CRTC approves usage-based internet billing

[TimG]

I guess we're going to have to bend over and take it sooner rather than later. :-/

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2...-internet.html

[Cos]

holy fuck. Do you think all the service providors will all jump on this bandwagon.

What do you do if your neighbor steals your signal? Etc.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I assume it's only a matter of time before Rogers does the same. Thanks, CRTC!

[ZenOps]

Its allright I guess.

Sort of like how everyone used to have flat rate based water, and now you have metered water usage.

Admittedly I'm on the high side of usage, but it does seem a little more fair - As long as the providers have honest rates (which is never agiven)

[Phenix]

This is a huge fail. What a bunch of retards

[Tarrantula]

Its alright, Ill just take downloaded stuff from my friends instead of the internet :p they can pay for it and I will still watch for FREE!!!

MUA HA HA HA HA Take that!

[Swank]

Originally posted by Cos

What do you do if your neighbor steals your signal? Etc.

The same thing you do if they steal any other utility . All the more reason to password protect your wireless and keep the signal strength within the walls if possible.

Given the size of portable drives these days the usage based billing might make sneakernet more popular once again. I would hope ISPs improve spam filtering you aren't paying the bandwidth for emails you don't want, though they are usually small in size.

[snoop101]

My whole is is that I dont mind paying this way, but only if my internet is fast and available.

Right now you pay for speed. Less speed cheaper, more speed expensive. So would you pay more for more speed plus the DL.

I dunno its not like water or heat where its either on or off.

Now on the plus side it could work like this. They take highspeed light and have a small $10 flat fee plus usage. then you could pay $40 for unlimited DL and high speed. Or something along the lines. This would then actually save money for the non horny people in the world.

[Cos]

.

[thrasher22]

It sucks, but its fair and will hopefully discourage providers from pursuing a tiered internet.
Bandwidth costs ISP money

[bituerbo]

Cracking neighbour's wifi FTW!!!

[snoop101]

And then Wind comes along and makes everything unlimited and no contract.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by thrasher22
It sucks, but its fair and will hopefully discourage providers from pursuing a tiered internet.
Bandwidth costs ISP money

Bandwidth does cost ISP money. But throughput does not. They're relying on the confusion between the 2 in the general public's mind to bend us all over. It's utterly ridiculous that they'd have to go this route with the exorbitant prices they charge for high throughput, vs bandwidth.

[e31]

^ Hit the nail on the head.

[Idratherbsidewayz]

In Southern Ontario, if an ISP controls a certain area, you cannot go to any other one.

In the student ghetto of McMaster in Hamilton, Cogeco owned the market. You got totally assraped by their monopoly, and one of their policies was bandwidth limitations.

60GB/month for a 5 person household. SO frustrating.

[Hakkola]

Shit. I must download like 300 gigs a month, at least.

[cycosis]

Originally posted by Idratherbsidewayz
In Southern Ontario, if an ISP controls a certain area, you cannot go to any other one.

In the student ghetto of McMaster in Hamilton, Cogeco owned the market. You got totally assraped by their monopoly, and one of their policies was bandwidth limitations.

60GB/month for a 5 person household. SO frustrating.

Not enough porn for ya bud? haha that would suck, jsut downloaded all seasons of House MD, 30 Rock, Arrested Developement and HD version of Life. there goes my internet for the next 29 days...

[Zewind]

Personal, this is going to be crap. They will charge an arm and a leg

[GoChris]

Originally posted by Hakkola
Shit. I must download like 300 gigs a month, at least.

Same, this is going to suck if implemented all over.

[speedog]

Originally posted by codetrap


Bandwidth does cost ISP money. But throughput does not. They're relying on the confusion between the 2 in the general public's mind to bend us all over. It's utterly ridiculous that they'd have to go this route with the exorbitant prices they charge for high throughput, vs bandwidth.

K, like I worked in the telco industry for over 26 years, maintenance, testing, installation, surveillance, various levels of maintenance support and network engineering. Started when vacuum tubes were still being used to haul around voice calls and was there from the early days when data started moving around and trust me, it's does cost a telco money to accommodate increased throughput.

If throughput didn't matter, then everyone would still be quite happy to be doing stuff at 300 baud (300 bits per second) as opposed to the 3Mbps and faster high speed inter service many of us enjoy now. But technology has advanced and people and businesses want to do things faster and that includes greater throughput and to provide that greater throughput involves a more robust network. So whether or not people like it, throughput and bandwidth are intrinsically related - can't expect to have greater throughput if the bandwidth isn't there to support it.

That said, I suspect Bell's move is more to align their internet offerings/plans similar to the cell phone world - you'll buy a plan and have to pay extra if you go over an agreed upon limit. Or you can go one a "pay as you go" plan - either way, I suspect the telco's are trying to move to a model whereas their customer's will be paying for every bit they down/up load. Is it right or wrong - dunno, but I know that I pay for every last bit of natural gas or water or electricity that moves into my home and I suspect the telco's are trying to make data just another consumable like water/gas/electricity. Problem is that the telco's aren't paying anything back to the originators of that data - the CNN's, the banks, whomever is providing the source of this information.