Topic 'Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB' in forum 'Canadian Broadband' - dslreports.com

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:35:16 EDT

sbrook posted :

So, sbrook and others, let us remain united, on message, and diametrically OPPOSE UBB. Let ISPs raise the rates if they want more money, but leave our choice of wholesale competition ALONE.

In short, keep Bhell's picking paws off our pipe.

Let's make this very clear though to anyone we talk to that BELL's direct goal with their distortion of UBB is not to make he who uses more pay more, but to change the way we use the internet in favour of how THEY want us to use it. And with a simple example, like the Royal Wedding one, show that UBB in any form isn't going to reduce congestion.

That's the message we've got to get across.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:34:27 EDT

Sandroid posted :

said by SniperSlap:

...which actually prompts a great example.

If my wife is uploading facebook pictures (something that really thrashes my connection), I don't start using smaller files.

I tell/wait for her to stop.

It has nothing to do with the size of my file and/or her file. It has to do with the congestion being created.

Again, network strain - the only figure you can bill someone for, otherwise you're billing them for something totally made up - is not incurred by total data transmitted.

It's incurred by how much strain you put on the network during a given moment. If you're billing me for anything else other than measuring me using what is actually finite, then I take strong issue with that.

Exactly, which is why it frustrates me to hell that CRTC is defending Bell's argument that they should be able to bill like a Utility. Guess what the measure of billing for your electricity is... It's not by how much total watts you used in a month, but based on kw hours - a function of time, imagine that.

You pay for natural gas by volume/capacity (at least I do, but they come fill up a container in my back yard). But I can store it. Try to store your "unused" transfer capacity. Good luck on that.

I would love to start paying my home internet connection using percentiles, like you can do with fibre connections. Truth is, Bell would likely make LESS money though.
--
Windows is the virus. Linux is the vaccine, FreeBSD is the CURE

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:08:46 EDT

bt posted :

said by DKS:

said by SniperSlap:

said by bt:

In terms of broadband internet service - potential transmission has been the billing basis since it's inception.

Agree. Back in the days of Videon here in Winnipeg, the internet packages differentiated based on maximum speed of transmission. And the higher end packages were pretty pricey! None of them mentioned how much I could do with it because the notion was absurd.

No, it wasn't and it isn't. Bell used metered billing in any number of services outside of DSL, long before and afterward.

In terms of broadband internet service.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Sat, 05 Feb 2011 00:07:32 EDT

rastudio posted :

said by dillyhammer:

said by sbrook:

My Hydro account comprises

A flat fee for a connection and an account
A per kwhr charge for the energy used
A per kwhr charge for delivering that energy
A debt reduction fee
Regulatory charges (god only knows what those are!)

A hydro bill in Ontario is comprised of:

1. Electricity Charge (ToS for most)

2. Delivery Charge - Transmission - collected by Hydro One and the local utility to cover transmission costs from the generating plant to the local utility

3. Delivery Charge - Distribution - collected by the local utility to cover cost of infrastructure and customer service

4. Regulatory Charges - Wholesale Market Service Charge - collected by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO)

5.Regulatory Charges - Rural & Remote Subsidization - collected by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO)

6. Regulatory Charges - Standard Supply Service Charge - 25 cents per month to cover administrative costs.

7. Debt Retirement Charge (don't get me started)

Sorry for the noise.

Mike

and don't forget the HST

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:53:30 EDT

trainwreck6 posted :

said by sbrook:

FUBB as a charging model is NOT flawed.

FUBB or UBB or whatever as a decongestant is sorely flawed.

You can't say UBB is a flawed concept. It's what it's being used FOR that's flawed.

And what's worse, the way it's being advertised, conflating it with "Use More, Pay More" is flawed.

I would prefer that FUBB/UBB remain completely out of the picture for whatever nefarious purpose that ISPs use it for. At least for the first half of the 2010s, please.

Your arguments for UBB, in a fair way, are valid but we need to be as one now and reverse Bell and CRTC from interfering with some good competition. 80% or more of competitive advantage lies in being able to price high cap/unlimited packages, and, Egads, make money too!

If they really wanted UBB, they wouldn't have offered broadband unlimited so many years ago. What's different now than say, 15 years ago? Nothing, except cheaper hardware costs per megabit.
We should be demanding price DEcreases and speed increases/matching immediately.

In order to win this fight, sbrook, we must ask for much more than we are willing to settle for in the middle. Also, we must show a common front that UBB in ANY form is unacceptable in Canada.

TekSavvy came in existence PRECISELY because of their unlimited options. That's how they poached the most customers from Bhell and Robbers.

And if you're a "light" user, you can save a couple of bucks and get the capped service. Customer service, MLPPP, and flexibilities like ability to run servers were secondary factors as well.

You were correct in that Tek STILL makes money to this day with this model. UBB, on the other hand, as Bhell has bastardized it, is pure unfettered greed with a convenient side effect of killing the competition.

Lobbying also should be done in regard to the costs of dry loop/ULL and other current pass-through costs that Tek gets charged. This will allow Tek to charge a cheaper base rate, and THEN charge a UBB option without Bhell interference in the order of 2-10 cents/gig. Then you'd have an even cheaper plan than the 200 gig one for the "true" light users, or even offer a month-to-month user scale based on a reasonable cost.

But that's years down the road because we don't want to give any way on the UBB issue while we have millions of listening ears and education to give them.

So, sbrook and others, let us remain united, on message, and diametrically OPPOSE UBB. Let ISPs raise the rates if they want more money, but leave our choice of wholesale competition ALONE.

In short, keep Bhell's picking paws off our pipe.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:05:51 EDT

DKS posted :

said by SniperSlap:

said by bt:

In terms of broadband internet service - potential transmission has been the billing basis since it's inception.

No, it wasn't and it isn't. Bell used metered billing in any number of services outside of DSL, long before and afterward.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:22:41 EDT

sbrook posted : Yup, but therein is the problem bt, no accurate costings are available to justify the $2-$4 from Bell. When we know that TSI for example can charge 10c per GB when you go over their cap or that Bell was willingt o charge what was it 15c perGB in their insurance plan, there's something very wrong.

But again the reason they wanted UBB wasn't cost recovery as was stated very in the CRTC decision, it was for behaviour modification and that's what's wrong. So when they say it's only fair to pay as you go (which it very well may be if it's actually paying for the service), they're obfuscating the real reasons.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:12:25 EDT

bt posted :

said by SniperSlap:

Totally agree. This networking equipment's cost is a drop in the bucket compared to what they earn in a week after going live.

It is a drop in the bucket compared to their earnings, but it's also a drop in the bucket compared to their overall costs as well. That's why numbers like $0.03 are being tossed around in this thread as the "true" per GB transit cost (instead of $2 like with Bell).

Support staff, billing systems, support systems, marketing, non-networking facilities... they are all major costs as well.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:07:18 EDT

bt posted :

said by AVD:

Are you saying your routers died because of excessive internet traffic or time or something unrelated to consumption? Sounds like its more of a fixed cost than a usage cost, and $100 or $10,000 per router, its still a small pittance considering the potential traffic that could have went through them in that time frame.

It is a little of both. A router run at full load will burn out faster than one at minimal load, but the difference in lifespan isn't 1:1 with the difference in load.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:56:33 EDT

SniperSlap posted :

said by AVD:

Totally agree. This networking equipment's cost is a drop in the bucket compared to what they earn in a week after going live.

I still don't believe this network complexity and cost dilemma is exactly it. I'm still of the belief that UBB misrepresents and misleads.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:54:52 EDT

SniperSlap posted : Not to try and confuse the issue any further, but the public is entitled to a certain level of service as well. As a result of public infrastructure or investment.

This is a subject I'm a little hazy on and am dying to know just how much - especially here in Manitoba - of our network is actually ours and how much is out of our reach.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:53:41 EDT

AVD posted : Are you saying your routers died because of excessive internet traffic or time or something unrelated to consumption? Sounds like its more of a fixed cost than a usage cost, and $100 or $10,000 per router, its still a small pittance considering the potential traffic that could have went through them in that time frame.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
Atomic batteries to power. Turbines to speed.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:52:09 EDT

SniperSlap posted : Again, these are details they either have to make clear, or not obfuscate so much to me as a consumer.

I buy a rate of transmission, if I can't be guaranteed a level of service, then something is seriously wrong.

Again, I want to be able to use my connection to it's fullest and if I sign up for an 8Mbit connection, why should I not expect it when all the literature up until that point indicates that I should?

Sorry - I'm not really this naive. What I'm eluding to there is that marketers have gone too far. If that is the case. And I have no reason not to believe you sbrook :)

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:48:51 EDT

sbrook posted : "penalized for using your connection to its fullest potential"

There's a statement that needs some history to understand why I disagree.

TO make a very long story as short as possible ...

Internet is oversold ... it has to be to make it affordable.

Most users want a comparatively little bit of data when you look at the maximum they can get from the speed of their connection, because they want that data FAST. For the amount most people download, we should all be happy with a connection under 600Kbps ... but I don't know of many who would be!

So, ISPs sell a fast connection on the basis that they don't expect you to use it flat out. Now we have about 50 users sharing a connection. If you use your connection to its fullest potential, then 49 other people are going to have a shitty online experience! Fortunately few people actually do use it flat out!

BUT do our ISPs actually tell us this? Nope. They put nasty clauses in teh terms of service, like "Your use of the service should not interfere with its enjoyment by others in our sole opinion".

You aren't paying for a 5Mbps service ... you're paying for 600Kbps service that will speedboost when available to 5Mbps.

Good eh?

That's what congestion's about ... and that problem is worse on cable because the upstream *is* a limited commodity!

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:45:24 EDT

SniperSlap posted :

said by LastDon:

I'd like teksavvy's implentation

200gb

31.95

good enough for me

I doubt I'd have a problem with that, even on a frantic month. $31 is a great starting price no less. But something tells me Teksavvy likes to put their best foot forward...

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:43:12 EDT

SniperSlap posted :

said by sbrook:

Network strain does present a cost ... support calls :-) My internet's going awful slow now ... what's wrong? As a tech spends 20 minutes working on his script and eventually says "You must have malware" Run Norton. Hahahaha!

Haw, haw, haw.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:39:36 EDT

sbrook posted : Network strain does present a cost ... support calls :-) My internet's going awful slow now ... what's wrong? As a tech spends 20 minutes working on his script and eventually says "You must have malware" Run Norton. Hahahaha!

UBB is about how to bill for your service ... applied fairly is as perfectly reasonable a way to bill for your service as your hydro billing BUT it should *never* be touted as a network traffic management technique. And that's what I've been trying to say.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:39:34 EDT

SniperSlap posted : My comparison using consumer grade networking equipment wasn't to claim that it could run large networks.

Just that they deliver adequate throughput on a much smaller scale for what seems like a relatively decent price. You'll get no argument from me, most of it is garbage! :)

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:37:52 EDT

SniperSlap posted : In that regard, the cap for your connection should then be 2500GB. Not 60GB or whatever we'd be more likely to see today.

My rationale being that it should be proportional to your maximum speed and you should never be penalized for using your connection to it's fullest potential. We just can't have disincentive models in a competitive and modern setting.

Again, I still don't agree with pinching GB.

The way I see your example being advertised at a fair price is

"2500GB/mo 8Mbit connection!"
"4c/GB"

Then, if I completely d!ckslam my connection all month long, then yeah, my bill would be around $75. Seemingly fair for someone who would have basically set a record for most consistent frivolous waste of resources! ;)

Although I'd rather see data measured in bits, not gigabytes. And I've really only just pulled this example out of my nose to show you that I do understand.

But that I'm not 100% comfortable with it.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:34:56 EDT

bt posted :

said by SniperSlap:

It's incurred by how much strain you put on the network during a given moment. If you're billing me for anything else other than measuring me using what is actually finite, then I take strong issue with that.

Network strain is not the only source of transmission costs. It is no more finite than UBB.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:31:38 EDT

bt posted :

said by SniperSlap:

I wouldn't be surprised if the cost per GB is well into the fractions of a cent range. Otherwise somebody better call up d-link and tell them they've been under-charging for their consumer grade routers.

Consumer grade routers are a poor, poor comparison. They're built far, far cheaper because they can be. What goes into them is not the same as what goes into ISP grade routers.

said by SniperSlap:

Even understanding that I'm not a big ISP, you'd think somehow I'd see a cost in my own internal home networking if network service delivery was so onerous.

You do - home networking equipment needs to be upgraded or replaced on occasion. I'm on my 3rd router in 8 years (first replaced with a model with increased functionality, 2nd replaced because it died). Amortized costs were probably about $50 a year, plus another $5 or so for switches to expand network capacity. Add in cabling (wear and tear, increasing numbers of devices, future-proofing, etc) and it's probably another $40 a year - though both annual costs are skewed due to both the hardware and cables costing more to buy 8 years ago than they would to replace now Regardless, to date I've averaged about $95 a year on networking in my house for the entire time I've lived in it.

Now take the capacity, complexity and reliability of your home network and multiply it several hundred hundred thousand times.

This doesn't account for operational costs (ie: electricity, time spent for maintenance, space taken by the equipment) - while negligible for home usage, is not negligible for an ISP.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:29:09 EDT

bcrl posted :

said by BigByte:

Comparing hydro to internet isn't a fair comparison, but lets find out what the difference are. I don't know all the fact or numbers but neither does Konrad von Finckenstein so doesn't really matter in this comparison. Hydro you pay a flat fee for the delivery and then x number of dollars per kilowatt used. Internet you pay a flat fee for a monthly speed plan or your connection to deliver your data, and once you use more then your cap you pay for more data transfer.

Costs for hydro delivery are lower then the monthly internet plans and i find it hard to believe hydro infrastructure is cheaper to build then internet infrastructure. Hydro is consumed by using a power source or fuel to generate power to your home, that once used is gone and you need more fuel to generate more power.

Acutally, comparing internet services and hydro is fair. The only reason hydro delivery is priced lower than internet has to do with the timeframe over which the cost is amortized. Most businesses these days demand a return on investment in 1-2 years. The cost of the hydro infrastructure in Ontario is spread out over 20-30 years.

The other difference between hydro and internet services is that the cost of increasing the supply of internet is much lower once you have a fibre optic cable in place. Just a few thousand dollars will buy you a couple of new WDM SFPs and a CWDM or DWDM MUX and suddenly you have gigabits more of capacity. With hydro, you have to run new lines, build bigger transformer substations, etc -- hundreds of thousands of dollars and more.

said by BigByte:

GB's are not limited like fuel, a 1GB file can supply millions of downloads and still be a 1GB file it can not be used up like a resource.

We a getting told by crtc and bell and rodgers, that we need to pay for per GB's used and not telling people we the customers are already paying for our connection that is the true cost to them.

Bell is not going out of business selling monthly plans, but they need to use UBB to make more money and try to justify it by saying its necessary for controlling net congestion, yet they don't supply any hard number's for.

Peak capacity is limited (also easily expanded), but right now 3rd party ISPs cannot participate in providing the investment required to improve that capacity. Bell has made a business decision to use a good chunk of that peak capacity for its IPTV services. Whether that is the right decision for the general public is what the real issue should be in the UBB debate.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:26:03 EDT

sbrook posted : OK ...

I'm picking numbers for the purposes of fairly easy demonstration.

I have a cable for a connection from my house to my ISP ... it operates at 8Mbps ... i.e. I can transmit at 1 MBps. It costs me $100 per month.

Now operating full tilt 24/7, that line transmits approximately 2500 GB per month ...

So if I use that line full tilt it costs me approximately 4c per GB.

Now if I only use that line for say 8 hours a day and it sits idle for 12 but I'm paying for its convenience, that cost is now 12c per GB.

So, as long as my utilization averages out over time at about 33%, I'm paying about 12c per GB for that line.

Now you can add in other costs related to that line ... for example I have a commercial firewall router that costs about $1,000 new that I'll have to replace every say 3 years ... I can add that into the line's monthly cost. I can add in the power for that router into the cost ...

Even though that data has no intrinsic value as an intangible, it still has a value when I add in its transport cost. Sending that data (or wiring it the other way, receiving that data) is costing me money at say 20c per GB.

Financial analysts and accountants will sit down with their spread sheets and work out the costs and how to express them fairly accurately as a cost per GB for anything that is required to move that data. Sure part of that is a cost that doesn't vary with the amount moved ... but that's why the utilization rate is important ... and that's what makes it a fairly accurate number.

That's what it's all about.

But when Bell come up with rates of $2 to $5 per gig for transport, that's ridiculous.

And I reiterate, working out a UBB rate is about the cost of transport and has so little to do with preventing congestion it's nothing short of a joke on Bell's part.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:18:03 EDT

SniperSlap posted : ...which actually prompts a great example.

If my wife is uploading facebook pictures (something that really thrashes my connection), I don't start using smaller files.

I tell/wait for her to stop.

It has nothing to do with the size of my file and/or her file. It has to do with the congestion being created.

Again, network strain - the only figure you can bill someone for, otherwise you're billing them for something totally made up - is not incurred by total data transmitted.

It's incurred by how much strain you put on the network during a given moment. If you're billing me for anything else other than measuring me using what is actually finite, then I take strong issue with that.

If I'm buying a kg of bulk beans (and this isn't a technical analogy, but one of measure), why would the guy selling them to me base his fee on what the weather is today? Same thing. UBB as a billing mechanism is wholly unrelated to the strain I represented on the network.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:14:55 EDT

SniperSlap posted : I wouldn't be surprised if the cost per GB is well into the fractions of a cent range. Otherwise somebody better call up d-link and tell them they've been under-charging for their consumer grade routers.

Even understanding that I'm not a big ISP, you'd think somehow I'd see a cost in my own internal home networking if network service delivery was so onerous.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:14:15 EDT

LastDon posted : I'd like teksavvy's implentation

200gb

31.95

good enough for me

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:12:51 EDT

LastDon posted : there are companies out there selling it for

0.01
0.02cents

...................
you could probably find it for 1/2 a penny as well

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:11:25 EDT

SniperSlap posted : I'll repost my second "I know what you're going to say next" reply because I suspect you might not be internalizing my posts:

Sorry, just as another addition. I realize that you're saying "as a billing measure". But I'm saying: If they can bill me on totally made up grounds, how can UBB in any way be considered fair?

I'm saying on the grounds even of as a billing measure, there's nothing concrete for UBB to bill me on. It's entirely arbitrary.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:10:35 EDT

sbrook posted : What I'm trying to say, Sniper, is that as a BILLING MODEL for the purposes of transporting data to you (note that as you quite rightly point out and I've said several times, data doesn't have to be a tangible thing) you can sit down and work out a cost per GB to transport and with time, that cost will work out ... and will pay for new equipment (depreciation), increased capacity, maintenance, real estate, power, heat, staff, Tier 2 charges and so on. This is what accountants and financial analysts do ... and they do it remarkably well and accurately, which is how we can come up with costs to transport a gig of data at pennies, not dollars.

Bell in attempting to charge dollars per gig is trying to charge 100s times to much.

That part of UBB is wrong.

When you state that UBB is fundamentally flawed, that's what I've stated over and over that for actually paying the bills, it's not. For controlling use, it is flawed.

Remember that KvF and Bell are saying heavy users should pay more ... well that's not the controlling use argument ... that's a valid concept to pay the internet bills ... as long as it's done fairly. Bell and KvF Telling me that heavy users should pay more and that will eliminate congestion is a nonsense. I've said that all along.

It's not UBB that's flawed. It's UBB to control congestion that's flawed, and it's UNFAIR UBB that's flawed, and it's unfair hybrid UBB that's unfair where caps are set so low as to catch too many people in the UBB net, unless the base price is lowered.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:10:17 EDT

SniperSlap posted :

said by AVD:

said by DKS:

said by sbrook:

Internet is NOT unlimited. Not even close. It costs money to deliver that data.

And that is an absolute, foundational truth which has not been well-heard.

.03CAD/GB

How was this number derived? If the notion of measuring network strain in data transmitted is false, then the idea that you can assign a value to data is false as well.

If both come from the same sources (shills, telecom) then that explains enough for even that measure to be called into question.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:08:25 EDT

AVD posted :

said by DKS:

said by sbrook:

Internet is NOT unlimited. Not even close. It costs money to deliver that data.

And that is an absolute, foundational truth which has not been well-heard.

.03CAD/GB
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
Atomic batteries to power. Turbines to speed.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:02:46 EDT

SniperSlap posted : Sorry, just as another addition. I realize that you're saying "as a billing measure". But I'm saying: If they can bill me on totally made up grounds, how can UBB in any way be considered fair?

I'm saying on the grounds even of as a billing measure, there's nothing concrete for UBB to bill me on. It's entirely arbitrary.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:58:46 EDT

SniperSlap posted :

said by sbrook:

Inline responses, brace yourself! ;)

said by sbrook:

I have 1 letter; I send it by Canada post, it costs around 50c.
I have 2 letters; I send them by Canada post, it's around $1 etc.

You don't pay Canada Post dependent on the value of the letters

With respect, this analogy doesn't apply at all. You are talking about the exchange of physical materials with weight and a slew of variable costs associated to the transmission. Vastly more than the one-time cost of networking equipment and the nominal costs to have the equipment operating. I'm not denying there are similarities. But the two are far too dissimilar to be compatible with each other. Data may share aspects in common with a letter, but it's lifecycle is not nearly the same.

said by sbrook:

Whether the data has intrinsic value is irrelevant ... you're willing to pay an ISP to transport it to you and that's what you're paying for. You can pay to do that in several ways ... .

Presumptively: You have entered this assuming data is the finite component to internet services, which it is not. I have a 600MB ISO sitting on a Heanet server. I want to host it out. The finite component isn't that every time someone downloads those 600MB, they have to be replenished. The finite component is passing it along to me. What the data's value is, is irrelevant. Valuing network strain based on total data transferred is a false conclusion.

We continue...

said by sbrook:

1) You can pay per GB of data transported to you (complete UBB) and add to a monthly service fee

An embarrassing and regrettable farce for our entire nation. See: Cell phones.

said by sbrook:

2) You can pay a flat rate "unlimited" service (now that is still costing the ISP per GB of data transported, but averaged out across all users and added to a monthly service fee.

False again. We will not get any further in this discussion until you realize that network strain is not measured in data transmitted by billing cycle. I have provided ample evidence to show that the data transmitted (60GB), over a billing cycle manifesting in two completely opposing strains (30days vs. 1day).

If you cannot get past this, then we have identified the key flaw in why some people can't understand just how UBB is not how you ascertain how hard it was for a service provider to move information for you. It just doesn't work that way, I'm sorry.

Now, in faith, we continue...

said by sbrook:

3) You can have a hybrid capped service (where you have a Cap included as a flat fee e.g. up to 300 GB included and 5c per GB over that)

With

1) everybody pays for exactly what they have transported

2) light users are overbilled and heavy users are underbilled, but this has the advantage that everybody knows exactly what their bill is, and as long as the flat rate is reasonable most people don't care.

3) Light users are overbilled a little less, and heavy users underbilled a little less ... the advantage here is it keeps the flat rate down and if you stay below the caps you know exactly what you're going to pay. A reasonable compromise.

All three of these options - again - built on the misunderstanding that data transmitted over a billing cycle represents network strain are farces. You know my response to this already. UBB supporters keep repeating the same alternatives and options but refuse to listen to what people like me are saying. I'll repeat it again: You do not measure network strain in GB/month or data over a billing period.

said by sbrook:

Each has advantages. But the critical thing is that the billing must in every case be fair and in the case of a hybrid capped service, the cap must also be fair. And in the case of unlimited they contain an element of UBB ... but more to the point FUBB ... fair usage based billing.

There is no such thing as fair usage based billing. The entire system is made up on a misunderstanding on how computer networks incur strain.

said by sbrook:

But as you rightly point out,

...amongst other things...

said by sbrook:

this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with congestion or strain on the network ... it's purely about the cost of delivering bytes to you.

When I say that FUBB is valid, I'm talking about it as a way to pay for your internet connection, not to relieve congestion.

And I'm saying it's not. The numbers concocted by it infer nothing on the usage patterns of users and how those patterns present a burden to the network. If they have no foundation in how the network operates, then how can you possibly even conceive that they are fair? It would be like the network operators saying every time a rabbit runs through my yard, my bill goes up $10. It's completely made up! 100% and totally arbitrary with not an ounce of fairness factored in.

This is not taking into account the numerous flaws in the internal design of UBB which I don't entertain because the concept as a whole is an ideological mess.

said by sbrook:

Using UBB to control usage is simply the wrong way to ease congestion, since congestion is a problem related to the amount of use at a particular moment in time and not over the amount per month. Yes, we can in a very poor way relieve congestion by putting limits on how much you can have transported in any given month, but it's not guaranteed, because for example, if all users got on the net together on April 29 and streamed the Royal Wedding using up our 25 GB in one fell swoop, the net inside and outside an ISP would be worse than congested, it would stop!

Some math will demonstrate how pathetic using UBB to control usage for the purpose of relieving congestion actually is, and a little bit of simple logic as I've just shown with 1 simple example.

In other words UBB as a charging mechanism for service is quite a reasonable approach ... but it's fundamentally flawed as a mechanism for relieving congestion. And the truth probably is that Bell doesn't really care about congestion, they care about people spending $$$ at Netflix and ignoring Bell TV ... so they want to dissuade you from using Netflix, and want you to choose Bell TV by not charging you for data transported from Bell's IPTV service!

Am I right in understanding that with the rest of the post, you're somewhat agreeing with me? I'm trying to be nice, so please don't misread the tone in my posting here.

But I still maintain, usage over a billing period infers nothing. It just tells you how much data was moved. No analogy is going to serve it, just the same as we have so many troubles with patent law and technology. This is a new frontier and we're going to have to accept some new principles.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:57:38 EDT

sbrook posted : Stop looking at the wrong picture!

but you just proved that the point is the value of what's on that letter is irrelevant! But the point is Canada post doesn't care what's in those envelopes. Bell doesn't care (for billing purposes and that's what this discussion is: it's not about throttling!) what that data is and how much value it has.

Both only care about HOW many letters, how many gigs you're asking them to transport.

You're still missing what I'm trying to say here ...

Bell can use whatever mechanism it likes to charge TSI as long as it's fair ... they're charging right now a capacity based fee so in essence they're charging FUBB at a wholesale level. If TSI uses enough data to fill a connection, they have to pay for another connection. It works. This FUBB is aggregated for all TSI users.

There would be nothing wrong with Bell charging TSI a FUBB on the basis of an end user measured consumption (instead of the aggregated transport fee they're currently charging) ... TSI could generally estimate how to balance up the bills and then work out how to charge for unlimited of hybrid service. It's only because Bell's request was Unfair by a) double dipping for transport, and b) charging over 100 times more than the actual fair cost to transport that data that as a charging algorithm it fell apart, because TSI and other ISPs simply couldn't carry the potential costs and work out a fair end user charge to fit with the kinds of plans they have now.

And I say again, UBB whether "fair" or "unfair" does not work to relieve congestion in a reliable manner.

As I've said, for Bell, this is about ensuring you don't go out to the internet to get services like Netflix that Bell want to provide you with!

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:52:59 EDT

LastDon posted : Well thats what i mean.

They are already paid from teksavvy for the transit ,why are they trying to control what teksavvy and other offer.

Example: Not sure if i posted it here or somewhere else..

if they move everyone to 25gb how will it help congestion?
It wont.. if those 14people causing congestion go online at the same time , and download constantly until there 25 gig are up congestion will occur no?

Why is bell dictating the everyone has to follow their model..

Teksavvy already has plans for light, heavy, and heavier users.
bell has some plans that dont compare at all, but if teksavvy pay the fees what is it that the CRTC doesn't understand

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:47:26 EDT

sbrook posted : Nope, you're missing something LastDon ...

TekSavvy pays Bell ...

1) for your physical line rental (more if it's Dry Loop) per line
2) rental of the DSLAM per line
3) a capacity based fee for the connection from the CO to TekSavvy's Point of Interconnect.

TekSavvy pays someone

1) a capacity based fee to get the data to/from the POI to their routers at Toronto Front Street

TekSavvy pays facilities charges at Toronto Front Street which is partially capacity driven (more data = bigger faster routers)

TekSavvy pays Tier 2 providers

1) capacity based fees to transport data to "the internet cloud"

Now Yes, Bell recovers all their costs from the fees that TekSavvy pays and makes a profit. BUT part of that is capacity based and TekSavvy would have to adjust what they charge you if capacity were to increase and erode their profit.

The problem is that Bell wants to add a per user capacity fee (UBB) to that equation for heavier users when they're already being paid for that capacity.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:42:37 EDT

LastDon posted :

said by sbrook:

Sniper, you are not paying for data, you are paying for the transport of that data. It can be calculated out how much it costs to transport that data to you ... it's a little more complicated than Canada post ...

I have 1 letter; I send it by Canada post, it costs around 50c.
I have 2 letters; I send them by Canada post, it's around $1 etc.

But in that letter, you have a piece of paper, which a lot of information or one LINE of information

and with that, your paying 50cents.

You can write 100 lines and ship it out and still pay 50cents
you can write 1 line and it will still cost u 50cents.

so your theory is flawed.

Bell = Canada Post
Paper = ISP
what you can fit in the paper well you get the hint.

But instead of a letter you could have a picture of VFK , or you could have a something else.

Who am i to tell you what u can put in that envelope. We've seen worse.

So bell canada should act as what the ISP pay it for. a transit point.

and let the smaller ISP decide what to offer their customers .

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:39:24 EDT

LastDon posted : DKS,

this is where you are wrong..

We already PAY ..... a transmission fee.. and that fee bells collects
which is the 20+ they pay.

So bell in that aspect is covered, adn the crtc has said they recover all costs by that fee.

Now teksavvy as an example, buys from Peer1 Bandwidth,
therefore they are not invovling bell in the bandwidth specturm and since they already pay bell a 20$ fee, bell should be omitted from any other charges.

Its how it works, thats the correct model.

Why should bell Limit Teksavvy's bandwidth, ?
Since teksavvy pays 20 dollars per customer why ?
Who is bell to double dip, in the 20$ and than in the bandwidth that teksavvy buys elsewhere?

Bells purpose in this is just a tramission base to care the info which they are FULLY paid for.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:34:41 EDT

sbrook posted : Sniper, you are not paying for data, you are paying for the transport of that data. It can be calculated out how much it costs to transport that data to you ... it's a little more complicated than Canada post ...

I have 1 letter; I send it by Canada post, it costs around 50c.
I have 2 letters; I send them by Canada post, it's around $1 etc.

You don't pay Canada Post dependent on the value of the letters

Whether the data has intrinsic value is irrelevant ... you're willing to pay an ISP to transport it to you and that's what you're paying for. You can pay to do that in several ways ... .

1) You can pay per GB of data transported to you (complete UBB) and add to a monthly service fee

2) You can pay a flat rate "unlimited" service (now that is still costing the ISP per GB of data transported, but averaged out across all users and added to a monthly service fee.

3) You can have a hybrid capped service (where you have a Cap included as a flat fee e.g. up to 300 GB included and 5c per GB over that)

With

1) everybody pays for exactly what they have transported

2) light users are overbilled and heavy users are underbilled, but this has the advantage that everybody knows exactly what their bill is, and as long as the flat rate is reasonable most people don't care.

3) Light users are overbilled a little less, and heavy users underbilled a little less ... the advantage here is it keeps the flat rate down and if you stay below the caps you know exactly what you're going to pay. A reasonable compromise.

Each has advantages. But the critical thing is that the billing must in every case be fair and in the case of a hybrid capped service, the cap must also be fair. And in the case of unlimited they contain an element of UBB ... but more to the point FUBB ... fair usage based billing.

But as you rightly point out, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with congestion or strain on the network ... it's purely about the cost of delivering bytes to you.

When I say that FUBB is valid, I'm talking about it as a way to pay for your internet connection, not to relieve congestion.

Using UBB to control usage is simply the wrong way to ease congestion, since congestion is a problem related to the amount of use at a particular moment in time and not over the amount per month. Yes, we can in a very poor way relieve congestion by putting limits on how much you can have transported in any given month, but it's not guaranteed, because for example, if all users got on the net together on April 29 and streamed the Royal Wedding using up our 25 GB in one fell swoop, the net inside and outside an ISP would be worse than congested, it would stop!

Some math will demonstrate how pathetic using UBB to control usage for the purpose of relieving congestion actually is, and a little bit of simple logic as I've just shown with 1 simple example.

In other words UBB as a charging mechanism for service is quite a reasonable approach ... but it's fundamentally flawed as a mechanism for relieving congestion. And the truth probably is that Bell doesn't really care about congestion, they care about people spending $$$ at Netflix and ignoring Bell TV ... so they want to dissuade you from using Netflix, and want you to choose Bell TV by not charging you for data transported from Bell's IPTV service!

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:28:28 EDT

SniperSlap posted :

said by BigByte:

To expand on some of the points in this thread, what rodger's and bell doesn't tell us is that what causes more congestion is the speed of your connection not the data transfer. Roders offers 50Mbit service for $99 a month and 175GB cap, so some rough numbers would be you could at full speed transfer 175GB of data in 8 hours!. Wow what a bargin plus, 50Mbit/s is 10 times faster then the 5Mbit/s service but only $67 more or around 3 times the cost. So is the crtc fine with someone useing 10 times more available speed for only 3 times the cost?.

These sorts of calculations are great, because they reinforce my point that the entire premise of UBB is absurd.

It's a cynical and made up methodology for gauging network strain. Not a shred of evidence has yet to come up in support of UBB. Only some pointy-haired economic bluster.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:25:29 EDT

BigByte posted : To expand on some of the points in this thread, what rodger's and bell doesn't tell us is that what causes more congestion is the speed of your connection not the data transfer. Roders offers 50Mbit service for $99 a month and 175GB cap, so some rough numbers would be you could at full speed transfer 175GB of data in 8 hours!. Wow what a bargin plus, 50Mbit/s is 10 times faster then the 5Mbit/s service but only $67 more or around 3 times the cost. So is the crtc fine with someone useing 10 times more available speed for only 3 times the cost?.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:18:20 EDT

GNca George posted :

said by CanadianRip:

Time of use is based on peak usage. A simple concept that was not even considered in the last UBB proposal. Hydro needs to build out infrastructure for its peak demand time. Same with ISP's, we're in agreement here.

The difference we have is this UBB proposal is not sophisticated enough to deal with the user that decides to push off their heavy traffic over-night versus the person who does it at 9pm in the evening.

Hydro has managed to incorporate that into their billing recently. Yet here we are the most high-tech industry and we have legislation that passes that hasn't even caught up with technology invented at the turn of the 20th century.

Exactly right. Couldn't agree more.

The old saying is: "Give away the capacity you can't sell, charge for the capacity you can sell, and charge double when customers are contending for capacity."

So you charge a reasonable base fee that covers the cost of providing the service. Then you charge a really cheap overnight rate, a moderate daytime rate, and a higher prime-time evening rate. You start your billing at zero and work from there.

Small consumers get a break, most consumers pay about the same as today, large consumers pay more, but hopefully they are getting a break overall as their TV bills should have dropped with a bit of luck.

The customer gets to decide what they want to use and what they want to pay for. You are providing encouragement to balance the load and an opportunity to moderate costs.

I don't watch streams very often, I get my TV from a newsgroup server in the Netherlands, mainly at night because the App has a scheduler in it. Works great for me, but at least this option provides choice and competition.

Geo
--
Tough Broadband for a Tough Crowd!
"My logisticians are a humorless lot...they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay."
Alexander of Macedonia

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:15:42 EDT

SniperSlap posted :

said by bt:

In terms of broadband internet service - potential transmission has been the billing basis since it's inception.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:14:26 EDT

dillyhammer posted :

said by sbrook:

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:13:48 EDT

bt posted :

said by DKS:

said by bt:

said by DKS:

But potential for transmission is variable and not measurable.

Umm........ No. Potential transmission is definitely fixed both fixed and measurable. Actual transmission is variable, but is still measurable.

But is not measured as a source for billing. A 200 amp service costs the same as a 60 amp service.

In terms of broadband internet service - potential transmission has been the billing basis since it's inception.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:13:10 EDT

BigByte posted :

said by SniperSlap:

said by sbrook:

Measuring congestion and measuring for billing for the service are two different things.

UBB (as in FUBB - Fair Usage Based Billing) as a charging tool for ISP service in general is OK

No. Stop right there. Totally disagree. I take strong issue with UBB at the same level people take units of measure seriously with weights and measures regulation.
UBB is worse than mis-calibrating your scales, it's inventing your own completely made up unit of measure with arbitrary valuation.
You are not correctly measuring a consumable with UBB of any variety. What you are measuring is data and as other posters here have indicated and as I will reiterate, data is not finite.

What is finite is the potential for data transmission. I've never denied the possibility that bandwidth can become scarce.

But ISPs want us to believe:

o Total data transmitted represents strain.
o We can use more of our connection than we are sold.
o One user using a connection *takes away* from another user (see previous point).

To save my fingers: »tinyurl.com/UBBExplained

Of note to take away from my explanation there, understand that 60GB transmitted over 30 days is vastly different in terms of strain to 60GB transmitted in one or two. When you go to google and type in 60GB / 30 days, they don't tell you $50. They don't give you a list of internet package prices sorted by region. They tell you a rate of transfer.

Data has no intrinsic value as it is neither finite nor the property of the ISP. Amongst other paradoxes it presents by nature to our outdated models of valuation.

If I'm a "heavy user" the only person who will have a problem with it is me. At which point, I either upgrade or live with it. The ISPs are trying to use UBB to rationalize selling a level of service without actually delivering it. I buy 1Mbit/s of speed, I get 1Mbit/s of speed. If the ISPs have oversold themselves, they need to upgrade. One subscription fee per level of service is all they need, not two.

I grabbed the right end of the stick because I was one of the earlier people who ripped it off the tree in this whole ordeal.

Great post i agree 100%

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:09:57 EDT

CanadianRip posted :

said by DKS:

Huh? My bill is based on how many kilowatt hours I use. It is modified by a series of discounts, based on Time of Use. Larger accounts are based on Peak Demand, where you are billed at a certain rate based on the highest rate of use.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:07:20 EDT

DKS posted :

said by bt:

said by DKS:

But potential for transmission is variable and not measurable.

Umm........ No. Potential transmission is definitely fixed both fixed and measurable. Actual transmission is variable, but is still measurable.

But is not measured as a source for billing. A 200 amp service costs the same as a 60 amp service.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:04:57 EDT

DKS posted :

said by BigByte:

Comparing hydro to internet isn't a fair comparison, but lets find out what the difference are.

Why not? You pay x per kilowatt hour. An ISP can easily charge you x per megabyte and factor in all costs, including cost of transmission. That's how it used to be. It's not rocket science and it's the way Bell used to bill data.

Costs for hydro delivery are lower then the monthly internet plans and i find it hard to believe hydro infrastructure is cheaper to build then internet infrastructure.

Believe it. Other than nuclear generation, Hydro infrastructure is basic engineering.

GB's are not limited like fuel, a 1GB file can supply millions of downloads and still be a 1GB file it can not be used up like a resource.

But a GB is the same as a kilowatt.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

Re: Michael Geist refocuses the debate on UBB

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:55:21 EDT

SniperSlap posted :

said by sbrook:

Measuring congestion and measuring for billing for the service are two different things.

UBB (as in FUBB - Fair Usage Based Billing) as a charging tool for ISP service in general is OK

No. Stop right there. Totally disagree. I take strong issue with UBB at the same level people take units of measure seriously with weights and measures regulation.
UBB is worse than mis-calibrating your scales, it's inventing your own completely made up unit of measure with arbitrary valuation.
You are not correctly measuring a consumable with UBB of any variety. What you are measuring is data and as other posters here have indicated and as I will reiterate, data is not finite.

What is finite is the potential for data transmission. I've never denied the possibility that bandwidth can become scarce.

But ISPs want us to believe:

o Total data transmitted represents strain.
o We can use more of our connection than we are sold.
o One user using a connection *takes away* from another user (see previous point).
o That there is some kind of shortage going on.

To save my fingers: »tinyurl.com/UBBExplained

Of note to take away from my explanation there, understand that 60GB transmitted over 30 days is vastly different in terms of strain to 60GB transmitted in one or two. When you go to google and type in 60GB / 30 days, they don't tell you $50. They don't give you a list of internet package prices sorted by region. They tell you a rate of transfer.

Data has no intrinsic value as it is neither finite nor the property of the ISP. Amongst other paradoxes it presents by nature to our outdated models of valuation.

If I'm a "heavy user" the only person who will have a problem with it is me. At which point, I either upgrade or live with it. The ISPs are trying to use UBB to rationalize selling a level of service without actually delivering it. I buy 1Mbit/s of speed, I get 1Mbit/s of speed. If the ISPs have oversold themselves, they need to upgrade. One subscription fee per level of service is all they need, not two.

I grabbed the right end of the stick because I was one of the earlier people who ripped it off the tree in this whole ordeal.