Canada to Introduce Internet Usage-Based Billing

[notorious bum]

Canadian Bacon isn't that great anyways.

[kuronosan]

How the fuck are you guys even using that much bandwidth? What the hell are you torrenting?

[Bingbong]

How the fuck are you guys even using that much bandwidth? What the hell are you torrenting?

an HD/Blu-Ray movie runs in the multi-gig range... if you got Netflix, or use Steam for anything...
It's not unheard of to DL'd 15 movies a month, plus the gaming up and down for an entire month. I don't consider my internet usage heavy, yet I'd be worried if something like this hit the states.

[Cantih]

TV mainly, BBC stuff that isn't simulcasting in America. Fansubbed anime.
Also, have no DVR/VoD (or cable at all, tbh), so If I miss a show, or two shows I watch are in the same time slot, I torrent the one I missed.
A 1 hour (40-45 min -commercials) show generally takes up 1/3 a GB.

There's odd bit of porn, PSP .iso, RPG .pdf.
And that's just torrent, doesn't count browsing/youtube/rapidshare/FFXI.

[Uzor]

According to their site, the biggest package I can get is 170 GB down + 30 GB up for 150$ a month (versus 55$ for the 60 GB total). Each extra GB is 1.50$, with no limit.

So if my math is right, with your usage and their fees, it would cost you an extra...2700$ a month!

I did some more research and figured out why this is "new":



The smaller ISPs use the big guys' networks, so I guess this had to happen sooner or later... personally I've been pulling a steady ~50 GB a month for some time and don't really need more, but I see why people are upset now.

Seriously? Wow, that's expensive. Bredbandsbolaget in Sweden offer internet speed of 100 Mbit/s for $25 a month without a cap. Your internet costs are batshit-insane.

[aurik]

Usage based billing is in general a good thing.

Having 1 company with a monopoly over the infrastructure that can set retarded rates throws a monkey wrench in that, unfortunately.

[Correction]

So is it finally cheaper to ship hard drives overnight with movies and pirated software on them than to torrent them via canadian internet, at last?

[Darus Grey]

Usage based billing is in general a good thing.

Having 1 company with a monopoly over the infrastructure that can set retarded rates throws a monkey wrench in that, unfortunately.

Except there's nothing to use, because bandwidth isn't a resource.

I won't go into the whole spiel because I know most of you have already heard it from me, but any "USE" based billing for data communications is a scam .

The only reason to implement it is because:

A: ) to rip you off
B: ) because they refuse to update their infrastructure to support the needs of modern society, and they don't have to because they're a monopoly

Use based billing is never justified for how data communications actually works.

[aurik]

Except there's nothing to use, because bandwidth isn't a resource.

I won't go into the whole spiel because I know most of you have already heard it from me, but any "USE" based billing for data communications is a scam .

The only reason to implement it is because:

A: ) to rip you off
B: ) because they refuse to update their infrastructure to support the needs of modern society, and they don't have to because they're a monopoly

Use based billing is never justified for how data communications actually works.

You could say the same about roads "they're not a resource", but someone still has to build the road network, someone still has to maintain the road network, someone still has to police the road network to make sure everyone is able to use it, that people aren't clogging it up or using it in a manner that prevents others from sharing the road. So, in a lot of respects it's a lot like bandwidth. And we generally have usage-based billing for roads, through gasoline taxes (there's also non-usage based billing through property taxes and such, but w/e)

The main problem is not that we're getting usage-based billing, but that when The Powers That Own The Network decide to charge $5/gb when it costs them half a cent to actually deliver it, another company can't come in and undercut them.

There's several reasons for this, one of which is that the network connections are essentially built on Public Right of Way (same land that sewers, power, phone, cable etc also run) and the use of that land is regulated by the government because they don't want useless/redundant infrastructure built, so they prevent anyone but Bell / Rogers from running last-mile network connections. Then, they fail to effectively regulate the amount that Bell / Rogers can charge for the use of that last-mile connection.

If you're going to legislate a monopoly, you absolutely must regulate it. They should force Bell/Rogers to run that infrastructure at cost + 10%, and tell them to fuck off when Bell/Rogers inevitably whines about not being able to turn more of a profit on that infrastructure.

[Omniyoji]

OMG 175GB is not enough, plus it's $100!

Holy shit, that is highway robbery.

^

How the fuck are you guys even using that much bandwidth? What the hell are you torrenting?

In addition to what Canith & Bingbong said, it really does add up quickly when you take everything to account.

wth Canada, aside from the weather, I thought you were supposed to be the land of awesome.

Also this ^

I'd really hate to see this happen here nationally. I don't think it ever will (capped as the only option). You guys should get Tron to help you out:

[Snick]

You could say the same about roads "they're not a resource", but someone still has to build the road network, someone still has to maintain the road network, someone still has to police the road network to make sure everyone is able to use it, that people aren't clogging it up or using it in a manner that prevents others from sharing the road. So, in a lot of respects it's a lot like bandwidth. And we generally have usage-based billing for roads, through gasoline taxes (there's also non-usage based billing through property taxes and such, but w/e)

The internet is not a series of roads, it's a series of tubes.

[Kerberoz]

How the fuck are you guys even using that much bandwidth? What the hell are you torrenting?

Moderately-compressed BD-rips are like 10GB each...

[Skidz]

wth Canada, aside from the weather, I thought you were supposed to be the land of awesome.

common misconception...

[Darus Grey]

You could say the same about roads "they're not a resource", but someone still has to build the road network, someone still has to maintain the road network, someone still has to police the road network to make sure everyone is able to use it, that people aren't clogging it up or using it in a manner that prevents others from sharing the road. So, in a lot of respects it's a lot like bandwidth. And we generally have usage-based billing for roads, through gasoline taxes (there's also non-usage based billing through property taxes and such, but w/e)

The main problem is not that we're getting usage-based billing, but that when The Powers That Own The Network decide to charge $5/gb when it costs them half a cent to actually deliver it, another company can't come in and undercut them.

There's several reasons for this, one of which is that the network connections are essentially built on Public Right of Way (same land that sewers, power, phone, cable etc also run) and the use of that land is regulated by the government because they don't want useless/redundant infrastructure built, so they prevent anyone but Bell / Rogers from running last-mile network connections. Then, they fail to effectively regulate the amount that Bell / Rogers can charge for the use of that last-mile connection.

If you're going to legislate a monopoly, you absolutely must regulate it. They should force Bell/Rogers to run that infrastructure at cost + 10%, and tell them to fuck off when Bell/Rogers inevitably whines about not being able to turn more of a profit on that infrastructure.

Let me preface this by saying lolanalogies, I won't get into that argument if you decide to keep dissecting the analogy(not hostile, but at that point we're arguing the analogy and not the subject).

Next off, they are not like roads because:

Roads wear down from use, communication lines don't, the vast majority of them will remain undisturbed for the majority of their lifespan. Whereas the very act of their use wears down a road, communication lines only require spot maintenance when a outside force(weather, seismic events, cars, dumbasses with pruning polearms, etc) interfere.
"Maintaining infrastructure" is not even a carriers major cost(their biggest cost is customer service, and we know how much they skimp on that).

Paying a usage tax for roads make sense because as stated, they degrade based on use. This does not make sense with communications lines.

Roads also require significant space-time for expansion, to a limited degree you can build vertical multi-tiered roads to expand their "bandwidth", but this is unpractical for a lot of reasons.

However, for data communications, expanding the bandwidth is as simple as adding additional hardware,until you reach the point where the communication lines are physically incapable, we're less than 1% there as a note, it's our signal methods that are limiting us, hence docsis1...2...3...5000% increase in speed over 20 years with no change to the actual lines. The equipment I'm speaking of is practically negligible in cost, when a 50k ISP/enterprise level router might service 10,000+ customers(or 100,000 as outlined below).

If an ISP had 1000MB of banswidth, and sold it in lots of 50MB, they could support 20 customers and never have to worry about network usage.

Now I live in the real world, this doesn't make a lot of sense because we know not everyone uses 100% of their bandwidth at every moment of every day, so they start load balancing. If the average user only uses 100% of their bandwidth 20% of the time they can now support 100 customers off that same piece of hardware.

"Usage" based billing is the extreme end of the load-balancing based sales philosophy.

By making it cost prohibitive(with made up fees) to use your bandwidth 100% of the time, they reduce it even further.

Let's say I have a data-cap of 250gb with this provider. In theory if I used 100% of my bandwith I could download about 129,600 GB per month.

By imposing this cap, where the majority of users won't exceed 250gb, I can now support 10,000 customers on this same piece of hardware. Realistically more like 6,000 because of taking into account prime-time and usage peaks.

Point is:

At no point did my cost increase significantly, I just ripped off progressively more customers when I would still be making a good profit servicing 20-100 with the original hardware. Instead of being responsible and delivering what I sold to each individual customer.


No one who understands how this shit works could sanely advocate usage based billing, inform yourself.

[Thoronas]

Don't worry everyone, Prime Minister Stephen Harper tweeted that he would be investigating the CRTC's ruling. Problem solved.

[Cream Soda]

Well, if I get a woman pregnant, I guess the back up plan has changed to Mexico

[shaddix]

Hm that is a terrible chart. I would run up $712 in overage charges on their ultimate plan if I was using it last July

[Siniroth]

Nah, they'd charge you an extra $50 twice, read my spiel about it after chart that much higher they'd probably shut off your internet though, or severely limit your connection speeds till the next month

[aurik]

Let me preface this by saying lolanalogies, I won't get into that argument if you decide to keep dissecting the analogy(not hostile, but at that point we're arguing the analogy and not the subject).

Next off, they are not like roads because:

Roads wear down from use, communication lines don't, the vast majority of them will remain undisturbed for the majority of their lifespan. Whereas the very act of their use wears down a road, communication lines only require spot maintenance when a outside force(weather, seismic events, cars, dumbasses with pruning polearms, etc) interfere.
"Maintaining infrastructure" is not even a carriers major cost(their biggest cost is customer service, and we know how much they skimp on that).

Paying a usage tax for roads make sense because as stated, they degrade based on use. This does not make sense with communications lines.

Roads also require significant space-time for expansion, to a limited degree you can build vertical multi-tiered roads to expand their "bandwidth", but this is unpractical for a lot of reasons.

However, for data communications, expanding the bandwidth is as simple as adding additional hardware,until you reach the point where the communication lines are physically incapable, we're less than 1% there as a note, it's our signal methods that are limiting us, hence docsis1...2...3...5000% increase in speed over 20 years with no change to the actual lines. The equipment I'm speaking of is practically negligible in cost, when a 50k ISP/enterprise level router might service 10,000+ customers(or 100,000 as outlined below).

If an ISP had 1000MB of banswidth, and sold it in lots of 50MB, they could support 20 customers and never have to worry about network usage.

Now I live in the real world, this doesn't make a lot of sense because we know not everyone uses 100% of their bandwidth at every moment of every day, so they start load balancing. If the average user only uses 100% of their bandwidth 20% of the time they can now support 100 customers off that same piece of hardware.

"Usage" based billing is the extreme end of the load-balancing based sales philosophy.

By making it cost prohibitive(with made up fees) to use your bandwidth 100% of the time, they reduce it even further.

Let's say I have a data-cap of 250gb with this provider. In theory if I used 100% of my bandwith I could download about 129,600 GB per month.

By imposing this cap, where the majority of users won't exceed 250gb, I can now support 10,000 customers on this same piece of hardware. Realistically more like 6,000 because of taking into account prime-time and usage peaks.

Point is:

At no point did my cost increase significantly, I just ripped off progressively more customers when I would still be making a good profit servicing 20-100 with the original hardware. Instead of being responsible and delivering what I sold to each individual customer.


No one who understands how this shit works could sanely advocate usage based billing, inform yourself.

I find it pretty ironic that you ask me to "inform myself" when I'm in the tech industry, have a comp sci degree, and thus basically know exactly how this shit works down to how the fucking circuits actually operate.

Anyway, don't be dumb. Everything, including networks, erode and require maintenance. Sure, they don't fall apart because gigantic trucks drive on them, but nonetheless they require effort to keep in working order. They are susceptible to natural disasters, non-natural disasters, and of course the ever present spectre of overcrowding as demand grows exponentially.

And this all costs money. And somebody's going to have to pay for it. Thus, the questions are:
a) who pays, and
b) what proportion do they pay

The obvious answers are
a) whoever uses it, and
b) in proportion of their use to the overall use

If you have any other method you'd like to suggest we use to proportion the cost, I'm all ears.

But here's the thing. Bell/Rogers are greedy: they are corporations whose sole existence is justified by how greedy they can be on behalf of their shareholders. They have a monopoly which means guess what, when we have metered billing we aren't just paying the 0.1 cent that the gigabyte of data actually costs once you amortize ALL the costs of installing the network, maintaining the network, paying techs, paying executives, etc.

No. They're going to charge whatever the market will bear and, lacking viable alternatives, that's going to be just enough that the government doesn't come down on their monopoly like a ton of bricks.

Here's what I wish they would do: force Rogers/Bell to spin off the division that runs the regulated hardware (ie, the last-mile connections). That division must now report less than X% profit, and ALL profits must be reinvested in infrastructure improvements. That division must offer to resell bandwidth to 3rd parties at the same rates that it sells to Rogers/Bell.

[Darus Grey]

If you have any other method you'd like to suggest we use to proportion the cost, I'm all ears.

I already suggested it. I pay for 50mb of bandwidth, you let me use my 50mb of bandwidth as I see fit. Problem. Fucking. Solved.

The disconnect here is that you for some reason see this as user encroachment, when it's the simple fact that these companies oversell and overpromise and then attempt to punish users because their infrastructure can't support the number of users they sold it to. Instead of actually expanding, at all, they just put in cheap road-blocks to limit use, and then keep selling it to even more.

If I am paying for a subset of the bandwidth spectrum(you know, like ISPs themselves do), then I am well within my rights to use it, to it's full extent.

What you don't seem to understand...somehow...is that whether I use 0MB of my bandwidth or 50MB of it 100% of the time...*doesn't cost any more or less*, except that when I'm not using it, they sell it to someone else(or are selling it to me depending on where you're looking from).

It's like claiming that by having a router in my home, it costs me significantly more to send a 500GB file over to another PC on my network than a 100GB one, it's absolutely ridiculous(and well technically true, the electrical cost in the difference between the two is minuscule, 99% of the electrical usage is just from the device being ON at all).

I know we've had this discussion like three times now over the years, and frankly you haven't learned a thing. You're still stuck in this mindset of "bandwidth as a resource" and it shows clearly in how you view this. Bandwidth is a delivery pipe, users should be paying for their SHARE of that pipe, and be allowed to use it however they want. It's not like water, or electricity, or gas you're not actually sending a physical commodity down the pipe that gets used up, we can create, for practical purposes, an infinite amount of data "usage"

I find it pretty ironic that you ask me to "inform myself" when I'm in the tech industry, have a comp sci degree, and thus basically know exactly how this shit works down to how the fucking circuits actually operate.

There is no reason to mention this other than to be a douchebag, which is bizarre because you know I outrank you in terms of "comp sci degree", but I don't mention it, because you and I both know it's not fucking relevant and only goes to a lame attempt to impress other people who don't know better than me.

Yes, I'm crabby today.

You are correct that ultimately these monopolies will do whatever they can just short of a government crack-down however, we don't disagree there at all. I just don't understand how you can support "usage based".

To be fair, if "usage based" actually meant paying a FAIR amount like you suggest(Last I knew, the functional cost was like $200/petabyte at the backbone end, mark it up with maintence costs +10% and I'll take that deal, probably a lot lower, that was like 5yrs ago), I wouldn't oppose it, but as I point out, the very nature of internet usage is a flawed metric to begin with, and we should simply be paying for bandwidth share. Which is supposedly what we've been doing all along(least in the US), until companies started getting greedy.