d so those that still use T1 deserve what they pay when so many other options are available, and if these ISPs were actually upgrading there services it might not be so bad but if what u say is true how is it that 3rd world countries can have a faster cheaper non capped service
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

You're right.. those that use T1 lines do get what they deserve.

They deserve a more stable line. They deserve true duplex data transfer.. they deserve being able to dedicate some of that T1 to phone if they want.. they deserve the SLA...

Those that have business class DSL also deserve what they get too... a line with no guarantee.. speeds are often unstable at times.. it's good for basic access to the internet. So you're right, they do deserve what they get.

It's funny how these businesses that pay the $50 a month for DSL do so, and then realize JUST how important that internet connection is when they call up the phone company screaming becuase they "really need to get to their email" and "are about to lose thousands of dollars on" say "a house offer that's about to fall apart because we can't email the seller"...

.. think about it.

But I'm curious... how is "business class cable for less then the 300-400 a month" is "basically a dedicated DSL line"...?

...it's not about faster and cheaper there bud.. it's about what you use it for and how bad you need it to be there. If I were hiring for my business and I interviewed you for that IT position, I'd certainly pass you up if you gave me that kind of advice...

jimi419
Dadof4
join:2002-03-14
Round Lake, IL

1 edit

jimi419

Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

so u would pass up paying less money for a cable connection that provides same services that a T1 line does but more capacity then 1.44 i could see why u would pass me up because buisness class cable is very different from res. cable just like buisness dsl is dif. from res. dsl when u pay for buisness class u have certain agreements . and if u have cable/dsl buisness class when it hits the demark u can do pretty much what u want with it so if u want to VoIP a portion of ur bandwidth u can how is that any different ????
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

With that post, you just TOTALLY confirmed WHY I'd pass you up - IN A HUGE WAY!

You don't get it..

Business class DSL and Cable Modem service is, at best, designed for end user, non mission critical use. (Please actually read my posts would you?)

T1 lines are no where NEAR the quality of a DSL or Cable modem. They aren't true Full Duplex service.. they are not as reliable.. and they are not designed for more mission critical services.

Second, no, business class cable and DSL generally does NOT come with any kind of service agreements. While SOME people can and do have them, it's VERY rare that they are provided. (You saying that, alone, is another reason why I'd not hire you.. you'd put my business at risk with your lack of experience in this field)

Voip over cable and DSL, while works.. um.. how do I say this.. for one, get your head out of your home.. business is business. I'd NEVER trust a DSL/Cable service with my company and Voip. I have that at home and have too many outages when I need it. My business IS important to me to trust Vonage or some other voip... with the way you think I assume you'd also tell me to get Magic Jacks becuase they're $19 a year, too, right? oi.

The ONLY Voip I'd consider getting is one provided by a managed provider - phone or cable - and even then.. I've not had good luck.

You don't get it, do you? Anytime my phones right, they need to work. If the phone doesn't work, neither do your employees and you risk losing business. If your DSL goes down, you risk losing business. I'd NEVER run a server of any importance off of DSL... and even then, cable. If I were in the right place for pricing, it would be a T1 or T3 if it meant my livelyhood.

In business, it has NOTHING to do with speed and price, necessarily, in the sense of cable or DSL... sorry.

But, in the fact that you can't even post a message with proper punctuation, capital letters, or proper grammar, that's another reason I'd not hire you. Your message comes across as a 21 year old texting guy which also lends to your credibility in this subject, which, again, you've demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.
flbas1
join:2010-02-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL

flbas1

Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

said by fiberguy2:

But, in the fact that you can't even post a message with proper punctuation, capital letters, or proper grammar, that's another reason I'd not hire you. Your message comes across as a 21 year old texting guy which also lends to your credibility in this subject, which, again, you've demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.
I think he is saving his bytes to download something else rather than impress you for a (non-existant) job opportunity.
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

backness to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
just wanted to point out that you have completely changed the topic
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to jimi419

Member

to jimi419
I heard punctuation and paragraph structure is dropping in price as well. You may want to look into that.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx to Gbcue

Member

to Gbcue
I'm guessing the main marginal per-byte costs are at the network edge; I'm not sure about the cost per Mbit on the CMTS side but I'm pretty sure it's rather high. Lower than 10¢ per GB but not zero.

On the backbone, things are a lot easier. $5 per megabit, tops. Maybe $7 including all transport arrangements and such. So maybe 2¢ per GB.

So yes, the CA ISPs are overcharging, but bits aren't quite free.

gadfly
@rogers.com

gadfly to fiberguy2

Anon

to fiberguy2
You make the claim, you back it up. The onus of proof is on you; don't expect others to do the goddamn research for you. You do the research, you do the legwork. I'm assuming that you went through college/university to become the "specialist" that you are right now, so this concept shouldn't be new to you.

Your being snippy and condescending doesn't help either.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

1 recommendation

Jim Kirk to fiberguy2

Premium Member

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:

lol "citation needed"... that doesn't work with me, nor discredits what I say.
Hence the reason no-one ever believes you. "Because I say so" means nothing.

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
What "costs" is to setup the mechanisms (as in, network management) to move data, not the actual movement of the data, and, just like the network itself, those mechanisms would be put in place regardless. (Yes, I used to work in an enterprise environment, with many dozens of routers and many hundreds of network devices.)

Take some customer, with Comcast for example, who transfers an "acceptable" 250GB per month, compare the actual costs versus a customer who transfers an "excessive" 5TB per month, and I feel completely safe in saying that it will cost [much] less than $1 more per month for the "excessive" customer.
mannyfresh
join:2005-07-29

3 edits

1 recommendation

mannyfresh

Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

said by mod_wastrel:

Take some customer, with Comcast for example, who transfers an "acceptable" 250GB per month, compare the actual costs versus a customer who transfers an "excessive" 5TB per month, and I feel completely safe in saying that it will cost [much] less than $1 more per month for the "excessive" customer.
I disagree... If everyone of my neighbors were consuming 5TB a month, there would be no bandwidth (or speed) left for me. They would have to go in and upgrade the network to ensure I can get my advertised speed.

Is what you're saying...Let's say Comcast has 20 million subscribers... If they all used '5TB' or 20x as much as the 'average' user at 250GB; they would have to invest "much less then $1 more per month" of infrastructure and bandwidth?

I'm sorry, but your statement just sounds ridiculous.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

No, you are getting UP TO that advertised speed.
In the case of Robbers, if you sign up for the 25mb package, and get 1mb,you are (in their mind) getting HI Speed (note the intentional misspelling)
mannyfresh
join:2005-07-29

mannyfresh

Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

I get my 10mbps 100% of the time. I can't comment on what would happen if I didn't.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

Then consider yourself fortunate, there are many people who don't get the advertised speed due to over subscription on the node.

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel to mannyfresh

Member

to mannyfresh
"Peak hours"? The "neighbors" I'm referring to use their connections well outside of the "peak" hours, and their usage during those "peak" hours don't exceed their tier's speed any more than yours does, which they, as do you, have every right to do.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 edit

fiberguy2 to mod_wastrel

Premium Member

to mod_wastrel
Um, the logic you're trying to apply here doesn't work in the real world environment. The providers purchase an X amount of data at a certain rate - also called forecasting. If they go over, they pay overage fees. Some pay a flat rate for transfer as well. If you worked in enterprise environments, you'd know that... and if not, then maybe answering the phones in an enterprise environment didn't give you access to the reality of those environment. AND, just becuase you did/do work in one doesn't mean you know everything about every provider either.

With that said....

... when you get into the thousands of routers, etc, then you can give more credibility to your knowledge. (like me)

Second, "acceptable" 250gb.. they have purchased bandwidth for their customer-base BASED on that figure.. again, forecasting. Just becuase SOME run over the 1TB, they don't take account that other customers will use less and allow one customer to over use because other customers won't. What YOU use, is what YOU use.. you can't bank on what others will use and say you can use more; it simply doesn't work that way.

You don't know the "actual cost" of that extra 5tb, so you can't safely say it's only $1.. I can tell you right now, that's pure BS as a figure.

What's funny is how people come to BBR "knowing" so much, when they know so little.

However, the main point to this sub-thread is someone saying it doesn't cost anything more to move data... when clearly, IT DOES!

jimi419
Dadof4
join:2002-03-14
Round Lake, IL

jimi419

Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

how does it not work if u pay amount X for a product what u charge to resell it for is entirely up to you and how much u feel u should be paid for it this is about making money to the ISPs im not against making money for a buisness. but just remember pigs get fat hogs get slaughtered. u make way more providing to lots of ppl for a lil profit each then a huge profit off a few
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

ugh.. BECAUSE THEY PURCHASE BANDWIDTH FROM OTHER PEOPLE..... also, you have the peering agreements to pay for as well.

•••
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
Just out of curiosity... do you ever respond without "attacking" the other person you are in a discussion with?

I bet you are a joy at parties.
titoyay222
Premium Member
join:2005-04-27
Cincinnati, OH

titoyay222 to fiberguy2

Premium Member

to fiberguy2
I do agree that it does cost to have the employees, training, techs, the vans, equipment, and everything else. Those are all fixed costs still. They plan to have those employees, training, overtime hours, equipment expenses, etc...

Look at comcast. Look at their record profits they are currently making off of their current pricing model for both cable tv and internet services. Once they bought the routers and the nodes and whatever else they have, the only real costs (outside of their fixed planned costs) is electricity. Moving data from point A to point B has no other cost factor outside of those planned costs. If the current model wasn't working why would they be making these record profits and not strapped for cash?

Look at the other articles on here that point out Canada. There's one where a reporter is talking about how he hates the caps and "per-byte" billing basis because it costs him MORE than the "unlimited" service he use to have. Yet they all claim it will save us money. I would think using an xbox360 including netflix streaming is something most users of today are going towards/already doing. I do it. I'm sure there are plenty of people on here doing it.

Personally I don't think they have to worry about losing revenue on STB's or a DUMB pipe. Look at other cables companies who are trying new STB DVR ideas where the data is stored on the network, not on a local HDD. If they figured that much out.. well theres their IPTV idea. Once a show becomes avail you could just stream it across the network. Obviously the current model on how to do so is a little flaky and needs to be worked out still (in my opinion).

None the less they know how much it costs to run their network with all the employees, techs, vans, equipment, etc and they know how much they are charging customers and making per month. Obviously it's a ton of money as we can all look it up and see the profits these companies are already making. Comcast doesn't seem to be strapped for cash upgrading their networks to docsis 3.0 on their current pricing model. If they weren't, we would still be sitting here with no upgrades and a company that is showing they are making no money.

Anyways, if they do go to an actually per-byte billing basis.. the company SHOULD be regulated just as the electric company, gas, water companies are with their meters. Just because they say a 3rd party company says their meters are 99% accurate doesn't mean they are. How does the average consumer know that the 3rd party isn't just some puppet company they invest in to put out rouge data. It happens all the time with these big companies. Just as the state of Kentucky is almost 100% wired with broadband. HA! I live in Cincinnati and knew a decent amount of people in northern kentucky who don't have any access options outside of dial up.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

1 edit

1 recommendation

r81984 to fiberguy2

Premium Member

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:
said by mod_wastrel:

It's not like it costs the ISP any more to transfer 1 billion bits/bytes than it does to transfer 1 thousand bits/bytes.
Ummmmmm... yes, it does cost to move data - period. It's been discussed here many times on BBR. People get confused and misguided that there isn't a cost to move data which is pure wrong.

I really wish I saved the post made by a high up tech who explained how and why data does have a cost per byte to move - he said it all too well.

It's more than just the amount of electricity to run a router in cost.
That post does not exist or it was made by someone trying to make more money.

It has been discussed on here for a long time how charging by the byte or using caps makes no sense for congestion or dividing up the costs of the network.

I thought this was common knowledge by now.
I guess stragglers will show up from time to time.
flbas1
join:2010-02-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL

3 edits

flbas1 to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:

said by mod_wastrel:

It's not like it costs the ISP any more to transfer 1 billion bits/bytes than it does to transfer 1 thousand bits/bytes.
Ummmmmm... yes, it does cost to move data - period. It's been discussed here many times on BBR. People get confused and misguided that there isn't a cost to move data which is pure wrong.

I really wish I saved the post made by a high up tech who explained how and why data does have a cost per byte to move - he said it all too well.

It's more than just the amount of electricity to run a router in cost.
I will give you that there is a small equipment upgrade fee - like when i have to go to bestbuy(yuk) to buy a wireless router or extender. usually less than $100. but using GAAP (accounting, in case you were not sure), we can price the equipment over the cost of the life (2-5 years, maybe more?). my $200 in equipment over 24 months is amortized over the duration, making the monthly cost of the equipment $200/24 =~$9/month.
said by fiberguy2:

It's been discussed here many times on BBR. People get confused and misguided that there isn't a cost to move data which is pure wrong.
it has been discussed here many times - and for a good reason. the new models don't make sense. they want to charge me access to the network, and then charge me to use the network, and basically (by not rolling over my unused bytes) charge me for not using the network.

For the $200 that I invested, i need to recoup that cost somehow. I could "resell" it back to my family (of 4), @ $2.25/month, or I can subscribe my neighbors (4 on the left & 4 on the right), making my minimum subscription cost near $0.75/subscriber/month (note: i understand that this violates the TOS - not sure why - I guess my neighbors will over saturate the bandwidth that I'm not consuming?)

And, now if I get greedy, I can always get more neighbors, lowering my costs, but oversubscribing my capabilities - which is how Cable Modems work - on a shared line split between multiple subscribers.
said by fiberguy2:

It's more than just the amount of electricity to run a router in cost.
Yes - those are called operating costs. if their operating costs are too high, then maybe they need to do something to attract more customers (like have a sale or lower prices). that seems to work in other industries.


mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel

Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

I think you dropped a 'BQUOTE' (or two) in the wrong place(s), 'cause that first "said by fiberguy" (as you have it now) was actually said by me. (I think just the "Ummmmmm..." part was his?)
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada

munky99999 to mod_wastrel

Member

to mod_wastrel
said by mod_wastrel:

What exactly are you "using"? as in, using up? In reality: nothing. It's not like the bits and bytes that you're sending and receiving are a limited resource being created by the ISP. It's not like it costs the ISP any more to transfer 1 billion bits/bytes than it does to transfer 1 thousand bits/bytes.
Technically there are electrical costs. In the long run it costs roughly 5 cents per gig; on average. Verizon's network probably runs 1-2 cents. Google's network runs 1.5 cents.

So going with 5 cents per gig. You get 500gigs per 25$. Ofcoarse they have some operational costs as in disgruntled customers digging up fiber lines. Add in profit margin. 200 gigs per 25$ is quite fair.

Surely you see that by going over that. You dont become a profitable customer. The problem comes in when they create caps of 5 gigs per 25$. Something is very very very wrong.

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

1 edit

mod_wastrel

Member

Re: "...paying for what you use..."?

Sorry, but unlike many other types of equipment, the power consumption of [modern] network equipment is not load-dependent, meaning, a lightly-utilized router consumes nearly the same amount of electricity as a fully-utilized router. Basically, it costs money to turn it on, but once it is turned on, the additional cost for power consumption due to traffic [or usage or utilization or whatever you want to call it] is minimal. Your numbers are way too high.

[Edit:] typo
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt to mod_wastrel

Member

to mod_wastrel
They're "using" capacity. Bits and bytes may not be a limited resource, but the number of bits and bytes over a set time period is limited. Expanding capacity costs money, and maintaining higher capacity leads to higher operating expenses.

Of course, that's only an issue if the network is actually running close enough to capacity to warrant expansion due to increasing usage.

•••

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

Z80A

Premium Member

That is their plan, it is never about actual cost

quote:
While I’m not opposed paying for what you use -- that’s a well-established model for utilities, including hydro, gas and wireless -- it’s getting too damn expensive. I am discovering that I’m actually limiting my consumption of some totally legitimate services because I’ve no desire to pay extra on my Rogers bill at the end of the month.

Take for example Microsoft Xbox’s movie service. After waiting for what seemed eons for some kind of a legit movie download service, I finally have access to one that has a list of movies that I’d actually like to see, but it’s proving too expensive to really enjoy it regularly.
It is about defending their video revenues from competitors like XBOX Live video rentals.

•••

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Robbers

They don't call them "Robbers" for nothing! Their business model is what our U.S. ISP's aspire to but competition and the U.S. culture of complaining and raising a ruckus keep them from doing it.
Warez_Zealot
join:2006-04-19
Vancouver

Warez_Zealot

Member

The fall of open internet.

It's too bad this is happening in Canada. Give us a few more years, and the internet as we know it will be about as useful as dialup internet in the 90's. All you will want to do is use it to check emails and surf the odd website.

The Canadian government/CRTC should play hard ball and force ISP's to open up their networks 100%, should start up a crown corporation which deploys fibre to all homes (starting in major cities), then open it up for start up ISP's who wish to compete with Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw, Videotron, COGEBLOW and all the other crap ISP's who are currently offering sub standard services.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Re: The fall of open internet.

said by Warez_Zealot:

It's too bad this is happening in Canada. Give us a few more years, and the internet as we know it will be about as useful as dialup internet in the 90's. All you will want to do is use it to check emails and surf the odd website.

The Canadian government/CRTC should play hard ball and force ISP's to open up their networks 100%, should start up a crown corporation which deploys fibre to all homes (starting in major cities), then open it up for start up ISP's who wish to compete with Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw, Videotron, COGEBLOW and all the other crap ISP's who are currently offering sub standard services.
Not with the government we have in power today
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

extorting you for what you use

there fixed it for you
Choppy2001
join:2000-07-28
Surrey, BC

1 edit

Choppy2001

Member

this is not good .. and its 50% faster ?

lol this is not good, I watched the CTVOlympics feed the whole time they were streaming at 200k+ i even left it on when i left the house .. I guess I'm going to get a nasty call for all the usage.. considering when the tele marketer from Shaw told me it was UNLIMITED up/down in 2000 .. lol
hope it stays on Rogers ..
Sunfox
join:2003-12-14
Stouffville

Sunfox

Member

Re: this is not good .. and its 50% faster ?

I think I saw somewhere that CTVOlympics was streaming, in HD, at around 4mbit/second if your connection could handle it(although I did hear someone quote 7mbit once). So let's assume the bottom 4mbit rate. You're looking at around 1.8 gigabytes per hour. So if you watched for 4 hours a day over 14 days, that would be 100 gigabytes minimum right there.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

The Fusion: of Government and Incorporation


One Day We'll All Be Corp's
.
.

This attractive, and very Canadian piece of national evolution (the OP's story, that is) is what all of us have to look forward to;
as big industry and bigger government continue to box with feathered gloves.

People don't realize
that an abundance of government regulations
ultimately help Big Corp's stay in power;
by leaving BC's the only ones
who have the wealth and power to navigate the onerous rules.

NV

•••

StopCap
@comcast.net

StopCap

Anon

Stop the Cap!

Canada needs to STOP Imposing Caps on Broadband usage. Period. While the world moved onto to "Unlimited Internet", Canada regressed to "Capped Limited Internet". Thats BS. the Canadians needs to step up their game.