[kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy

[unsolicited at swiz.ca]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:58:20 +0000, rbclemen at gmail.com wrote:
> Your post office example may stand. Except in this case we are talking
> about the post office charging you a buck for each letter that arrives
at
> your house per month in excess of 4.

Your numbers are too low. I haven't done any number crunching, but in
excess of 90 would seem more applicable.

>  It does not cost them 1.27 to provide
> me with a GB of data. I would like to see their justification that
> providing me with a continuous stream of data at the maximum rate a DSL
> connection can sustain will cost more than 15 bucks more than a DSL line
> that is connected but not transfering any data for a month.

You're right, it probably costs them many more thousands of dollars than
$1.27. Without recouping their costs, why would they invest more in
infrastructure, yet we are all complaining about speeds, and costs.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating Bell in any way here. But that
first customer on that piece of equipment that causes the capacity of that
piece of equipment to be exceeded will trigger a cost incursion of many
thousands of dollars. By the time you acquire, let alone install, maintain,
track usage for billing, and all the other costs, you're into many
thousands of dollars. Which is really all to say - ISPs have oversold lines
per piece of equipment, stupidly, and now have found a way to finance a
capacity increase.

    It must be unimaginably ridiculously expensive to lay a piece of fibre
- to recoup the costs over how long?

Let alone, another aspect of the real problem - Bell isn't, nor has any
need to be, operationally efficient or cost effective. To borrow Paul's
phrase ... thanks unions. Granted, that's too carte blanche, but again, an
easy target to blame.

> No I don't want to pay more for the canada post carrier to carry two
> letters to my door than they do if they were only carrying one. 

OK, so part of the problem here is that you (and all Netflix and video
streaming users) have had a free ride, and now you're throwing a temper
tantrum.

> And the internet provides services that consume bandwith. That is why we
> don't use dialup anymore. Bell has always wanted to charge people for
> phonecalls that were data or faxes differently than regular calls. They
> weren't allowed to.  

I don't think you're broad enough - Bell has always wanted to levy a per
call charge.

And I suspect you're not quite right - we don't use dial up because of
speed, not total bytes. We can browse the web and send e-mail much faster
now. Hmmm. (Bet some on the list are wishing to go back to dialup at this
point!)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Unsolicited" <unsolicited at swiz.ca>
> Sender: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org
> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:45:07 
> To: KWLUG discussion<kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Reply-To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
> 
> Are you sure your example is reasonable?
> 
> Isn't it more like the post office saying after the 100th letter
delivered
> to your house, there's a surcharge? (Which is what the courier companies
> have been doing, and the post office for that matter, and airlines, for
> some time now, with gas surcharges.)
> 
> If you are receiving many more bytes, shouldn't you pay more? (Without
> video, it takes a while to consume a GB.)
> 
> On Sun, January 30, 2011 7:36 pm, rbclemen at gmail.com wrote:
>> Sorry, meant to elaborate on that one but my Blackberry sent by
accident.
>> UBB is a vicious attempt to use one monopoly to leverage oneself into
>> another. Or looked at another way, Bell is leveraging additional profit
>> from every single service offered on the internet. It is absolutely the
>> equivalent of Canada Post demanding a cut of every payment made on a
bill
>> that is mailed to a customer.
>>
>> To give one potent example, every Netflix.ca customer will be paying
>> Netflix about 9 dollars a month, and Bell about a dollar per movie.
>>
>> Brent
>> Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
>> Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de
>> Bell.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Unsolicited" <unsolicited at swiz.ca>
>> Sender: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org
>> Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 19:27:00
>> To: KWLUG discussion<kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
>> Reply-To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
>> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] UBB comes to Teksavvy
>>
>> On Sun, January 30, 2011 2:27 pm, rbclemen at gmail.com wrote:
>>> Co-location doesn't matter from what I hear. The charge will be for
>>> anyone
>>> using bell's copper. Yes it is unbelievably stupid.
>>
>> Don't mean to be provocative here - guess I'm just uninformed.
>>
>> Why is UBB "unbelievably stupid"?