|
Hello TL!
I was browsing facebook tonight when a friend of mine posted a link to a petition against internet metering here in Canada. Basically, they want to start charging by the byte. Apparently this is how they charge for smartphones (I don't know, I don't have one, but I've heard it's expensive... which is why I don't have one!  )
Basically, I was wondering if something of this sort of thing has happened in other places in the world. Mainly, I'd like to compare results with the U.S., since they're closest and probably have the most similar infrastructure and extensive geographic coverage (lots of land, means lots of cable, and essentially less service across the country) but I'd also be interested in seeing what's going on elsewhere.
I'd also like to see if people think this is a good idea and why. Personally, I don't think it is, because I feel that I already pay too much for the service I receive from my ISP, but maybe the story is different elsewhere.
For Canadians, please follow this link and take a moment to fill out the form in order show party leaders that this is an important cause!
http://openmedia.ca/meter
Poll: Do you think ISPs should charge per byte?No, bad idea (884) 95% Yes, good idea (28) 3% I'm not entirely sure (15) 2% 927 total votes Your vote: Do you think ISPs should charge per byte? (Vote): Yes, good idea
(Vote): No, bad idea
(Vote): I'm not entirely sure
|
Osaka27149 Posts
Canada has such shit third world internet, and a government backed monopoly held by two companies (a biopoly?). I really think the public needs to put some pressure on the government to get a better system in place.
Your comparison with the US is tough though, since there is 10x the people for the companies.
Anyway, went to the site.
|
On January 28 2011 14:09 Manifesto7 wrote:
Canada has such shit third world internet, and a government backed monopoly held by two companies (a biopoly?). I really think the public needs to put some pressure on the government to get a better system in place.
Your comparison with the US is tough though, since there is 10x the people for the companies.
Anyway, went to the site.
Still, where I live there really still is a biopoly in the US. So my rates (although not metered) are insane.
|
what do you mean charge by the byte?
in australia we choose the speed we want [which is pretty terrible anyway] and then you choose the plan you want, whether than 2gb, 10gb, 200gb and so on, then when you reach that download cap, your internet speed is either capped [usually to dial-up speed] or you can keep your speed and pay the extra downloads per mb/gb, whichever the company chooses to do.
is that the sort of thing you mean? or just straight out "you use 1gb you pay x amount"
|
I live in southern california and while we don't have the insane "biopoly" that most other places have on high speed internet, we have 6 or 7 major providers that charge within the same $5 range of each other. I don't know the details of other companies plans but the company I get internet from there is no cap monthly, though I have to say the speed isn't the greatest (I generally only get 2mb/s down MAX, usually about 1.2)
|
I live in Canada and my ISP says they have a download limit (250gb or something), but in reality they don't enforce it or even measure it.
|
It sucks for consumers, but as a business model (profit maximizing / cost covering) it makes sense.
I wouldn't be surprised if the market started heading in this direction, but I would be very sad :[.
|
pretty much the best speed ur gonna get in aus right now is 1.5mb/s, and thats if ur pretty lucky and u live right next to the telephone exchange [im talking 1.5mBytes/s, not 1.5mbits/s]
|
It's "duopoly."
In a competitive market, charging by how much you download makes a lot of sense for both consumers and the company. That way "regular" users get a low price and the handful of hardcore users pay for the bandwidth they use. Charging a flat fee causes people to externalize the cost of their extra bandwidth use on other users, which is not a good thing.
|
On January 28 2011 14:38 domovoi wrote:
It's "duopoly."
In a competitive market, charging by how much you download makes a lot of sense for both consumers and the company. That way "regular" users get a low price and the handful of hardcore users pay for the bandwidth they use. Also, charging a flat fee can cause moral hazard.
Yeah, but what exactly is 'hardcore users' - they might set the bar low enough that they'll make more money over-all, which means we have to pay more for the lousy service we get. I checked charts on internet distribution in Canada and it's pretty deficient. A lot of people still don't have service, and even in major city the quality of the internet is medium. I get 6mb/s download and 2mb/s upload and pay around 30$ for 20gb per month.
I hope they don't start charging more :O
|
On January 28 2011 14:15 Pitto wrote:
what do you mean charge by the byte?
in australia we choose the speed we want [which is pretty terrible anyway] and then you choose the plan you want, whether than 2gb, 10gb, 200gb and so on, then when you reach that download cap, your internet speed is either capped [usually to dial-up speed] or you can keep your speed and pay the extra downloads per mb/gb, whichever the company chooses to do.
is that the sort of thing you mean? or just straight out "you use 1gb you pay x amount"
That's the type of model we have currently, though some older plans (like my own currently) are unlimited.
However, ISPs want to start charging you by the byte, and from what I understand, the rate will increase as you use more bandwidth. In other words you'd have a rate X$/byte which may or may not increase in between certain total usage every month. I think the best comparison would be to how electricity is sold (at least here). X(Kw/Hr)(Y$)
@Tdelamay What city are you in? Mine is «unlimited» (at least my contract says so, even though the newer service reps at Sympatico tell me my cap is 50GB... though it isn't, I've tested before) and I pay 50$/month. What ISP are you with?
|
Comcast does this in the states, though not in the region I live. There is no bandwidth cap here but the service is inconsistent. Though they really should make up better excuses then: "This is how consumers want it", how can you even pull that out of your ass and say that to the public?
|
That would be terrible, and the people who they'd get the most money from is us, the ones watching streams. I'm curious as what the price would be, obviously it wouldn't be as much as the data plans, which are like $20 a month for a gig, but that's ridicolous.
I mean right now for $30 dollars I have unlimited, well pretty much unlimited, I don't think there's a limit, or anything happens if you go over 500GB. It's just so much less user friendly and ugh, I dunno, that really pisses me off... Doing anything similiar to the overpriced phone monopoly is bs.
It's the difference of going to subway, and you pay a price of a sandwich and you can put what you want on it for no extra charge, compared to going to Dairy Queen and them charging you 40cents for cheese, 30 for tomato, 20 for lettuce, and 10 for a glass of water. I'd much prefer a set price that is higher than having to worry about how much I'm allowed to use. Gonna be a lot more profit for the companies too.
Either way, if my internet provider decided to do that, I'm switching to one that has pay x amount, get unlimited (or 100GB etc)... Even if they are less reliable etc. I wont stand for that garbage.
|
|
|
They should charge per byte during peak hours over a certain quantity, but that should come with better speeds and service during those time. I would love it if here in Los Angeles there were an option to pay more for better service, but as of right now I pay a lot anyways for terrible cable service by Time Warner.
|
Well it depends
From our standpoint, no obviously we like our high quality low cost internet access,
but for IPSs its like a license to print money.
It blows my mind that people can believe that the internet isn't important enough to the general public to justify government intervention to protect consumers and small ISPs.
|
On January 28 2011 14:38 domovoi wrote:
In a competitive market, charging by how much you download makes a lot of sense for both consumers and the company. That way "regular" users get a low price and the handful of hardcore users pay for the bandwidth they use. Charging a flat fee causes people to externalize the cost of their extra bandwidth use on other users, which is not a good thing.
Exactly this. I think paying for the amount of bandwidth you use is a good idea. I also think that our Internet here is too expensive. I believe that those are two separate issues. It would certainly be best for us consumers if we only paid for the bandwidth we used, instead of paying for our providers to overcommit their infrastructure.
|
On January 28 2011 15:39 tarpman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2011 14:38 domovoi wrote:
In a competitive market, charging by how much you download makes a lot of sense for both consumers and the company. That way "regular" users get a low price and the handful of hardcore users pay for the bandwidth they use. Charging a flat fee causes people to externalize the cost of their extra bandwidth use on other users, which is not a good thing. Exactly this. I think paying for the amount of bandwidth you use is a good idea. I also think that our Internet here is too expensive. I believe that those are two separate issues. It would certainly be best for us consumers if we only paid for the bandwidth we used, instead of paying for our providers to overcommit their infrastructure.
I urge you to research about the internet in Romania, if you want from 10 years ago. 100mbps with 10$ / month were the norm even then. ISPs gave everything they could, for as little price as possible, HUGE competition between them, and still got rich. I think Canada's internet is just sad.
Download Cap? lol
|
I don't see the issue of paying per the byte, it's like everything else electricity, gas, water, phone. As long as it's indiscriminate and based on load demands ie times of day kind of pricing i don't see an issue. Never liked overage charges though, it's the company fault for trying to lure in people by having the people who use the service the least pay for the people who use it the most and then the people who use it the most get the best deal out of it. But the usually outrageous overage charges doesn't help. I mean pay for what you use in principle i have on issue with it, it's a matter of how companies try to maximize profits getting more subscribers then they can handle and swindling people out of money that i have issues with.
|
I think it's garbage. It's bad enough we have to pay for an internet limit, THEN pay if we go over... now we have to pay by the byte even IF we DON'T go over.
Screw you, government... Screw you, indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
