What it boils down to is now that more and more people are downloading not only movies, but TV shows as well (off the internet), and services like skype and google are offering insanely low phone rates, Bell and Rogers are desperate to survive. At least that’s the main thing I understood after reading this.

Also, this article offers a great explination describing that internet congestion is just a myth. The big problem is that there are so many customers out there who don’t know enough about the internet and how it works, so they have no idea what is fact and what is fiction.

. . .That 1GB goes through other lines. You do not have a dedicated and direct line to whereever you think you have. These other lines also have a limited bandwidth. If there are 20000 of you downloading 1GB a month. Then you need X amount of bandwidth on those lines. If there are 20000 of you downloading 200GB a month. Then you need X times 200. This means that the fellow downloading 200GB a month COSTS the company more MONEY than the fellow downloading 1GB a month due to the fact they need more costly infrastructure to support that. . .

Actually with DSL GAS service it is virtually a straight line between ISP and customer. You don’t share bandwidth with your neighbor, and likewise your neighbor can’t use your unused bandwidth. This is actually one of the major selling points DSL Internet Service Providers try to use to win over cable internet subscribers from Rogers. But that is also the reason DSL is distance sensitive, the further you are the slower the bandwidth since the weaker the signal becomes.

. . .A dedicated metered connection costs hundreds of dollars a month. You will *never* have that for a consumer grade cost, or at least you will not for the foreseeable future. . .

Explain how that is managed in other countries, and it IS economically feasible. TekSavvy, Acanac, Yak can do it. The only thing getting in their way right now is Bell attempting to block access to customers by charging overly high fees on their monopoly GAS connections. Do you have first hand industry knowledge that you can claim that it cannot be done? I do, it can be done. Again I quote: ISPs that offer “unlimited” usage plans do so because they have found good internet transit plans and purchase sufficient AHSSPI capacity to provide good service at profitable levels. They are not doing this on Bell’s back. By choosing the right transit providers and keeping overhead costs low, an ISP can easily beat Bell Sympatico’s service levels and limits/restrictions.

. . .You have *up-to* a certain bandwidth. This means your connection speed is highly variable and dependent on the usage patterns of your neighbours. What do you think happens when your neighbours usage patterns goes up? Well that lowers your speeds, of course. What’s the remedy? Add more bandwidth. Does that cost money? Yes. . .

Maybe if were talking about cable GAS service. But not Bell’s DSL, since it is a direct connection and bandwidth is not shared with your neighbor. If you are not downloading anything that bandwidth on the GAS (between you and your ISP) is essentially sitting idle unused, even if your neighbor is downloading 20GB/s.
Again I quote the section under bandwidth:
Each ISP purchases sufficient AHSSPI capacity to handle the peak throughput demand of its customer base. Should an ISP not buy sufficient AHSSPI capacity, then the
bottleneck happens at the narrow end of the funnel, a portion of the network which only affects that ISP and has no impact on other ISPs or Bell Sympatico.

. . .most of the cost in delivering water (note the term delivering) has little to do with the cost of water. It has to do with the cost of treatment and delivery. . .

Traffic traveling through a GAS network has already been “treated” by the respective ISP.

. . .since the cost of bytes is being used to pay for bandwidth. Just as the cost of water is being used to pay for pipe width. . .

I agree with you that a lot of the cost of water goes towards paying for treatment, I should know, I work in the Hydro industry as an IT worker. Since when is there such a high ongoing cost for a water pipe itself? Once the infrastructure is built the cost of maintenance is miniscule, at least in the case of network hardware. Yes occasionally there are problems, pipes burst etc and there is a large expenditure for repair. But that cost spreads out over time. That’s like arguing that you need to charge rent by the number of people that live in a house. But even that analogy isn’t good because bytes traveling through a short distance between ISP and your house leaves almost no wear/tear on the hardware. The point is upkeep of a GAS connection between ISP and customer can be done using a fixed monthly agreed upon cost between Bell and third party ISP. Going as far as charging per byte is being greedy, but going as far as charging $1.99 per GB is plain gouging.

Rocky Gaudrault: “TekSavvy has paid tens of millions of dollars to Bell, based on tariffs determined by the CRTC in a regulated framework no different from those applicable to gas or long distance services. TekSavvy “rides” on Bell’s system no more than do independent long distance providers. And that is frankly a comparison worth remembering. When the incumbent telcos controlled long distance, customers paid $1.50 per minute. With the entrance of competitors, customers now pay mere pennies. What Bell is trying to do with UBB is the equivalent to charging $1.50 per minute for long distance. Instead of caps and artificially high fees, the incumbent telcos should establish the real cost for bits, if material, and negotiate a fair “cost plus” tariff for those bits.”

. . .The usage patterns of water consumption dictate how big the pipes will be. More water sent over the pipe. Bigger pipes needed. More cost for implementation and maintenance.
Amazingly, this still holds true for data pipes. More bandwidth sent over the pipe. Bigger pipes needed. More cost for implementation and maintenance.
Of course, this does not include all of the other million costs associated with running a real company. Ie. labour costs, regulation compliance costs, building costs, etc, etc.
If your company is in the business of supplying lines that supply the bandwidth and only needs to upgrade their lines based on bandwidth demand then it is certainly something that should be charged. . .

I quote Rocky Gaudrault: “Internet service is indeed an essential service, deserving of regulation to protect consumers, but that is where the analogy stops. Gas and electricity are resources that have an inherent value in and of themselves. A consumer pays not just for the delivery of those resources to the door, but for the substance of what is being delivered. The Bell system, on the other hand, is fundamentally just a pipe that carries bits of other people’s data, which incidentally is an inexhaustible resource. If we must adhere to the gas and electricity analogy, policymakers should seriously consider unbundling the Bell assets, separate the actual pipes from Bell’s other businesses (which otherwise stand to benefit greatly from anti-competitive measures like UBB), and let everyone access them based on the same, fairly determined tariff.”

. . Now. Let’s presume you actually want competition against Bell/Rogers/Shaw/Telus

How would you go about doing that?
Let’s say I want to start stringing lines with cable and I get permission to do so. How am I going to string out a T3 (for example) and sell that to enough people to compete against them? I would *NEED* usage based billing! This is the *only* way forward. If you support abolishing UBB then you support *never* having competition on the physical level and damning Canada to this very same infrastructure for another 20 years. . .

We need competition NOW, we can’t wait for 10 years for independent ISPs to build out their own GAS connections. With Usage Based Billing the competition will die out before they will ever get there. Remember that if you sign up for a third party ISP they will be forced to charge you $1.99 for every GB you go over your 25GB monthly limit, and that money does not go to the independent ISP so that they can keep building their network out. That money goes straight back to Bell because Bell is the one demanding these charges. Independent ISPs cannot compete with the likes of BELL and Rogers monopoly.

(3) It does not want to lose business to innovative and competitive companies like TekSavvy.”

Here’s how you are wrong, please follow along carefully.

You: If an ISP chooses to rent let’s say a 15Mbps line from Bell, running from the ISP to your house, Bell should have no business how much data passes down that line in a month.
Me: How do you figure it’s not their business? They provide the line and route your packets. They can do whatever it is agreed to in the contract. It’s most certainly their business. You may not *want* it to be their business but that’s another question.

You: So long as Bell gets paid the maintenance cost every month (and maybe a little extra for profit) But that number should be fixed.
Me: Maintenance cost? As though that’s the only cost associated with your line?

You: There is no need to be charging per GB since the cost of maintenance for that line is the same, no matter if 1GB passes through it in a month or 200GB passes through.
Me: Really? The problem with that idea comes here:

1] That 1GB goes through other lines. You do not have a dedicated and direct line to whereever you think you have. These other lines also have a limited bandwidth. If there are 20000 of you downloading 1GB a month. Then you need X amount of bandwidth on those lines. If there are 20000 of you downloading 200GB a month. Then you need X times 200. This means that the fellow downloading 200GB a month COSTS the company more MONEY than the fellow downloading 1GB a month due to the fact they need more costly infrastructure to support that.

2] A dedicated unmetered connection costs hundreds of dollars a month. You will *never* have that for a consumer grade cost, or at least you will not for the foreseeable future.

3] You have *up-to* a certain bandwidth. This means your connection speed is highly variable and dependent on the usage patterns of your neighbours. What do you think happens when your neighbours usage patterns goes up? Well that lowers your speeds, of course. What’s the remedy? Add more bandwidth. Does that cost money? Yes.

You: A utility such as Hydro or Water provide a product which needs to be produced, or collected from somewhere. It is then used up after it reaches the customer. This clearly has a supply and demand model.
Me: Irrelevant since most of the cost in delivering water (note the term delivering) has little to do with the cost of water. It has to do with the cost of treatment and delivery.

You: This does not apply to Internet service. Bytes cannot be used up never to be used again.
Me: Irrelevant since the cost of bytes is being used to pay for bandwidth. Just as the cost of water is being used to pay for pipe width.

1] The usage patterns of water consumption dictate how big the pipes will be. More water sent over the pipe. Bigger pipes needed. More cost for implementation and maintenance.
2] Amazingly, this still holds true for data pipes. More bandwidth sent over the pipe. Bigger pipes needed. More cost for implementation and maintenance.
3] Of course, this does not include all of the other million costs associated with running a real company. Ie. labour costs, regulation compliance costs, building costs, etc, etc.
4] If your company is in the business of supplying lines that supply the bandwidth and only needs to upgrade their lines based on bandwidth demand then it is certainly something that should be charged.

Now. Let’s presume you actually want competition against Bell/Rogers/Shaw/Telus..

How would you go about doing that?
Let’s say I want to start stringing lines with cable and I get permission to do so. How am I going to string out a T3 (for example) and sell that to enough people to compete against them? I would *NEED* usage based billing! This is the *only* way forward. If you support abolishing UBB then you support *never* having competition on the physical level and damning Canada to this very same infrastructure for another 20 years.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Canadian-Caps-Arent-Economically-Justified-112535

Merci pour ce schéma qui résume tout un chapitre de blabla.

Merci et bonne continuation.