Usage-based billing for Canadian internet

[SupraMario]

Nice strawman. First of all, you of all people should know that the phrase "don't read anything" and me don't go together. More importantly, I didn't say "we have the greatest internet in the world" nor did I say "there is tons and tons of competition for awesome service everywhere". Don't ascribe positions to me and then argue against those made up positions. I'm not falling for your amateurish tactics.

And I'm tired of you defending the posistions of the telecoms, like they have some hard market struggle against other companies and that people can actually choose...
2 companies in less than even 1/2 the states is bullshit.

You made a widly inaccurate generalization, I simply illustrated that it's not true.

What is so wild about me stating that the telecoms rake in billions, and continue to raise the prices all while basically having a monopoly/duopoly in most areas? How is that a wild statement? How is that free market? If you had the choice between Ford and GM and then only 4 different models to purchase in the USA, you would be up in arms...so why is this any different?

Since you appear to consider FCC data valid, let's look at the latest FCC data on the subject:

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1208/DOC-303405A1.pdf.

Direct your attention to figure 3a which shows that 48% of American homes have access to 3 or more providers that provide at least 3mbsp downstream. An additional 44% have access to at least two, with only 7% having "no competition" available.

48% of American homes...48%...at 3mbs...AKA it might as well be 56k and because you and I both know that advertised speeds != the realistic speeds they supply.

Lets look at a more realistic speed of hell 6mbs...all of a sudden it drops to 2%...TWO. That is not a free market at work.

Could it be better? Of course it could. Will it get there? Provided profits are available, certainly.

Profits have soared, year after year...the technology has moved along faster in the past decade than it ever has, and these companies slowly roll out bullshit speeds and present them as proof that they should still be allowed to basically have mainly a monopoly with the market.

But your statement that competition "does not exist" is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

See figure 3a again....

And we all know how evil you consider someone doing that is...

And we know how much you like the free market....hows that Comcast/NBC merger sounding to you?

Those studies leave a fair bit to be desired.

They talk about what is in use, not what is available.

And the US Telecoms *should* be making more money - they are servicing a larger market, with a significantly higher average income.

And for crying out loud, don't read more into the Canada situation than there actually is. Yes, we have choices when it comes to internet service. Quite a few, actually, unless you live deep in the rural areas. And no, I'm not talking about the little guys that just buy bandwidth from the big boys - we have a bunch of those as well. And yes, we can get really fast speeds - I can buy a residential 100Mbps connection - AND it comes with a 350GB cap. Further traffic costs me all of $1 / GB. Doesn't sound like the end of the world to me.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-bitter-dose-of-metered-internet-billing.ars

So that is incorrect data then?

 

[GrimJack]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-bitter-dose-of-metered-internet-billing.ars
So that is incorrect data then?

It's technically correct, however, it's extremely misleading.

They are talking about a small ISP - one of the setups that leases traffic from someone else - in this case, Bell, who is one of the major players up here. Also, they are quoting the biggest surcharge per GB that I've seen - most companies / plans are $1 / GB. Further, they are talking about a drop from 200GB to 25GB, which is the biggest drop in the nation. Most plans up here were 100GB capped, and have dropped to... wait for it... 100GB capped. The only difference is that before, when you went over, your ISP would send you a nasty email. Now, they send you a bigger bill.

This company TekSavvy they speak of isn't just passing the cost along to their customers, they are adding in a cost increase of their own. Customers will flee to other ISPs in droves, and, chances are, TekSavvy will shortly be declaring bankruptcy and blaming someone else. This isn't even vaguely uncommon, it happens all the time.

 

[Supracentral]

And I'm tired of you defending the posistions of the telecoms, like they have some hard market struggle against other companies and that people can actually choose...

Over the last five years, the telecommunications industry has seen overall growth due to robust advances in wireless technology, however fixed line business has been on the decline. Despite the overall growth trend, during the economic downturn in 2009, industry revenues shrank due to more cautious consumer spending causing the telecom industry to shrink as a faster rate than the US GDP.

But you don't understand the difference between profits and profit margins, nor do you seem to understand that investors don't put capital at risk unless they can get a reasonable return on investment. Don't feel bad, you're not alone, most of you neo-socialists don't.

2 companies in less than even 1/2 the states is bullshit.

It's not broken down by states - it's by zip code. There are counties in Wyoming with 1,500 people, there's no feasible way 3 or more providers are going to invest in the infrastructure to compete in a small arena like that. Such is the price of living in the sticks...

What is so wild about me stating that the telecoms rake in billions, and continue to raise the prices all while basically having a monopoly/duopoly in most areas?

Because you don't understand the concept of a profit margin, so you're not qualified to speak about telecom profits. And once again, the "most areas" statement is a lie. The data doesn't support that statement.

How is that a wild statement? How is that free market? If you had the choice between Ford and GM and then only 4 different models to purchase in the USA, you would be up in arms...so why is this any different?

I don't have either problem.

48% of American homes...48%...at 3mbs...AKA it might as well be 56k and because you and I both know that advertised speeds != the realistic speeds they supply.

Lets look at a more realistic speed of hell 6mbs...all of a sudden it drops to 2%...TWO. That is not a free market at work.

So now you need to redefine broadband to make the data support your argument? Alright Bill Clinton, you did not have "sex" with that woman...

profits have soared, year after year...

Incorrect.

the technology has moved along faster in the past decade than it ever has, and these companies slowly roll out bullshit speeds and present them as proof that they should still be allowed to basically have mainly a monopoly with the market.

We've already covered the tremendous investment that it takes to put fiber in the ground:

http://www.supramania.com/forums/sh....-Privledges&p=1631228&viewfull=1#post1631228

You're talking about infrastruture that is finite and now must be replaced, at full price since the capacity is consumed... You're in I.T. You think that fiber is going to be placed in the ground free? Are you really this naive? Or are you just so blinded by your rage that you can't see anything anymore except red?

And we know how much you like the free market....hows that Comcast/NBC merger sounding to you?

I don't think there should be any regulation that puts government in the position of approving or denying it in the 1st place. You've got a completely screwed up industry that is in the state that it's in due to government tinkering and regulation. I love a free market. We don't have one now, nor have we ever had one. Get government and bullshit regulation out of the way and you might see what a free market can do.

 

[SupraMario]

I don't think there should be any regulation that puts government in the position of approving or denying it in the 1st place. You've got a completely screwed up industry that is in the state that it's in due to government tinkering and regulation. I love a free market. We don't have one now, nor have we ever had one. Get government and bullshit regulation out of the way and you might see what a free market can do.

The problem is I have no faith in either the government or greedy CEOs....

I'm going to agree to disagree with you here, we have been down this path and know where it leads.

Ty grim for clearing that article up.

 

[Supracentral]

The problem is I have no faith in either the government or greedy CEOs....

I have no faith in either as well. However I do know that government regulation and the culture of corruption that it creates has been instrumental in creating mega corporations that use the law to curry favor. If you have no faith in either, than removing the ability of business to buy special exceptions and regulations from government is the only logical choice. More government will not fix this issue.

I'm going to agree to disagree with you here, we have been down this path and know where it leads.

Me discussing the benefits of liberty and a free market, you discussing the benefits of the use of force. It's how all of these end up.

 

[SupraMario]

I have no faith in either as well. However I do know that government regulation and the culture of corruption that it creates has been instrumental in creating mega corporations that use the law to curry favor. If you have no faith in either, than removing the ability of business to buy special exceptions and regulations from government is the only logical choice. More government will not fix this issue.



Me discussing the benefits of liberty and a free market, you discussing the benefits of the use of force. It's how all of these end up.

There isn't once that I wish the government to step in, I more so argue the point that these companies do what they please and get away with it. I don't see how it favors the people in any way.

 

[Supracentral]

There isn't once that I wish the government to step in, I more so argue the point that these companies do what they please and get away with it. I don't see how it favors the people in any way.

The regulatory system protects special interests. It does far more harm than good and gives companies the opportunity to curry special favor under law that should not, under our Constitution, exist.

You remove the regulatory system and the laws that should not exist and companies are no longer able to curry favor, protection or special consideration from government. Then the market forces (and only the market forces (i.e.- The consumer)) pick the winners and losers.

No bailouts, no special tax breaks, no special regulatory loopholes, no competition suppressing regulation, etc - that is what favors the people. The current system does not. Just as the socialized healthcare law is driving up costs and reducing coverage, these regulations (no matter how well intentioned) do the same thing to the telecommunications industry. The current system keeps companies in place that would be destroyed if they had to compete in a true free market.

Just about all of the problems in our economy and in industry exist because government has stepped beyond its Constitutionally defined boundaries.

 

[Poodles]

Exactly, politicians play the blame game and blame companies. The companies are doing what they can to survive in a system that is corrupt. "Greed" is not a bad thing, it's the driving force behind humans. We work to get paid, we perform charity because it makes us feel good.

Even more funny is that people see big businesses as bad, when most are publicly traded meaning a hell of a lot of people actually own the business. It's like people bitching about the oil companies when they're used for many people's retirement as they're so reliable. Biting the hand that feeds...

 

[te72]

It's not broken down by states - it's by zip code. There are counties in Wyoming with 1,500 people, there's no feasible way 3 or more providers are going to invest in the infrastructure to compete in a small arena like that. Such is the price of living in the sticks...

For what it's worth, our influence here is worth next to nothing. I have access to a fiber connection that has ABSURD speeds, but that's because it's part of a major internet backbone that runs through the area (and is used to branch out to a LOT of areas). Only reason I have access to this is because a good friend of mine is the IT director of the county library system. If we need to download things and can't wait, we wait until after closing time at the library and get to work.

Unfortunately, in this area, our speeds are currently limited to ~7mbps, and that's ONLY if you live within ~2 miles of the Qwest building. Everywhere else, you're lucky if you get consistent 3mpbs, and I live in one of about 4 major population centers in the whole state.

 

[SupraMario]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...on-or-ottawa-will-overturn-it/article1892522/

Guess it was a big enough stink that the government wants to toss out the crtc UBB rule...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-to-reverse-crtc-decision-on-internet-billing