[imp>dom]

from unknown source:

Shaw may go ahead with usage-based Internet billing
Conference call involving company CEO leaked
Amanda Wawryk Apr 25, 2011 07:22:13 AM
3 Related Stories

•Canadians heavy Internet users
•Shaw: Plans to charge for going over internet limit on hold
•PM could overturn CRTC's Internet usage decision
VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - It's a plan that has drawn condemnation from web-surfers and online gamers all over BC. This morning, there is word Shaw Communications is going to move forward with usage-based billing.

OpenMedia.ca has posted a recording of a conference call between shareholders and top executives at Shaw that apparently took place April 13th.

The non-profit advocacy group says in the recording, Shaw admits it plans to go ahead with internet metering. "Our customers have said they are willing to pay more for a higher quality of service," says CEO Bradley S. Shaw.

One shareholder asked if this would happen this year. "We are certainly going to clarify our pricing and packaging plans probably in the late spring, probably late May or early June," he added.

Shaw pulled back on the implementation earlier this year after outrage and countless complaints from users.

If, or when, Shaw moves forward with usage-based billing, customers would pay a flat rate for Internet usage, as well as extra charges for going over their monthly limit.

An article posted on the Open Media website says, "At this point in Canada’s electoral race, citizens have seen three parties firmly adopt stances against the new fees on Internet use: Green, NDP, and Liberal party leaders have signed on as pro-Internet candidates... thereby agreeing to stop the pay meter on our Internet."

[Neva]

last i heard on the news was that they were going to implement after elections because they didn't want their changes to effect election results...FUCK THIS!

[TheNewGirl]

If you don't like this, Vote for the Internet.

Vote anyone but Harper.

[LiquidTurbo]

Wasn't the NDP promising to do something about this?

[Manic!]

Wasn't the NDP promising to do something about this?

Yep. Harper on the other hand :whistle:.

http://www.ndp.ca/stop-the-ubb-join-me

[Geoc]

Wasn't Tony Clement putting a stop to the UBB until the elections came about? Talk about bad timing.

[Great68]

I don't like calling this whole thing "Usage" based billing. It's more like "Over-arbitrarily-set-plan-data-limit" based billing.

If it were true "Usage" based billing, shaw would be refunding me for the data of my cap I DON'T use.

[imp>dom]

^ yep good point

[dangonay]

If you don't like this, Vote for the Internet.

Vote anyone but Harper.

Last thing I'm going to do is vote some idiot into power over something as trivial as Internet fees. Money wise, this won't even put a dent into my pocketbook. On the other hand, there are other policies of each party/platform that will have a significant effect on my bottom line. Those are what I'll consider when I vote.

We know you hate Harper and the Conservatives, but it's a little tiring seeing you use any opportunity you can to talk about it.

[mauricetan]

Good thing i left shaw and transferred to telus optik high speed turbo... hopefully telus won't be doing this... optik high speed turbo is awesome! download speed is always around 22-23mbps...upload speed is around 2mbps

[Great68]

hopefully telus won't be doing this...

I wouldn't count on it.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110424/bc_metered_internet_110424/20110425?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Telus spokesman Shawn Hall told CTV News his company will also be implementing usage-based fees later this year for anyone exceeding their monthly cap.


But at least Telus offers a higher data allowand cap on their equivalent tier'd plan.

But that's the thing that bothers me, the caps are totally arbitrary, Telus and Shaw set the limit themselves. What's to stop them from lowering their caps, or to never increase them for a long time in hopes of making profit from overage charges???

[TheNewGirl]

Last thing I'm going to do is vote some idiot into power over something as trivial as Internet fees. Money wise, this won't even put a dent into my pocketbook. On the other hand, there are other policies of each party/platform that will have a significant effect on my bottom line. Those are what I'll consider when I vote.

We know you hate Harper and the Conservatives, but it's a little tiring seeing you use any opportunity you can to talk about it.

I think you're trivializing what actually is an important issue. The Usage Based Billing is actually the small tip of a a large iceberg regarding internet access, freedoms and rights.

While all of us here are on the internet we don't realize that 30% of Canadians can't get broad band internet which is a big detriment to business and educational development in rural areas of our country. We are one of the ONLY developed countries that doesn't have a federal broadband plan to remedy these issues. The NDP is the only party that's addressed this particular issue.

Further the Cons support a lot of digital copy right and privacy evasion policies that DO effect you.

ALL the party leaders besides the Cons have joined the Vote For the Internet movement to support free rights and increased access (to different degrees) and to end this idiotic UBB bill.

I know you love Harper. I know you blindly buy his bull shit notion that he's the only one who can save the country. A monkey held him up on a mountain some where when he was born while Elton John sang the circle of life I'm sure. But isn't it a little tiring having you dismiss and be little issues that matter to some people because they don't matter to you?

[Mr.HappySilp]

I was going to vote for Cons but seeing how they are doing nothing about this whole UBB thing I am thinking of voting the NDP.

Internet means a lot to me. My parents watches Chinese TV shows on PPS since the chinese show here is crap and is like 2years old. Also with PPS they can watch it anytime they like. My sister also download moves and songs online and I like to download movies, PPS and Netflix. Also we feed wireless to the tenates downstairs. Really 100GB isn't going to cut it.

We are paying way too much for Internet service in Canada. It cost 1.8cents per GB from these huge IPS to transfer the data to you.

Also data is always being transfer once the network is built it will always be there. Think of the Highways are the networks and cars are data. The Highways are always there regardless if there is only 1 car using or 10 cars are using it it will ALWAYS BE THERE. So SHAW, Telus, Bell saying they need to charge more because some people use too much data is dumb and stupid.

If all these IPS agure they need the the extra money to build their network is dumb as well. LAST YEAR SHAW have a over 46% pore profit so if you paid them $100 $46 is profit for them.

[Manic!]

I was going to vote for Cons but seeing how they are doing nothing about this whole UBB thing I am thinking of voting the NDP.

Internet means a lot to me. My parents watches Chinese TV shows on PPS since the chinese show here is crap and is like 2years old. Also with PPS they can watch it anytime they like. My sister also download moves and songs online and I like to download movies, PPS and Netflix. Also we feed wireless to the tenates downstairs. Really 100GB isn't going to cut it.

We are paying way too much for Internet service in Canada. It cost 1.8cents per GB from these huge IPS to transfer the data to you.

Also data is always being transfer once the network is built it will always be there. Think of the Highways are the networks and cars are data. The Highways are always there regardless if there is only 1 car using or 10 cars are using it it will ALWAYS BE THERE. So SHAW, Telus, Bell saying they need to charge more because some people use too much data is dumb and stupid.

If all these IPS agure they need the the extra money to build their network is dumb as well. LAST YEAR SHAW have a over 46% pore profit so if you paid them $100 $46 is profit for them.

Check out this site first.

http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/

[apple_cutie]

I think you're trivializing what actually is an important issue. The Usage Based Billing is actually the small tip of a a large iceberg regarding internet access, freedoms and rights.

While all of us here are on the internet we don't realize that 30% of Canadians can't get broad band internet which is a big detriment to business and educational development in rural areas of our country. We are one of the ONLY developed countries that doesn't have a federal broadband plan to remedy these issues. The NDP is the only party that's addressed this particular issue.

Further the Cons support a lot of digital copy right and privacy evasion policies that DO effect you.

ALL the party leaders besides the Cons have joined the Vote For the Internet movement to support free rights and increased access (to different degrees) and to end this idiotic UBB bill.

I know you love Harper. I know you blindly buy his bull shit notion that he's the only one who can save the country. A monkey held him up on a mountain some where when he was born while Elton John sang the circle of life I'm sure. But isn't it a little tiring having you dismiss and be little issues that matter to some people because they don't matter to you?

I wish you a painful death.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[TheNewGirl]

I wish you a painful death.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

We're talking about Usage Based Billing.

Some of us think it fucking sucks. The only thing that will prevent it is a change in the government so... add something to the conversation or STFU. Hey maybe some Conservative MP spoke up about this some where that we didn't hear about. That would be on topic with out threatening your devout right wing leanings.

And seriously. If you are so insecure in your politics that you have to threaten death on someone who disagrees with you maybe you should reexamine a few things. The fantastic thing about democracy is you're allowed to have your opinion, and I'm allowed to have mine.

Back to the issue at hand. I was under the impression that Telus doesn't really have a way to accurately measure traffic to the degree Shaw can. Also, how would they measure IP traffic for Optik users when their television is essentially coming over the internet as well, are they double dipping or do they have a way to differenciate traffic?

Looking at the article too some of the statements:


"It's only fair that people pay for how much Internet capacity they use," Hall said.



Anderson said a gigabyte of data costs between one and eight cents to deliver, but some companies have proposed charging between two and 10 dollars per gigabyte downloaded above a user's data limit.


And... how is that fair?

[twitchyzero]

i can't see the majority of their customers being affected by this, i'm just taking a wild guess here that less than 15% of their users actually go over the cap. Unless you download (& pirate) loads of shit...even with heavy audio/video HD streaming i don't see how one household would get close to 100GB...unless everyone's unemployed and just watch drama 24/7 :lol

[apple_cutie]

Harper majority or nothing, NDP can fuck themselves.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[dangonay]

Check out this site first.

http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/
Are you going to post that link all over RS? Starting a thread in off-topic wasn't enough?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[yogenfruz]

i can't see the majority of their customers being affected by this, i'm just taking a wild guess here that less than 15% of their users actually go over the cap. Unless you download (& pirate) loads of shit...even with heavy audio/video HD streaming i don't see how one household would get close to 100GB...unless everyone's unemployed and just watch drama 24/7 :lol

That makes sense. I mean, in my family alone, I use the most, and I'm sure that it's still less than say 50GB...

[terkan]

actually.. more ppl than you think is over the cap limit, with the introduction of HD streaming etc etc. a lot of ppl are WAY Over the cap. at least when i was still working for shaw. more than 50% of the people i deal with are over their limit. maybe it just happens to be me. but i'm sure more than 15% of the users are over their limit.

[dangonay]

Just get Shaw's data plan. $50 for 250 GB or $0.20 per GB. If you're watching all your TV and movies online then the money you save on paying for cable TV (which you shouldn't need if you're streaming 300+ GB a month) can pay for your data usage.

Unless you think you have the right to watch whatever content you want without paying.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Great68]

I wish you a painful death.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Way to contribute NOTHING constructive to the thread. The fuck is wrong with you?

You deserve a :ban:

[TheNewGirl]

I think if the caps don't increase they will.

Also have you thought about how it impacts businesses? For example at my office we have 10 terminals on one internet connection. Many businesses rely exclusively on online POS software and other internet related activities, as well as emailing (Often I have to send large PDFs to clients to get them their bills and billing details, I'm sure I can't be the only one). Also when people are conserving their internet usage they're less likely to do research about businesses online, which may very much hurt many businesses.

Furthermore, the caps are expected to tighten rather then expand over the years. Forcing people to subscribe to their other services (television and phone) rather then utilizing internet utilities like Skype and Netflix or watching network television online as younger users are rapidly canceling their long distance plans and their cable because they prefer the flexibility provided by these services.

Lastly. Hubs. With the caps in place, it will limit access in public places that were previously being given unlimited for free and other bulk buying customers who provide unrestricted access for their customers. Yes some places will be able to afford to absorb increased costs but when Starbucks needs to cut the bottom line and it's increase your coffee price and cut the free internet, don't bitch about it. Or when schools have to cut or seriously restrict their internet services because they can no longer provide the access they they have been allotted a budget for, don't bitch.

A lot of people, students especially, rely on free internet hubs not just for using their lap tops but for accessing their phone and tablet services. Reduction here will mean you 1. use more data, at the inflated wireless premiums that make them more money and 2. have to subscribe again to more services to gain access.

This will cost you money. And I think it's extremely short sighted to think about it simply in terms of 'Oh I don't use 100G a month now so this doesn't effect me' when we are moving towards an increasingly online mode dealing with the world that requires access to information always. 10 years ago I wouldn't have imagined a world where I would carry the internet around with me in my pocket all the time, where I would get email on the phone. I can't imagine what degree of access will be common place in 10 years from now but I assure you, the "caps" will not increase as rapidly as the demand will.

Once we allow the telecoms to charge these sorts of insanely inflated rates (and if we were talking a realistic margin on the delivery of overages on the cap I wouldn't care so much as I do), we won't be able to take it back and we set the standard for other utilities to set extremely inflated margins themselves. We also allow the telecoms (and government) to set a standard as to what degree of access to the media and essentially the world, that a typical person should have, allowing greater access only to those with greater wealth.

tl;dr - This is not about the right to watch U-Tube videos or play Farmville 24/7 nor is it even about individual users but rather about larger over reaching implications of the issue.

[Mr.HappySilp]

actually.. more ppl than you think is over the cap limit, with the introduction of HD streaming etc etc. a lot of ppl are WAY Over the cap. at least when i was still working for shaw. more than 50% of the people i deal with are over their limit. maybe it just happens to be me. but i'm sure more than 15% of the users are over their limit.

Exactly say a 2hour HD movie on Netflix is about 4 to 6GB. I tested PPS live at work and about 4hours of using it I have hit about 4GB of download and well over 20GB upload However at work my link s 100 up and 100mbs down). I say at home around 4hours of using PPS it should be around 4GB download and about 8 to 10GB upload. Now PPS runs in the background even if you have it close on your icon tray (you will have to go Crt + alt + del to end the process otherwise it will contiune to upload) Now most people don't know that so they have no idea, same with a lot of people who use P2P programs they have no idea how to change their program settings or if the programs have an option for them to even reduce the upload rate.

SHAW and other IPS have to get with the program with computers and HD space so cheap these days they have to realize that their little badwidth per month is garbage. 2TB HD is less than $50 lol and they give you 100GB to use? What about people who purchase their games/software online to save some money? Example STEAM have sales from time to time and even sometimes huge savings during holidays. So IPS are saying NOPE you can't save coz we have a limit on your Internet.

The future is web base business if we limit ourselves so much we are going to fall behind in technology(which is happening) and soon we will be so behind that no one wants to invest in this country.

CRTC needs to pull their heads out of their ASS and aware that they need to allow more competition into the IPS market. Cut that protect Canadian company crap. Look what WIND did to the celluar compnay? As soon as WIND launches ROGERS, TELUS, FIDO , BELL all drop their prices and even more now. If a company can't make money coz of too much competition then it have no business to stay in business.

EDIT and the main reason SHAW is so against this whole web TV, Streaming channel, Netflix thing is becasue they invested so much in other channel providers. Look it up they own a tons of channel stations (Movie centeerals and HBO for example and a few more big ones). They simply want to over charge you for their cable service and restrict your Internet so you have pay for their overprice shit.

[willystyle]

Exactly say a 2hour HD movie on Netflix is about 4 to 6GB. I tested PPS live at work and about 4hours of using it I have hit about 4GB of download and well over 20GB upload However at work my link s 100 up and 100mbs down). I say at home around 4hours of using PPS it should be around 4GB download and about 8 to 10GB upload. Now PPS runs in the background even if you have it close on your icon tray (you will have to go Crt + alt + del to end the process otherwise it will contiune to upload) Now most people don't know that so they have no idea, same with a lot of people who use P2P programs they have no idea how to change their program settings or if the programs have an option for them to even reduce the upload rate.

SHAW and other IPS have to get with the program with computers and HD space so cheap these days they have to realize that their little badwidth per month is garbage. 2TB HD is less than $50 lol and they give you 100GB to use? What about people who purchase their games/software online to save some money? Example STEAM have sales from time to time and even sometimes huge savings during holidays. So IPS are saying NOPE you can't save coz we have a limit on your Internet.

The future is web base business if we limit ourselves so much we are going to fall behind in technology(which is happening) and soon we will be so behind that no one wants to invest in this country.

CRTC needs to pull their heads out of their ASS and aware that they need to allow more competition into the IPS market. Cut that protect Canadian company crap. Look what WIND did to the celluar compnay? As soon as WIND launches ROGERS, TELUS, FIDO , BELL all drop their prices and even more now. If a company can't make money coz of too much competition then it have no business to stay in business.

EDIT and the main reason SHAW is so against this whole web TV, Streaming channel, Netflix thing is becasue they invested so much in other channel providers. Look it up they own a tons of channel stations (Movie centeerals and HBO for example and a few more big ones). They simply want to over charge you for their cable service and restrict your Internet so you have pay for their overprice shit.
Btw, it's ISP, not IPS (which is something totally different). :)

[Mr.HappySilp]

^^ Sorry just piss off that SHAW would go ahead with this saying most of their customer is ok with UBB and they wouldn't care.

[JordanLee]

http://i.fanpix.net/images/orig/l/k/lkglpxp3py1ip31p.jpg

Sorry I had to.

[dangonay]

^^ Sorry just piss off that SHAW would go ahead with this saying most of their customer is ok with UBB and they wouldn't care.

Well, if they go ahead we'll find out based on how many customers Shaw loses.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[TheNewGirl]

If all of them do it at the same time, there will be no alternative to jump ship for.

Which is kind of their plan.

[JesseBlue]

If all of them do it at the same time, there will be no alternative to jump ship for.

Which is kind of their plan.
do you have shaw? if so..jump ship now and if millions of them do this, see what they will do...

most of the time people just complain rather than do something about it.

[Manic!]

do you have shaw? if so..jump ship now and if millions of them do this, see what they will do...

most of the time people just complain rather than do something about it.

Jump ship to who? The only other option I have is Telus.

[J____]

FU shaw. I live with 2 roomates, it's impossible to keep it at 100gb/month.

[Mr.HappySilp]

^^ Depends on their system say if they give you 3 months of warning before charinging you then what you can do is cancel your service with them and have one of your roomate sign and after 3 months switch to another roomate and after 3months switch back to you.

They can't really stop you since you been off their network for 6 months already and is consider to be a new customer.

[J____]

that's a good idea, but wouldn't they catch on after a while and just refuse?

what's telus' caps anyone know? I cant find it on google.

[JesseBlue]

Jump ship to who? The only other option I have is Telus.
well that is an option is it not...tek is another one...

[Manic!]

well that is an option is it not...tek is another one...

Tek is only in the lower mainland and not on the island or the rest of BC.

[Hehe]

I think the Canadian ISPs are too greedy.

They argue that the cost of maintaining their backbones is too high for allowing heavy users. The fact is, we are in an era where Internet become not just part of our life but also a fundamental tool to increase competitiveness in the IT sector.

If your bandwidth is reaching the limit, you should do an overhaul to your network to increase it. Look at countries like Japan or Korea. They have options to get gigE to home and their price is much different than our crappy 15mbps plan.

Bandwidth cost is so low that they are ripping us the consumers off. It costs them around 3 cents per gigabyte of transfer or about 8 cents with their own cost included. The cost can be even lower if they go full fiber optic. The majority of big infrastructure providers are suggesting a price of less than $1/mbps before 2015 (every mbps=roughly 316GB/month) and it means that for ISPs, their long term cost is declining. Yet they are asking consumer to pay more money for the access.

I won't support any party that doesn't include IT development in their agenda. And clearly, an affordable and fast access to Internet is at the very top of the list.

[TheNewGirl]

Tek is only in the lower mainland and not on the island or the rest of BC.

Isn't Tek a bulk provider that piggy backs on another provider's network? If so they're going to be subject to even harsher UBB limits as the whole reason that Telus, Shaw and Bell brought this all to the table was they wanted to limit the usage purchased through these bulk providers and force them to stop giving out truly "unlimited" packages.

[pokchop]

so if we have to pay for extra usage, shouldn't we get money back for unused bandwidth?

and the CEO saying that customer are willing to pay for a better service... wtf?
for $50 a month i can easily get 2x the download and n*x the upload rates in some of first/second world country out there...

why don't they give us what we pay for before asking us to pay for a better service...

[Soundy]

They argue that the cost of maintaining their backbones is too high for allowing heavy users.
...
If your bandwidth is reaching the limit, you should do an overhaul to your network to increase it.

These two goals are contradictory. The argument against the rate hikes is that MAINTAINING the network is cheap... that may be, but UPGRADING it isn't, and OVERHAULING it most definitely isn't.

so if we have to pay for extra usage, shouldn't we get money back for unused bandwidth?

Ahhh, and see, this is the problem with all the backlash: everyone's whipped into a frenzy over a pay-per-use model rather than a flat-rate model, but getting a rebate for UNUSED bandwidth is ALSO a pay-per-use model.

Frankly, UBB *is* a more equitable system - as it is right now, you're paying the same amount whether you use 100GB or 100MB per month.

Rather than fighting for a flat rate for everyone, OpenMedia should be fighting for a COMPLETELY UBB system... with FAIR rates, not the insane "$1-$2-per-GB" overage rate that's being talked about.

Right now, a 100GB plan runs, what, $50/mo? So just change it to a straight 50c/GB rate. If you use 1GB, you pay 50c. Use 200GB, pay $100. Doesn't get any more fair than that, and the people who do nothing but check their Facebook a couple times a week and email their grandmother aren't subsidizing the gamers and Netflixers and torrent geeks.

[PornMaster]

These two goals are contradictory. The argument against the rate hikes is that MAINTAINING the network is cheap... that may be, but UPGRADING it isn't, and OVERHAULING it most definitely isn't.



Ahhh, and see, this is the problem with all the backlash: everyone's whipped into a frenzy over a pay-per-use model rather than a flat-rate model, but getting a rebate for UNUSED bandwidth is ALSO a pay-per-use model.

Frankly, UBB *is* a more equitable system - as it is right now, you're paying the same amount whether you use 100GB or 100MB per month.

Rather than fighting for a flat rate for everyone, OpenMedia should be fighting for a COMPLETELY UBB system... with FAIR rates, not the insane "$1-$2-per-GB" overage rate that's being talked about.

Right now, a 100GB plan runs, what, $50/mo? So just change it to a straight 50c/GB rate. If you use 1GB, you pay 50c. Use 200GB, pay $100. Doesn't get any more fair than that, and the people who do nothing but check their Facebook a couple times a week and email their grandmother aren't subsidizing the gamers and Netflixers and torrent geeks.

They will never switch to that type of plan in a business perspective that is FAIL because you are losing on money that is easily gained.

To consumer perspective that would be perfect

[Manic!]

These two goals are contradictory. The argument against the rate hikes is that MAINTAINING the network is cheap... that may be, but UPGRADING it isn't, and OVERHAULING it most definitely isn't.



Ahhh, and see, this is the problem with all the backlash: everyone's whipped into a frenzy over a pay-per-use model rather than a flat-rate model, but getting a rebate for UNUSED bandwidth is ALSO a pay-per-use model.

Frankly, UBB *is* a more equitable system - as it is right now, you're paying the same amount whether you use 100GB or 100MB per month.

Rather than fighting for a flat rate for everyone, OpenMedia should be fighting for a COMPLETELY UBB system... with FAIR rates, not the insane "$1-$2-per-GB" overage rate that's being talked about.

Right now, a 100GB plan runs, what, $50/mo? So just change it to a straight 50c/GB rate. If you use 1GB, you pay 50c. Use 200GB, pay $100. Doesn't get any more fair than that, and the people who do nothing but check their Facebook a couple times a week and email their grandmother aren't subsidizing the gamers and Netflixers and torrent geeks.

Shaw claims majority of there users don't go over there cap. So all those users would be paying Shaw less making Shaw less money.

What Shaw is trying to do is make more money and has nothing to do with there backbone of capacity.

[Mr.HappySilp]

LOL NOVUS charges $5 per 10GB for overuesage. That's 50 cents a GB and SHAW is charging what $1 to $2 per GB? you do the math lol.

[Hehe]

These two goals are contradictory. The argument against the rate hikes is that MAINTAINING the network is cheap... that may be, but UPGRADING it isn't, and OVERHAULING it most definitely isn't.


Read my post, the cost of bandwidth (maintaining it working with connectivity to other major backbones) is 3ct/gigabyte. Adding the "worst case scenario" layout by Bell (that's that the network is no longer economically feasible and basically adding deferred payment for future renovation) is 8cts/gigabyte.

And the future fixed operation cost for them (whether they do network overhaul or not), costs of their connectivity to other major providers is declining. Current level is about $5~$7 per mbps (again 316GB a month roughly, so 1.5cents~2.2cents per GB) to less than $1 in 2015 or before ($0.3cents) and they argue they need more money expanding? come on... seriously?

Companies that dedicate themselves on laying out major backbones like Level3 or Global Crossing don't stop building backbones, that means bandwidth only gets cheaper and not the other way around.

This is why ISPs in countries where connectivity are easier to add (denser population) like Japan/Korea/HK keep offering higher and higher speed connections. We as a developed country should be following leads if we can't create the lead, not let greedy corporations do things to maximize their profit IMHO. Heck, even without the change (getting into usage based) they are already milking it like nth else.

[dangonay]

^ Do you know Bell only charges 12.5c per GB for their extra data plans? Using your math of 3c per GB to maintain and 8c per GB to upgrade we're at 11c per GB. Where is this huge profit margin if they're only charging 12.5c?


I always LOL at the articles whining about over usage charges of $1 to $2 per GB and somehow implying that if usage based billing goes ahead that the providers are going to charge you that same $1-$2 per GB. Complete horseshit.

Shaw has three data plans you can add on: $5 for 10GB (50c per GB). $20 for 60GB (33c per GB) and $50 for 250GB (20c per GB). The big plan is not bad charging only 20c per GB. You could buy one of Shaw's smaller high speed plans and add the big data plan and get 310-350GB for a price less than their Nitro plan (which only gives 175GB).

Bell has three plans as well. $5 for 40GB, $10 for 80GB and $15 for 120GB (all three plans are 12.5c per GB). Bell also has a cap on over usage. Once you hit $60 in over usage fees, the charge gets capped. That means 30GB over costs $30. 60GB over costs $60. But 200GB over still costs $60. So essentially Bell offers unlimited for $60 extra per month.

Another provider in ON (can't recall the name now and am too lazy to search) also has over usage charges of $1, but they cap at $30 instead of Bell's $60. So you get unlimited internet from them for only $30 extra per month.


People whining about over usage and trying to imply you'll be getting huge bills of several hundred dollars for internet access are full of shit. I also find it convenient that the media always talks about the per GB charge, but fail to mention caps which limit your over usage fees to a fixed amount.

[Soundy]

They will never switch to that type of plan in a business perspective that is FAIL because you are losing on money that is easily gained.

To consumer perspective that would be perfect

Exactly. To 99% of users, what they have now is actually a pretty sweet thing - they'll never, ever come close to hitting the caps already in place, and when you break it down, they're getting a lot of data for a pretty good flat price, with the added benefit of not having to wait until they get their bill to know what they'll have to pay.

It's a tempest in a teapot, really, that will never affect anyone but a few.

Where the danger lies, is in those caps being lowered. I'd be fine with overage charges being implemented... IF the existing limits aren't changed. But once they start down this path, there's nothing to stop them from starting the billing at a much lower level.

[Manic!]

^ Do you know Bell only charges 12.5c per GB for their extra data plans? Using your math of 3c per GB to maintain and 8c per GB to upgrade we're at 11c per GB. Where is this huge profit margin if they're only charging 12.5c?


I always LOL at the articles whining about over usage charges of $1 to $2 per GB and somehow implying that if usage based billing goes ahead that the providers are going to charge you that same $1-$2 per GB. Complete horseshit.

Shaw has three data plans you can add on: $5 for 10GB (50c per GB). $20 for 60GB (33c per GB) and $50 for 250GB (20c per GB). The big plan is not bad charging only 20c per GB. You could buy one of Shaw's smaller high speed plans and add the big data plan and get 310-350GB for a price less than their Nitro plan (which only gives 175GB).

Bell has three plans as well. $5 for 40GB, $10 for 80GB and $15 for 120GB (all three plans are 12.5c per GB). Bell also has a cap on over usage. Once you hit $60 in over usage fees, the charge gets capped. That means 30GB over costs $30. 60GB over costs $60. But 200GB over still costs $60. So essentially Bell offers unlimited for $60 extra per month.

Another provider in ON (can't recall the name now and am too lazy to search) also has over usage charges of $1, but they cap at $30 instead of Bell's $60. So you get unlimited internet from them for only $30 extra per month.


People whining about over usage and trying to imply you'll be getting huge bills of several hundred dollars for internet access are full of shit. I also find it convenient that the media always talks about the per GB charge, but fail to mention caps which limit your over usage fees to a fixed amount.

You going to guarantee those prices for the next 20 plus years?

[Mr.HappySilp]

^ Do you know Bell only charges 12.5c per GB for their extra data plans? Using your math of 3c per GB to maintain and 8c per GB to upgrade we're at 11c per GB. Where is this huge profit margin if they're only charging 12.5c?


I always LOL at the articles whining about over usage charges of $1 to $2 per GB and somehow implying that if usage based billing goes ahead that the providers are going to charge you that same $1-$2 per GB. Complete horseshit.

Shaw has three data plans you can add on: $5 for 10GB (50c per GB). $20 for 60GB (33c per GB) and $50 for 250GB (20c per GB). The big plan is not bad charging only 20c per GB. You could buy one of Shaw's smaller high speed plans and add the big data plan and get 310-350GB for a price less than their Nitro plan (which only gives 175GB).

Bell has three plans as well. $5 for 40GB, $10 for 80GB and $15 for 120GB (all three plans are 12.5c per GB). Bell also has a cap on over usage. Once you hit $60 in over usage fees, the charge gets capped. That means 30GB over costs $30. 60GB over costs $60. But 200GB over still costs $60. So essentially Bell offers unlimited for $60 extra per month.

Another provider in ON (can't recall the name now and am too lazy to search) also has over usage charges of $1, but they cap at $30 instead of Bell's $60. So you get unlimited internet from them for only $30 extra per month.


People whining about over usage and trying to imply you'll be getting huge bills of several hundred dollars for internet access are full of shit. I also find it convenient that the media always talks about the per GB charge, but fail to mention caps which limit your over usage fees to a fixed amount.

SHAW is still pricing thier bandwidth package but before they were going to charge you $1 to $2 per GB unless you purhcase the data package which they didn't mention how they would do it? Do you have to call in to add the data package when you reach the limit? or is it once you add it they will charge you every month? If it is the later case, then what if I didn't hit my limit for a month will SHAW not charge me the data package that month or no?

Also if we have to call in to add the extra uesage or data pack that's another 40+min to wait on hold with SHAW. Like I said before SHAW is getting over 46% pure profit last year so why are they saying they NEED the extra money to maintain their network. What happen to that 46% pure profit?!?!?!

[mauricetan]

that's a good idea, but wouldn't they catch on after a while and just refuse?

what's telus' caps anyone know? I cant find it on google.

optik high speed turbo and the high speed 25 of telus are both capped at 250gig per month... i've been with telus for 3-4months and using optik highspeed turbo and i believe that ive been going over the limit but no warning yet and im checking my online account with telus and the internet usage is still at 0% for the past 3-4months which is good! hopefully it will stay the same and they won't do the ubb!