Friday, February 04, 2011

Usage Based Billing: A Modest Solution

Quite a bit higher caps. Lower penalties for exceeding the caps. Simple. I should say that I'm a Net junky and yet have never exceeded my Rogers bandwidth cap, which has been set at a pathetically low level. I download tunes; I watch Youtube, but not as a TV substitute. If you download alot of movies, don't delete them after one view so everyone else in the family can watch without burning up further megabytes. Try implementing the 3 Rs on-line.


doconnor said...

Another thing that would make usage based billing more palatable is for the cap to grow every year, which will force Bell to actually expend its capacity.

Polyorchnid Octopunch said...

The problem with UBB isn't actually UBB... it's that they're going to make ISPs that have their own peering arrangements pay for the data twice to benefit Bell. As for UBB as a concept... at 3c a GB it's a lot closer to their real cost (and that includes a 50% markup!). Not to mention that if they want to charge for use... how about ditching the ~60$ in flat fees that go along with it?

That would require a CRTC that actually had people that, you know... understood this shit and didn't owe their livelihood to the big operators. As the saying goes... it's hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.

Curtis said...

If the ISPs want UBB, let them start at zero, not from the cap. Use less - pay less. Use more - pay more. But's a two way street and they can't have their cake and eat it too.

Start me a zero and charge me a fair amount according to my data usage is okay. BUT billing for, say, 10 GB/month when I average 2 GB/month and then charging me more if I exceed it once or twice is clearly double-billing.

Clear and clean rules that are fair to both parties are fine. Economic rape is a win-lose proposition.

Cole said...

I say bigger caps are the way to go. My family is with Rogers and we have a 25GB cap. We go over it sometimes.