InvalidError
join:2008-02-03
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Videotron
| reply to MaynardKrebs
Re: UBB round 2 at the CRTC
said by MaynardKrebs  :It's worse than rubbish. The per GB rates quoted by Bell presuppose that a user will consume ALL of the excess GB's in the rate band. That's what makes the rates appear to be low. In reality most users will NOT consume anywhere close to the full amount of what the $22.50 would allow you to consume. That's why I said we need to get the UBB to be varied to at least give us the more manageable X-300GB per-GB rate. If UBB was truly meant to be about traffic management, Bell failed to consider how a large chunk of the affected subscribers will simply go from 70-80GB/month to 200+GB/month just to get the most they can out of their $22.50 price hike. Bell's cost structure for economic traffic management may actually cause an out-of-control usage increase... wonder what Bell's reaction to that would be, it would be interesting to see Bell explain to the CRTC how UBB actually had the opposite effect but Bell won't because we all know that UBB with $0.75+/GB rates is all about the cash grab. |
|
GNca George
GorillaNET
Premium
join:2008-07-12
Minden, ON
| reply to Croaker
said by Croaker :said by GNca George :[...]The largest group, by far, is going to fall into 0-15 GB/mo taken over the entire DSL population and will never encounter UBB excess charges with the proposed rate schedule. Is it your belief that $22.50 is excessive given your statement? I'd rather have grandma pay $5 for her 0-15GB of usage. I think the structure is wrong. Grandma still has to pay for her port, and that costs a certain amount of money per month to provide even if she never moves a byte over it.
Beyond that, some linear charge would seem more appropriate. If you are going to have tiered pricing, I agree with InvalidError that the current proposed structure for UBB could have exactly the opposite of the intended effect.
Still seems like a really dumb idea from here...
George
--
Tough Broadband for a Tough Crowd!
GorillaNET.ca - 10Mbits to your desk, coming soon. |
|
Cyborg994
join:2005-04-18
Montreal, QC
| reply to An_Onymous
said by An_Onymous :Above table appears in Bell's submission: » /r0/download/1···Supp.pdf page 3 At the projected grow rate of ~15% per year suggested by their study, in 5 years from now (2014) average usage of Basic Residence would already reach into the UBB range: 65GB. That violates the premise that the average household uses less than the UBB amount. Without an automatic increase in the quotas and depreciation for the UBB charges, there are no reasons for them to grow the capacities. The other chart is the most interesting in my opinion, especially this line :
Service Offering % u affected avg usage
(under 300 GB) (in GB)
Residence - Basic 13.7% 193.7
% u affected avg usage
(over 300 GB)
1.8 % 490.9
If you calculate the average increase in price for both type of usage :
User under 300 : 22.50 $ (max charge) by month
User over 300 : 22.50 $ + 142.50 $ = 162 $ by month
Since for users under 300 GB, no one will pay more, but some will pay less, this calculation is off, it actually shows a maximum number. I`ll keep it this way for now.
Let's assume 100 000 wholesale users.
So, total revenue for Bell added to their bottom line for UBB :
0.138 x 100 000 x 22.50 = 310 000 $ / month
0.018 x 100 000 x 162 = 291 000 $ / month
By year : 600 000 $ x 12 = 7.2 Million dollars...
That's taken directly from our pockets, for the same service that we have been having for years. This makes the next paragraph of that same document laughable :
The requested information is provided in Table 2 of the Attachment. There are
no incremental costs causal to demand due to the introduction of usage charges.
The usage-based billing is being implemented in a manner that keeps wholesale
Internet rates affordable, while aligning with the realities of the evolving
marketplace.
Yeah... |
|
mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON | Proves my point, UBB will NOT be used to maintain the GAS infrastructure, it will be used for ADSL2+ which we don't have access and the cellular networks. |
|
Cyborg994
join:2005-04-18
Montreal, QC
| reply to Cyborg994
Another interesting point is that bell maintains that it will affect only a small amount of users, and they mentionned very often the 5% top users as the problem, when according to their own data, this will affect 15% of wholesale users, or 15 000 people...
That's alot of people... |
|
Croaker
join:2009-10-01
Ottawa ON
| reply to GNca George
said by GNca George :I think the structure is wrong. Grandma still has to pay for her port, and that costs a certain amount of money per month to provide even if she never moves a byte over it. Is there something special with this port I'm not seeing? Is it newly installed every month? The cost of this port is never recouped... is this why she needs to pay $22.50 for internet and another ~$20 for basic phone? Or, are we talking about two different ports?
That must be some special port (or ports) to need a recurring charge of $40+ forever.
I honestly don't know. I'm not in the business. When we deploy switches the equipment is usually paid for within the year. With luck we get 5+ years out of them... but that's wiring closet indoors in a business setting and not a CO/remote. |
|
GNca George
GorillaNET
Premium
join:2008-07-12
Minden, ON
| said by Croaker :said by GNca George :I think the structure is wrong. Grandma still has to pay for her port, and that costs a certain amount of money per month to provide even if she never moves a byte over it. Is there something special with this port I'm not seeing? Is it newly installed every month? The cost of this port is never recouped... is this why she needs to pay $22.50 for internet and another ~$20 for basic phone? Or, are we talking about two different ports? That must be some special port (or ports) to need a recurring charge of $40+ forever. I honestly don't know. I'm not in the business. When we deploy switches the equipment is usually paid for within the year. With luck we get 5+ years out of them... but that's wiring closet indoors in a business setting and not a CO/remote. There is an ongoing cost associated with any technology, including your switch port in a wiring closet. You have an IT organization in place to support that port, and the rest of the architecture you have in place to provide services to that port. Probably service agreements with vendors, some depreciation allocation etc. That all costs money, in fact quite a lot of money in most organizations larger than a mum and pop shop.
Bell or Rogers or whoever have an ongoing cost to keep customers hooked up to an always-on circuit, even if that circuit is only used for a keep-alive ping once every five minutes.
I don't pretend to understand what that cost actually is, just that there is an ongoing cost.
So if you are going to have a real usage based model, you need a per-port component to cover your fixed costs, and then a usage component to cover the bandwidth related costs of running your network.
In my world for example, it costs us a certain amount every month just to keep a customer hooked up and running. On top of that, we pay variable costs that start at zero for no transit at all, and move up to our normal costs when the network is running with people using their usual amount of bandwidth. Quantifying those two numbers is quite easy, and working out the incremental cost of increasing bandwidth demand is not too hard either.
Problem is we have no real clue on the costs Bell encounters, and how they calculate and allocate them.
Does that help explain my point of view any better? I'm not saying the port cost is $40 or anywhere close to that, just that it is quantifiable, fixed instead of related to GB transferred, and >$0.
--
Tough Broadband for a Tough Crowd!
GorillaNET.ca - 10Mbits to your desk, coming soon. |
|
Dissillusion
@ncf.ca
| reply to An_Onymous
Here is a puzzling question: with the numbers that Bell has been forced to release (as per this chart that An_Onymous posted) does it seem odd to you; given the numbers, that the whole network would be so conjested as to require network wide ITMPs for 10 hours a day? As far as I can tell from the numbers, Bell is either hoodwinking the CRTC, or their network is in a real sad state of neglect. |
|
Jazdi
join:2009-07-06
Ottawa, ON
| reply to An_Onymous
said by An_Onymous :At the projected grow rate of ~15% per year suggested by their study, in 5 years from now (2014) average usage of Basic Residence would already reach into the UBB range: 65GB. That violates the premise that the average household uses less than the UBB amount. 15% growth in traffic volume per year is also an absurd estimate. Internet traffic has been growing at roughly 50% per year for the last while, and I don't see why that will change. I suspect it's done on purpose so that when usage increases in alignment past trends, Bell can claim "congestion!" to implement whatever draconian "ITMP" they want. |
|
Jazdi
join:2009-07-06
Ottawa, ON
| reply to Dissillusion
said by Dissillusion :
Here is a puzzling question: with the numbers that Bell has been forced to release (as per this chart that An_Onymous posted) does it seem odd to you; given the numbers, that the whole network would be so conjested as to require network wide ITMPs for 10 hours a day? As far as I can tell from the numbers, Bell is either hoodwinking the CRTC, or their network is in a real sad state of neglect.
The fact that consumption DROPPED significantly between Sept 2008 and July 2009 as indicated in the Bell interrogatories clearly contradicts Bell's claim for the need for throttling. If Bell had the capacity in place in Sept 2008 to deal with the higher traffic then, then that capacity is still in place now and being "wasted" because average usage is less. Hence, throttling is not required. |
|
An_Onymous
join:2009-10-24
Canada
| reply to Jazdi
I don't know why they picked +15% growth, but that's what they are using to generate that sequence of number. May be that's a number that they are willing to grow their network by. The only thing that might be closer to reality is the initial average usage numbers.
Even by their low growth number, it shows that UBB as a fixed rate will penalize average users in a few years. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Globalive/Yak has also made a submission |
|
freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10
| reply to jfmezei
What I find most interesting are the issues surrounding the reasons for the uncorrelated charge and the price of the bandwidth.
For uncorrelated usage, why not skip over these objection and allow each line to access 1 realm and a provider's set of realms? This would marginally increase provisioning costs and some IT development as well, but is a good alternative to this charge.
As for the pricing with the cap and the zero-marginal cost after a few gigs for every gig thereafter up until 300, the issue of how price sensitive consumers will be is unknown. Some people seem to think $1 more will make them leave broadband forever, or at least that's what they write here. I think if UBB is presented as an economic ITMP, it's price will necessarily be above cost to encourage moderation. Who gets the fat there, Bell or the ISP (the CRTC says they must charge at least X per GB to relieve Bell's strain) would need to be determined. That's why it increases so sharply above 300GB, because the average of the 300GB+ users is about 15 times that of the average user overall for that tier.
I think any change Bell makes will forever strongly influence the downstream offers by ISP's by virtue of Bell running the same core networks and processes for GAS and retail. They aren't two networks, they're one for most of the journey between customer and IP router. Bell can't price the two under entirely different cost models (flat vs. UBB) without creating a disparity in revenues vs. capacity used. Having said that, the exact breakdown of the UBB decision will be incredibly important, in terms of who's allowed to do what and whether arguments of moving the cost model towards one that is more reflective of the burden each user puts on the network will be allowed. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| How does Bell Canada charge Sympatico for use of GAS network ?
Until we know how Bell canada charged Sympatico, we cannot know if the current setup (WHICH IS NOT FLAT RATE) is equal or not.
For Bell Canada to charge wholesalers what Sympatico charges its retail customers is not something that should be considered "fair". Fair is what Bell canada charges Sympatico. And Bell Canada isn't about to reveal that. |
|
freejazz_RdJ
join:2009-03-10
| I didn't say the same rate. I said a similar method.
Bell Sympatico doesn't appear to be a separate business. It is part of Bell. I don't know if each business unit does some wierd cost-recovery inter-unit billing, by why bother? If they can demonstrate that flat-rate isn't the most efficient means to price the service, why shouldn't they be able to adopt a new model so long as it isn't abusive.
As an example, let's say Bell's retail customers use some fraction of the BW that a wholesale customer does. Shouldn't the wholesale user creating a greater burden on the network pay more? Isn't that how most network work?
Before anyone brings it up, the marginal cost difference isn't from running bit down the pipe at 1% load or 100%, but that the scale of the pipe and everything else needs to grow as average usage grows. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| <font size=600 type=bold,blink,underline,reverse_video,
background=fluorescent_yellow>
GAS IS NOT FLAT RATE. IT IS A CAPACITY BASED BILLING WHERE AHSSPI COMPONENT OF GAS IS PURCHASED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY.
</font> |
|
An_Onymous
join:2009-10-24
Canada | reply to freejazz_RdJ
>That's why it increases so sharply above 300GB
The per GB UBB from 60GB to 80GB is a lot steeper than the $0.75/GB charged after the first 300GB. There is no caps for larger than 300GB. |
|
Farchord
Lost somewhere.
join:2004-08-28
Shawinigan, QC
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by An_Onymous :>That's why it increases so sharply above 300GB The per GB UBB from 60GB to 80GB is a lot steeper than the $0.75/GB charged after the first 300GB. There is no caps for larger than 300GB. That's because after 300gb, you're standing on the edge of a ravine. At 300gb, Bell reserves itself the right to shut you down |
|
uncorr101
| reply to jfmezei
We have uncorrelated charge because we use the login of ISP-A on the DSL line of ISP-B... and this is one of the feature of PPPoE login session...
How about we force Bell to implement the prevention system such that GAS ISPs or end users can opt out this feature... So end users won't be able to have this uncorrelated charge if they opt out...
Something like I have iPhone and I don't want dataplan, I can ask my carrier to block the data so I can't use data...
I can ask carrier to block send/receive text message...
I can ask carrier to block long distance calling...
If Bell doesn't want to implement such a prevention system so end users can opt out then forget about uncorrelated charge... |
|
An_Onymous
join:2009-10-24
Canada
| Sometimes the uncorrelated charges could be as simple as you sign on to new ISP and Bell haven't got around to doing their paper work to change the ownership of the DSL from your old ISP to the new ISP. Since each of these happens on a different system with many hands in between, anything could/would happen. |
|
