[kwlug-disc] Today in Usage-Based-Billing News

[Insurance Squared Inc.]

There's a difference.  Much of the costs of hyrdro and water are in the 
production and delivery.  Bandwidth the costs are much more related to 
infrastructure.  If I've got an ethernet connection between two 
computers, it costs the same if I use 10mbit sustained as it does if I 
use 100mbit sustained.  Same cable.  It only costs noticeably more if I 
exceed 100mbit and need to go to gigabit.

I know there are some scaled costs, but I really expect that most of the 
costs are infrastructure. Which makes a flat fee for useage the wrong model.

Perhaps some of you are too young to remember when Bell had a lock on 
long distance.  They charged obscene amounts per minute if you even 
wanted to call the next town over.  It had nothing to do with 'costs'.  
It had to do with consumers had no choice.  I remember when calling my 
girlfriend from Ottawa to Waterloo would cost me $200 a month for a few 
calls.  Now I don't pay hardly that much for my business phones. That's 
what we're regressing to in this new model. where Bell can charge gobs 
of money for services.  And we'll end up with the same problem we used 
to have with long distance - people and businesses won't use it as 
much.  That stifles creativity and productivity.

This is a very bad move, and I'd like to see it stopped.


On 04/11/10 03:24 PM, Chris Irwin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 22:35, Paul Nijjar<paul_nijjar at yahoo.ca>  wrote:
>    
>> Some days the news is just so happy it makes me want to cry.
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/28/crtc-usage-based-billing-internet.html
>>
>> Summary:
>> - Bell gets to implement usage-based billing for customers to ISPs
>>   that rent its network.
>>
>> - Bell gets to raise rates (arbitrarily?) to encourage those ISPs that
>>   are grandfathered in to switch to metered billing instead.
>>      
> I pay for gas by usage, I pay for hydro by usage, and I pay for water
> by usage.  I don't mind paying for bandwidth I use.
>
> However, I *do* mind paying unrealistic amounts for it ($1.12 per GB?
> Really?). I'm also somewhat annoyed at having to pay for the same for
> the service *and* having to also pay for the bandwidth.
>
> I'm even more annoyed that we'll be paying for both service and
> bandwidth, and still having a throttled connection that frowns upon
> certain protocols and causes issues with VOIP quality after a fixed
> period of time.
>
>    

-- 
Glenn Cooke
Insurance Squared Inc.
(866) 779-1499
www.insurancesquared.com

Insurance Agent Discussion Forum:
www.americaninsurancebroker.com